The arch ‘trimmer’, Sunderland was at heart a man of simple motivation.
For Sunderland the influence that resulted from his position of trust was the driving factor in his machinations rather than the desire for financial gain and, although he was at times well rewarded for his services, he did not amass a great fortune and was always (as he complained from exile in 1689) in need of money.
Born in Paris in 1641, his family on both sides owed their rise to achievements under the Tudors, though the contrast could not have been greater. On his mother’s side, the Sydneys had been notable as government administrators, soldiers and courtly renaissance figures (epitomized by Sir Philip Sydney‡). His father’s forebears, on the other hand, had managed their ascent by less dramatic means, through local aggrandizement in Northamptonshire and Warwickshire, where they had amassed great wealth as successful graziers. He would learn to exploit his Northamptonshire interests making use of his seat at Althorp as a centre for political discussion, while his connection to the influential families of Devereux, Sydney, Percy and Wriothesley proved of crucial importance in his early forays into the world of courtly politics.
Early career 1643-1667
The then Lord Spencer’s father was known to be sympathetic to the puritans and as such was offered the lieutenancy of Northamptonshire by Parliament in 1642. He refused it on the advice of his uncle, Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton, and instead joined the king’s army. Opting to serve in Charles I’s personal bodyguard, he was rewarded with the earldom of Sunderland in June 1643, only to be cut down by a cannon ball at the battle of Newbury three months later.
In advance of the Convention, Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, noted Sunderland as one of those peers whose fathers had sat, and also as an infant.
Sunderland’s estates in Northamptonshire were valued at £2,940 in 1662.
his friends not to enquire into the reason of this doing, for he has enough of it—but that he gives them liberty to say and think what they will of him; so they do not demand the reason of his leaving her, being resolved never to have her—but the reason desires and resolves not to give.
Pepys, Diary, iv. 208-9.
Whatever the reason for his change of mind, Sunderland’s behaviour provoked a quarrel with Anne’s cousin, William Russell‡, later Lord Russell. The affair was brought to the attention of the Commons, who ordered the pair to refrain from fighting a duel and it was presumably in an effort to avoid any further unpleasantness that Sunderland secured a pass to travel abroad shortly after. He left in company with his uncle (though contemporary), Henry Sydney, and brother-in-law, Henry Savile‡. He remained overseas for the following two years.
Sunderland returned to England in the spring of 1665. By then he had thought better of his behaviour towards Anne Digby and was reported once more to be engaged in his ‘amours’.
Sunderland was wounded by a cutpurse in July 1667 while serving as an officer in Prince Rupert’s regiment of horse. According to one account, the assailant would have killed him but for the interposition of his servant, though Henry Savile contradicted this ‘silly report’.
Rumours of impending honours continued to circulate in 1668. It was speculated that Sunderland was to succeed as ambassador at Paris and in November that he was to be appointed governor of Tangier.
While Sunderland appeared to be making steady progress in his efforts to build up an interest at court, his relations with some of his immediate family were tense. During the summer of 1671 he fell out with his kinsman, Henry Savile, as a result of Savile’s failed attempt to seduce the countess of Northumberland at Althorp. Sunderland pursued Savile to London but a duel was averted.
Sunderland was absent at a call of the House on 13 Feb. 1673. The following month, it was reported that he was to be replaced at Paris by Colonel William Lockhart‡. In spite of the problems associated with his embassy in France, Sunderland was entrusted with his third diplomatic mission in succession with appointment as joint envoy to the congress at Cologne.
Sunderland returned to the House for the opening of the ensuing session of January 1674. He attended almost three-quarters of all of its sittings. Named to the standing committees on 7 Jan., the following day he was named to the committee for the bill for encouraging English manufactures. In October he was said to have been one of those hopeful of securing appointment to the lieutenancy of Ireland, though in this he was unsuccessful.
Sunderland was absent from the opening of the autumn session of Parliament. On 12 Oct. 1675 he registered his proxy with Louis de Duras, Baron Duras, later earl of Feversham, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 25 October. Present on just over three-quarters of all sitting days, on 8 Nov. he was named to the committee investigating the author of the Letter from a Person of Quality and on 20 Nov. he was named to the committee for the bill for rebuilding Northampton. The same day he voted in favour of addressing the king to request a dissolution of Parliament.
Sunderland voted with the majority in favour of acquitting Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, at the close of June 1676.
