DORE, Thomas (c.1658-1705), of Lymington, Hants.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1690-1715, ed. D. Hayton, E. Cruickshanks, S. Handley, 2002
Available from Boydell and Brewer



1690 - Oct. 1705

Family and Education

b. c.1658, s. of Philip Dore of Lymington. educ. Trinity, Oxf. matric. 15 July 1673, aged 15; M. Temple 1676.  m. by 1681, Elianor, da. and coh. of John Button† of Buckland, Lymington, 1s. 1da. 2 other. ch. d.v.p.1

Offices Held

Freeman, Lymington 1681, mayor 1683–5; freeman, Winchester by 1705.2

Capt. of ft. Duke of Bolton’s 2nd regt. 1691–4; capt. and lt.-col. 28 Ft. 1694–8, 34 Ft. 1702–5, 1 Ft. Gds. 1705–d.3


Dore’s family had resided in Lymington since the early 17th century. His father had been mayor in 1652 and 1653 and an assessment commissioner for the county in 1657. Dore himself became prominent in the borough, doubtless helped by his marriage, which made him the brother-in-law of John* and Paul Burrard I*, who together had a strong electoral interest at Lymington. In 1683 he and other members of his family were suspected of complicity in the Rye House Plot, at which time he was described as a ‘great’ Whig, and one of the small group which dominated elections in the borough. He was mayor at this time, as he was in 1685 during the Monmouth rebellion, when it was reported that he ‘and several other rebels to the number of fourscore horse and foot are hovering about New Forest . . . and have committed several robberies in those parts’. The Sussex militia was ordered to march into Hampshire to suppress the rebels, and soon most of them were willing to accept the government’s proffered pardon. Dore, however, was excepted. He may have fled abroad or remained in hiding in England. If arrested, he does not seem to have been brought to trial, and a year later, in August 1686, his pardon was procured by the 2nd Earl of Sunderland.4

Dore actively supported the Prince of Orange in 1688, according to his own later petition, in which he stated that

being early acquainted with his present Majesty’s great and happy design of rescuing these kingdoms and by an express from Holland having received many of his Majesty’s declarations, [he] did carefully disperse the same and afterwards waited on his Majesty in the west, with several men and horses equipped at his own charge.

After the Revolution he received the patronage of the 1st Duke of Bolton (Charles Powlett†), probably obtained through the Burrards, who after 1690 shared their electoral interest at Lymington with the Powletts. In March 1689 Bolton secured Dore’s appointment as woodward of the New Forest, of which the Duke himself was warden, but the claims of a previous holder prevented the patent going through, despite assertions that

Mr Dore hath always showed a steady and constant zeal for the Protestant religion and the laws and liberty of the kingdom and hath exposed himself to great hazards and undergone many real sufferings for the same whereby his estate hath been greatly impaired; that he hath withstood many frequent solicitations (though backed with the offers of great regards and preferment) which have been made him to consent to the taking off the Penal Laws and Test and to engage his interest to be chosen as Member of Parliament to that end.

He was compensated for this disappointment by the grant of a captaincy in one of the Duke’s regiments of foot. He unsuccessfully contested Christchurch in 1690 as Bolton’s candidate but was returned at Lymington, with his brother-in-law, John Burrard, after a contest. He was classed as a Whig in Lord Carmarthen’s (Sir Thomas Osborne†) list of the new Parliament, and as a Court supporter by Robert Harley* in April 1691. Dore was given a fortnight’s leave of absence on 17 Dec. 1691 to attend his regiment, and a week’s leave on 4 Dec. 1693. He was named on several lists of placemen in this Parliament, and was listed as a friend by Henry Guy* in anticipation of the attack on Guy for corruption during the 1694–5 session. Re-elected for Lymington in 1695, Dore was forecast as likely to support the Court on 31 Jan. 1696 over the proposed council of trade, signed the Association early and voted with the Court in March for fixing the price of guineas at 22s. On 25 Nov. 1696 he voted for the attainder of Sir John Fenwick†. Dore was given leave from the House for two weeks on 17 May 1698. Named as a placeman in a list of July 1698 and in an analysis of the new Parliament of September 1698, his regiment was in fact disbanded that year and he spent the next four years on half-pay. He voted against the disbanding bill on 18 Jan. 1699, was again listed as a placeman in an analysis of the House of early 1700, and was classed as a Whig by Robert Harley after the general election of December 1701. Shortly before the King’s death he was appointed lieutenant-colonel in a newly formed regiment of foot.5

After the accession of Anne, Dore remained loyal to the Whigs, voting on 13 Feb. 1703 for agreeing with the Lords’ amendments to the bill on the abjuration oath. He was forecast as an opponent of the Tack and voted against it or was absent on 28 Nov. 1704. Although expected to take over his regiment on the death of the colonel in 1705, he was not appointed, being given a troop in the Guards instead. He was listed as a placeman in 1705, and as a ‘Churchman’ in an analysis of the new Parliament. Although he was listed as voting for the Court candidate for Speaker on 25 Oct. 1705 and as supporting the Court on the ‘place clause’ of the regency bill on 18 Feb. 1706, these were only statements of his general sympathies, since he was reported as dangerously ill on 22 Sept. 1705 and had died by 16 Oct.6

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Author: Paula Watson


  • 1. Berry, Hants Gen. 35; S. Burrard, Annals of Walhampton, 20–21.
  • 2. E. King, Old Times Revisited, Lymington, 184, 191; Hants RO, Winchester bor. recs. ordnance bk. 7, f. 214.
  • 3. CSP Dom. 1690–1, p. 507; 1694–5, p. 30.
  • 4. King, 183, 188, 189; CSP Dom. July–Sept. 1683, pp. 378, 385–6, 391–2; 1685, pp. 211, 213, 230; 1686–7, pp. 227, 250; SP 31/2/20, 44/164/212.
  • 5. Cal. Treas. Pprs. 1557–1696, pp. 58, 64, 143–4; CSP Dom. 1689–90, p. 32; T1/4/146, 67, f. 265; T1/11/8, ff. 28, 30, 33; Cal. Treas. Bks. xiii. 275; xvii. 1124.
  • 6. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 514, 534, 594, 602.