BERKELEY, George (c. 1627-98)

A poor inheritance

One of the oldest noble families in the country, the Berkeleys claimed descent from both Saxon and Danish notables. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/343; CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 201. As holders of Berkeley castle they possessed one of the most ancient family seats also, though tenure of the castle had not been uninterrupted and Berkeley’s father, the 8th Baron, (known as ‘George the traveller’) had been brought up away from his Gloucestershire estates leaving them to be managed by his agent, John Smyth of Nibley. John Smyth of Nibley, Berkeley Manuscripts ed. Sir J. Maclean, ii. 423, 426. During this period the Berkeleys acquired significant additional lands in Surrey and Middlesex, and it was not until after the Restoration that the 9th Baron returned his family to their Gloucestershire seat. Despite their illustrious family tree, the Berkeleys’ wealth had been dissipated over the years and Berkeley spent much of his life attempting to rebuild the fortune squandered by his forebears. His impecuniousness was presumably the cause of his own relatively humble marriage to the daughter of a prosperous London merchant. He was unusually active in commercial ventures, a regular attendant of the court of directors of the East India Company, highly influential in the Turkey Company and closely involved with several other trading companies. Such mercantile activities did not, however, prevent him from taking great pride in his status as one of England’s premier barons.

As a descendant of Mary Carey, sister of Queen Anne Boleyn, Berkeley possessed a claim to the Irish earldom of Ormond held by their father, Sir Thomas Boleyn^†, earl of Wiltshire and Ormond [I]. He was also a kinsman of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, of William Feilding, 3rd earl of Denbigh, and of the Howard dukes of Norfolk. To add to this pre-eminence, members of two cadet branches of the family were ennobled in the period (Sir John Berkeley, as Baron Berkeley of Stratton, and Sir Charles Berkeley, as earl of Falmouth). CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 201. Although Falmouth’s peerage died with him in 1665, by the 1690s, when Berkeley’s son, Charles Berkeley, styled Viscount Dursley (later 2nd earl of Berkeley), was summoned to the House by a writ of acceleration, three Berkeleys were present in the Lords: George, earl of Berkeley, John Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley of Stratton, and Dursley sitting as Baron Berkeley of Berkeley. This proliferation of Berkeleys makes definite identification on occasion extremely problematical.

Restoration, 1660-70

Although Berkeley had sat in Parliament for Gloucestershire in 1654 and 1656, by the time of the Restoration he was active in the king’s interest. He visited James, duke of York, at Brussels and such activities may have given rise to a later claim that he was to have been promoted in the peerage as earl of Segrave prior to the king’s return. Chatsworth, ‘Devonshire House Notebook’, section B, f. 1. In March 1660 Berkeley was noted as being present at a meeting at Warwick House along with other notables active in planning the king’s return, among them his kinsman, Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, Sir Dudley North^‡ and ‘Lord Fiennes’ (possibly Nathaniel Fiennes^‡ who had accepted a peerage in Cromwell’s ‘Other House’). Pepys Diary, i. 75. He later wrote jubilantly of 29 May, the official date of the king’s resumption of his throne:

This day is an holiday, a day of congratulation upon a double account; first, of the king’s birth, secondly, of his restoration. The first was great cause of rejoicing. … The second was the greatest, that his majesty, after so much unjust suffering and banishment by his father’s murderers and his rebellious subjects, should by the miraculous providence of God Almighty be restored to his own dominions by the unanimous consent of all his subjects. Historical Applications and Occasional Meditations upon Several Subjects, by a Person of Honour (1666), pp. 85-87.

Despite his powerful interest in the county, Berkeley’s plans for the elections for Gloucestershire in the spring of 1660 do not appear to have proceeded as expected. Putting aside the traditional rivalry of the Berkeley and Somerset families, Berkeley announced his intention of appearing in support of his neighbour Henry Somerset, styled Lord Herbert (later duke of Beaufort), and Matthew Hale^‡ for the county, proclaiming that, ‘he must want modesty and policy that opposes either’. He refused to countenance a rumour that another candidate called Overbury (possibly Sir Thomas Overbury), had secured the backing of his agent, Smyth, but although Overbury appears not to have stood, in the event Herbert was still beaten into third place. Glos. Archives D8887, Smyth of Nibley vol. 2, f. 97; HP Commons 1660-90, i. 236.

Berkeley responded promptly to his summons and took his seat in the House (with a salvo jure) on 27 Apr. 1660. The same day he was named to the committee for privileges and to the committee for settling the nation. He thereafter attended approximately 39 per cent of sitting days in the first session. Named to the committee appointed to draw up a reply to the king’s letter on 1 May, two days later he was one of the peers nominated to convey Parliament’s reply to the king at The Hague. He was also noted as being ‘very active for the king in the House and the first that moved for a present supply to be sent him’. The same day (3 May) ‘by the advice of very many of his friends in the House’ he introduced a petition concerning his precedency, which he disputed in the first instance with Charles West, 5th Baron De la Warr. Glos. Archives D8887, Smyth of Nibley vol. 3, ff. 16-17. At the heart of the case was Berkeley’s contention that as the holder of a barony by tenure antedating that of De la Warr he should be granted precedence over him, but the matter was complicated by the fact that De la Warr’s ancestors had been summoned to Parliament as barons before Berkeley’s. Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 134. The problem was referred to the committee for privileges to be examined ‘when the House is a little more at leisure.’ Glos. Archives D8887, Smyth of Nibley vol. 3, f. 16. On 9 May Berkeley was named to the committee for settling the militia after which he was then absent until the end of the month while abroad with the commissioners. On his return, with his kinsman Oxford, Berkeley was appointed by the House on 29 May to wait on the king to determine a time for Parliament to attend him. On 26 June the committee for privileges concluded its first report on Berkeley’s claim for precedence over De la Warr recommending that counsel for both lords’ should be heard at the bar. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 22. Despite this, the case was put off for a further fortnight on 24 July, and although it was ordered on 8 Aug. that the case should be heard on the Tuesday immediately before the next session, this does not appear to have happened. Berkeley was warmly supported in what was apparently a separate cause in which he was involved in August. The duke of York, with whom he was to be closely associated in a number of commercial ventures, wrote on his behalf to Sir Andrew Riccard, governor of the Levant company, recommending Berkeley to Riccard’s ‘friendship and to your particular kindness assuring you that he is the first person of my family in my esteem so I shall make it my principal care to assist him with all such improvements of honour and advantage as shall render him yet more considerable.’ Glos. Archives MF 1161, Berkeley Castle mss, select letters i. 16.

