SACKVILLE, Richard (1622-77)

From faltering beginnings as the heir to an encumbered estate, which was further incommoded by fines and confiscations under the commonwealth, Buckhurst (as he was styled prior to his succession to the peerage) progressed to become one of the most active committeemen in the restored House. He was one of a small cadre of peers who appear to have relished the minutiae of the House’s business and who put their expertise as committee managers to good use in upholding the privileges of the chamber.

As such he was perhaps just following a long family tradition. The Sackvilles, originally from Sussex, had flourished as administrators under the Tudors. During the early years of the 17th century they added the palatial house at Knole to their holdings. Although translated to Kent, they retained an active interest in their Sussex estates based on their original seat, Buckhurst House, as well as in several other counties. J. Bridgman, An Historical and Topographical Sketch of Knole in Kent (1821), 10. Through marriage the Sackvilles were connected to a number of prominent noble families, among them the Tuftons, Comptons and Cliffords, though such close ties rarely made for harmonious relations. Much of this substantial inheritance was frittered away by Buckhurst’s uncle, the profligate Richard Sackville^†, 3rd earl of Dorset, who left it to his brother to restore the family’s fortunes.

Civil wars and Interregnum

In 1640 Buckhurst was returned for both Steyning and East Grinstead through his father’s influence aged just 18. Keeler, Long Parliament, 331. He chose to sit for the latter. He was a supporter of Thomas Wentworth^†, earl of Strafford, and was one of those to vote against Strafford’s impeachment in 1641. The following year, Buckhurst withdrew from the Commons and rallied to the king at York. Unlike both his father and younger brother, though, he appears to have backed away from armed participation in the Civil War. Even so, in November he was arrested along with Sir Kenelm Digby and his brother-in-law, James Cranfield^†, 2nd earl of Middlesex, on suspicion of raising troops for the royalist cause. B. Harris, Charles Sackville 6th earl of Dorset, 15; Keeler, Long Parliament, 331. Buckhurst was released the following year but in 1644 he was disabled from sitting in the Commons. In July he was assessed at £1,500 and in 1645 the sequestrators seized part of his property. Buckhurst petitioned successfully for a delay. He was able to secure a fifth of his estate and leased Dorset House in London to Theophilus Clinton^†, 4th earl of Lincoln. HP Commons, 1640-60, draft biography by Jason Peacey.

Buckhurst’s marriage, which had been brokered by Digby, brought additional influence in London and Essex as well as a substantial fortune, though it took a number of years for Buckhurst to secure payment of all that was due to him. B. Harris, Charles Sackville , 14. In 1650 he brought an action in chancery against his brother-in-law for payment of the marriage portion. Buckhurst claimed to be owed £1,700 from his father-in-law, the first earl, and that the total arrears amounted to £7,100. C5/390/9; C33/195, f. 10. Middlesex denied that Buckhurst was due the sums he mentioned and in 1651 entered a counter suit arguing that Buckhurst had already received £6,000 of the marriage portion and that he did not have sufficient assets to pay the remainder. C10/43/149. Middlesex’s death in September further delayed matters and it was not until 1655 that Dorset (as Buckhurst had since become) finally secured a settlement from the new earl, Lionel Cranfield, 3rd earl of Middlesex. Harris, Charles Sackville, 57.

In February 1656 Dorset was granted leave to travel to France through the influence of another brother-in-law, Edmund Sheffield^†, 2nd earl of Mulgrave. CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 579; Phillips, Sackville Family, i. 393. He set out in 1657 and remained abroad until July 1658, lodging in Paris with his old associate, Digby. HP Commons, 1640-60, draft article by Jason Peacey. The reason for the delay in his departure was presumably his being again troubled by land seizures, this time involving part of the Cranfield estates in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. He was also ordered to appear before the commissioners of London and the Guildhall on account of a ‘misinformation of delinquency’. In the latter case, a recommendation was made for him to be discharged. CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 288. The same year (1657), Dorset was one of the beneficiaries of the death of Bridget, countess of Lindsey, widow of his uncle, Edward Sackville. By her death Dorset succeeded to estates in Hereford and Worcester. Phillips, Sackville Family, i. 396. The same period witnessed the beginnings of a lengthy dispute between Dorset, his numerous cousins, and Lady Anne Clifford, widow of another uncle, Richard Sackville, 3rd earl of Dorset. The disagreements, which rumbled on into the following decade, threatened to sunder Dorset’s usual alliance with the Comptons as Lady Anne joined with her sons-in-law, James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton, and John Tufton, 2nd earl of Thanet, against Dorset and Charles Howard, later earl of Carlisle, in a series of chancery actions over rent charges at Sackville College in Sussex. R. Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 231. A brief respite was achieved through the interposition of Lady Anne’s daughter, Isabella, countess of Northampton. Dorset wrote thanking his cousin for her assistance. He lauded the:

restorer of this poor family, which madam, truly without such kind and noble care, must needs, in a few years, come to its last period, having been shaken now almost these thirty years with continual wasting and losses of the estate; my father having not left behind him, £610 a year… and but for some accessions of fortune, and those but small ones elsewhere, your ladyship had had one of the poorest earls in England to your cousin… Castle Ashby mss, 1084/21.

Despite such difficulties, and his claim to be ‘one of the poorest earls’, by March 1657 Dorset was estimated to have an annual income of £2,556. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/A4/3, p. 31, cited in HP Commons, 1640-60, draft article by Jason Peacey.

The Restoration and after 1660-66

Although Dorset had remained aloof from direct political activity during the Interregnum, he exerted himself during the elections for the Convention, when he appears to have employed his interest on behalf of Marmaduke Gresham^‡ at East Grinstead. He was also active in the elections for Kent. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 422; Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/c61/8. At the forefront of the ‘young royalists’ whose admission to the Lords was initially opposed by George Monck, later duke of Albemarle, Dorset, in company with his brother-in-law, Middlesex, was one of the first peers to take his seat in the re-constituted House of Lords. Their appearance was said to have caused ‘some distaste in the old lords but no disturbance’. HMC 6th Rep. 208; CCSP, iv. 675, 679; Bodl. Clarendon 72, ff. 19-20, 53. Demonstrating his clear commitment to the Restoration, he attended approximately 87 per cent of sitting days in the first session and rapidly established himself as one of the most effective (and hard-working) of the committeemen. Over the ensuing years he presided over a large number of committees and conferences and was prominent as a regular chairman of the sessional committees for privileges and petitions. Swatland, 77; Schoenfeld, 156; PA, HL/PO/CO/7/3. Dorset’s previous experience of the Commons may be one reason for his regular employment as a committee chairman. On 26 Apr. he was named to the committee established to prepare an ordinance for Monck to be captain general. The following day he was nominated to the committee detailed to draw up an ordinance for a committee of safety as well as to the committee for privileges. On 1 May Dorset was nominated to the sub-committee for the Journal and on 2 May to the committee for petitions. Two days later, he reported from the committee for privileges concerning the petition of William Sandys, 6th Baron Sandys, to sit in the House, and concerning the judgment given in July 1642 against Spencer Compton^†, 2nd earl of Northampton. The House ordered that in the latter case, Dorset and three other peers should meet to draw up an order repealing the judgment. The same day (4 May), Dorset reported on a third case, concerning a draft order touching the business of the impeached lords.

