suc. bro. 11 Sept. 1651 as as 3rd earl of MIDDLESEX
First sat 25 Apr. 1660; last sat 11 Feb. 1674
b. c.1625, 2nd s. of Lionel Cranfield†, earl of Middlesex, and Anne, da. of James Brett of Hoby, Leics. educ. unknown. m. 1 May 1655, Rachael (d.1680), da. of Francis Fane†, earl of Westmorland, wid. of Henry Bourchier†, 5th earl of Bath (separated 1661), s.p. d. 26 Oct. 1674; will 30 Mar. pr. 2 Nov 1674.1
Gent. of the bedchamber 1673–d.2
Associated with: Copthall (Copped Hall), Essex;3 Tawstock, Devon;4 Drury Lane, Westminster.5
Likenesses: oil on canvas, by Theodore Russell, c. 1645, National Trust (Trustees of the Sackville Estate), Knole, Kent.
Middlesex was related by marriage to the families of Bourchier, St. John, Villiers, Fane, Carey and Sackville. He inherited a substantial estate from his brother, including lands in Essex, Gloucestershire, Middlesex and Warwickshire.6 The succession proved to be contentious from the outset. Although the 2nd earl had left no sons, from 1653 legal actions were launched on behalf of his surviving daughter, Elizabeth Cranfield, to secure her £14,000 portion and even to question Middlesex’s right to the estates.7 Middlesex also inherited an ongoing dispute with his sister’s husband, Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset (with whom he was otherwise generally on good terms), over the payment of her marriage portion. Granted a pass to travel abroad in 1654, the following year Middlesex finally reached an agreement with Dorset. The same year he also married Rachael, dowager countess of Bath.8 The marriage was a disaster. The money raised by Middlesex from the sale of her plate and goods was reputed to have been wasted ‘in play and rioting’.9 Although some attempt was made at a reconciliation, in 1659 actions were launched in chancery by both parties over non-fulfilment of the terms of the marriage settlement.10 Two years later the couple separated.
No doubt relieved to find some distraction from his woeful domestic situation, towards the end of the Interregnum Middlesex became increasingly involved with conspiracies to restore the monarchy. In September 1658 he conveyed a promise of service to the king and in November was again granted permission to travel abroad, perhaps intending to meet other royalists. Although he seems to have been unwilling to contribute any funds towards the king’s cause in March 1659 (he contracted smallpox at about that time), in July Middlesex joined the fragmented rising initiated by John Mordaunt, Viscount Mordaunt, and was captured at Lincoln.11 Freed on bonds of £10,000 for his good behaviour on 19 Aug., in January 1660 he again offered his services to the king.12
One of the first lords to enter the restored House, Middlesex, with his brother-in-law Dorset, was among a small group of former royalists who tested the resolve of the other peers by taking their seats on 25 Apr. 1660.13 The decision by George Monck, later duke of Albemarle, not to insist on the ‘young lords’ being removed set the seal on the eventual readmission of all the peers to the House. Named to the committees for privileges and for preparing a conference for settling the nation on 27 Apr., on 1 May Middlesex was nominated to the committee established to compose an answer to the king’s letter. The following day he was named to the committee for petitions and shortly after he was named as one of the commissioners to conduct the king to England from The Hague.14 Later that month he was recommended to James Butler, marquess (later duke) of Ormond, as a ‘noble gallant person’ and as a ‘faithful servant’ of the king.15 Middlesex quickly established himself as one of the king’s regular hunting companions. In July 1660 he entertained him at his Essex seat of Copthall.16
On 14 Aug. he was added to the committee considering the bill for William Cavendish, marquess (later duke) of Newcastle, but two days later he was granted leave to be absent. Returning to the House in November, on the 6th Middlesex was named to the committee for the bill to restore Henry Arundell, 3rd Baron Arundell of Wardour, to his estates and he was also added to that considering Dorset’s bill on 23 November. On 15 Dec. he was named to one further committee during the session, considering the Hatfield level bill.
Middlesex took his seat shortly after the opening of the Cavalier Parliament on 14 May but on the 22nd he was again granted leave to be absent. He resumed his seat on 10 June and was thereafter present for approximately 38 per cent of all sitting days. On 13 June his wife secured an order for their separation from the court of arches, complaining of his cruelty and desertion. On 27 June Middlesex was named to the committee chaired by Dorset considering Sir Anthony Browne’s bill but on 6 July he secured permission from the king to be absent again.17 Two days later he was also granted leave of absence by the House. In compliance with the terms of the king’s warrant, Middlesex completed a proxy form registering his proxy with Dorset but no record of it appears to have been entered in the proxy book.18
Middlesex returned to the House on 20 Nov. 1661 and on 26 Nov. he was named to the committee for the Quakers’ bill. The following month, on 11 Dec. he was forced to claim his privilege in a case brought against him by Sir William Underhill, under-sheriff of Warwickshire, in the court of common pleas.. Middlesex was named to two further committees during the session: on 8 Feb. 1662 to that considering Sir Aston Cockayne’s bill and on 11 Apr. to the committee for the glass bottles bill, again chaired by Dorset.