Berkeley took his seat at the opening of the second session on 6 Nov. 1660 (having undertaken to do so ‘God willing’ so that he would be able to wait on Manchester to discuss arrangements for the burial of Manchester’s aunt at Cranford). PA, MAN/57, earl of Berkeley to earl of Manchester, 5 Nov. 1660. On 10 Nov. he was named to the committee considering the claim of another kinsman, Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel (later 5th duke of Norfolk), to be restored to the dukedom of Norfolk. On 1 Dec. the House once more ordered that the dispute between Berkeley and De la Warr should be heard, but on 7 Dec. it was put off again. The case continued without resolution for the ensuing 12 years. Berkeley’s name was omitted from the attendance list on 27 Dec. but the same day he was named to the committee for the Paston vicarage and rectory bill, so he had presumably taken his seat after the roll had been taken.

The elections for the Cavalier Parliament found Berkeley eager to exercise his influence in Gloucestershire once more. On 18 Mar. 1661 he wrote to his agent, John Smyth, communicating his intention of engaging his interest ‘as far as I may’ for his cousin, Sir Baynham Throckmorton^‡. Poor health prevented him from attending the assizes or the county’s gentry meeting in person, but he excused himself claiming that he was not

convinced I can do the country much service by being at the assizes especially considering I have been solicited by Mr Howe [John Grobham Howe^‡], as well as by Sir Thomas Stephens [of Sodbury, a connection of the Stephens of Lypiatt], and Sir Baynham Throckmorton. It is impossible to assist all three and therefore not being willing to disoblige any interest I shall only declare for Sir Baynham Throckmorton. Glos. Archives D8887, Smyth of Nibley vol. 2, ff. 99-100.

Throckmorton appears to have been eager to enter the contest in association with Lord Herbert and in opposition to Howe but in the event he did his partner a disservice, as it was Throckmorton and Howe that were returned leaving Herbert in third place once again. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 236.

Berkeley took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 8 May and three days later was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. Present for more than 60 per cent of all sitting days during the first session, on 13 May he was named to the committee appointed to prepare an address to the king concerning his intention to marry, and he was thereafter named to a further 17 committees during the course of the session. An attempt to circumvent the House and appeal to the king directly over the question of his precedency merely resulted in Berkeley’s petition being referred back to the Lords on 17 May. On 30 May counsel was heard in the dispute, which was ordered to be considered further on 7 June, when the disputants agreed to persevere with the debate among themselves while the Lords appointed another day to continue their deliberations. The following week (14 June) the House was informed that although Berkeley had been willing to meet with De la Warr, the latter had refused to do so, at which the Lords ordered that if De la Warr’s counsel had not met with Berkeley’s by 20 June the House would proceed to a hearing at the bar ‘and make such end as their lordships seem meet.’

Berkeley opposed his cousin, Oxford, over the great chamberlaincy in July, presumably preferring the claim of Montagu Bertie, 2nd earl of Lindsey (father of Berkeley’s brother-in-law, Robert Bertie, styled Lord Willoughby de Eresby, later 3rd earl of Lindsey). In October he was involved in another dispute, this time with Robert Whitehall over appointments to the living at Cranford. CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 112. Berkeley was present at a session of the committee considering the bill for repealing the acts of the Long Parliament on 24 Jan. 1662. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fb 159, no. 16. The following month he appears to have been numbered among the opposition to the bill for restoring property to Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, though he did not sign the resulting protest. Add. 33589, ff. 220-1. On 15 Apr. he reported from the committee for the butter bill, which was passed without amendment, and three days later he also reported from the committee for the bill concerning silk throwing. Following some alterations he reported the bill again on 19 Apr. when it was passed. Berkeley’s name was not recorded on the attendance lists in the session after this date and on 21 Apr. he registered his proxy with his kinsman, Berkeley of Stratton. The proxy seems to have been vacated by 7 May when he was named to the committee for the bill for preventing stoppages in the streets of Westminster, which indicates that he was present in the House at least on that occasion.

Berkeley played host to the king, queen, York, Prince Rupert, duke of Cumberland, the diarist, John Evelyn, ‘and an abundance of noble men’ at Durdens in September. Evelyn Diary, iii. 334; Pepys Diary, iii. 184. He took his seat in the second session of the Cavalier Parliament on 18 Feb. 1663 and was present on almost 83 per cent of sitting days. Named to the committees for privileges and petitions, on 6 Mar. he was again nominated to the committee considering the bill for preventing stoppages in the streets of Westminster and over the course of the session to a further 18 committees. On 5 June he received the proxy of ‘his lifelong friend’ Leicester Devereux, 6th Viscount Hereford, which was vacated by the close of the session. TNA, PROB 11/355, ff. 349-52. Between 2 and 18 July Berkeley chaired numerous sessions of committees for trade and subsidy bills. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, pp. 409, 417, 423-24, 427-28, 430-31. On 18 July he reported from the committee for the temporalty subsidy bill, and he reported back from the same committee two days later. The same day he reported from the committee for the gaming bill and on 23 July he reported from the committee for the bill for the encouragement of trade. In the midst of this activity, Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, listed Berkeley (perhaps unreliably) as being a likely supporter of the attempt by George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, to impeach Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon.

Berkeley returned to the House for the ensuing session on 21 Mar. 1664 during which he was named to four committees. Over the summer he was engaged with his official responsibilities as keeper at Nonsuch. WSHC, Ailesbury mss 1300/531. Absent at a call of the House early in the following session on 7 Dec., he resumed his seat two days later after which he was named to five select committees. He failed to sit in the brief fifth session. In 1666 he published anonymously a small volume of Meditations discoursing on his religious and political convictions, which was reprinted on a number of occasions during his lifetime. Acknowledging his own commercial interests, Berkeley advised against concentrating too much on worldly gain, emphasizing how ‘rich merchants make a rich kingdom: but let the great traders have a care lest, while they enrich themselves with worldly treasure, they neglect to labour after the gaining eternal riches.’ Historical Applications, 39.