Besides his workload in the House, Dorset also seems to have been eager to influence the shape of the Restoration settlement. Before the king’s return, on 7 May he had written to the king at Breda pledging his support; arguing in favour of a widespread amnesty he advised Charles to settle the question of sequestrated land through purchase rather than confiscation. Phillips, Sackville Family, i. 397; CCSP, v.19-20; Clarendon 72, f. 235. In terms of a religious settlement, he appears to have favoured a broad toleration, thinking it unreasonable to persecute on the grounds of difference of opinion. Swatland, 154.

For the time being Dorset’s focus remained on the management of a number of the House’s committees. On 9 May he reported from the committee for drawing up an ordinance for settling the militia, which was then recommitted. The next day Dorset chaired the privileges committee established to receive information concerning restitution of the king’s goods and on 14 May he was named to the committee considering the petition of Charles Stanhope, Baron Stanhope, concerning the post office. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1, p. 7. Continuing his involvement with efforts to overturn the measures taken against the Lords during the Civil War and Interregnum, on 15 May Dorset was named to the committee for repealing ordinances made since the suppression of the House in 1649. The following day, he reported from the committee for the king’s reception (to which he had been named on 8 May), which estimated the cost of the event to be £14,501 19s. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1, p. 3. Dorset reported from two further committees on 17 and 22 May. On 26 May he was named to that concerning the king’s safety and on 30 May to the committee established to attend the king about James Stuart, duke of York, and Henry Stuart, duke of Gloucester.

After this feverish opening it is perhaps surprising that Dorset was not named to any committees in June 1660. It is possible that this was due to concentration on local affairs and that he was focused on settling his own business. On 22 June he was one of the signatories to the address of the Kentish gentry welcoming the king’s return and at the end of that month he was granted permission to search for goods lost or seized during the Interregnum. LJ xi. 79. Following this brief respite Dorset resumed his committee activities in July. On 2 July he was named to the committee considering the petition of Thomas Wentworth, earl of Cleveland, and his son, Thomas Wentworth, Baron Wentworth. On 4 July he was named to the committee established to consider the act confirming the privileges of Parliament and on 16 July to that concerning the sewers bill. On 19 July he was again nominated to a committee concerning the Lords’ judicature and on 23 July to that considering the bill for John Paulet, 5th marquess of Winchester. On 4 Aug. he was named to a further committee considering a private bill, that for George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol.

On 10 Aug. Dorset was given leave of absence for his health but he was away for little more than a week. On 18 Aug. he was back in the House and nominated to the committee considering the validity of the patent purporting to be authority for the creation as duke of Beaufort of Edward Somerset, 2nd marquess of Worcester. On 3 Sept. Dorset was added to the committee considering the bill for draining the Fens in Lincolnshire and on 5 Sept. to the committee established to draw up a bill restoring the dukedom of Norfolk to Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel (later 5th duke of Norfolk). The following day, Dorset reported from the committees considering the bill for bringing in grants and patents and that deliberating over the bill for William Seymour, 2nd duke of Somerset. Dorset’s interests in Essex may have influenced his nomination to the committee considering the bill concerning baize making at Colchester on 6 September. The following day he was named to the committees concerning the bill for disbanding the army and for the college leases bill. Prior to the adjournment he was named to three more committees. LJ xi. 162, 165, 167.

Dorset turned his attention to his own affairs again in October 1660 when he submitted a petition requesting a grant out of the estate of the regicide John Lisle^‡, or some alternative, by way of recompense for his mother’s guardianship of the king and his brothers during the Civil War. CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 341. Over the ensuing few years, Dorset launched a series of similar petitions seeking some form of restitution for his family’s losses.

Dorset took his seat in the second session of the Convention on 6 Nov. 1660. The same day he was nominated to the committee considering a bill for Henry Arundell, 3rd Baron Arundell of Wardour. Dorset reported from the committee three days later when he was also named to the committee considering the bill to confirm marriages. LJ xi. 178. On 10 Nov. he was named to the committee considering the bill for repairing highways. Dorset was named to a further five committees during the remainder of the session: he reported from four of these. LJ xi. 191, 193, 194, 196-8, 205, 211. As before he combined his activities with concentration on his own concerns and on 13 Nov. the House took into consideration a bill for settling a rent charge issuing out of Knole as well as other lands in Sussex.

The elections for the new Parliament found Dorset employing his interest on behalf of his son, Charles Sackville, Lord Buckhurst (later 6th earl of Dorset) at East Grinstead. The other seat was retained by George Courthope^‡. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 422. Having taken his seat at the opening of the new Parliament, Dorset resumed his activities in the House, attending 86 per cent of sitting days. On 11 May 1661 he was named to the sessional committees for privileges, petitions and the sub-committee for the Journal and three days later he was named to the committee considering the bill reversing Strafford’s attainder. Dorset had opposed the bill 20 years earlier and was now a driving force behind the reversal, chairing a number of the committee’s sessions along with his kinsman, Northampton. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, pp. 1, 3; Seaward, Cavalier Parlt. 132. He reported from the committee on 21 May and recommended the bill as fit to pass with some amendments. PA, BRY/27, 21 May 1661. The House finally passed the bill on 8 Feb. the following year. Efforts to render the original impeachment null and void, possibly favoured by Dorset, failed to be realized. Seaward, Cavalier Parlt, 132.

Besides his efforts with the Strafford bill, Dorset was once again busy in overseeing a number of committees in the session. On 16 May he chaired a session of the committee considering the bill to prevent tumults and reported the committee’s findings to the House the next day. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 2. Following a lengthy debate the bill was recommitted. Two days later Denzil Holles, Baron Holles, reported from the committee considering Dorset’s bill for settling a rent charge of £130 p.a. out of the manor of Knole, which was ordered to be engrossed. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 5. On 22 May he was granted leave of absence along with his brother-in-law, Middlesex. Dorset resumed his seat on 31 May. In July he seems to have been the intended recipient of Middlesex’s proxy, though this was not entered in the proxy book. Kent HLC (CKS), U269/O277, U269/O33. Although it was not until 10 June that he was nominated to any further committees, Dorset’s familiar pattern of committee activity was rapidly resumed. During the remainder of the session he was named to more than 50 committees. LJ xi. 276, 290, 292, 294, 296, 298, 299, 305, 307, 309-11, 313, 315, 320, 335, 337, 346, 350, 359, 361, 363-4, 366, 367, 370, 374, 382, 383, 384, 388, 389, 395, 397-402, 409, 411, 413, 418, 421, 427, 437, 440, 442, 446. On 5 June he chaired the committee considering the bill for making the rivers Salwarpe and Stour navigable, and the following day he chaired the first of several sessions of the committee for the Lindsey Level bill. On 28 June Dorset was named to the committee deliberating on the sanguinary laws. The same day he chaired the first of a number of sessions considering Sir Anthony Browne’s bill. On 5 July he was named to the committee considering the act for the relief of the poor of London. He also chaired a session of the committee considering John Harbin’s bill, which he reported to the House the following day. On 9 July, Dorset, the committee chairman, Thomas Windsor, 7th Baron Windsor (later earl of Plymouth) and John Lucas, Baron Lucas, were ordered to hear the parties involved in Sir Edward Moseley’s^‡ bill, and the same day a similar order was made for Dorset, Lucas and Richard Vaughan, 2nd earl of Carbery [I] (sitting as Baron Vaughan), to hear the parties concerned in Sir Anthony Browne’s bill. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, pp. 14, 16, 43, 49, 50, 51-53. On 10 July the Commons agreed to pass Dorset’s own bill with some amendments and the same day Dorset was named to the committee for the bill for regulating the Navy. Two days later he reported from the committee considering the corporation of Worcester bill and on 15 July he reported from the committee for the Droitwich bill. The following day, Dorset was named to the committee established to prepare a bill concerning the penal laws against Roman Catholics and on 18 July to that considering the bill for regulating corporations. On 20 July Dorset chaired a further session of the committee considering Sir Anthony Browne’s bill. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 68. He also reported from the committee for the Hatfield Level bill. Three days later he was named to the committee for the bill for pains and penalties on persons excepted from the act of indemnity.

