BERTIE, Robert (1660-1723)

Willoughby (as he was styled from his father’s succession to the earldom of Lindsey in 1666) seems to have been a belligerent man: he was likened by one of his relatives to ‘one of the battering rams of our family’ (an allusion to the Bertie coat of arms). Ibid. ii. 97. In spite of this abrasiveness, the alliance of the Bertie and Osborne families by the marriage of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), to Willoughby’s aunt Bridget Bertie meant that from an early age Willoughby was marked out for political advancement. Connection with the family of Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, on the other hand, seems not to have been so significant for his career. At the age of 18 Willoughby was married to the heiress Mary Wynn, through the mediation of Sir Thomas Meres^‡. The following year, he was proposed as a candidate at Merioneth in the second election of 1679, possibly also at Meres’ behest, making use of his interest in the area as inheritor of the Wynn estates, but he seems not to have stood on this occasion. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 515.

Having returned from his continental tour, Willoughby was quick to reveal his combative persona. He weighed in against the family retainer Edward Christian in the summer of 1681, accusing him of cheating both his father and his grandfather. Add. 28051, ff. 105–6. Three years later, Willoughby was reported to be on the point of fighting a duel with his neighbour John Manners, 9th earl (later duke) of Rutland. Although it is not clear what the cause of the dispute was or whether the bout ever came to pass, it may have been connected with a former disagreement between the two men over Rutland shutting his gates against Willoughby. Verney ms mic. M636/39, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 28 Aug. 1684. On that occasion their contretemps was defused by the mediation of Willoughby’s uncle Charles Bertie^‡. Belvoir Castle mss, letters xix, ff. 37–38.

The following year (1685) Willoughby was elected for Boston on the family interest. This followed on from his appointment as recorder of the town but he soon fell foul of James II and in December he was put out of his military command, along with two of his brothers, for joining in the opposition protest at the management of the elections. Browning, Danby, i. 370n.; HMC Rutland, ii. 97. Two years he later, in 1687, he was also removed as a justice of the peace. That year Willoughby assisted Danby in drawing up a list of those peers believed to be opposed to the king’s policies to be sent to William of Orange. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 647. The outbreak of the revolution of 1688 found Willoughby at Danby’s side at York. There his impetuous nature once more drew him into a quarrel, this time with Richard Lumley, Baron Lumley (later earl of Scarbrough), which was only patched up through the mediation of several of the other gentry in arms. Willoughby excused his rebellion against the king, arguing that ‘it was the first time that any Bertie was ever engaged against the crown, and it was his trouble; but there was a necessity either to part with our religion and properties or to do it’. Reresby Mems. 532, 587; Eg. 3336, ff. 1–5.

Despite his forwardness in the Revolution, in marked contrast to his father, who remained loyal if inactive until the very last moment, Willoughby failed to secure his return for Lincolnshire for the Convention and had once more to be content with representing Boston. He was rewarded early on, though, by being appointed to the chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster, a position formerly held by the family’s arch-rival, Robert Carr^‡. Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster Office-holders, 3. He was also one of three candidates put forward to the king by the attorney general to command the militia in North Wales, where he had ‘a good estate in two counties’. CSP Dom. 1689–90, p. 384. Although he was elected to both Boston and Preston in March 1690, in the latter Willoughby faced a fierce contest, which threatened to overshadow his supposedly dominating interest in the borough as chancellor of the duchy. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 338. The following month he was called to the Lords by a writ of acceleration to help bolster Danby’s following in the upper House and, during the ensuing five years, he was a steady supporter of the court interest. Browning, Danby, i. 467–8; CSP Dom. 1689–90, p. 559.

Willoughby’s early career in the Lords was unremarkable. He took his seat on 21 Apr. 1690, a month into the session, and was thereafter present on 21 sitting days (approximately 39 per cent of the whole), and was named to one committee. He then returned to the House for the second session on 2 Oct. and was present on almost 70 per cent of all sitting days and was named to seven committees. On 6 Oct. he voted for the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough from their imprisonment in the Tower. During a fortnight’s absence from 7 to 23 Oct. he registered his proxy with Carmarthen (as Danby had since become). Following the adjournment, Willoughby officiated as lord great chamberlain in his father’s absence at the introduction of Edward Villiers, Viscount Villiers (later earl of Jersey), on 31 Mar. 1691.