Family concerns dominated Sunderland’s attention following the death of his grandfather, Leicester, in November 1677.
Sunderland returned to the House for the final session of the Cavalier Parliament on 26 Oct. 1678. Although he was present for almost 84 per cent of all sitting days, he was not nominated to any committees. On 15 Nov. he voted against disabling papists from sitting in Parliament and on 26 Dec. he voted in favour of the Lords’ amendment to the supply bill. Amid the gathering crisis generated by the Popish Plot and moves to exclude York from the succession, Sunderland was initially loyal to his patron, Danby, and on 27 Dec. he voted against committing the embattled lord treasurer.
New Alliances 1679-85
Hitherto, Sunderland had demonstrated his ability as a diplomat and a subtle court operator, who had seamlessly shifted his allegiance from Arlington to Portsmouth and Danby. In February 1679 his talents were rewarded with his unexpected appointment as secretary of state in succession to Sir Joseph Williamson‡.
Following the general election, Sunderland attended on the opening day of the session, 6 Mar. 1679, and on each sitting of the brief six-day session. On the first morning of the abortive session he was active in trying to establish relations with prominent members of the Commons.
Although Sunderland promised, in turn, that he was interested in assisting Danby and continued to do so over the ensuing months, by then he was firmly engaged in jostling for position on his own account.
Sunderland was involved in the decision to kill the exclusion bill at the end of May 1679 by proroguing Parliament, and over the following months was seen as the junior member of a new triumvirate of advisers to the king alongside his brother-in-law, Halifax, and Essex. In June he was engaged in discussions with Henry Sydney about the possibility of persuading the prince of Orange to come over in time for the ensuing session and to attend both the council and the House of Lords, no doubt hoping to enlist his support against exclusion.
In advance of the new session Sunderland worked feverishly to attempt to secure an alliance against France but, in spite of the efforts of Henry Sydney in the Netherlands, by the time of the new meeting only Spain had undertaken to join. The sudden sickness of the king in August 1679 required Sunderland to take action to prevent the news from becoming widely known.
The continuing prorogation led to rumours that Shaftesbury, who Sunderland had been instrumental in having removed from the Privy Council, would ‘come into play again’ and that he and Sunderland now intended to co-operate in securing a dissolution. Certainly Sunderland was involved in fruitless discussions with him in early November.
Sunderland finally secured a treaty with the Spanish, one plank in his coalition, at the beginning of June. He immediately used it in order to try to build a domestic political alliance. Between 15 and 22 June 1680 he hosted a major conference at Althorp attended by Hyde, Godolphin, and Henry Sydney, and, most importantly, Halifax, whose approval of the programme outlined by Sunderland was regarded as the keystone to a more comprehensive political settlement. Before Sydney’s departure for the Netherlands at the close of the month, Sunderland once more reiterated the importance of Sydney employing his ‘uttermost endeavours with the Prince to come over, that without it nothing can be done’.
In June Sunderland sold his office of gentleman of the bedchamber to Richard Jones‡, earl of Ranelagh [I], for £6,000.
It makes the horridest noise in the world; it is talked of in all the coffee houses, and it is for such vast sums: he has been told of it from several who wish him well, but it has done no good … Now, I do really think, that if you would write him word that you are mighty sorry to hear from England that he plays for £5,000 in a night at La Basset; that it is railed at by his enemies, and of great disadvantage to him, but that you hope it is not true, I fancy this would do good.
Sidney Diary, ii. 100.
Although Sunderland’s private behaviour showed signs of strain, his standing at court still appeared to be secure in the late summer of 1680. In July, Sunderland and the duchess of Portsmouth undertook to stand as guarantors of an agreement whereby Henry Savile would succeed as vice-chamberlain as soon as it was deemed prudent to announce the appointment, while in September, Sunderland was himself the recipient of a pension of £3,000 per annum for seven years from the king.
Sunderland’s shift to an explicit support for the exclusion of the duke of York took place over the summer and early autumn, as he made preparations for a parliamentary session that on 23 Aug. was postponed to 21 October. The encouragement provided by the king’s agreement to send an invitation to Prince William, and the prince’s acceptance in early August, was negated by the failure of the states-general to ratify the Anglo-Spanish treaty, a sign that Sunderland’s grand anti-French coalition was unlikely to happen. As Parliament approached in August he attempted to negotiate with Essex, and in September was working with Halifax and Sydney on discussions with opposition figures, exploring, unsuccessfully, solutions based on limitations of the crown. In October Sunderland, Halifax and Hyde advised York to ‘go travel’ and when he refused warned him of their obligation to ‘stand up for the truth of the protestant religion’ and that they must do so ‘without respect of persons.’