Dorset was reckoned an opponent of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, in his efforts to secure the office of lord great chamberlain. Presumably, he preferred the claims of his kinsman, Montagu Bertie, 2nd earl of Lindsey. Dorset’s focus, though, seems to have been the prospective return of the bishops to their places in the Lords. In notes or a draft of a speech on the subject, perhaps for the debates on the bill for their restoration in late June, he argued powerfully in favour of their restoration, stressing that even had they consented to their exclusion in 1642, the lords spiritual could have had no authority to do so, being a fundamental constituent element of the constitution. He went on to argue that, ‘the bishops are as anciently temporal peers, and members of the lords’ house, as any sitting there.’ He emphasized the vital role of the bishops as, ‘one of the three estates, which together are called lords spiritual and temporal, and commons assembled in Parliament’ and warned that ‘they cannot be excluded by the king and the other two estates; the consequence of that being the inevitable destruction of the Parliament.’ Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/O36. The bishops were to return to their seats after the adjournment on 20 November.

Following the summer recess, Dorset was once more active as a committee chairman. On 22 Nov. he reported from the committee for the bill for settling the Fens and on 23 and 26 Nov. he chaired sessions of the committee considering the bill for confirming private acts. Dorset’s committee activity tailed off the following month with him being named to just two committees. He resumed his usual levels of activity in the New Year. Named to 10 committees in January 1662, on 16 Jan. he chaired sessions of the committees considering the bill for Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, and the heralds’ bill. Dorset chaired three separate committees on 18 Jan. and on 20 Jan. he reported again from the committee for Sir Anthony Browne’s bill. Between 21 Jan. and 8 Feb. he chaired sessions of the committee for the earl of Huntingdon’s bill, and on 28 Jan. he reported from the committee for the bill for registering sales and pawns. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, pp. 73-74, 96-101,105, 111-12, 124, 133. Following a debate in the House on the bill for confirming three acts and a subsequent tied vote on the matter, Dorset intervened to remind his colleagues that in such cases ‘semper praesumitur pro negante’ (it is always presumed in favour of the negative): the House accordingly recorded a negative vote. LJ xi. 373.

Although Dorset was not among the Lords registering a formal protest on 6 Feb. at the passage of the bill restoring Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, to properties sold during the commonwealth, he clearly objected to the measure as he was among those listed as ‘protesting’ against its passage. His dislike of the bill was consistent with his earlier advice to the king about the best way to approach the question of lands that had been alienated during the Interregnum. Add. 33589, ff. 220-1. Dorset reported from the committee for the bankrupts’ bill on 13 Feb. and on 14 Feb. from that considering Huntingdon’s bill. On 18 Feb. he was added to the committee considering the bill for the marquess of Winchester and the following day he reported from the committee for privileges on the dispute between John Holles, 2nd earl of Clare, and William Egerton ‘the Scavenger’ for a breach of privilege. The committee recommended that Egerton be kept in custody at the House’s pleasure, though Clare himself showed greater mercy. It was agreed subsequently that Egerton should be brought before the bar to make his submission to the House the following day.

Named to 12 committees in March 1662, on 19 Mar. Dorset reported from that considering his cousin Thanet’s title in Milward’s bill. Dorset was also closely involved in the debates surrounding the uniformity bill. He laid out his concerns in a draft speech, acknowledging that he was one of those who had voted in favour of the bill’s commitment:

Your lordships do all very well remember that the act of uniformity does among other things, especially and peremptorily enjoin the renouncing of the Covenant, to all those that shall be capable of any ecclesiastical advancement or office; now my lords, if by the power given in this enacting part his majesty shall at any time admit by his dispensation any person to an ecclesiastical promotion, the said person so admitted must either be a knave, if he does not by his preaching and doctrine endeavour the extirpation and abolishing of episcopacy to which the Covenant does so absolutely and positively oblige him; and for the adhering to which he was ejected; or else the king be unhappily the occasion of bringing a man into the Church that must necessarily endeavour in his calling and to the best of his power the ruin of that government under which himself is placed a member by the king as aforesaid. This dilemma or scruple my lords my weak logic could not solve to myself; and therefore, I do humbly leave it to your lordships’ better judgments; to resolve only with this profession, that I do think this act in the end and scope of it, is a very necessary and at present a very desirable one. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/O36, intended speech of Richard, earl of Dorset.

Dorset was named to just six committees in April 1662 and one in May but his involvement in the House’s business remained as keen as ever. LJ xi. 421, 427, 437, 440, 442, 446. He took a leading role in the passage of the glass bottles bill. Hearings of the committee on this measure extended for almost exactly a year between April 1662 and April 1663. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, pp. 243, 249, 261-4, 275, 299, 309-13, 319. Personal interest may have played a part in Dorset’s involvement as one of the interested parties was his old companion, Kenelm Digby. Two days before the close of the session, Dorset was one of the lords named as a reporter of a conference with the Commons concerning a number of bills before them prior to the prorogation of 19 May.

In 1662, Dorset was removed as joint lord lieutenant of Middlesex. The reason for his removal is unclear, as discussions in the Privy Council between the king and Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, indicate that it was hoped Dorset would remain in office joined by Sir William Compton^‡ in the new commission. The primary objective of the reorganization appears to have been the removal of Dorset’s colleague, Thomas Howard, earl of Berkshire, who had gained an unenviable reputation for ineffectiveness and incompetence, but Dorset may have refused to continue in post without Berkshire. Notes which passed, 70; Schoenfeld, 99. The following year, Dorset experienced a different kind of setback when the Sackville family tombs were destroyed in a fire at the church at Withyham. The cost of rebuilding the church was estimated at £1,679 6s. 8d., and work was not completed there until after Dorset’s death. Phillips, Sackville Family, i. 406-7.

