goodwill of Rochester, she grew uneasy, and was further disquieted by the dismissal of Richmond from the mastership of the horse. She desired that the pension of 3,000l. offered to her might be added to that of 2,000l. proposed for her son; but claimed in vain the fulfilment of a supposed promise by Charles II of a large Irish estate or interest. Fully aware of the general hatred against her, and apprehensive of a direct attack in parliament, she crossed to France, where she had large investments, in August 1685.
In France she met with a cold welcome. Although in a personal interview Louis XIV destroyed a formal sentence of banishment against her, she soon returned to England, and remained at "Whitehall (Ellis Correspondence, i. 178) till the end of July 1688, when her sudden departure to France gave rise to 'great conjectures' (ib. ii. 78, 105). At New Year 1689 the Duke of Richmond gave explanations to Louis on behalf of himself and of his mother, who was charged with scandalous utterances about the birth of the Prince of Wales (Danghau, ii. 280); tbere had been an old grudge between her and Queen Mary of Modena. At the same time she made vain endeavours to recall to William III her former (supposed) services to his interest (cf. Henry Sidney in his Diary, &c, ii. 307-8). Her pension was withdrawn; in April 1691 a fire consumed her apartments and the treasures accumulated in them; in the previous year her father had died, and early in 1692 Richmond left France to reconcile himself to the new regime in England. His allowance was generously continued to his mother by Louis XIV.
The remainder of her life, chiefly spent on her estate at Aubigny, which she managed with much care, was a struggle against pecuniary difficulties, a royal decree year after year staying execution. In 1697 she received permission from Louis to visit London, but William III forbade her landing. In 1704 the estates of Brittany reluctantly paid her a compensation for her father's manor, appropriated by the government for the harbour at Brest. Under the regency her pension was raised to twenty thousand livres, and converted into an annuity. St.-Simon in 1718 speaks of her as old, embarrassed in her affairs, and 'very converted and penitent' (Mémoires, edit. 1863, x. 48). In 1723 she lost her worthless son, the Duke of Richmond. She died on 14 Nov. 1734 at Paris, whither she had journeyed to consult her physicians. She was buried in the church of the Barefooted Carmelites, in the chapel belonging to the De Rieux family. Among those who saw her in her old age were Voltaire, who thought her still very beautiful, her great-granddaughter (the mother of Charles Fox), the first Lord Holland, and George Selwyn. The influence of the duchess was due in part to her courage, to what her biographer terms her esprit froid, and to her business capacity. But the chief source of her power lay of course in her personal beauty (Evelyn, Diary, ii. 253). In contrast to the Duchess of Cleveland, she was said at times of difficulty to rely chiefly on the influence of tears (H. Sidney, Diary, ed. Blencowe, ii. 114 n.) There is no reason to suppose that she had any literary tastes, though Nathaniel Lee dedicated two plays to her. Albeit recklessly extravagant, she does not appear to have carried the vice of gambling to the same extent as the Duchess of Mazarin. The people detested 'Madam Carwell,' or 'Carewell,' as she was familiarly called, more heartily than any other of the king's favourites.
The earliest portrait of the Duchess of Portsmouth is a miniature by Samuel Cooper [q. v.], who died in 1672. Other portraits of her remain by Lely, Kneller, H. Gascar, and Mignard (at the National Portrait Gallery). Engravings of her appear in several series of portraits of ladies of the court of France (Forneron,p. 195, note, and ib. p. 237). Hermotto, 'En la rose je fleuris,' is still borne by her descendants, the Dukes of Richmond and Gordon.