Sunderland took his seat at the opening of Parliament on 21 October, the day following York’s departure. He was present on 83 per cent of all sittings. On 23 Oct. he was named to the standing committees and to the committee receiving information about the Plot and on 30 Oct. he informed the House that Oliver Plunket had handed himself over into his custody. Named to two further committees during the session, on 20 Nov. Sunderland informed the House of his activities in regulating the lord lieutenancies in the country. On 10 Dec. he produced further papers for consideration the following day. The business dominating the session, though, was the bill for the exclusion of York. When the bill was discussed in the Commons, the inclusion of a provision guaranteeing the descent to James’s daughters indicated support for the interests of Prince William over Monmouth, and this may have clinched Sunderland’s support.
everything is in the most sad case. The king acts as if he were mad. The bill was yesterday cast out of the Lords’ House, and our friend is in great disgrace for giving his vote for the bill … I have no more to say but that Lord Sunderland has gained immortal fame, which is better than anything he can lose.
Sidney Diary, ii. 125.
In spite of the king’s anger, Sunderland continued on his course and on 23 Nov. he voted in favour of appointing a joint committee to consider the state of the kingdom, again subscribing the protest when the House resolved against doing so.
If Sunderland had altered his stance in terms of his relations with York, he remained for the while true to his former patron, Danby. In advance of the Oxford Parliament he was forecast as being in favour of supporting Danby’s continuing efforts to be bailed and he continued to be reckoned among Danby’s friends in the course of the session.
Sunderland returned to Northamptonshire after the dissolution of 28 March. The following month he was noted as being present at the races at Northampton in company with Monmouth and in May he played host to the duchess of Portsmouth.
Sunderland returned to London in the summer of 1681 having been subpoenaed by Fitzharris to appear as a witness at his trial along with the duchess of Portsmouth and more than a dozen others (though he does not appear to have been called during the proceedings).
Sunderland remained out of favour for the ensuing few months, though Hyde, now anxious to counterbalance the influence of Halifax on the king, sought to promote his return in the first half of 1682. In July Portsmouth lobbied the king for Sunderland’s restoration. York, now back from exile, who although he had determined never to trust Sunderland again acknowledged his usefulness, also acquiesced in his restoration to court. One impediment to his return to court was the antipathy of Halifax, whose acceptance was bought with promotion in the peerage to a marquessate, and the post of lord privy seal. On 27 July Sunderland was received at court once more.
Quickly involved once more in advising both the king and the duke of York, Sunderland was readmitted to the Privy Council in September 1682, and was appointed to the committee for foreign affairs the following month. In January 1683 his restoration was completed when he took back the post of secretary of state from Edward Conway, earl of Conway.
Over the course of 1683 and 1684 Sunderland’s influence outlasted that of his most senior colleagues, Rochester (as Hyde had now become) and Halifax. Sunderland was involved in the investigation into the Rye House plot in 1683, though the main work fell to Sir Leoline Jenkins‡ and other colleagues: Sunderland was particularly concerned to contradict rumours circulating overseas that the whole affair had been contrived.
The resignation of Leoline Jenkins in the spring of 1684 had enabled Sunderland to resume his former place as senior secretary of state and secure the appointment of Godolphin as the other secretary. An attempt by George Legge*, Baron Dartmouth, in the summer to set himself up as a broker between Sunderland and Halifax got nowhere. Halifax managed a coup in June when he persuaded the king to appoint his creatures to two vacancies in the treasury board. The sidelining of Rochester into the post of lord president in August, however, although initially seen as another success for Halifax, appears to have been deftly plotted by Sunderland. He also managed to secure the advancement of Godolphin to be first lord of the treasury in August, and the appointment of Charles Middleton‡, 2nd earl of Middleton [S], to replace him as secretary.
The Reign of James II, 1685-88
Sunderland’s success in clawing his way back into influence threatened to be overturned by the death of Charles II in February 1685. It was well known that the new king had little time for Sunderland’s key ally Portsmouth, whom he had previously declared was ‘never to be trusted’; neither was Sunderland’s betrayal over exclusion likely to be forgotten.