In April 1666 Berkeley was one of the peers nominated to stand in as a replacement for two of the triers (who had been granted leave of absence) of Thomas Parker, 15th Baron Morley, but as he was out of town at the time and the trial imminent he was not summoned after all. HEHL, EL 8398. It was thus not until 21 Sept. that Berkeley returned to the House for the sixth session. Named to nine committees, he was added to the committee for privileges on 7 Jan. 1667 and the same month he undertook to present a petition to the House on behalf of the East India Company during their dispute with Thomas Skinner. BL, OIOC, IOR/B/28, p. 250. On 14 Jan. he entered his protest at the resolution to agree with the Commons that the importing of cattle from Ireland should be classed as a public and common nuisance, and on 23 Jan. he protested again at the resolution not to add a clause granting the right of appeal to the king and House of Lords to the bill for resolving disputes over houses burnt in the Great Fire.

Present at the opening of the following session on 10 Oct. 1667 (of which he attended 80 per cent of all sitting days) Berkeley was again named to a number of committees, and on 16 Oct. he chaired a session of the committee concerning trade between England and Scotland. On 25 Nov. he was again given Hereford’s proxy, which was vacated on 28 Apr. 1668. Two days later (27 Nov.) he was nominated one of the managers of the conference concerning Clarendon’s commitment and on 7 Dec. he was named to the committee for the bill for banishing Clarendon. In advance of the session a Lord Berkeley had been noted as being ‘not a little pleased with this disgrace of my lord chancellor’ but this probably referred to Berkeley of Stratton, who subscribed the protest of 20 Nov. at the resolution not to commit Clarendon until his treason had been proved. Eg. 2539, f. 112. On 12 Dec. Berkeley made his support for Clarendon explicit by entering his protest at the resolution to banish the lord chancellor.

Berkeley was named one of the reporters of the conference with the Commons on Sir William Penn’s impeachment on 24 Apr. 1668. In October it was discoursed that he was to be made one of five commissioners to succeed Ormond in the government of Ireland, but this failed to transpire and it is possible that although the report was explicit in naming Berkeley, the true prospective commissioner was Berkeley of Stratton. Add. 36916, f. 117; Bodl. Carte 221, ff. 116-17. Berkeley was granted a licence to travel to France with his wife and servants in July of the following year, but he had returned by 19 Oct. 1669 when he resumed his seat in the House. CSP Dom. 1668-9, p. 432. Named to the committee considering the decline in trade on 25 Oct., on 9 Nov. he was named to that considering the papers submitted by the commissioners for accounts. The same month (10 Nov.), Berkeley and Bristol were the only two peers to vote in favour of the bill concerning the peers’ judicature. Swatland, 111; Harris, Sandwich, ii. 307-9 (App. D, Sandwich mss, Journal, x. ff. 73-78). On 1 Dec. he was nominated along with Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, George Savile, Viscount (later marquess of) Halifax, John Lucas, Baron Lucas, and Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley (later earl of Shaftesbury), to select witnesses to appear before a committee of the whole considering the lowering of interest money.

The 1670s

Berkeley returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 14 Feb. 1670, thereafter attending approximately 56 per cent of all sitting days. Named to the committees for privileges and petitions, on 8 Mar. he joined a number of peers in objecting to the precedence claim submitted by Benjamin Mildmay, 17th Baron Fitzwalter. On 25 Mar. he was nominated to the committee considering the bill for a treaty of union and the following day he entered his dissent at a clause in the conventicle bill imposing a £100 penalty on any justice of the peace failing to enforce the measure. On 5 Apr. he was named to the committee for the bill for rebuilding London. Following the adjournment Berkeley sought to revive his case with De la Warr by petitioning the king once more, but his petition was again referred back to the Lords. On 19 Dec. the House again took into its consideration Berkeley’s claim, in which he stated that he ‘conceiveth himself (through mistake) not to be in such place of precedency as a baron and peer of this realm in parliaments, and all other assemblies of his peers, as of ancient time did belong to his ancestors from whom he is descended.’ Leics. RO, DG 7, box 4956 P.P. 24 (pprs. 1-2). Ordering that Berkeley’s counsel should be heard again the following year, after a series of postponements Berkeley’s lawyers were finally able to state their case on 14 Feb. 1671. PA, BRY/9, f. 45. Their arguments provoked interventions from De la Warr and from Charles Howard, 2nd earl of Berkshire, on behalf of his kinsman, Norfolk. In response to the latter, Berkeley insisted that his claim only concerned De la Warr, James Tuchet, 13th Baron Audley (3rd earl of Castlehaven [I]), and George Nevill, 12th Baron Abergavenny, and not Norfolk as Baron Mowbray, but once again the case was adjourned so that De la Warr’s counsel could be heard on 14 April. Berkeley entered his protest on 9 Mar. at the resolutions not to commit or engross the bill concerning privilege of Parliament. On 13 Apr. he was named to the subcommittee considering the bill to prevent the growth of popery. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 451. The following day, his case with De la Warr was again postponed while De la Warr sought more time to prepare. Leics. RO, DG7 box 4956 P.P. 24 (ppr. 3).

