FANE, Charles (1635-91)

Dismissed by the French ambassador, de Ruvigny, as ‘a fairly stupid man’, Westmorland’s management of the family estates did nothing to contradict this assessment. TNA, PRO 31/3/130, ff. 31-33. On the death of his father, he had inherited a considerable fortune with lands lying principally in Northamptonshire, Huntingdonshire, Kent and Cambridge; during his tenure of the earldom he succeeded in squandering much of this inheritance leaving, according to a later holder of the title, Thomas Fane, 6th earl of Westmorland, but half of what had come to his hands. TNA, PROB 11/408; Northants. RO, W(A) 2 xvii. 1; Add. 34223, f. 3.

Before his elevation to the peerage, Le Despenser (as he was then styled) was an inactive member of the Commons and holder of a number of local offices. HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 294. As a deputy lieutenant for Northamptonshire he was involved in reducing the city walls, for which the king commended him and his fellow deputies. CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 560. In 1664 he was noted as a court dependant. HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 294. Through family connection Westmorland was part of a particularly prominent local elite in Northamptonshire, closely associated with Cardigan and Christopher Hatton, Viscount Hatton.

Westmorland took his seat on 21 Sept. 1666, after which he was present on just under a third of all sitting days. On 9 Oct. he was nominated to the committee for Lady Elizabeth Noel’s bill and on 28 Nov. to that considering Sir Richard Franklin’s bill. Having failed to attend the brief session of July 1667, he resumed his place in the following session on 6 November. Present on less than a quarter of all sitting days, he was named to two committees that month, and on 13 Dec. he was added to the committee considering the bill for taxing the Great Level of the fens but was named to no further committees during the session. Westmorland then attended ten days of the brief 36-day session at the close of 1669, before resuming his seat in the ensuing session on 10 Mar. 1670, of which he attended just over ten per cent of all sitting days. On 30 Mar. he was nominated to the committee considering the Yarmouth Harbour bill, and the same day he was also named to the committee for Perkins’ bill, but there is no evidence to suggest he was active in the deliberations of either committee. Absent from the House between 17 and 29 Mar., on 19 Mar. Westmorland registered his proxy with his Northamptonshire neighbour, John Cecil, 4th earl of Exeter. The proxy was noted as having been vacated on 25 Mar., four days before Westmorland’s resumption of his seat. He was then absent once more from early April until 5 December. On 16 Nov. the House learned that Westmorland complained of a breach of privilege. The matter was referred to the committee for privileges, but on 24 Nov. William Howard, Viscount Stafford, reported that they were unable to proceed as Westmorland had failed to give them details of the case. Westmorland’s agents then advised the House of the details of the dispute between the earl and Denzil Holles, Baron Holles, that had resulted in Westmorland being dispossessed of the manor of Aldenham. On 15 Dec. the Lords ruled that Westmorland could not claim privilege as he had held the manor in trust. The case was described dismissively by Richard Boyle, earl of Burlington, in his diary that day, Burlington noting that Holles had succeeded in making Westmorland’s case appear entirely ‘frivolous’. Chatsworth, Cork mss misc. box 2, Burlington diary. No doubt disgruntled at his failure here, Westmorland retreated for the remainder of the session, giving his proxy in March 1671 to another neighbour, his future father-in-law, Cardigan. Although Westmorland attended the single sitting day of 16 Apr. 1672, he failed to resume his seat in the ensuing session, contenting himself instead with registering his proxy with John Granville, earl of Bath, on 12 Feb. 1673. The proxy was vacated by the session’s close, and Westmorland then resumed his seat for just one day of the cursory four-day session of October 1673.

Westmorland took his seat at the opening of the new session on 7 Jan. 1674 when he presented to the House a petition drawn up on behalf of Cardigan’s grandson, Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury, complaining of the adulterous relationship between George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, and Shrewsbury’s mother. TNA, PRO 31/3/130 ff. 31-3. Following the death of his first wife, probably in 1669, Westmorland had married Cardigan’s daughter, Lady Dorothy Brudenell, sister to the countess of Shrewsbury, which explains his interest in the affair. The petition resulted in a fine for both the duke and the countess and their undertaking to cease all communication with each other. Westmorland proceeded to attend on approximately 87 per cent of all sitting days in the session, but he was named to just one committee. His increasing identification with the opposition grouping in the House may well be reflected in the fact that on 27 Jan. 1674 he was entrusted with the proxy of John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace, which was vacated shortly after on 3 February. It was certainly from about this time that Westmorland began to support opposition measures.