Dorset returned to the House for the new session on 18 Feb. 1663, after which he was present on 95 per cent of all sitting days. As usual he was named to the sessional committee for privileges and the sub-committee for the Journal. The following week he was also named to the committee for petitions and on 6 Mar. he was named to the committee for the bill to prevent stoppages in Westminster streets. The same day Dorset submitted a petition to be restored to the advowson of St Dunstan’s in the West, which he had been forced to surrender during the Interregnum. The House ordered that one Roger Lambert, who was believed to be in possession of the necessary legal documents, should make them over to Dorset. Named to a further seven committees during the month, Dorset resumed his chairmanship of the committee considering the glass bottles bill on 21 March. LJ xi. 491, 493, 495-6, 498, 500-1. On 2 Apr. the committee resolved by a vote of eight to two to report their progress in the business. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 319. Dorset duly reported from the committee on 4 April. The same day he was named to the committee considering a bill for Charles Weston, 3rd earl of Portland, and Bulstrode Whitelocke^‡. On 6 Apr. he was named to the committee considering a bill for Lucas and Anthony Grey, 11th earl of Kent, and on 9 Apr. he requested that the committee considering the bill to prevent stoppages in Westminster’s streets be permitted the assistance of a judge in composing some new clauses. On 11 Apr. Dorset reported back from the committee for Portland and Whitelocke’s bill. Personal interest may have been involved with his nomination to the committee considering the Ashdown forest bill the same day, from which he also reported back the following month on 9 May 1663. Later that month, when Dorset reported to the House difficulties with the bill for making certain rivers in Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire navigable the House determined that counsel should be heard at the bar of the House to resolve the problems. LJ xi. 527. On 1 June Dorset reported from the committee for petitions the application of Fuller Meade to be heard by the House, but his request was later dismissed. Dorset was named to just two more committees in June. LJ xi. 532, 542. On 3 July he reported from the committee for the heralds’ bill and in the course of the month he was named to another eight committees. LJ xi. 548, 554, 560-1, 563-5, 573-4. Marked uncertain by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, in relation to Bristol’s attempt to impeach Clarendon, Dorset’s attention seems to have remained on his committee work. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 2, 224. On 18 July he was nominated one of the commissioners for assessing the peers and on 25 July he registered his protest at the resolution to pass the bill amending the act of uniformity. Seaward, Cavalier Parlt. 189.

Dorset returned to the House for the following session on 16 Mar. 1664, after which he was present on 92 per cent of all sitting days. In the course of the session he was named to the usual sessional committees as well as to an additional 11 committees. LJ xi. 584-5, 588, 592, 595-6, 602, 610, 614. On 23 Mar. he chaired a session of the committee considering the writs of error bill and reported its findings to the House later the same day. Five days later, along with William Craven, earl of Craven, he was ordered to investigate how money collected for the benefit of indigent widows had been distributed by the clerk of the crown. On 21 Apr. Dorset chaired a session of the committee considering the Ingoldsby Manor bill and the following day Dorset was named to the committee for the Falmouth parish church bill. He chaired the first session of the committee on 26 Apr. and a further session three days later at which it was resolved to report the bill with amendments as fit to be engrossed. He reported the bill to the House following a further session of the committee held on 4 May, at which it was agreed to omit one of the provisos by five votes to two. On 9 May he was named to the committee for Sir William Keyte’s bill and proceeded to chair the committee’s first session that day. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, pp. 439, 445, 448, 451, 453, 459. The same day Robert Bruce, earl of Elgin [S] (later earl of Ailesbury) wrote to Dorset asking that he ensure consideration of the Malvern chase bill be adjourned until the following morning, when Elgin would be able to attend. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/O38, N. Strode to Dorset, 9 May 1664. Dorset reported the findings of the committee for Sir William Keyte’s bill on 12 May and the same day he also reported from the committee considering Sir Sackville Glemham’s bill (presumably a distant kinsman).

Dorset returned to the House following the summer prorogation in November 1664 and resumed his activities as a committee workhorse. On 25 Nov. he was nominated to the sessional committees and he was named to a further five committees in December. LJ xi. 636-9. On 14 Dec. he chaired the first of a series of committee sessions considering the Deeping Fen bill, and on 17 Dec. that considering Samuel Sandys’ bill. He reported back from the latter on 19 December. Following a brief recess, Dorset resumed his seat on 14 Jan. and the same day chaired sessions of the committees considering the highways bill and the bill to make certain rivers in Hampshire navigable. He chaired a further session of this committee on 16 January. The following day he chaired a brief meeting of the committee for the duchy of Cornwall bill and on 18 Jan. he chaired a session of the committee for Sir Edward Hungerford’s^‡ bill. Two days later, following a further session on the same matter, he reported its findings to the House. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 2, 6, 18-19, 20-22, 27.

Over the course of the next two months Dorset was named to a further 15 committees. LJ xi. 649-50, 656-7, 663, 665, 667-8, 670-1. On 31 Jan. 1665 he was named to that considering a bill for his cousin, Nicholas Tufton, 3rd earl of Thanet, and on 11 Feb. he chaired a session of the committee considering the bill for Joseph Micklethwaite. He reported from the committee two days later. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 45. The same day (13 Feb.) he was named to the committee considering the Yarmouth fishing bill, which was promoted by Sir Robert Paston, later earl of Yarmouth. Dorset chaired sessions of the committee on 14 and 16 Feb. and again on 20 Feb. when the bill was ordered to be reported as fit to pass without any alteration. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 47, 50, 56-57. Dorset had been under considerable pressure to steer the bill through successfully. Having been instructed by the king to inform those peers opposed to the measure that he would not prorogue Parliament until it was passed he seems to have exerted himself on Paston’s behalf to ensure the measure’s successful passage. Swatland, 63; Add. 27447, f. 338. The same month, Dorset chaired further sessions of the committee considering the Deeping Fen bill, as well as committees for two other private bills. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 47, 51, 55, 69-71. He also chaired sessions of the privileges committee nominated to hear the complaint of his former colleague in the Middlesex lieutenancy, Berkshire, who had been accused of receiving stolen goods from one Thomas Tapson. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, p. 9.

Dorset’s reputation as a frequent attender in the House no doubt contributed to him receiving a number of letters from his acquaintances asking him to explain their absence. On 25 Sept. 1665, Thomas Savage, 3rd Earl Rivers, enquired whether Dorset planned to be at the forthcoming session, hoping that he would inform the House that ‘extraordinary business hinders me from attending,’ Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/c88/2. For once Dorset was unable to oblige as he was also absent from the House for the entirety of the short session, perhaps preferring to remain at Knole rather than make the journey to Oxford. No doubt eager to avoid London while plague remained severe, Dorset also chose to remain away from town into the early months of 1666. He was chided by Craven for being, as Craven assumed, ‘taken with the entertainment in the country’, though Craven admitted Dorset’s usefulness ‘to the king and state’ there. Ibid. U269/c88/18. Dorset had returned to London by late spring and at the end of April he acted as one of the triers of Thomas Parker, 15th Baron Morley. Stowe 396, ff. 178-90; Huntington Lib. EL 8398. Having escaped the ravages of plague, Dorset proved a victim of the ensuing disaster shortly before the opening of the following the session, when the Great Fire of London consumed his London residence, Dorset House. Bell, Great Fire of London, 148, 151-2; HMC 11th Rep. VII, 85. No attempt was made to rebuild it.