Berkeley attended one of the two days interrupting the prorogation on 16 Apr. 1672. He had returned to London by the beginning of January 1673 and then resumed his seat at the opening of the new session on 4 February. Named to the committees for privileges, petitions and to the subcommittee for the Journal, he attended 78 per cent of all sitting days in the session. On 18 Feb. his case with De la Warr was again interrupted when his opponent failed to appear. The House resolved to give judgment in the matter on 3 Mar., but on application from De la Warr, who was noted as ‘sick in the country’, this date too was put back to 11 March. On 25 Feb. a bill to enable the dean and chapter of Bristol to exchange the living of Berkeley in Gloucestershire with that of St Michael, Sutton Bonnington in Nottinghamshire, which was owned by Berkeley, received its first reading, and on 1 Mar. Berkeley reported from the committee considering a bill concerning the estate of the late Sir Robert Berkeley^‡ (a very distant relation), which was ordered to be engrossed with some amendments. Berkeley was appointed one of the managers of a conference with the Commons on the address against popery on 6 Mar., and the same day Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset, reported from the committee for Berkeley’s bill with the dean and chapter of Bristol. The bill was passed the following day, but judgment in the case with De la Warr was postponed yet again to 26 March. Berkeley’s commercial experience may have been the reason for his selection as one of the peers nominated to mediate with the parties concerned in Cholmley v. the Grocers’ Company on 21 March. Five days later (26 Mar.) his case with De la Warr was put off again until the ensuing parliamentary session.

Berkeley returned to the House for the brief session of October 1673, attending three of its four days, but no mention was made of his complaint over precedence. Resuming his seat five days into the ensuing session on 12 Jan. 1674, his attendance remained high, being present for approximately 79 per cent of all sitting days, but it was not until 9 Feb. that he was added to the standing committees for privileges and petitions and he was only named to half of the select committees in the session. Once again no more progress was made in his dispute with De la Warr.

Berkeley retreated to Bath in July 1674, but by the end of the following month he was once again in London for meetings of the court of directors of the East India Company. In January of the following year he stood godfather to one of his Feilding relations along with Sir Ralph Verney^‡ and the countess of Desmond. Verney ms mic. M636/27, W. Grosvenor to J. Verney, 21 July 1674, M636/28, Sir R. Verney to Lady V. Gawdy, 25 Jan. 1675; Sir R. to E. Verney, 25 Jan. 1675; BL, OIOC, IOR/B/33, pp. 64, 69. He returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 13 Apr. 1675, attending approximately 76 per cent of all sitting days, but he was named to just one select committee. Once again he combined his attendance in the House with attendance of the East India Company court of directors, perhaps one explanation for his failure to be nominated to more committees in the Lords. BL, OIOC, IOR/B/33, pp. 227, 231, 232, 234, 237. In August an announcement appeared that ‘Lord George Berkeley’s elephant (but five feet four inches)’ – presumably a curio from one of his commercial ventures – was to be sold ‘by the candle at the East India House’. Resuming his seat on 13 Oct. 1675, Berkeley’s attendance declined slightly in the new session. Present on 14 of the 21 days of the session, he was named to just four committees besides the sessional committees, but his continuing importance at court was underlined when he played host to the king once more at his Surrey home, Durdens. Verney ms mic. M636/28, J. to E. Verney, 12 Aug. 1675; W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 5 Oct. 1675.

East India Company affairs again dominated Berkeley’s activities in the spring of 1676. On 24 Apr. he reported to the directors that he and other members of the committee had waited on the king to inform him why they were unable to comply with his request not to re-elect two directors for the ensuing year as the votes had already been submitted. Three days later he reported again that he had conveyed the company’s thanks to the king ‘for his continued grace and favour.’ BL, OIOC, IOR/B/34, pp. 3, 5. Given his precedence and position in the voting list, it must have been Berkeley rather than Berkeley of Stratton who was amongst the minority of peers to find Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, guilty of manslaughter in June. State Trials, vii. 157-8; HEHL, EL 8419; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fb 155, pp. 460-1.

Berkeley returned to the House at the opening of the ensuing session on 15 Feb. 1677 when he was named to the standing committees, and the following day he was named to the committee enquiring into the author and printer of the pamphlet questioning whether Parliament had been dissolved by its lengthy prorogation. Present on approximately 88 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to a further 25 committees in the course of the session, and on 13 Apr. he was appointed one of the reporters of a conference with the Commons on the supply bill. No doubt reflecting Berkeley’s continuing close relations with the court, particularly with York in their joint commercial ventures, on 1 May Shaftesbury marked him thrice vile. Following the lengthy recess, interrupted only by two days in July and December 1677, Berkeley resumed his seat on 15 Jan. 1678. On 28 Jan. Berkeley was appointed along with his rivals for precedence in the House, Audley (Castlehaven) and De la Warr, to wait on the king to discover when the House should attend him. The following day, he entered his dissent at the resolution to address the king for the release of Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, who had been imprisoned on a charge of blasphemy. Berkeley was named to the committee appointed to prepare an answer for the Lords’ failure to agree with the Commons over the address to the king for a war with France on 23 Mar. and two days later was entrusted with the proxy of Robert Shirley, Baron Ferrers (later Earl Ferrers), which was vacated by the close of the session. On 4 Apr. he voted Pembroke guilty of murder.

Berkeley’s attendance declined in the subsequent session, which opened close on the heels of the previous one on 23 May 1678. Present for approximately 53 per cent of all sitting days in the session, in July he spoke in the House during the appeal brought concerning the case in train between Lewis Watson, later earl of Rockingham, and his brother-in-law Louis de Duras, 2nd earl of Feversham, over the inheritance of the estate of George Sondes, earl of Feversham. Lord Nottingham’s Chancery Cases ed. D.E.C. Yale, ii. 648. The same month (July) Berkeley was named to the Privy Council.

News of the discovery of the Popish Plot reached Berkeley at about the same time that he heard of the death of his son-in-law Sir Kingsmill Lucy^‡, ‘one of our nearest and dearest relations and one of the best men in the world.’ Glos. Archives D8887, Smyth of Nibley vol. 2, f. 106. Unable to dwell on his loss, Berkeley took a close interest in the efforts to force York into exile, and he was one of the majority of the council to vote against ordering York to quit the kingdom in October 1678. Chatsworth, Devonshire collection 1/G. He then resumed his seat at the opening of the new session on 21 Oct. after which he was present for almost 92 per cent of all sitting days. Named to the standing committees on the first day, on 23 Oct. he was also named to the committee appointed to examine papers concerning the Plot. Berkeley’s retainer, Edward Smyth^‡, son of his agent John Smyth, was later to prove a central figure in lending credence to Oates and Bedloe’s testimony. On 15 Nov. Berkeley voted against disabling papists from sitting in Parliament in a division taken in a committee of the whole, and on 28 Nov. he was nominated one of the reporters of a conference concerning the safety of the king and government. On 26 Dec. he was named a reporter of the conference on the supply bill and the same day he voted in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the measure. The following day he voted against committing Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds), and on 28 Dec. he was again appointed to report a conference on the supply bill.