In the following session that commenced that winter, Willoughby was present on 81 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to 14 committees. Having attended the prorogation day on 24 May 1692 he then took his seat in the ensuing session on 4 Nov., was present on 65 per cent of all sitting days and was named to six committees. In December he voted against committing the place bill, which he then voted to reject on 3 Jan. 1693. That month he was assessed by Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, as a likely supporter of the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk. On 2 Jan. Ailesbury’s prediction was confirmed when Willoughby voted in favour of reading the bill. On 4 Feb. he found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder. Absent from the remainder of the session after 20 Feb. 1693, Willoughby again ensured that his proxy was lodged with Carmarthen.

The summer of 1693 saw the beginnings of a dispute between Willoughby and his father over damage caused to the estate at Grimsthorpe by over-felling of trees, something from which Wharton had attempted to protect the estate during negotiations with the earl on his marriage to Wharton’s daughter, Elizabeth. Willoughby later estimated that his father had felled timber worth in excess of £4,589 and the earl’s actions proved to be the basis for a series of legal actions that lasted well into the ensuing decade. Willoughby insisted that the money should have gone towards payment of the £4,000 portion for his sister, Arabella Bertie (Countess Rivers), rather than into his father’s pocket. TNA, C9/445/68. During the year, Willoughby was also an active participant in the passage of the Million Act, subscribing £5,000 to the total in September. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 195.

The autumn of 1693 found Willoughby frustrated in his efforts to employ his interest as chancellor of the duchy to secure the vacant seat at Clitheroe for his brother Philip. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 324. In the midst of this, he took his seat in the House at the opening of the new session on 7 Nov. 1693 (he had previously been present on the prorogation days of 2 May and 26 October). He was thereafter present on approximately two-thirds of all sitting days, and was named to three committees. During his father’s enforced absence from the House in January 1694, Willoughby officiated as lord great chamberlain and he undertook the role again on four further occasions between February and the close of the session on 25 April. On 17 Feb. he voted against reversing the court of chancery’s dismission in the case Montagu v. Bath.

In August 1694 Willoughby was again unsuccessful in his efforts to employ his interest, this time on behalf of one Captain Finney for the office of provost marshal of Barbados. The ‘aged and very infirm’ incumbent, George Hannay, appears to have ultimately been replaced by a relative. CSP Dom. 1694–5, p. 262; CSP Dom. 1695, p. 138. Willoughby returned to the House for the final session of the Parliament on 12 Nov. 1694, when he introduced Henry Herbert, as Baron Herbert of Chirbury, after which he was present on just over three-quarters of all sitting days, during which he was named to 17 committees. Once again he officiated on several occasions as lord great chamberlain. Absent from the House from 27 Mar. 1695 until 9 Apr., on 3 Apr. Willoughby again covered his absence by registering his proxy with Leeds (as Carmarthen had now become). On 29 Apr. Willoughby received the proxy of John West, 6th Baron De la Warr, which was vacated on 18 June.

Willoughby took his seat in the new Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695, after which he was present on 65 per cent of all sitting days and was named to 15 committees. On 14 Feb. he was nominated to that appointed to prepare a report concerning the claim entered by Sir Richard Verney, later 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke, for a writ of summons, and the following day he was one of six peers delegated to wait on the king with the report. Willoughby may have been eager to protect his family’s interests in the case as Verney, who had been unsuccessful in petitioning for a summons as Baron Brooke, and now sought to be recognized as Baron Willoughby de Broke, a title close enough to Willoughby’s own to excite his interest. Private concerns were presumably overtaken by the news of the assassination plot and the subsequent drawing up of the Association in February 1696, which divided the Bertie family: the sons of James Bertie, earl of Abingdon, in the House of Commons refusing to sign, while Willoughby and his brothers, Charles, Peregrine and Philip, all concurred in putting their signatures to it. HMC Hastings, ii. 259.

Willoughby took his seat in the second session on 23 Nov. 1696 (attending approximately 69 per cent of all sitting days and being named to eight committees). Despite his earlier signing of the Association, by the winter of 1696 his support for the court, along with that of a number of his kinsmen, had begun to wane and in December he joined his father in voting against the attainder of Sir John Fenwick^‡. Add. 47608, pt. 5, f. 138. His determined opposition (and that of several of his kinsmen) attracted the king’s displeasure, who complained that ‘the whole family of Berties’ had been ranged against him in the session. Horwitz, Parl. Pol., 192–3. In April 1697 Willoughby was put out of office and replaced as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster by Thomas Grey, earl of Stamford. CSP Dom. 1697, p. 125; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 216. Deprived of his place, Willoughby continued to oppose the court and, having taken his seat in the House on 23 Dec. 1697 (after which he was present on 66 per cent of all sitting days), in March 1698 he voted against committing the bill for punishing Charles Duncombe^‡. On 29 June he received the proxy of Peregrine Osborne, who sat under a writ of acceleration as Lord Osborne (later 2nd duke of Leeds), which was vacated by the close.