Opposition to the court 1666-77

Despite the loss of his main London residence, Dorset did not retire to the country after the blaze but continued an active manager in the House. HMC Sackville, i. p. xv. He also continued to involve himself with constitutional questions, which may have been the origin of his increasing identification with those opposed to the court. As early as 1666 he appears to have been concerned at the king’s disinclination to dissolve the Cavalier Parliament. He queried whether ‘the end meaning of an act of Parliament’ made under Edward III

be not particularly intended for the renewing and holding successive parliaments as often as conveniently they could be had, that so the people might be masters of their own representatives, the House of Commons, and not to have them perpetuated in their places by continuing them upon adjournments or prorogations.

Dorset concluded that this was undoubtedly the intention and argued that it was not only desirable but required for a Parliament to be held every year, ‘and more often if need be.’ Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/O36/81.

Dorset took his seat on 18 Sept. 1666 for the session of 1666-7, little more than two weeks after the conflagration that had destroyed his London residence. He proceeded to attend 79 per cent of all sitting days and on 26 Sept. he was added to the committee for privileges and sub-committee for the Journal. The following day he was named to the committee for Isabella, Lady Arlington’s naturalization bill. Dorset chaired the first session of the committee the same day and reported the proposed amendments to the House on 1 October. On 11 Oct. he chaired the committee considering the bill for Lady Elizabeth Noel and the following day was named to the committee to prepare the heads for a conference about the vote banning the importation of French commodities. On 15 Oct. he chaired a further session of the committee considering Lady Elizabeth Noel’s bill. The bill was ordered to be reported with amendments, which Dorset undertook the following day. On 17 Oct. he chaired the committee considering the bill for Lady Holles’ naturalization and reported the proposed amendments to the House two days later. On 24 Oct. Dorset was named to the committee considering Cleveland’s bill. He chaired two sessions of the committee on 26 and 27 Oct. after which the chairmanship was taken over by Northampton. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 94, 98-100, 104, 107.

Dorset was absent from the House from the end of October until 13 Nov. 1666. On his return he resumed his committee work and the following day was named to the committee considering the bill to illegitimate Lady Roos’s children. Dorset appears to have been a supporter of the bill for banning the importation of Irish cattle and on 17 Nov. he was named to the committee considering the measure. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/c18/6, U269/c93/5. His support for the bill came in spite of the hardship it caused his son-in-law, Roger Boyle^‡, Lord Broghill (later 2nd earl of Orrery [I]). Three years later, Broghill complained at length about the difficulties faced by the Irish as a result of both this bill and another measure preventing the importation of Irish grain. Ibid. U269/c18/18. For the time being, Dorset was more concerned by his own problems and on 6 Dec. he was forced to complain of a breach of his privilege when one of his servants was arrested despite the fact that she was in possession of a protection signed by him. The House ordered that Thomas Herrington, the man guilty of carrying Dorset’s servant to gaol, should in turn be attached for his actions. On 17 Dec. Dorset was named to the committee considering the lead mines bill of Thomas Wharton, (later marquess of Wharton). The bill proved to be highly contentious. Dorset chaired two of the early sessions of the committee on 20 and 29 December. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 133, 137.

Dorset was named to a further 13 committees in January 1667. LJ xii. 59, 60, 66-68, 70, 87, 92-93, 95. He chaired another session of the lead mines bill on 3 Jan. as well as sessions of committees considering the bills for the dowager Baroness Abergavenny and Sir Francis Scawen (from which he reported on 4 January). On 5 Jan. Dorset chaired a further session of the committee for Scawen’s bill. He reported back to the House on the same business three days later. Dorset chaired four more committees during the ensuing week. On 15 Jan. he reported from the committee considering the bill for houses burnt during the fire, something in which he had a profound personal interest, and on 23 Jan. he entered his dissent at the resolution not to add a clause to the bill granting the right of appeal to the king and House of Lords. The following day he chaired the committee considering Lady Abergavenny’s bill and reported its progress to the House. On 26 Jan. he reported from the committee considering the plight of French merchants who had had their goods seized. Dorset reported again on the subject of the aggrieved merchants two days later and on 31 Jan. he reported that their petition had been granted. On 5 and 6 Feb. he chaired sessions of the committee nominated to consider a bill for Sir Charles Stanley but progress in this measure was interrupted by the prorogation. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 139, 140-1, 143, 148, 152, 165, 177.

Dorset took his seat in the following session on 10 Oct. 1667. Present on 94 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to the sessional committees on 11 Oct. and over the course of the session was nominated to a further 38 committees. LJ xii. 118-20, 122-3, 125, 128, 130, 132-3, 138, 160-1, 167, 170, 172, 176, 182, 190, 196, 201, 203, 209-10, 214, 219, 222, 228, 230, 236, 245. On 14 Oct. he was named to the committee considering the condition of trade between England and Scotland and the same day he chaired the privileges committee nominated to consider the matter of the writ of summons for the underage John Wilmot, 2nd earl of Rochester. On 17 Oct. Dorset chaired the committee considering the bill for punishing atheism and on 22 Oct. he reported from the committee for privileges concerning a report of 1628 declaring that peers should not be attached by the court of chancery. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 185. The following day he resumed his chairmanship of the committees considering Sir Charles Stanley’s bill and the condition of trade between England and Scotland. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 186-7. On 24 Oct. he chaired a session of the privileges committee examining precedents to demonstrate that when both Houses waited on the king, the king’s answer was entered in the Journal. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, p. 26. Dorset chaired further sessions of the committee considering the state of trade with Scotland on 26 and 31 October. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 189, 193; NLS, Yester pprs. ms 7024, ff. 47-48. On 6 Nov. he chaired the committees considering the bills for preventing the sale of offices and the pricing of wine and the following day he was named to the committee considering the bill for the trials of peers. Dorset chaired further sessions of the committee considering Sir Charles Stanley’s bill on 11, 13, 18, 19 and 22 November. On 26 Nov. he resumed the chairmanship of the contentious lead mines bill, at the outset of which it was resolved to continue with the business by a vote of 15 to three. The following day, the committee voted in favour of passing the preamble to the bill by a margin of 19 to two and the same day it was resolved that Dorset, Oliver St John, earl of Bolingbroke, Richard Sterne, archbishop of York, and Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, should meet separately to draw up a new clause within the bill. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 196, 203, 207, 210, 213-15.