Elections in early 1679 to the first Exclusion Parliament in Gloucestershire appear to have been uncontested, with Sir John Guise^‡ and Sir Ralph Dutton^‡, returned presumably with Berkeley’s acquiescence. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 237. Berkeley attended six days of the abortive session at the beginning of March and then took his seat once more at the opening of the second session on 15 March. Present on 87 per cent of all sitting days, he was reckoned to be a supporter by Danby at the beginning of March 1679, and on 25 Mar. he entered his dissent at the resolution to commit the bill for Danby’s banishment. Prior to this, on 19 Mar, he had participated in a debate concerning the continuation of impeachments from one Parliament to another, remarking that the precedent of John Mortimer, who was proceeded against under King Henry VI for conspiring the death of King Henry V, which had been cited by Shaftesbury, was an ‘ill’ one and that the House should consult the printed record. Bodl. Carte 228, ff. 229-30. Berkeley voted against the bill of attainder on 1 April. The following day he spoke in defence of Danby again, arguing that ‘what this lord did was by the king’s command and where the thing is not directly against law, that command is a full justification.’ Add. 28046, ff. 54-56. He then voted against the bill once more on 4 Apr., entering his dissent following its passage. Berkeley continued his opposition to the attainder on 14 Apr., voting against agreeing with the Commons that the bishops should be required to leave the chamber. Add. 29572, f. 112. The same day he entered a further dissent against the resolution to agree with the Commons’ amendment to the bill. On 2 May Berkeley subscribed the protest against rejecting an amendment to the bill for clearing London of papists, and on 10 May he voted against appointing a joint committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords. He was then nominated one of the reporters of the conferences held with the Commons on 10 and 11 May concerning the impending trials. On 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases.

The elections in Gloucestershire of the late summer and early autumn 1679 proved more difficult than the previous undisputed contest. Edward Smyth was put up in opposition to Guise, who had voted against exclusion, triggering a three-day poll ‘when they did not expect an hour’s work.’ HP Commons 1660-90, i. 237. Given that Smyth was so closely associated with his family, it seems likely that Berkeley supported his candidature, though Guise and Dutton were returned again. The poll in Gloucester, where Berkeley’s son stood, also proved troublesome, and although the Berkeley interest prevailed, Berkeley lamented that it had ‘been at so much charge.’ Glos. Archives, Smyth of Nibley, vol. 2, f. 109.

Earl of Berkeley, 1679-88

Partly as a reward for his loyalty to the court and in part as a way of addressing at last the still unresolved dispute over precedence with De la Warr, in September 1679 Berkeley was advanced to an earldom. Reports of the expected promotion had been in circulation since late August, and it may have been in connection with this that Berkeley had been assured by York of his support for his ‘very reasonable’ request. Verney ms mic. M636/33, J. to Sir R. Verney, 28 Aug. 1679; HMC Buckinghamshire, 414-15; Glos. Archives MF 1161, Berkeley Castle mss, select letters i. 17. At about the same time Berkeley offered not only to advance money to free English captives in Algiers but also to travel to North Africa in person to oversee their release. Pinks, Hist. Clerkenwell, 280. While there was undoubtedly a philanthropic aspect to his offer, it may be that he was also eager to distance himself from the political uncertainties at home. In the spring of 1680 rumours circulated that he intended to succeed Sir John Finch as ambassador at Constantinople. There ensued some confusion between Berkeley, the king and the Levant Company over the method of appointing an ambassador to that post. Add. 75360, Sir W. Hickman to Halifax, 7 Mar. 1680; HMC Finch ii. 74, 75. In the event it was James Brydges, 8th Baron Chandos, who secured the embassy. At about the same time, however, Berkeley was elected master of the Trinity House, one of only two peers associated with the corporation at this point. Earl of Berkeley’s speech to the corporation of Trinity House, 1-3. Affairs in London presumably kept Berkeley away from the summer assizes in Gloucester, but he was able to rely on his son, Charles Berkeley (now styled Viscount Dursley), and the redoubtable Smyth to oversee events. Thanking Smyth for his assistance, Berkeley declared:

It appears now I have not only will but power and interest enough to contest with and have the better of hotheaded and unreasonable men who would (if they prevailed, which God forbid) put us all in disorder. Glos. Archives D8887, Smyth of Nibley vol. 2, f. 107.

Berkeley returned to the House on 22 Oct. 1680, a day after the opening of the new Parliament when he was introduced in his new dignity between his kinsman, Denbigh, and John Granville, earl of Bath. Present for approximately 79 per cent of all sitting days in the session, on 15 Nov. he spoke in the debate on the reception of the exclusion bill and then voted in favour both of putting the question that the bill be rejected at first reading and, once that had been carried, of rejecting the bill at its first reading. On 7 Dec. he found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, not guilty of treason.

Active in the elections of 1681 in Gloucestershire, Berkeley again lent his support to Edward Smyth for the county, though one report suggested that Shaftesbury was the true force behind Smyth’s nomination. Add. 70127, A. Stephens to Lady Harley, 1 Feb. 1681. Despite the challenge, Guise and Dutton again secured both seats. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 237. Berkeley also found himself under pressure within the Levant Company where an attempt was made to replace him as governor. In the event he retained his place with a commanding majority. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 6, Yard to Poley, 10 Feb. 1681. His success was welcomed by York who complimented Berkeley on having fought off ‘those turbulent spirits’ and for serving the king ‘so faithfully and boldly.’ Glos. Archives MF 1161, Berkeley Castle mss, select letters, i. 18.