Absent at the opening of the new Parliament, Willoughby returned to the House on 13 Dec. 1698, after which he attended on 69 per cent of all sitting days. In February 1699 he opposed concurring with the resolution to offer to assist the king to retain his Dutch guards, which no doubt further alienated him from William’s good graces. Willoughby took his seat once more on 9 Jan. 1700, after which he was present on 65 per cent of all sitting days. He was forecast as being in favour of continuing the East India Company as a corporation in February, and on 23 Feb. he voted in favour of adjourning into a Committee of the Whole to discuss amendments to the East India bill.

Despite opposition to the court, Willoughby was appointed lord lieutenant of Lincolnshire in 1700, replacing his now sickly father, though his appointment was more an indication of the continuing strength of the Bertie interest in the county than of a change of tack on Willoughby’s part. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Feb. 1701, after which he was present on 63 per cent of all sitting days, and in June he voted against acquitting John Somers, Baron Somers. Lindsey (as he had become on the death of his father in May) was successful in championing the sitting members for Lincolnshire, Charles Dymoke^‡ and Sir John Thorold^‡, in the second election of the year and was ‘very zealous in encouraging loyal addresses to his Majesty from all the corporations’. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 355.

Lindsey was present for the prorogation days of 7 Aug. and 18 Sept. prior to taking his seat in the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701. In advance of the session he was also noted as having been ‘very zealous’ in promoting the composition of loyal addresses from Lincolnshire in response to the French king’s recognition of the Pretender. Flying Post, 30 Oct.–1 Nov. 1701. Having taken his seat, he was present on three-quarters of all sitting days. The accession of the queen offered Lindsey a fresh opportunity to assert his position as a household officer. In May 1702, eager as ever to safeguard his perquisites as lord great chamberlain (however petty), he wrote to William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, to point out that he had not as yet ‘received the two towels with which her majesty washed her hands in Westminster Hall on the day of her coronation’ and requested that they be conveyed to him by return. HMC Lindsey, 373. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 21 Dec. 1702, attending for 43 per cent of all sitting days. Estimated as a supporter of the second occasional conformity bill in January 1703, on 16 Jan. he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause.

The death of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, in 1703 prompted a renewal of Lindsey’s pretensions to the now defunct earldom and in March he entered a caveat against alienating the title from his family. Add. 70075, newsletter, 20 Mar. 1703. Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, once more noted him as a supporter of the Occasional Conformity bill in a series of forecasts compiled in November. On 14 Dec. Lindsey was recorded in one list as having supported the bill by proxy (though no record of proxies survives for this session). Another simply noted him as one of the 59 peers who voted in favour of passing the bill but, as he failed to take his seat in the session until the following January, it is clear that his vote must have been made by proxy. Lincs. Archs. MON/13/3/9.

Having attended the prorogation day of 22 Apr. 1703, Lindsey returned to the House for the new session on 12 Jan. 1704, and was present on just under half of all sitting days in the session. During the year his attention continued to be taken up with family concerns. In May his heir, Robert Bertie, styled Lord Willoughby, died while staying in Wolfenbüttel and later that summer he became embroiled in a lengthy dispute with his stepmother, the dowager countess, over payment of her dowry. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 420. Lindsey countered a suit brought by the countess before the court of common pleas with his own bill in chancery in July, complaining that she had taken possession of family muniments, which she refused to yield up. TNA, C9/344/28. Absent at the opening of the new session of October 1704, he was excused at a call of the House on 23 November. On 20 Dec. the dowager Lady Lindsey petitioned the Lords that she might be permitted to continue her suit in spite of Lindsey’s privilege. Lindsey finally took his seat on 10 Jan. 1705 (and was present on just under 42 per cent of all sitting days) and, following debate on 16 Jan., the House rejected the petition submitted by his stepmother.