On 3 Dec. Dorset reported the latest findings of the committee considering Anglo-Scots trade, which was then recommitted. Four days later he was named to the committee drawing up the bill to banish Clarendon. On 9 Dec. he reported from the committees considering the bill for Gilbert Holles, 3rd earl of Clare, and the bill for pricing wines; he was also named to the committees for Sir Richard Wiseman’s^‡ bill and the bill for taxing adventurers in the Fens. On 10 Dec. Dorset was named one of the managers of the conference concerning freedom of speech in Parliament and on 12 Dec. he chaired the first session of the committee considering the bill to tax adventurers in the Fens, at which it was queried whether William Russell, 5th earl of Bedford, and other members ought to be permitted to sit on the committee being interested parties in the measure. The query was referred to the House for its adjudication, though the committee resolved not to adjourn by a margin of 11 to seven. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 224. The following day five peers were added to the committee but the question of Bedford’s inclusion does not appear to have been raised. LJ xii. 169. The matter of the admission of the underage Rochester to the Lords also seems to have preoccupied Dorset. A manuscript note on the reverse of a printed copy of ‘Reasons for the Bill for more effectual bringing in of money concealed from his majesty’ among his papers suggests that he reported to the House on 14 Dec. that the subcommittee for the Journal was unable to complete its examination until a resolution was arrived at concerning the admission of minors. According to the printed edition of the Journal, though, the report was eventually made to the House by Charles Stuart, 3rd duke of Richmond. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/O37.

Dorset plunged back into business soon after resuming his seat following the Christmas adjournment. On 10 Feb. 1668 he moved that Holles should ‘be mindful of bringing in the writ of error for reversing the judgment given formerly in King’s bench against Sir John Elliot and others’, which Holles promised to expedite. LJ xii. 181. Three days later Dorset chaired a session of the select committee considering the bill for writs of certiorari. He presided over a further session of the same committee on 18 Feb., following which it was resolved to report to the House that the committee had not had sufficient time to consider the measure. They proposed to leave it to the House to decide whether the bill should be recommitted once the judges had returned from their circuits. Dorset chaired sessions of two more committees on 19 February. On 21 Feb. he reported from the committee for the leather bill. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 234-7. The following day he was named along with the lord chamberlain, Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, and Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley (later earl of Shaftesbury) to speak with John Manners, Lord Roos (later duke of Rutland) concerning the provision of a suitable allowance for Lady Roos.

Dorset’s application to committee work continued without interruption over the following two months. On 2 Mar. 1668 he chaired the committee considering Sir Thomas Leventhorpe’s bill, which was ordered to be reported without amendment. The same day he reported from the committee considering the bill for taxing adventurers in the Fens and on 4 Mar. he was named to the committee for a further measure relating to Ashdown Forest. On 13 Mar. he reported from the committee for petitions the case of John Nordern v. Thomas Hawles and the same day reported from the committee considering the bill concerning writs of certiorari, which was recommitted. On 26 Mar. Dorset was named to a further committee arising out of the destruction visited by the Fire: that considering the act to indemnify the sheriffs of the city of London and the warden of the Fleet prison concerning the escape of inmates during the inferno. On 3 Apr. he was named one of the managers of a conference with the Commons over the bill for taxing adventurers in the Fens. He then reported the conference’s findings to the House. The following day he chaired the first session of the committee considering what relief might be offered certain of the creditors of the Hamburgh Merchants. On 8 Apr. he reported from the committee considering Sir Thomas Hebblethwaite’s bill and was ordered to report the business concerning William Byron, later 3rd Baron Byron, the following day. After some delay, Dorset made the report three days later. Dorset chaired several sessions of the committee considering the aulnage bill on 10 Apr. and reported its findings on 13 April. Two days later he chaired a further session of the committee considering relief for the Hamburgh Company’s creditors but chairmanship of this committee was shortly after taken over by Bridgwater. Dorset reported from the committee concerning the tenants of the manor of Horton on 22 April. The same day he chaired a further session of the committee for the writs of certiorari bill, at which it was resolved to request that the judges might be heard before the House to express their reservations and for the committee to be given further guidance. Ibid. p. 243, 260, 268-9, 273. Two days later Dorset complained to the House over the arrest of another of his servants contrary to privilege, and once again the offending bailiffs were ordered to appear at the bar of the House. LJ xii. 234. Named to the committee for the forest of Dean bill on 28 Apr., Dorset chaired its first session on 4 May. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 283. He continued to sit until the adjournment on 9 May, resuming his seat on 10 Nov. and 1 Mar. 1669, after which the session was prorogued until October.

Following a gruelling few months overseeing the House’s business, reports of September 1668 that Lady Anne Clifford had at last died may have been welcome news to Dorset. In the event the rumours proved not to be true and he was forced to wait a further eight years to be rid of his old bête-noire. CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 568; Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 243. Having enjoyed a break from committee work of just over seven months, Dorset returned to the House following the prorogation on 19 Oct. 1669. He proceeded to attend every day of the 36-day session. On 29 Oct. he reported from the privileges committee considering the case of Gilbert Holles, earl of Clare, against Franklyn and Vosper but he was otherwise named to no other committees until 24 Nov. when he was nominated to that considering the charitable uses bill of John Dolben, bishop of Rochester. He was named to two more committees the following month. LJ xii. 282, 284.

Dorset took his seat at the opening of the following session on 14 Feb. 1670. He was once again assiduous in his attendance, being present on 160 of the session’s 165 sitting days. He was similarly active in committee work. In the course of the session he was named to over 70 committees, presiding over a substantial proportion of them. LJ xii. 253-4, 273, 282, 284, 290-1, 295-7, 299, 301-2, 304, 308-9, 311, 313, 315, 319-20, 322, 329, 331-2, 335, 338, 341-2, 345, 355, 358-9, 360-1, 366. On 4 Mar. he took over the chairmanship of the committee considering the bishop of Rochester’s charitable uses bill from William Paget, 6th Baron Paget. On 7 Mar., following a further meeting of the committee, the bill was ordered to be reported with the agreed amendments. The same day he was named to the committee for Lady Routh’s bill. Dorset chaired the first session the following day but on 9 Mar. the committee declined to read through the text, finding ‘the scope of the whole bill faulty’. The committee continued to meet over the following two days and on 11 Mar. at last ordered that the bill be reported with amendments. Dorset chaired sessions of five separate committees the following day, and two days later he reported from another three committees considering private bills for Lady Belasyse, Richard Beckham and Sir Francis Fane. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 294, 296-7, 302-5, 307-9. The same day (14 Mar.) he chaired a session of the privileges committee considering the erasure of the pages of the journals referring to Strafford’s attainder. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, p. 66.

Dorset’s experiences during the Great Fire may have been behind his nomination on 24 Mar. to the committee considering the bill to prevent the malicious burning of houses and on 29 Mar. to that considering the additional act for rebuilding London. On 2 Apr. he was added to the committee for Bellamy’s bill. He chaired a session of the committee the same day. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 327. On 5 Apr. he reported from the committees considering Leigh’s bill and the bill to prevent the stealing of children. During the afternoon session of 8 Apr. Dorset reported from the committee considering Davison’s bill and the following afternoon from that considering the bill for trials for inheritances.

Dorset’s technical expertise did not only serve him well as a committee chairman. It also proved beneficial on those occasions when he was compelled to complain to the House of slights and infringements of his privilege. On 11 Apr. the Lords committed two men, Thomas Cheeke and John Wallis, a hackney coachman, to the Tower and to Newgate respectively for their indecorous behaviour towards Dorset. Dorset had complained that on his way to the House on the final day before the adjournment, his coach had been rammed by Wallis’s and the impact had broken one of Dorset’s coach-wheels. When the knight marshal’s officers attempted to arrest Wallis, Cheeke leapt from the hackney coach in which he had been travelling and to the rescue of his driver. Cheeke and Wallis remained incarcerated until after the adjournment. Dorset displayed a degree of magnanimity in waiting on the king to secure Cheeke’s release. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 188-9. He also interceded with the House on behalf of Wallis.