Sunderland’s indefatigable electioneering helped gain for the king so favourable a result that James was said to have declared that ‘there were not above 40 Members, but such as he himself wished for’.
The failure over the summer to extract further subsidies from Louis XIV and Rochester’s more prosperous approaches to Prince William for an alliance had some impact on his standing at court, and Sunderland’s removal was regularly anticipated.
John Evelyn was again present at a dinner hosted by Sunderland on 3 Dec. at which were several of Sunderland’s principal allies, including Jeffreys (now promoted to lord chancellor) and Middleton, as well as the Catholic peer, George Nevill, 12th Baron Abergavenny.
Despite this apparently unsurpassed position of influence, in the early weeks of 1686 when Sunderland joined with a number of other courtiers to support the queen in opposing the return to court of the king’s mistress, Catherine Sedley, who had recently been created countess of Dorchester, they provoked the king’s annoyance at interference in what he considered to be a private matter. The resulting row set Sunderland at loggerheads with Rochester once more, their quarrel said to be so bitter that they would not even speak to each other at council. With characteristic deftness, Sunderland was able once again to recover from his association with an unpopular movement. Further honours were anticipated and in March it was rumoured that Sunderland was one of several peers to be promoted to dukedoms.
Sunderland’s continuing preferment also provoked the first of a series of rumours that he had converted to catholicism. Undoubtedly, Sunderland shamelessly exploited the possibility of his conversion to maintain his relations with the king. At Easter he was one of several ministers to retire to the country rather than face the question of whether or not to attend mass with the king and in June Ronquillo, the Spanish envoy, reported that Sunderland aimed to displace his colleague, Rochester, and be ‘rid of the Catholics’.
Over the first half of 1686, James began to develop his plans to re-establish catholicism, while Parliament was repeatedly prorogued. Sunderland, planning to secure a compliant session of Parliament, emphasized the importance of the removal of the Hydes, and continued to undermine Rochester in England and Clarendon in Ireland.
Sunderland had returned to London by 3 Aug. 1686 when he took his place in the opening meeting of the ecclesiastical commission. One of the first pieces of business before them was the disciplining of Henry Compton, bishop of London. According to one rumour, Sunderland’s influence in the cabinet council was said to have been crucial in saving the bishop from a ‘severer punishment’ than suspension, though Roger Morrice doubted that this was true. Certainly the following year Sunderland was among the more severe members of the commission when it came to the question of disciplining the vice chancellor of Cambridge, and he was equally unyielding over the fate of the deprived fellows of Magdalen.
In an assessment compiled in January 1687 Sunderland was, unsurprisingly, estimated as being in favour of repealing the Test Act. The closeting campaign, however, elicited very few other favourable responses, and two months later, Sunderland’s apparently unassailable position appeared less secure. As it became clear that it would be impossible to hold a Parliament in April with any prospect of securing the repeal of the Test Acts, according to some reports he was ‘in the vogue not what he was’. Sunderland’s attempts to persuade Prince William’s envoy, Dijkvelt, that the prince should endorse the planned repeal failed; one result was that he was subjected to accusations of corresponding secretly with the Prince of Orange, although it was his wife’s correspondence with the Dutch court that was more damaging to James’s plans. Despite such rumours, his receipt in April of the late duke of Buckingham’s garter (originally intended to be awarded to the king’s bastard, James Fitzjames, duke of Berwick) symbolized his continuing ascendancy.
The king is well aware of Lord Sunderland’s character, that he is ambitious and capable of any sacrifice for ambition’s sake; but though he has no great confidence in him he makes use of him, because he is more devoted to him than others and because he unhesitatingly falls in with all his plans for the establishment of the Catholic religion – though for himself he professes no faith at all and speaks very loosely about it.
Kenyon, Sunderland, 155.
Sunderland was again noted as a supporter of the king’s policies in about May 1687 and in August it was reported (inaccurately) that Charles Beauclerk, duke of St Albans, was to marry one of his daughters (probably Lady Anne Spencer).
Sunderland despatched the mandamus requiring the fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford to elect a Catholic as their president in April 1687; the fellows’ resistance led to their summons before the ecclesiastical commission in May.