Lindsey’s success in the House may have been connected with his gradual political realignment. By February 1705 it was commented that he had ‘taken up the profession of a Whig’ but two years later he was compelled to resort to law again to attempt to secure an account of his father’s estate from his stepmother. Lincs. Archs. MASS/20/51, Burrell to Sir W. Massingberd; TNA, C9/445/68. Lindsey’s change of political heart gained him the interest of John Manners, styled marquess of Granby (later 2nd duke of Rutland), who urged his father (Rutland) to lend his support to Lindsey’s candidates for Lincolnshire in the forthcoming election. HMC Rutland, ii. 182. Lindsey’s brother Albemarle Bertie was accordingly returned for the county, along with George Whichcot^‡, but in spite of his very public move to the Whigs, in April 1705 Lindsey was still assessed (without foundation) as a Jacobite in a list of peers’ political allegiances. Stowe 224, ff. 330–1.

Lindsey took his seat in the new Parliament on 27 Oct. 1705, but he attended just 17 days of the 95-day session and he was again excused at a call of the House on 12 November. In spite of his infrequent attendance and apparently fluctuating loyalties, in December he was granted a step up in the peerage, taking his seat as marquess of Lindsey on 10 Dec. 1706, after which he was present on 56 per cent of all sitting days of the 1706-7 session. In January 1707 he became involved in a dispute with Henry Grey, marquess (later duke) of Kent, over their respective pretensions as lord chamberlain and lord great chamberlain to the right to lead royal processions. Add. 70277, R. Harley to Kent, 11 Jan. 1707; Beinecke Lib. OSB MSS 163, box 1, Biscoe to Maunsell, 4 Jan. 1707. The dispute was later referred to a committee of the Privy Council, which reported in May. TNA, PC 1/2/64. The progress of the Union treaty also caused Lindsey and a number of other holders of hereditary offices to seek protection for their rights and in February Lindsey seconded a motion of Thomas Tufton, 6th earl of Thanet, over the preservation of hereditary offices within the treaty. Timberland, ii. 174. The following month he introduced his brother Albemarle and George Whichcot to the queen with the Lincoln address. London Gazette, 24–27 Mar. 1707.

Lindsey attended just four days of the 107-day session of the first Parliament of Great Britain. Assessed once more as a Whig in a list of the peerage of May 1708, he was successful in securing the return of George Whichcot along with his heir, Peregrine Bertie* , styled Lord Willoughby (later 2nd duke of Ancaster), for Lincolnshire, in spite of Willoughby’s Tory sympathies. Lindsey took his place in the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708, and was present on 27 per cent of all sitting days in the session. The following January he voted against permitting Scottish peers with British titles to vote in elections for Scottish representative peers. In April he failed to persuade the House to commit a bill for confirming his rights in Havering Park, which had previously probably been managed through the Commons by his brother Peregrine Bertie^‡.

Lindsey failed to attend the second session of the Parliament and was marked sick at the time of the Sacheverell vote in March 1710. Add. 15574, ff. 65–68. This was in spite of the confident predictions of certain members of the countess of Lindsey’s legal team, who were still attempting to reach an agreement with him, that the trial would force him to return to town. Lindsey’s absence allowed a number of peers the freedom to capitalize on the opportunities afforded by the trial and it was noted that they ‘have mightily entrenched upon the lord great chamberlain, and not only appoint themselves such a number of tickets by their own authority, but attempt to contract my lord’s own box into a narrow compass, yet it seems my lord cannot be prevailed upon to come up to defend his own right’. HMC Ancaster, 439.

Lindsey was marked doubtful in an assessment of potential supporters of his new ministry compiled in October by Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford. Having at last taken his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710, he attended just over a fifth of all sitting days. He was absent from 10 Mar. 1711, registering his proxy two days later with his kinsman Montagu Venables Bertie, 2nd earl of Abingdon, but vacating it by the close. In May 1711 he was compelled to defend his rights once again on two fronts: first during the ongoing negotiations over the Lindsey level bill (though he was not present in the House at the time) and second over Harley’s intention to take the title of earl of Oxford. Lindsey’s son Peregrine Bertie^‡ warned Harley of his father’s likely opposition, pointing out that it was ‘what was done by himself and Lord Abingdon when this duke of [Bucks John Sheffield, duke of Buckingham and Mulgrave], had thoughts of that title’. Harley’s family reckoned Lindsey’s opposition to be the result of the encouragement of Thomas Wharton, earl (later marquess) of Wharton, who no doubt took pleasure in inflicting any discomfort he could upon Harley. HMC Portland, iv. 689; v. 655–6. Lindsey’s efforts to procure a caveat noting his family’s claim to the title came to nothing, though a minor compromise was achieved when Harley adopted the title earl of Oxford and Mortimer rather than holding out for the earldom of Oxford alone. In addition, Harley was at pains to stress that neither Lindsey, ‘nor none of your family … should take it ill of him, since it was not his seeking’. HMC Ancaster, 442–3.