A pre-sessional forecast compiled by Danby in March 1681 assessed Berkeley as one of those likely to support the former lord treasurer’s efforts to be bailed. Berkeley was also noted in Danby’s private instructions as one of those to whom Danby’s agents ought to apply particularly for support. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 27, private instructions, 17 Mar. 1681. Berkeley took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 21 Mar. after which he was present on each of its seven days. On 24 Mar. he spoke in favour of permitting Danby to be bailed for his health but the attempt was thwarted by concerted opposition. Bodl. Carte 79, f. 164.

Berkeley also suffered from poor health later that spring, but he had recovered sufficiently by 7 May to be one of a number of peers to attend the proceedings in King’s Bench for Fitzharris’ trial and on 15 May he presented the address of the corporation of Trinity House to the king. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 41, 7-11 May 1681; Earl of Berkeley’s Speech to the Corporation of Trinity House, 7. In June a dispute between his heir, Dursley, and Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount Campden, over payment of a legacy of £2,000 left to Dursley’s wife (Elizabeth Noel) by Juliana, Lady Campden, was referred to the arbitration of Berkeley and Danby. Berkeley had already had cause to thank Danby for writing to Campden in May presumably in an attempt to forestall the dispute. Add. 28053, ff. 259, 267; Eg. 3357, ff. 74-75. Berkeley’s support for Danby continued in the absence of Parliament and in June 1682 he was present as one of Danby’s supporters in king’s bench. Two months later Berkeley’s own family was embroiled in a series of scandals. First, one of Berkeley’s younger daughters, Lady Henrietta, eloped with her brother-in-law, Ford Grey, 3rd Baron Grey of Warke (later earl of Tankerville) in what by the standards of the day was considered an incestuous relationship. Soon after, news emerged that another daughter, Lady Theophila Lucy, widow of Sir Kingsmill Lucy, had converted to Rome and converted her daughter as well (also called Theophila). Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. to Sir R. Verney, 9 Oct. 1682. Mary, countess of Northampton, reported that Lady Berkeley was ‘so afflicted’ by Lady Henrietta’s action ‘that my sister believes it will kill her.’ A month after the elopement the family were still none the wiser about her whereabouts, leading them to ‘proffer £200 to whomsoever can discover where she is.’ HMC Rutland, ii. 76, 78. Attempted interventions by the family’s long-standing friend, John Tillotson, later archbishop of Canterbury, to secure Lady Henrietta’s repentance and Lady Theophila’s return to the Church of England both failed. Add. 4236, f. 238; T. Birch, Life of the Most Reverend Dr John Tillotson (2nd edn. 1753), 91. Grey was eventually brought to trial at king’s bench for absconding with Lady Henrietta, thereby causing her ‘to live in continual whoredom’, but Berkeley and his countess did not escape criticism in the business. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 230-31; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 326, 330, 333-4. During bad-tempered and at times undignified proceedings in king’s bench, in which at one stage Berkeley had to be requested to sit down, Grey claimed that Lady Henrietta had come to him for protection. Despite Grey’s ultimate conviction, Lady Henrietta still refused to return to her father claiming that she had married one William Turner, described in some sources as one of Grey’s servants and elsewhere as son of Sir William Turner of Bromley. George Jeffreys, later Baron Jeffreys, claimed to know the man well and stated that he was already married. Trial of Ford Lord Grey of Werk (1716), 14, 89-91; Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 16 Oct. 1682; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 239-40. The family received more encouraging news from Lady Theophila Lucy whose reformation was secured by her marriage to the theologian, Robert Nelson, nephew of Sir Gabriel Roberts and a friend of Tillotson. One report suggested that the marriage was originally to have been between Nelson and Lady Arabella Berkeley, ‘the plainest of all that earl’s children’ and that the eventual match was much against the wishes of Nelson’s family. Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. to Sir R. Verney, 14 Dec. 1682 and 31 Mar. 1683; Sir R. to J. Verney, 5 Apr. 1683.

Berkeley was one of the peers to subscribe the petition in support of Danby’s release on bail in February 1684. Eg. 3358 F. Two months later his influence in commercial circles was underlined by his appointment as one of the commissioners for discussing the affairs of Bantam (modern Banten) with representatives from the United Provinces. BL, IOR/B/38, p. 53. His senior position within the Levant Company was also presumably why Lord Chandos, ambassador to Constantinople, wrote to him in March 1685 appealing for his assistance in rescuing him from disgrace, which he claimed was brought about by ‘the irregular and undue combination and practices of ambitious men.’ Stowe 219, ff. 144-46. Chandos had earned the distrust of both king and company at the time of his appointment in 1680 and had clearly failed to mend his ways during his tenure of the post.

The reign of James II and the Revolution, 1685-90

Given his close relations with James II, then duke of York, it seems unlikely that the new king’s accession gave Berkeley any particular cause for concern over his continuing interest at court and in the mercantile community. He returned to the House for the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May 1685 after which he was present for approximately 77 per cent of all sitting days, and was named to half a dozen committees. An account of the proceedings on the first day of the session recorded inaccurately that he was one of a number of peers to have been introduced in the Lords, presumably having confused him with John Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley of Stratton, who took his seat for the first time that day. Bodl. ms Eng. hist. c. 46, f. 39.

Although Berkeley’s support for the king continued without significant variation, he was one of the peers to find in favour of exonerating Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington), in January 1686. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 773. An assessment of January 1687 proved another rare example of Berkeley being associated with opposition to James when he was marked as an opponent of repeal of the Test, but on 17 Jan. he was elected governor of the Charterhouse and in May he was listed as being in favour of the king’s policies. The same month his younger son, George Berkeley, who had been brought up in Tillotson’s household, was appointed a prebend of Westminster. Bodl. Tanner 35, f. 205; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 404. Less positively, Berkeley was involved in a dispute with Henry Fitzroy, duke of Grafton, that summer over rights in Nonsuch Park, of which Berkeley was the ranger. One of Berkeley’s servants was convicted of assault when he barred Grafton from attempting to take possession. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, f. 216.