In October 1687 Sunderland replaced Northampton as lord lieutenant of Warwickshire. The same month he employed his interest on behalf of William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire, to secure his bail.
The increasingly unrealistic campaign to secure a compliant Parliament continued. Sunderland had been noted, prematurely, as a Catholic in a list estimating peers’ attitudes to repeal of the Test in November 1687. He was again noted as being in favour of repeal in January 1688. In January 1688 Sunderland had undertaken discussions with Protestant Dissenters represented by William Penn, aimed at securing a meeting of Parliament in May, and in February and March further efforts were made to influence elections throughout the country.
In early March, now convinced that the king would be unsuccessful in implementing his policies, he managed to persuade the king to delay the calling of Parliament to the autumn. In April, in preparation for it, he despatched agents throughout the country, whose reports suggested the possibility of securing a majority for repeal. In May he sent out a series of instructions to the lords lieutenant and other local magnates for them to send up a list of people they proposed to stand for election.
In spite of his conversion and his stalwart support for the king’s religious policies, Sunderland was never able to shake off the suspicion that his support for James was no more than skin-deep and that he was in secret communication with the Dutch. According to some commentators, Sunderland was responsible for publishing the bishops’ petition against the order for reading the Declaration of Indulgence in church, acting as a fifth columnist on behalf of William of Orange, whose cause he hoped to further by encouraging the king’s unpopular pro-Catholic policies.
The bishops’ acquittal on 30 June, and the popular rejoicing that followed it, removed any momentum that existed towards the holding of a successful Parliament. Sunderland urged James to moderate his aims and to make concessions to Dissenters; the king refused.
Men are not to judge of Englishmen by their talk in coffee houses, nor by what idle beggarly knaves that go into Holland say (as they think) to make their court. All the dissenters are satisfied, and the Church of England’s principles will keep them loyal, though they may be indiscreet. In short, I believe, there never was in England less thought of rebellion; and when the Parliament meets this will, I doubt not, be evident to all the world.
Kenyon, Sunderland, 206-8.
Despite his apparent confidence and the continuing rumours of preferment, Sunderland’s authority continued to ebb away. His relations with formerly close colleagues, such as Jeffreys, deteriorated, leaving him more exposed to attempts by other members of the council to unseat him.
Sunderland’s authority was rapidly crumbling and he was clearly becoming increasingly panic-stricken. Attempts to throw the changes of the past year into reverse and revive an alliance with the old Tories were ineffective. On 22 Sept. the writs began to be despatched for the new Parliament, along with letters restoring deputy lieutenants and justices removed over the previous year.
The reason for Sunderland’s dismissal was hotly debated. Sir John Bramston‡ considered it ‘somewhat mystical’ while Evelyn reported that ‘it is conceived he grew remiss of late in pursuing the interest of the Jesuitical counsels.’
Shortly before his dismissal, Sunderland had been one of those to swear a deposition confirming the legitimacy of the prince of Wales. This earned him a place in A Poem on the Deponents, in which he was, ironically, cast as a man who had been put out for speaking truth for once but was now prepared to say anything to claw back his place at court:
Lord president comes next that’s now cashier’d
For only speaking of the truth, ’tis fear’d.
Yet he, for to be great again at court,
Would be forsworn, though he is damned for’t.POAS, iv. 269-70.
Sunderland returned to London in mid-November. By the beginning of the following month reports were circulating of charges of high treason being prepared against him and the other peers who had converted to Rome.
Exile, return and retirement 1688-1693
In spite of his ignominious flight and the threat of serious charges being levelled against him, Sunderland remained in close contact with a number of influential friends in England, notably Lord Churchill, to whom he wrote on 19 Dec. requesting his assistance for Lady Sunderland, who had returned to England to attempt to obtain some money and assess the political situation.
Set against this, the long-standing rumours that Sunderland had been all along a secret agent for William of Orange appeared to be confirmed by his apologia, Letter to a Friend, whose publication the countess had arranged while in London. In it he professed to have been instrumental in achieving the new king and queen’s accession and claimed that he had done all in his power to advise King James to reverse his unpopular policies.
Despite the efforts of Lady Sunderland and her allies, Sunderland was excepted from the bill of indemnity when it was debated in July, though the bill was lost at the prorogation. A separate bill (of pains and penalties) was lost when the Convention was prorogued again, then dissolved, in early 1690.