Lindsey undertook to employ his interest on behalf of his brother Philip Bertie at the by-election at Boston in November 1711 but, despite ‘being resolved to bring him in if money will do it’ and entertaining the town royally, Bertie was outpolled by a London merchant, William Cotesworth^‡. Lincs. Archs. Massingberd-Mundy mss. 2-MM/B/13, J. Toller to B. Massingberd, 28 July 1711; HP Commons 1690–1715, ii. 358. The same month, Lindsey’s second wife was the subject of scandal when it was widely reported that she had become pregnant ‘and the town says if she knows the father it is Lord Lumley [Henry Lumley^‡]’. Wentworth Pprs. 208. Such family dramas aside, Lindsey believed that he would be unlikely to attend the opening of Parliament and so requested that his kinsman Abingdon would officiate as lord great chamberlain in his stead. Add. 70278, P. Bertie to Oxford, 10 Nov. 1711. He then registered his proxy with John Churchill, duke of Marlborough. His decision to lodge the proxy with Marlborough rather than Abingdon was the occasion of comment in Lincolnshire, where it was believed that he had taken the proxy from his kinsman to convey it to the duke. This, it was relayed to Burrell Massingberd, then absent on the continent, ‘gives birth to many reports, one is that there will be a schism in a certain county’. However, it seems unlikely that Lindsey’s conveyance of the proxy to Marlborough was intended as a snub to Abingdon, particularly as he had only just requested that his kinsman would undertake his duties as chamberlain. Lincs. Archs. 2-MM/B/9, T. Namelesse to B. Massingberd, 24 Jan. 1712.

Lindsey took his seat on 20 Dec. (thereby vacating the proxy) after which he was present on 22 per cent of all sitting days. Although forecast as being in favour of permitting James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to take his seat in the House as duke of Brandon on 19 Dec., the following day Lindsey voted against allowing Scottish peers from sitting in the House by virtue of British peerages created since the Union. On 28 May 1712 he divided with the ministry in voting against the Whig motion to overturn the ‘restraining orders’ preventing James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from mounting an offensive campaign against the French. PH, xxvi. 177–81.

Indicative of his perhaps borderline attachment to the Whigs, Lindsey was listed by Oxford as a peer to be contacted in advance of the session of March 1713. In spite of his decision to back the ministry on the question of the restraining orders, however, he appears to have remained unconvinced by the peace policies. Thus, although he failed to attend a single day of the session, on 13 June he was estimated as being opposed to the eighth and ninth articles of the French commerce treaty. He took his seat in the new session on 16 Feb. 1714, and attended just 13 days of the 76-day session. On 17 Apr. he registered his proxy with Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 28 April. The following month Nottingham estimated Lindsey as an opponent of the schism bill and Lindsey’s alignment with ‘Dismal’s’ grouping was confirmed when he registered his proxy with Nottingham again on 11 May, which was vacated by the close of the session.

Lindsey failed to attend the House for the brief session that met following Queen Anne’s death in August. In spite of earlier estimates of his hostility to the Hanoverian succession, he proved a firm adherent of the new regime, a stance that ensured his continuance in office. To confirm this, in July 1715 he was advanced another step in the peerage as duke of Ancaster and Kesteven. He flourished under George I and in May 1719 he was appointed to the bedchamber. Cheshire ALS, Cholmondeley mss, DCH/X/8. Details of the latter part of his career will be considered in the next phase of this work.

Ancaster continued to attend the House until 10 Apr. 1723. He died just over three months later. In his will of May 1719 (which was augmented by a series of codicils) he stipulated that the cost of his funeral should not exceed £300 but he also requested the erection of a monument to his memory at a cost of no more than £500. He made provision for the raising of £10,000 for portions for his daughters by his first wife, Elizabeth and Eleanora (though the former appears to have suffered from some form of mental illness). To his only daughter by his second marriage, Louisa Carolina, he bequeathed an annuity of £50 until the age of 12 and thereafter of £100 per annum until marriage, at which time he stipulated that she should receive a portion of £3,000. He nominated his brother Albemarle Bertie, Sir Edward Betteson, Sir Thomas Farrington and Colonel John Selwyn as his executors. His distant kinsman Sir John Vanbrugh was appointed a trustee. Architectural Hist. xxxiv, 136. Ancaster was succeeded in the peerage by his second but eldest surviving son, Lord Willoughby, as 2nd duke of Ancaster, who was already a member of the House by virtue of a writ of acceleration of March 1715.