A further assessment of likely attitudes to repeal of the Test in November 1687 continued to note Berkeley as being in favour of the policy, and he was again thought to be a supporter of repeal in January of the following year. In May 1688 Dominican friars established a new chapel in a house which they had purchased from Berkeley, though there is no suggestion that he was in any way tempted to convert to catholicism and in June Berkeley was one of only two members of the council to refuse to sign the warrant committing the Seven Bishops to the Tower. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 79, newsletter to Poley, 4 May 1688; HMC Portland, iii. 410; Carte 76, f. 28. Present at the meetings of the provisional government held at the Guildhall, Berkeley signed the declaration to the prince of Orange on 11 Dec. but he continued active in the ‘loyalist’ camp throughout the crisis. Bodl. ms Eng. hist. d. 307, f. 6. On 13 Dec. he and Peter Mews, bishop of Winchester, ignoring an order that the man should not be questioned, left the chamber to quiz Thomas Liniall, the messenger who had brought the news of the king’s seizure at Faversham; and later that day Berkeley seconded a motion by John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham and Normanby), that the king should be rescued from the rabble in Kent. Berkeley added that ‘some persons of quality’ should also be sent to wait on him. The same afternoon following further revelations about the king’s whereabouts, Berkeley again moved for his rescue, adding that he believed the king was in danger. Kingdom without a King, 49, 91, 93. On the king’s return to London, Berkeley was one of eight members of the Privy Council to be present at a session presided over by James held on the evening of 16 December. London Gazette, 13-17 Dec. 1688. The king’s second flight altered the complexion of things, but on 24 Dec. Berkeley was again prominent in the debates moving to enquire what had become of James and suggesting that Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, who had been at Rochester, might be able to offer some explanation. Kingdom without a King, 159; Add. 75266, Halifax’s note, [24 Dec. 1688]; Clarendon Corresp. ii. 234-35.

Berkeley took his seat in the House at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he attended on approximately 39 per cent of all sitting days. The presence in the House of his kinsman, John Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley of Stratton, who was also frequently recorded by the clerk as simply ‘Berkeley’, makes identifying both men’s activities problematic, but given Berkeley’s clear support for the king in December it seems likely that he was the ‘Lord Berkeley’ noted as being in opposition to the Commons’ interpretation of James’s actions. This did not prevent him being a stickler for correct procedure, and on 25 Jan. he drew to the House’s attention the presence of several peers who had not been formally introduced, in particular Edward Griffin, Baron Griffin, one of King James’ last creations, which provoked a number of other peers to demand that Griffin withdraw. EHR, lii. no. 205, p. 92. On 29 Jan. Berkeley voted in favour of a regency and on 31 Jan. against inserting the words declaring William and Mary king and queen. The same day a Lord Berkeley (presumably Berkeley of Stratton) entered his dissent at the resolution not to agree with the Commons in inserting the words ‘that the throne is thereby vacant’. On 4 Feb. Berkeley voted against agreeing with the Commons’ use of the word ‘abdicated’ and on 6 Feb. he again opposed the Commons’ use of the words ‘abdicated’ and ‘that the throne is thereby vacant’. He then registered his dissent at the resolution to concur with the Commons.

Despite his evident dissatisfaction with the Revolution, Berkeley took the oaths on 7 Mar. 1689. He was present for just one day in April and excused at a call of the House on 22 May, but he resumed his seat on 30 May and the following day he voted against reversing the perjury judgments against Titus Oates. Following debate in the House the previous day, on 10 July he acted as teller for the not contents on the question of whether the House should proceed in considering the reversal of judgments against Oates (which was resolved in the negative by 41 to 35). The following day Berkeley’s son, Dursley, (who had supported the Revolution) was introduced into the House as Baron Berkeley of Berkeley (adding further possible confusion between the three lords Berkeley sitting in the House). Berkeley was nominated one of the reporters of a conference concerning the bill for raising duties on coffee and tea on 25 July, and on 30 July he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the reversal of perjury judgments against Titus Oates.

Berkeley took advantage of a series of exceptions to declare that he was in possession of no personal estate in his response to the self-assessment of September 1689. Chatsworth, Halifax collection, B.67. Absent from the opening of the second session of the Convention, he took his seat on 24 Oct, but four days later he was absent again and excused at a call of the House. He resumed his seat once more on 6 Nov. after which he attended without significant interruption until the close of January 1690 (approximately 49 per cent of all sitting days). Carmarthen (as Danby had become) classed him as among the supporters of the court on a list compiled between October 1689 and January 1690, and added that he was ’to be spoken to at the House’. On 3 Dec. 1689 he reported from the committee considering the bill to enable Edward Devereux, 8th Viscount Hereford, to make a marriage jointure as fit to pass without amendment, and the same day he chaired a session of the committee for privileges considering the petition of Nathaniel Reading in an action against Simpson and Wood. Curiously, when the committee was called over, it was discovered that Berkeley had not in fact been named to the privileges committee, so all business was terminated. HMC Lords, i. 322. No attempt appears to have been made to add him to the committee subsequently, but on 17 Dec. he chaired the committee again without comment and on the following day he reported back to the House again from the privileges committee considering the petition of Sir Roger Harsnett. The same month Berkeley was involved in a case in chancery with his son-in-law, Charles Boyle, Baron Clifford, over the repayment of part of Arethusa Berkeley’s wedding portion. TNA, C10/277/13. On 15 Jan. 1690 he acted as teller for the not contents in the division on rejecting the bill for making void conveyances made by Thomas Colepepper, 2nd Baron Colepepper, to his natural daughters by Susannah Willis.

After the Revolution, 1690-8

The general election of March 1690 found Berkeley again attempting to employ his interest in Gloucestershire, but his efforts and those of his son and neighbour Beaufort on behalf of James Thynne^‡, brother of Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, failed to secure Thynne’s election and the disappointed man rounded on those whom he considered had betrayed him, foremost among them Berkeley and Dursley. Writing in Berkeley’s defence, Weymouth declared that, ‘I am sure my Lord Berkeley’s stewards were very hearty’, but Thynne maintained that their assistance had been negligible and he vented in another letter that ‘Lord Berkeley’s and Lord Dursley’s friends and tenants were all against me.’ Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 13, ff. 244, 246, 249, 254.