Having failed to attend the session of April 1675, Westmorland resumed his seat a fortnight into the subsequent session on 4 Nov. 1675, attending on 13 of its 21 sitting days. On 20 Nov. Westmorland voted in favour of the address for dissolving Parliament, entering his protest when it was rejected. Local connections may well have been the cause of his appointment to the committee considering the bill for rebuilding the devastated town of Northampton the same day, but he was otherwise named to just one further committee during the session.

Westmorland returned to the House in the following session on 7 Mar. 1677, after which he was present on 17 per cent of all sitting days and was again named to just one committee. He was noted ‘worthy’ by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, that year, and on 15 Mar. he and his brother, Sir Vere Fane (later 4th earl of Westmorland), were given permission to visit the lords in the Tower. Westmorland appears to have spent the autumn in partnership with Hatton tackling local problems in Rockingham forest. Add. 29556, f. 254. He was again absent from the House for the summer session of 1678 but then resumed his place in the subsequent session on 2 November. Although he was present on just under 73 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to just two committees. On 23 Dec. he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to insist that Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), withdraw following the reading of the articles of impeachment against him. Three days later (26 Dec.) he voted against insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the disbanding bill, entering his dissent when the motion was carried. The following day he voted in favour of committing Danby and again protested when the motion was rejected.

In advance of the meeting of the new Parliament, Westmorland was variously assessed by Danby in a series of forecasts for the anticipated proceedings against him as a likely opponent, unreliable or doubtful. Westmorland attended five days of the abortive session of March 1679 before resuming his place at the opening of the new Parliament on 15 March. Present on 70 per cent of all sitting days in the session, Westmorland was noted among those voting in favour of the early stages of the Danby attainder at the beginning of April, and on 4 Apr. he voted in favour of passing the bill. Ten days later he voted to agree with the Commons in supporting the attainder. Excused at a call on 9 May he resumed his place the following day when he voted in favour of appointing a committee to meet with the Commons to determine the method of proceeding against the impeached lords. He then subscribed the protest when the motion was rejected and dissented again on 23 May, first at the resolution to instruct the Lords’ committee meeting with the Commons that the Lords would give no other answer regarding the bishops’ right to vote in the forthcoming trials, and second at the resolution to proceed with the trials of the five impeached lords before trying Danby. On 27 May he voted against adhering to an earlier vote that the lords spiritual had the right to remain in the court in capital cases until judgment of death came to be pronounced.

Westmorland returned to the House for the opening of the subsequent Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680, after which he was present on 82 per cent of all sitting days during which he was named to two committees. His attitude to exclusion remains somewhat unclear. Although he voted against putting the question to reject the bill at first reading on 15 Nov., he was then listed as having supported rejecting the measure at first reading in the subsequent vote the same day. Given that he supported other opposition measures such as voting in favour of appointing a joint committee with the Commons to consider the state of the kingdom on 23 Nov. (subscribing the protest when the motion was rejected) and that he found Viscount Stafford guilty of treason the following month on 7 Dec., it may be reasonable to conclude that he was sympathetic to the cause of exclusion even if he found the bill presented to the House unacceptable. Party and Management in Parliament 1660-1784 ed. C. Jones, 18. On 18 Dec. he registered a further dissent at the resolution to reject a proviso drawn up by the Commons exempting trials on impeachment from the bill for regulating the trials of peers. On 7 Jan. 1681 he protested again at the resolution not to put the question whether the lord chief justice, Sir William Scroggs should be committed upon the articles of impeachment brought up from the Commons, although his name does not appear in the Journal. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 656.