Sunderland’s fortunes received a slight boost in April 1691 when he was again granted an audience with the king through the interest of Henry Sydney (since promoted Viscount Sydney). The interview fuelled rumours of his restoration to favour and possibly even to a post in government.
From about this time, William seems to have listened to advice from Sunderland, albeit informally: Sunderland consistently suggested that the king should be prepared to draw the Junto Whigs into his government; the king consistently resisted the advice.
the forerunner of your master whose presence I take to be absolutely necessary not only to secure us against our enemies, which can hardly be done without his person and authority, but also to let the nation see that he does not neglect them. For I can assure your lordship that the considerable part of it do not care who are ministers of state, whether this man or that, so we may be safe and secure.
UNL, PwA 1209/1.
A report of August 1692 suggested that Sunderland stood ‘fair’ to succeed Sydney as secretary of state. A similar rumour circulated in January of the following year.
Behind the curtain 1693-99
Following the complete failure of the efforts to manage Parliament effectively by the government headed by Carmarthen, Nottingham, and Rochester, and as a result of the discussions of the past few months, in the spring of 1693 Sunderland was encouraged by the king to set about establishing a new court party embracing members of all factions, and particularly bringing in some of the Whigs. By the end of April he was able to report to Portland how ‘our great project goes on beyond expectation’, as he worked with a group of Members of the Commons (Sir John Trenchard, Henry Guy and Sir John Trevor) to build up the government’s capacity for managing the lower House.
Our Parliament being to sit so soon will give all factious people encouragement both here and there to embroil all they can, which we know by letters from thence and by information here is laboured in both kingdoms… I am persuaded there can be no so ill chosen time for the calling a Parliament there as immediately before the sitting of one here … I am confident both for the advantage of that government and in order to a good sessions here, nothing is more important than the putting off the Parliament there till the spring.
UNL, PwA 1215/1.
Writing to Portland on 20 June, Sunderland predicted success in the forthcoming session of November 1693 but he was at pains to underline the price of a quiescent Parliament. He pointed out the importance of satisfying those who required ‘something besides money’ as well as reminding Portland not to imagine that ‘because some are right set, others may be neglected, for two or three bad angry men will spoil what many others cannot mend.’
I hope the king will agree to the whole, and not put him [Mulgrave] off to a promotion, for if he does, he is lost, and you know it is then to no purpose to manage the House of Lords, for though a great deal more is necessary all the rest will be insignificant without him.
UNL, PwA 1217/1.
Sunderland spent much of the summer in retirement at Althorp, with the exception of a brief stay in London at the close of July, which was marred by the unwelcome news of the king’s defeat on campaign on the continent. Having initially insisted that he wished to avoid ‘anything that interferes between Whig and Tory’, by the close of the month he had become convinced of the imperative of replacing the current mixed administration with one firmly dominated by the Whigs. With this in mind, Sunderland advised the king to put out Nottingham and reinstate Edward Russell*[19], later earl of Orford, at the admiralty.
The misfortunes of this year have not taken away our courage here … and I believe men will be ready to give as much as ever if they can have a prospect of good management. … I am persuaded the king may yet cure all, if he pleases. But it must not be done by patching but by a thorough good administration, and employing men firm to this government and thought to be so.
UNL, PwA 1229/1-3.
Sunderland saw his efforts as being hindered by a world in which ‘men grow more politic every day’ and he followed up his efforts to cudgel together a new grouping by hosting a meeting at Althorp at the end of August 1693 attended by Shrewsbury, Wharton, Russell, Marlborough, Godolphin, Devonshire and Charles Montagu, later earl of Halifax.
Having attended the prorogation of 9 Sept. 1693, Sunderland returned to the House for the new session on 10 Nov., after which he was present on almost 60 per cent of all sittings and was named to six committees. On 22 Feb. 1694 he appears to have participated in the debate in the Lords concerning the treason trials bill.
Sunderland suffered a further family loss in May 1694 with the suicide of his uncle, Teviot, who had recently been declared bankrupt for the third time. His attention, though, continued to be taken up with the demands of his colleagues.
he is very pressing and will be so for ever. If he had all he could ask today, it would be the same tomorrow. I can say only what I have said already. There must be either no cabinet council or one composed of the great officers only … for to admit of Normanby and not all the rest is not to be supported.
UNL, PwA 1232/1, 1233/1, 1235, 1240/1, 1241/1.