Middlesex took his seat at the opening of the second session on 18 Feb. 1663, following which he was present on approximately 37 per cent of all sitting days. His attendance was once more somewhat erratic. On 23 Feb. he was again excused his absence at a call of the House. He resumed his seat two days later when he was named to the committee for petitions and on 11 Apr. he was named to the committee for the Ashdown forest bill, a measure with which Dorset was very closely involved. In May he had to appeal for his privilege to be upheld again when Francis Grimes arrested one of his servants. The previous month had witnessed the beginning of a far more damaging case, when on 14 Apr. Middlesex’s niece, Lady Elizabeth Cranfield, absconded from her grandmother’s house and sought refuge with John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater. Although Bridgwater claimed to have received the king’s permission to shelter the girl, his letter to Lady Elizabeth’s stepfather, Sir Chichester Wrey‡, explaining his actions failed to defuse the situation, which was further complicated when, on Lady Elizabeth’s behalf, Bridgwater accused Middlesex of failing to abide by the terms of his brother’s will and denying her the £14,000 portion. He also revived the claim that as sole heir of the 2nd earl she was entitled to the entire Cranfield estate.19
Middlesex responded to the crisis by issuing a challenge to Bridgwater in (as Bridgwater phrased it) ‘the Billingsgate dialect’ but the intended duel was discovered and prevented when both peers were secured.20 An attempt at mediation failed and Middlesex further complicated matters by offending the king with his intransigence. On 12 June the House was informed of the affair. Following discussion, Middlesex was committed to the Tower and Bridgwater to the custody of Black Rod.21 On 18 June Middlesex petitioned the House successfully to be transferred from the Tower and to be secured under house arrest instead. Discussion of the affair was resumed in the House on 25 June and the following day it was ordered that the two peers should be reprehended. On 27 June Bridgwater and Middlesex made their submissions, Middlesex seeking forgiveness for the ‘just provocation I have given by using most unfitting and most unbecoming language to a member of this House’. On 2 July he was finally readmitted to his place.22
The case between the two families continued to be debated in the courts for a further two years, Middlesex pursuing his cause (according to Bridgwater) ‘with as much malice as possible’. It was ultimately settled essentially in Middlesex’s favour, with the recognition of the validity of his father’s and brother’s wills and an order to fulfil the terms laid down in them by paying Lady Elizabeth the stipulated portion when she attained the age of 16.23
On 3 July 1663, the day after his humiliating return to the House, Middlesex requested that John Cramphorne, a carman who had ‘affronted’ the lords ‘as they were come to attend the Parliament’ the previous day and who had been taken into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, might be taken before the lord chief justice and released following the securing of sureties for his good behaviour. Middlesex continued to sit until 17 July but he seems to have taken no further role in the House’s business during the session.
Middlesex took his seat once more on 16 Mar. 1664 and on 21 Mar. he was named to the committee for privileges. On 27 Apr. he was named to the committee considering the bill for Sir John Packington and the inhabitants of Aylesbury but he failed to sit after 11 May. In August, the refusal of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, to exchange one of his forest walks with Middlesex prompted Prince Rupert, duke of Cumberland, to offer to exchange one of his instead.24 Middlesex returned to the House for the following session on 24 Nov. and the next day he was again named to the privileges committee. He was absent at a call of the House on 7 Dec. but returned two days later and sat for a further five days before leaving for the remainder of the session.
Middlesex failed to attend the session of Parliament held at Oxford in 1665. He returned to the House on 18 Sept. 1666 at the opening of the new session but, having attended on a mere four days, on 13 Nov. he registered his proxy in favour of Thomas Belasyse, 2nd Viscount Fauconberg. The proxy was vacated when he resumed his seat on 3 December. He then sat for a further three days before quitting the session.
In June 1667 Middlesex and Charles Howard, earl of Carlisle, were placed in joint command of securing the river defences at Woolwich by order of the king.25 Both appear to have escaped recriminations over the Dutch success during the summer. Middlesex took his seat in the following session on 16 Oct. 1667. The same day he was named to the committee considering the bill for Gilbert Holles, 3rd earl of Clare. Excused at a call held on 29 Oct. on account of sickness, Middlesex’s attendance during the session was again marginal and between October 1667 and March 1668 he attended a mere 11 of the 122 sitting days.
On 31 Mar. 1669 Middlesex was granted a pass to go into France.26 Later that year it was rumoured that he was to be appointed governor of Tangiers.27 The rumoured appointment failed to materialize and he was excused attendance in the Lords on the grounds of ill health at a call on 29 October. Noted as being abroad at a subsequent call on 21 Feb. 1670, he was provoked into a rare dispute with his brother-in-law Dorset later that month, following the death of his mother, over the distribution of the dowager countess’s personal estate.28 On 24 Oct. he took his seat in the House once more but attended on just four days. On 13 Mar. 1671 he registered his proxy in favour of his Essex neighbour, William Petre, 4th Baron Petre, which was vacated on 17 April.