Despite his previous opposition to Danby, Westmorland was assessed as likely to be neutral in the anticipated division on Danby’s bail in March 1681. He resumed his seat at the opening of the Parliament held at Oxford on 21 Mar. 1681 and attended on each of its seven days. On 26 Mar. he protested against the resolution to proceed against Edward Fitzharris by common law rather than by parliamentary impeachment, and he was subsequently one of the ‘great concourse of persons of quality’ to attend Fitzharris’s trial in June. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 95-96.

Westmorland’s finances appear to have become increasingly problematic from the mid-1670s onwards and may in part explain his move towards the opposition. On 10 July 1674 a new settlement was drawn up between Westmorland, his countess and her father, Cardigan, to ensure the payment of her annuity following Westmorland’s conveyance of a number of his estates to Sir John Brownlow^‡ for £18,074 the previous month. Northants. RO, W(A) 2 vii. 1. In February 1676 Westmorland was forced to appeal to his agent in London, William Bellamy, for £50, his ‘word and credit lying at stake’, and in 1679 he was reduced to offering to sell his horse to Hatton for 30 guineas. Ibid. W(A) 7 xvii. 8; Add. 29557, f. 307. Gambling was perhaps one of the causes of Westmorland’s pecuniary embarrassment. In 1681 he wrote to Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle, attributing his recent losses to ‘being so highly elevated with your wine’ and pleading with the duke to accept the £500 he had already paid him, presumably in lieu of whatever greater debts he owed, which appear to have amounted to 2,350 guineas. HMC Montagu, 177; TNA, C107/25.

Westmorland took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May 1685, after which he was present on 73 per cent of all sitting days and was named to seven committees. The new king’s accession offered Westmorland little prospect of relief. Although Princess Anne undertook to recommend his countess to the king and queen’s notice later that year, Lady Westmorland was soon after the subject of scandal amid rumours that she had been found in bed with Robert Constable, 3rd Viscount Dunbar [S], and that she had been ordered back to the country by her cuckolded husband. Add. 61414, f. 66; Verney ms mic. M636/40, ?Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 13 Oct. 1685. The following year Westmorland was the subject of further humiliation when he was removed from the commission of the peace in Northamptonshire. In January and November 1687 Westmorland was included among those believed to be opposed to repeal of the Test, and in May of that year he was noted among those opposed to the king’s policies. In January 1688 he was again noted among those opposed to repeal of the Test, and the same month he was added to a list drawn up by Danby of those peers believed to be in opposition to the king. Although he possessed a private copy of the unlicensed pamphlet composed by Thomas Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, which set out ‘to prove the Church of Rome guilty of stupid idolatry’, Westmorland does not appear to have been averse to wielding his influence on behalf of those known to him, irrespective of their religion. In February 1684 he had stood surety of £5,000 along with Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, Thomas Belasyse, 2nd Viscount Fauconberg, and Sir John Talbot^‡ for the Catholic peer John Belasyse, Baron Belasyse, and in October of that year he had appealed to Hatton to intervene on behalf of William Smith who was being prosecuted for recusancy. Add. 29584, f. 66; Luttrell, i. 301; Add. 29560, f. 385.

Westmorland’s removal from the commission of the peace appears to have left him vulnerable and reliant on the good grace of his neighbour, Hatton. In 1687 both Westmorland and his servants had been the subject of some abuse, and on 5 Feb. 1687 he wrote to Hatton to see that those responsible were apprehended, explaining that ‘our corner is so barren of justices of the peace’ and that he was unable to see to the matter himself having ‘not wholly performed the rest of the ceremony belonging to the employment.’ Hatton evidently did as he was asked, but on 29 Apr. Westmorland troubled him for further assistance having discovered that ‘I have been abused much more than the fellows confessed.’ Add. 29562, ff. 49, 159. Two years later Westmorland was once more compelled to turn to Hatton, on this occasion to seek the release of one Bond who had been imprisoned on his ‘score’ but who he now wished to see at liberty. Add. 29564, f. 20. Such evidence suggests that Westmorland was at best a bungler and at worst, as Ruvigny had concluded, stupid.