Between July and August 1694 Sunderland hosted a further series of gatherings at Althorp in advance of the new session of Parliament.
In the midst of preparing for Parliament, Sunderland’s attention was divided between the forthcoming session and his efforts to secure a lucrative match for his heir by opening negotiations with the family of Lady Arabella Cavendish (who was believed to bring with her a fortune of £25,000). In pursuing the match, Sunderland was compelled to turn to Halifax for assistance. Sunderland’s suit on his son’s behalf was hampered by his own woeful financial state and he was forced to confess to Lady Arabella’s guardian, John Holles, duke of Newcastle, that he would only be ‘able though with difficulty to give £2,000 per annum maintenance and a jointure of £2,000.’
Sunderland returned to London in September, exhausted by his efforts over the summer to serve the king, ‘without any assistance but my own industry.’
Over the summer, Sunderland tried to resolve the continuing problems within the ministry. His efforts failed to win over either Wharton or Montagu, who now opposed his plans for a dissolution and for the king to issue writs for a new Parliament, and who were said to be demanding that Sunderland be prevented from involvement in politics. There were also reports of a rift with Shrewsbury, though this was soon patched up following a meeting between the two men and John Somers, Baron Somers.
Sunderland played host to the king at Althorp for a week in October 1695, for which he provided a lavish entertainment, having convinced him of the importance of participating actively in the elections that autumn.
Despite the Junto’s growing prominence, during the summer reports of Sunderland’s imminent preferment continued to circulate. In July 1696 amidst the mounting financial crisis it was claimed that he was to travel to Holland with Sir William Trumbull‡ to undertake negotiations about the peace and advise on the state of affairs in England.
Although Sunderland earned Shrewsbury’s gratitude for his efforts in shielding him from implication in Fenwick’s plotting, he was never able to gain the trust of the other members of the administration, who were particularly wary of his attempts to fix a series of appointments. In January 1697, Russell wrote to Shrewsbury to ascertain why it was that Sunderland was so intent on procuring Shrewsbury the post of lord president, ‘since his [Sunderland’s] practice in the world gives me just reason to believe he has a design in what he says and does, so it ought to make every body upon their guard, to prevent mischief.’ Russell was the more suspicious as Sunderland refused to divulge who he thought should succeed as secretary, a scruple that convinced Russell that ‘he has somebody in his thoughts, that to some people will not be very agreeable.’
Despite the continuing suspicions of the Junto, Sunderland remained a dominant figure in government, thanks in particular to Shrewsbury’s loyalty to him. In April 1697 he was appointed a lord justice during the king’s absence, reappointed to the Privy Council and was also presented with the office of lord chamberlain, which the king purchased for £8,000 from Dorset (James Vernon‡ reported the figure to have been £10,000).
It had been rumoured in November that either Sunderland or Godolphin would be appointed lord treasurer.
Your lordship and those who wish I would leave this place do me much more honour than I deserve. Every word that is said to me and every letter I receive persuade me that I am necessary useful or important fixes me here for there is nothing I apprehend more than the doing anything that may look as if I gave into such vain imaginations.
Bodl. Add. Mss. A. 191, f. 13.
Eventually, on 26 Dec. 1697, he succeeded in resigning by subterfuge. Having fooled Vernon into believing that the king had indeed given him permission to quit his place, he gave him the keys, his badge of office, and fled to Guy’s house at Earl’s Court before leaving London from which he refused to admit any of the king’s emissaries sent to persuade him to change his mind. In spite of their mutual antagonism, Sunderland had been a vital link between the Junto and the king, and his removal effectively severed this. Edward Harley‡ noted how his resignation had left ‘the managers very naked’ and over the next few months he was courted assiduously in the hopes that he would resume his post.
Out of office, 1698-1702
Sunderland’s departure from court was said to have encouraged Leeds (as Danby had become) to consider returning to the council, as it was believed he had kept away so long only ‘out of aversion’ to Sunderland.
Sunderland’s aspiration to remain out of public view was blasted further by a family scandal. His troublesome son-in-law, Clancarty, who had escaped from the Tower in 1694 and subsequently been employed in the former king’s household at Saint Germain, returned to London in December 1697 to effect a reconciliation with his wife. Lord and Lady Clancarty had separated almost immediately after their marriage and he had subsequently, allegedly, contracted a bigamous marriage in Ireland.