After several years untroubled by major local office, Dorset was appointed to the lieutenancy of Sussex in June 1670. The office was to be held jointly with his son, Buckhurst, and in place of Josceline Percy, 5th earl of Northumberland. Ibid. p. 253. Buckhurst showed characteristic generosity, or perhaps disinclination to be saddled with the responsibility, by offering to step aside should Dorset prefer to exercise the office alone. His offer was not taken up and the lieutenancy was managed jointly until Dorset’s death. Two months later it was reported inaccurately that Dorset was to officiate as lieutenant in Sussex and his son in Northumberland. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/c13/5, 6; HMC Hastings, ii. 321.

Dorset took his seat following the adjournment on 24 Oct. 1670. The following month, he was appealed to by his Sussex neighbour, Francis Browne, 3rd Viscount Montagu, to make his excuses to the House for his inability to attend at a call as Montagu claimed to be indisposed with gout. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/C89/4. Once again, Dorset resumed his hectic schedule overseeing a number of select committees. On 3 Nov. he chaired a session of the committee considering the bill against breaches of trust and perjury but four days later he informed the House that as so few lords and no judges had attended the hearing, no progress had been made. At Dorset’s request, the House ordered that the lords appointed should be diligent in their attendance of the committee. On 9 Nov. Dorset reported two cases before the committee for petitions and the same day he was named to the committee considering the bill to permit Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle, to re-convey several estates mortgaged by his father. The following day he reported from the committee considering Bellamy’s bill. Dorset chaired the committee for Albemarle’s bill on 12 November. He reported back to the House on 15 Nov., after which the bill was agreed to with the proposed amendments. On 17 Nov. he chaired a further session of the committee considering the bill against breaches of trust and on 23 Nov. he chaired sessions of five separate committees. On 28 Nov. Dorset chaired a session of the committee considering the Boston and river Trent navigation bill. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 348, 352, 355, 360, 364. The same day he presided at a session of the privileges committee considering Lady De La Warr’s outlawry. The case was closely involved with Dorset’s habitual concern for maintaining the rights and privileges of the nobility within the constitution. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, p. 74. The following day he reported from the committee considering a bill to amend John Bill’s bill and on 6 Dec. he reported from the committee for petitions. Two days later he reported from the committee for privileges, recommending that Lady De La Warr have the exigent and outlawry against her vacated. The same day he reported that the committee considering Sir Clifford Clifton’s^‡ bill reckoned it fit to pass.

Dorset was named to a further seven committees during December 1670. His activities continued at the same rate into the new year. On 4 Jan. 1671 he reported from the committee considering Benedict Hall’s bill and on 10 Jan. from that considering Fitzjames’s bill. In addition to private measures he was also involved with a number of significant committees concerning bills about trade. On 17 Jan. he reported from that considering the bill to prevent frauds in the exportation of wool and on 23 Jan. he chaired a session of the committee considering the bill for prohibiting the importation of foreign brandy: a vote on whether to pass the first enacting clause was carried by five to two. On 3 Feb. he chaired the committee considering the petition of several poor prisoners, as a result of which he was named to a sub-committee to draw up a bill for their relief. The same day he chaired a further committee of the bill preventing the importation of brandy as well as the first session of the poor prisoners’ bill sub-committee. Following a further session of the committee for the brandy bill on 15 Feb. it was agreed to report the draft with certain amendments but it was not until 3 Mar. that Dorset finally reported the committee’s conclusions to the House. Following debate, the bill was recommitted and, after further deliberation in committee on 11 Mar., Dorset reported their findings to the House on 17 March. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 407, 410-11, 414-15, 424. Two days prior to that, Dorset had reported from the committee for petitions a query concerning the petition of John Cusack as the committee was unable to determine whether an appeal against Cusack’s petition might exist in the Irish courts. The House determined that judgment should be suspended until such time as a report could be obtained from an Irish judge. Timberland, i. 111. Dorset reported from the committee for petitions again over the case of Frederick Ixem v. John Hill on 13 April. Two days later he reported another case before the committee for petitions, that of William Oldsworth and Dame Hester Honeywood. On 17 Apr. he was named to another four committees for private bills and on 18 Apr. he chaired the committee for the river Wey bill, which was ordered to be reported with amendments. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 453-4.

In addition to his efforts as a committee chairman, Dorset’s reappointment as lieutenant in Sussex meant that a significant proportion of his time was now also taken up by local interests. He clearly found his charges in Sussex at times difficult to command. On 17 Mar. 1671, he complained of several gentlemen who were refusing to undertake their militia obligations and sought the king’s permission to ‘intimate to them that he would take it as a want of duty and respect to himself and the safety of his country in whomsoever did so.’ Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/O17. Troubles over his London properties also continued to plague him. On 7 Apr. 1671 he complained that his parliamentary privilege had been breached by the governors of the Bridewell hospital, who laid claim to land belonging to the devastated Dorset House. The dispute was heard before the House on 12 Apr. and the Lords ordered a stop to the proceedings during the period of privilege.

Dorset attended the prorogation day of 16 Apr. 1672 before taking his seat in the new session the following year on 4 February. He was present on 93 per cent of the whole session and was named as usual to all the sessional committees. LJ xii. 522. On 14 Feb. he was named to the committee for Sir Ralph Bankes’^‡ bill; the following day the Journal noted Dorset as having been added to the same committee: presumably a clerical error. LJ xii. 531-2. Named to a further 19 committees during the brief session, on 21 Feb. he reported from the committee considering the bill to prevent frauds in exporting wool and on 6 Mar. from that considering the bill for the dean and chapter of Bristol. Added to the committee for Sir William Riche’s bill on 13 Mar., on 24 Mar. Dorset reported from the committee for petitions concerning the case of prisoners being held for debt. LJ xii. 527, 529, 531, 537-8, 543-4, 549-50, 554-5, 562-3, 577.

Later that summer Dorset was indisposed with gout but he was well enough to act as one of the assistants to the chief mourner at Richmond’s delayed funeral in September (Richmond having died abroad nine months previously). Add. 12514, f. 291. Dorset attended each of the four days of the short session in October, acting as one of the sponsors of Robert Paston at his introduction as Viscount Yarmouth on 20 October. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/c17, Mary Lady Broghill to Dorset, 4 Sept. [1673]; Carte 77, f. 638. He then took his seat at the beginning of the new session of January 1674, during which he again attended on every possible sitting day. Named to the usual sessional committees Dorset was also named to a further nine committees during the session. LJ xii. 598-9, 600, 607, 629, 632, 639-40, 645. He took the oath of allegiance on 13 Jan. and on 21 Feb. he reported from the committee for petitions the case of Hallet v. Kendall.