In March 1672, Middlesex was one of several local landholders to enter a caveat against the new charter for Stratford-upon-Avon.29 He returned to the House on 4 Feb. 1673, when he was named to the sessional committees for petitions and privileges. After just two days, he absented himself once more and he was recorded as being sick at a call of the House on 13 February. On 1 Mar. he registered his proxy in favour of Charles Gerard, Baron Gerard of Brandon, which was vacated on 17 March. After a further three days Middlesex again absented himself.
Rumours circulated that Middlesex had died in September 1673 but he proved to be sufficiently animate to be named a gentleman of the bedchamber the following month. He appears to have owed his appointment to the interest of his nephew, Charles Sackville, styled Lord Buckhurst (later 6th earl of Dorset and Middlesex). In return, he settled his estate on the young man.30 On 27 Oct. he took his seat in the House but, having attended for just three days, he ceased to sit for the remainder of the session. He took his seat once more on 7 Jan. 1674 but sat for just one day before rumours circulated that his London home had been shut up on account of plague. The plague rumours proved to be false but Middlesex was sick at a call on 12 January.31 He rallied to resume his seat again on 16 Jan. but sat for just three more days before quitting the chamber for the last time.
Middlesex’s infrequent attendance of the House belies his real influence. At least two undated letters, one of them from Thomas Savage, 3rd Earl Rivers, in which Middlesex’s presence on committees is requested, point to his interest in the House.32 He was also able to maintain good relations with the court throughout his life. Middlesex died in October 1674 and was buried in Westminster Abbey alongside his father and brother.33 As he had formerly undertaken, he left his estates to his nephew Buckhurst, as well as substantial bequests of £4,000 to his nephew Edward Sackville‡ and £1,500 to Richard Sackville.34 Legacies of a further £500 were made to servants.35 The peerage was revived the following year for Buckhurst.
R.D.E.E.- 1 TNA, PROB 11/344.
- 2 CSP Dom. 1673, p. 585.
- 3 VCH Essex, v. 122.
- 4 Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss, U269/c23/3.
- 5 Sackville mss, U269/c266, T. Clarke to Middlesex, n.d.
- 6 TNA, C10/472/44; Sackville mss, U269/c96; VCH Warws. iii. 259.
- 7 TNA, C10/472/44.
- 8 CSP Dom. 1654, p. 442; B. Harris, Charles Sackville, 6th Earl of Dorset, 57.
- 9 HMC 5th Rep. 145.
- 10 TNA, C6/149/108.
- 11 CCSP, iv. 90, 157, 337; Hatton Corresp. i. 17.
- 12 CSP Dom. 1659–60, p. 127; CCSP, iv. 527.
- 13 CCSP, iv. 675; HMC 6th Rep. 208; Bodl. Clarendon 72, ff. 19–20.
- 14 HMC 3rd Rep. 89; CCSP, v. 7.
- 15 Bodl. Carte 214, f. 169.
- 16 Whitelocke Diary, 609.
- 17 Sackville mss, U269/O277.
- 18 Ibid. U269/O33.
- 19 Herts ALS, Ashridge mss, AH 1070; HEHL, EL 8093; HMC 7th Rep. 173; TNA, C6/166/89.
- 20 HEHL, EL 8092.
- 21 Warws. CRO, CR 2017/c48/166.
- 22 Morgan Lib. New York, Rulers of England box 9, no. 25; Bodl. Carte 222, ff. 21–22.
- 23 Herts ALS, Ashridge mss, AH 1078, 1079, 1089; HEHL, EL 8096; Sackville mss, U269/L36; TNA, C6/166/89; C33/221, ff. 331, 422, 771; C33/223, ff. 81, 317–18, 670.
- 24 Sackville mss, U269/c261, F. Berkeley to Middlesex, 24 Aug. 1664.
- 25 HMC Le Fleming, 50.
- 26 CSP Dom. 1668–9, p. 255.
- 27 Add. 36916, f. 5.
- 28 Sackville mss, U269/c23/2.
- 29 CSP Dom. 1671–2, p. 177; VCH Warws. iii. 251.
- 30 Verney ms mic. M636/26, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 1 Sept. 1673; CSP Dom. 1673, p. 585.
- 31 Verney ms mic. M636/27, Sir Ralph Verney to Edmund Verney, 12 and 15 Jan. 1674.
- 32 Sackville mss, U269/c261.
- 33 Bodl. ms film 293 (Newdigate), L.C. 105.
- 34 Ibid. L.C. 98; Bodl. Carte 243, f. 161; Verney ms mic. M636/27, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 29 Oct. 1674.
- 35 Sackville mss, U269/T85/4.