In the midst of this undignified family scandal, Sunderland was also embroiled in the political machinations of a number of members of the Commons associated with him, including Duncombe, Methuen, Trumbull and Robert Molesworth‡, who chose this moment to stage an attempt against the prominent Junto member and leading treasury minister, Charles Montagu. Although Sunderland disowned all knowledge of their efforts, any attempt at reconciling him and the Junto was rendered hopeless when Montagu’s counter-attack sent Duncombe to the Tower.
Sunderland’s resolution to remain away from politics had weakened by the early spring of 1698 sufficiently for him to confess in a letter to Shrewsbury that he had been surprised by the king’s irritation at his resignation and to offer that he would be prepared to bow to the king’s commands if his services were again required, ‘provided that he gives me leave to serve him as a privy councillor only, without a place, which would now be insupportably ridiculous, after having quitted one so lately.’
Sunderland’s resolution to live a private existence did not prevent him from continuing to comment or offer advice on current political affairs. In January 1699, while insisting in habitual self-deprecatory fashion that, ‘it is of little importance what we country folks think’ he offered his support to Marlborough’s interpretation of affairs while also asking for the latter’s assistance in securing the House’s leave to be absent. On 4 Feb. he wrote to Portland, warmly endorsing the king’s speech, which he considered ‘an extraordinary good one. Plain dealing and concerting matters will do wonders.’
what I said of my going into Spain was only to enforce the necessity of somebody’s going for if I might have the mines of Peru I would not go. But I believe more than ever that if English and Dutch ambassadors were there the king would be master of that court…
UNL, PwA 1275.
A visit to Althorp by Shrewsbury that summer was connected with William’s request to him to attempt to bring Sunderland back together with the Whigs, Marlborough and Godolphin. This, it was hoped, might address the ministry’s weakness in the Commons, which had become apparent following the 1698 elections. The project foundered, though, when Shrewsbury fell ill again in early September.
Sunderland’s period of self-imposed purdah from the House of Lords finally came to an end at the close of 1699 when he returned to London in preparation for Spencer’s imminent marriage to Lady Anne Churchill, a match that had been contemplated within weeks of the death of the former Lady Spencer.
Heavily involved in attempting to procure Duncombe’s election as lord mayor of London in September 1700, Sunderland was said to have been responsible for a speech delivered by William Simpson, baron of the exchequer, extolling Duncombe’s virtues.
Sunderland was missing at a call of the House on 5 Jan. 1702, having ignored a series of appeals to return to London. On 12 Jan. he played host to Rochester at Althorp, who was returning from his Irish lieutenancy. The event, once again, set tongues wagging about possible new alliances.
Sunderland’s careful cultivation of the Marlboroughs paid off almost at once. Through the influence of Sarah he secured a pension of £2,000 from the queen, though it was revealed soon after that he had enjoyed one of £9,000 under her predecessor.
He returned to London in April after an absence of over a year.
When he was minister of state had committed some faults and so had all before and since him that he knew of that had been in those great stations, but this he could say for him that he always loved England, valued his native country and never betrayed its interest to France: and that he believed the worst fault his father had was that he could not go into and comply with the councils of those men that had for 40 years last past been selling us to France.
Cocks Diary, 270; Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 21 Apr. 1702.
St John remained unconvinced and towards the end of June reported to Trumbull how, ‘trimming goes on at court, or to speak more truly, Sunderland, weighty with sin, is got into the balance and sinks it down on the Whig side.’
Sunderland’s health deteriorated over the summer. Having been reported as being ‘indisposed’ at Althorp on 12 Sept., by the 24th he was said to be at the point of death. Two days later, according to one report he was ‘much better’ while others concluded that he was ‘a dead man’ and that he had been ‘given over by his physicians’.
Sunderland was buried in the family vault at Brington. In his will he directed a number of estates, not already entailed on his heir, to his countess who survived him by 13 years. The remainder of the Spencer estates passed to his only surviving son, Charles, Lord Spencer, who succeeded as 3rd earl of Sunderland.
A Proteus, ever acting in Disguise,
A finish’d Statesman, Intricately Wise,
A second Machiavel, who soar’d above
The little Tyes of Gratitude and Love;
Whose harden’d Conscience never felt Remorse,
Reflection is the Puny Sinner’s Curse.POAS, vi. 662.