The death of Dorset’s brother-in-law, Middlesex, in October 1674 offered the prospect of an end to Dorset’s financial difficulties but the ensuing period was marked by a succession of family disputes. In September of the previous year it had been put about that Dorset and his countess were to separate and that he had even offered to pay her maintenance of £773 10s. 10d. Harris, Charles Sackville, 59; Phillips, Sackville Family, i. 414. This was averted but family tensions now rose to the surface over Middlesex’s bequest of his estates to Dorset’s heir, Buckhurst. Buckhurst’s marriage with the dowager countess of Falmouth also provoked disagreements between father and son. C10/330/15; Harris, Charles Sackville, 57, 60. Legal action ensued as Dorset claimed that a confederacy of Buckhurst, Edward Conway, 3rd Viscount Conway (later earl of Conway), Sir William Coventry^‡, and Richard Walmesley had colluded to deprive him of his rightful inheritance. C10/330/15. The dispute continued into the following year when Middlesex (as Buckhurst had since become) launched a counter suit, in which he complained that his father and mother delayed giving their answers so long that he feared his witnesses might die before he received their response. C33/245, f.280. As far as his marriage was concerned, Buckhurst had evidently attempted to keep the truth of his liaison from his parents. By October 1674, Dorset was in no doubt of it and he emphasized his displeasure at Buckhurst’s actions in the affair. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/c102.

Dorset seems to have sought solace from his troubles abroad and in November 1674 he was granted a pass to travel to France. CSP Dom. 1673-5, p. 411. While overseas his interest was sought on behalf of his younger son, Edward Sackville^‡, who replaced Middlesex at East Grinstead. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/c38/3, 4; HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 378. Middlesex meanwhile expressed his weariness ‘of these unnatural disputes’ and insisted that he was ‘sensible how unfit it is for a son in any thing to oppose his parents.’ Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/c13/8. Despite this, Dorset continued to be harassed by complaints from home. In February 1675 Dorset’s countess bewailed the behaviour of Middlesex and his wife towards her. In particular she complained of how Lady Middlesex needled her about her relations with her husband and that she had suggested that Dorset’s reason for quitting England had been because his wife gave him ‘a very unquiet life at home.’ Lady Dorset questioned how this could be so, as they had ‘parted too kindly for you to give them so much occasion of being pleased and triumphing over me.’ Ibid. U269/c12/12.

Dorset had returned to England by the spring of 1675. He took his seat in the House on 13 Apr. and was present for 41 of the session’s 42 sitting days. The following day he was named, as usual, to the sessional committees. LJ xii. 657. He then proceeded to be nominated to a further dozen committees during the course of the session. LJ xii. 659, 670, 677, 683-4, 693, 696, 707, 710, 719. On 20 Apr. he complained once more of a breach of his privilege. Dorset claimed possession of the manor and liberties of Salisbury Court, near Fleet Street, but he complained that Sir Robert Vyner, the Lord Mayor, had invaded his rights there. On 26 Apr. Vyner was ordered to answer to Dorset’s complaint, which he did four days later denying all knowledge of Dorset’s jurisdiction in the area. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/357. A petition was later referred to the attorney general from Vyner and the aldermen and sheriffs of London requesting that a quo warranto be ordered against Dorset to investigate the validity of his claims in Salisbury Court. CSP Dom. 1675-6, p. 564.

By the late 1670s Dorset had become increasingly associated with the opponents of the court linked especially to Shaftesbury. Like a number of former cavaliers, Dorset appears to have been hostile to the new administration of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (late duke of Leeds) and frustrated with the direction of affairs since the Restoration. His case with Vyner, a prominent court financier, can only have added to his discontent. With Shaftesbury and others he protested at a series of decisions related to the non-resisting test bill. On 21 Apr. he entered his protest at the resolution that the non-resisting test did not encroach upon the Lords’ privileges. Eight days later he protested again at the resolution that the protest of 26 Apr. reflected upon the honour of the House. On 4 May he protested once more at the resolution to agree with the committee’s amendment to include members of the Commons and peers within the scope of the bill. He was also noted as one of those who spoke during the debates that lasted over a fortnight. Timberland, i. 158. Given his identification with Shaftesbury, it may be significant that it was Dorset who reported from the committee for privileges on 20 May concerning the heads for a conference to be held on the case of Sherley v. Fagg.

Dorset returned to the House for the opening of the new session of October 1675, after which he was again present on each possible sitting day. In the course of the session he was named to eight committees in addition to the sessional committees, though he does not appear to have taken so prominent a role in managing them. LJ xiii. 7, 18, 20-1, 23, 28, 31. On 20 Nov. he registered his protest at the rejection of the motion for an address to the king requesting the dissolution of Parliament. Bodl. ms Eng. hist. e. 710, ff. 14-15. A few months after the close of the session, Dorset was greeted with the news of Lady Anne Clifford’s death. He made no effort to disguise his glee at her demise by which he (and several others) stood to benefit substantially. Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 245; Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/c82/3; CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 568.

In June 1676 Dorset was in London for the trial of Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, whom he found not guilty of murder. State Trials, vii. 157-8; Beinecke Lib. OSB MSS fb 155, pp. 460-1. He then returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 15 Feb. 1677 and was named to the usual sessional committees as well as an additional 40 committees. LJ xiii. 39-40, 42-43, 45-46, 50, 52-54, 57-59, 62-63, 68, 74, 82-84, 91-92, 94-97, 102, 103, 105, 111-12, 114-15. On 16 Feb. he was named to the committee enquiring into the authorship of Considerations whether the Parliament be Dissolved. On 1 Mar. he reported from the committee considering the bill for the augmentation of small vicarages and on 5 Mar. from that for the bill concerning popish recusants. The following day, Dorset reported from the committee considering the bill to prevent frauds and perjuries and on 10 Mar. from the committee concerning Squib’s bill. Dorset reported from two private bills for naturalization on 12 and 13 Mar. and on 20 Mar. he reported from the committee for petitions the case of John Messenger. Four days later, he reported from the committees considering Sir Edward Hungerford’s and Sir Francis Compton’s^‡ bills and on 7 Apr. from the committee considering the protestant strangers bill. Three days later Dorset again complained to the House of a breach of his privilege when he related how one Samuel Gardiner and others had uttered contemptuous words about him. The offenders were ordered to appear at the bar to explain themselves. The same day during the afternoon session Dorset reported from the committee considering the stannaries bill. LJ xiii. 108. On 11 Apr. Dorset chaired the privileges committee for the final time. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/2, pp. 132-3.

After such a furiously busy career in the House Dorset’s end came suddenly. Towards the end of his life, he found himself increasingly at variance with the court with his overriding concern being the maintenance of the privileges of the House. It was a related issue that inspired his final protest on 16 Apr. against the abandonment of the House’s amendments to the supply bill. Three months later, on 16 July, he provided a final protection to a servant, William Wetton, who claimed kinship with Dorset through the Curzon family. The issuing of the protection also coincided with Dorset’s last appearance in the House. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/C123 (118), U269/O34. He died the following month aged 55. In his will he named his countess sole executrix. PROB 11/354. He was buried at Withyham in September in the partially reconstructed family chapel and was succeeded in the peerage by his eldest son, Middlesex. Add. 38141, f. 52; Carte 79, f. 124.