Despite his opposition to the king’s policies, Westmorland’s activities during the Revolution are somewhat unclear. A report published in the London Gazette related that he, Lionel Tollemache^‡, styled Lord Huntingtower (later 3rd earl of Dysart [S]), Danby and Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke, had all ‘offered their services to the king.’ Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 322; Eg. 3338, f. 131. Westmorland protested that he was incapacitated by gout but promised Thomas Middleton^‡, earl of Middleton [S], that as soon as he was, ‘dismissed from this unruly companion … I shall be ready to attend his majesty with all dutifulness either with myself and servants alone or with more if I receive his majesty’s command.’ Add. 41805, f. 231. His indisposition may well have been in part diplomatic. A report sent to the States General by the Dutch envoy Dijkvelt at the close of November mentioned Westmorland as one of those in arms for the Prince of Orange at Nottingham; he was similarly included in a list of those said to be in arms for the prince early the following month. Add. 34510, f. 182; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 4, folder 189. Westmorland denied this in a letter to Hatton, and true to form he seems to have been eager to follow Hatton’s lead. Thus, when he eventually travelled to London in December 1688, it was in Hatton’s coach. Add. 29563, ff. 354, 372, 378, 380.

Although he was described as being ‘very ill’ on 8 Jan. 1689, Westmorland proved well enough to take his seat at the opening of the Convention after which he was present on 18 per cent of all sitting days (he ceased to attend after 2 March). Wood, Life and Times, iii. 296. He was named to two committees and on 4 and 6 Feb. was also nominated one of the managers of four conferences concerned with the wording to be used with respect to James II’s desertion or abdication. On 29 Jan. he voted in support of the resolution that the formation of a regency was the best way of preserving the nation, and two days later he voted against declaring William and Mary king and queen. On 4 Feb. he voted against agreeing with the Commons’ use of the word ‘abdicated’ instead of ‘deserted’, and again voted against adopting the Commons’ terms two days later.

Despite his reluctance to support the accession of the new king and queen, in the elections for the new Parliament the following year Westmorland was reported to have been active in promoting the Whig candidates in Northamptonshire, St Andrew St John^‡ and John Parkhurst^‡. The news prompted Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, to ask Hatton to write to his friend, presumably to encourage him to redirect his interest elsewhere. Add. 29594, f. 194. Absent at the opening of the new Parliament, Westmorland took his place on 8 Apr. 1690, after which he was present on 43 per cent of all sitting days during which he was named to two committees. Westmorland protested against the passage of the bill recognizing William and Mary as king and queen on 8 Apr., and two days later he protested again at the resolution to expunge the former protest from the Journal.

Westmorland sat for the final time on 23 May 1690. A newsletter of 17 Sept. 1691 reported that he was dying but that Shrewsbury had been turned back from visiting the stricken lord on hearing that he was ‘somewhat better’. Bodl. Carte 79, f. 414. The improvement proved only fleeting and he succumbed the following day. The cause of his demise appears to have been apoplexy brought on by excessive drinking. Add. 29596, f. 86; 70015, f. 189. In the absence of any children of his own, he was succeeded in the peerage by his half-brother, Sir Vere Fane.

In his will of 23 Oct. 1690 Westmorland directed that he should be buried at Apethorpe, ‘without any pomp or funeral expense extraordinary.’ TNA, PROB 11/408. A lavish funeral would have been out of the question in any case as Westmorland died heavily in debt, his estates mortgaged. Northants. RO, W(A) 6 vi. 3/7. The state of his finances was sufficiently summarized by his response to a request to provide a self-assessment in September 1689. He replied that he ‘never yet knew what it was to be out of debt since I came to my estate.’ Chatsworth, Halifax collection B.7. Westmorland requested that part of his Huntingdonshire estate should be sold to discharge the mortgage on the rest of his lands there. In March 1692 administration was granted to the new earl, as his predecessor’s executors, Shrewsbury and Charles Bertie^‡, had renounced execution. VCH Northants. Fams. i. 100; Northants. RO, W(A) 6 vi. 3/7. Westmorland’s widow, reputed to be a zealous supporter of the Pretender, survived her husband by almost 50 years and later married her former lover, Dunbar. HMC Stuart, vii. 530; Add. 61619, f. 70.