Berkeley returned to the House shortly after the opening of the new Parliament on 14 Apr. but he attended only 28 per cent of all sitting days in the session. Although he was marked present on the attendance list on 7 May, the same day he registered his proxy in favour of Ferrers, which was vacated when he resumed his seat the following day. Present on 7 July when the session was prorogued, he attended on the single sitting day on 12 Sept. but his attendance in the second session later that year also proved to be uncharacteristically low (just under 32 per cent of all sitting days). It is possible that he was distracted by another family controversy concerning his grandson, Sir Berkeley Lucy, whose sister, Theophila Lucy, had procured a privy seal requiring his return home from Rome where he was then living with his mother and stepfather, Robert Nelson. The ostensible reason for this recall was Theophila Lucy’s concern that her brother was in danger of being converted to Roman Catholicism and was associating with Jacobites, but it seems more probable that she had been put up to it in an effort to acquire control over the Lucy inheritance. Dursley seemed to suggest that his father was not entirely innocent in the matter, informing Sir Berkeley that ‘my father does not wash his hands of it’ and that he had admitted sending a messenger to persuade him to return to England. Berkeley’s own interpretation was somewhat different. Writing to his grandson, Berkeley professed to have known nothing of the privy seal until after it had been passed and undertook to supplicate for its reversal. In another letter he described Theophila Lucy’s action as ‘a very fine prank’ but maintained that he ‘knew nothing of it until it was too late to prevent it’ and described his attempt to procure the assistance of Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, in reversing it. Concerns over the Lucys continued well into the next year with Tillotson again acting as an intermediary. In October 1691 Theophila Lucy married William Ingoldsby (great niece of the regicide Sir Richard Ingoldsby), and in December Lady Berkeley expressed concerns that the Ingoldsbys and other members of their circle, the Knoxes, had designs on Sir Berkeley Lucy’s life. Add. 45511, ff. 44, 47, 48, 50, 68, 247.

Berkeley’s attendance in the House declined steadily during the remaining years of his life, with him rarely present on more than a third of all sitting days in each session. His affairs during this period were apparently dominated by family disputes and continued interest in his trading ventures. Present at the opening of the third session on 22 Oct. 1691, in December he was included in a list compiled by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, as someone Derby believed would support his bill for the recovery of lands lost during the Interregnum. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9. Berkeley attended for just over a quarter of all sitting days in the session before registering his proxy with his son, Dursley, on 19 Feb. 1692, which was vacated by the prorogation. Berkeley was present on the single sitting day of 24 May 1692. He then took his seat again shortly after the opening of the new session on 7 Nov. 1692, but this time he managed to attend barely 20 per cent of all sitting days. In the following session of November 1693 his rate of attendance declined still further to just 14 per cent of the session.

Declining activity in Parliament did not mean that Berkeley had opted for retirement in general. On 10 Jan. 1694 he was one of nine peers to subscribe the protest at the resolution to exonerate the admirals who had commanded the fleet during the previous summer. Trade continued to dominate his interests. BL, IOR/B/40, p. 185; Add. 72530, ff. 178-9. Family difficulties also loomed large and in March 1694 Lady Berkeley interceded on behalf of her niece, Arabella, Lady Rivers, with Robert, earl of Lindsey, to enable her to receive £10,000 in lieu of her portion, as the money was not strictly payable until after Lindsey’s death. Verney ms mic. M636/47, countess of Lindsey to Sir R. Verney, 10 Mar. 1694. Problems with Lady Theophila and her husband, William Ingoldsby, came to the fore again in May 1695 with the beginnings of a case in chancery, which continued beyond Berkeley’s death three years later. TNA, C9/438/100.

Having attended two of the single sitting days of September and October 1694, Berkeley took his seat at the opening of the final session of the 1690 Parliament on 12 Nov., after which he was present on a third of all sitting days. He does not appear to have employed his interest in Gloucestershire in the November 1695 general election, which saw the sitting members returned. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 202, 204. Berkeley took his seat a fortnight after the opening of the new Parliament on 3 Dec. 1695, after which he sat for a mere 16 per cent of all sitting days and was named to just one committee. He pleaded sickness as an excuse not to sign the Association in February 1696, though he had been well enough to be present at meetings of the East India Company’s court of directors throughout January and February and was again present at a meeting when it was resolved that the committee should attend the Lords in relation to the company’s stock. HMC Lords, ii. 206-8; BL, IOR/B/41, pp. 90, 91, 94, 98, 101, 103-7, 111. It is not clear whether Berkeley accompanied the other members of the committee on this occasion. On 10 Apr. he registered his proxy with his brother-in-law, Lindsey, which was vacated by the session’s close a fortnight later.

Absent at the opening of the ensuing session, Berkeley’s letter desiring leave to be excused was read on 23 Nov. 1696 as a result of which he was granted a week’s grace for his appearance. He resumed his seat accordingly on 30 Nov., after which he was again present on 17 per cent of all sitting days in the session. On 15 Dec. he was one of five peers to be given leave to withdraw on account of ill health and he was again excused on account of sickness on 17 December. He resumed his seat the following day and on 23 Dec. he was one of those to vote against the attainder of Sir John Fenwick^‡. On 23 Feb. 1697 he registered his proxy in favour of Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, which was again vacated by the close of the session. He resumed his seat in the third session on 3 Feb. 1698, but attended for just five days of the whole. On 15 Mar. he voted against committing the bill for punishing Charles Duncombe^‡. The following day he may have been one of those to enter a dissent at the resolution to grant relief to the appellants in the case between James Bertie^‡ and Lucius Henry Cary, 6th Viscount Falkland [S], concerning property bequeathed to Bertie’s wife (though it is more likely that the protester on this occasion was his son, Dursley, sitting in the House as Baron Berkeley). HP Commons 1690-1715, iii. 199. On 25 Mar. he registered his proxy with Lindsey once more, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 27 June. Berkeley may have presented a petition from the East India Company to the House following the first reading of the two million fund bill on 28 June (though it is again possible that he was confused here with his son). Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 114. He sat for the final time on 30 June and the following day registered his proxy with his kinsman, Berkeley of Stratton.

Berkeley was noted as being ‘very ill’ on 6 October. He died eight days later on 14 October. Verney ms mic. M636/50, A. Nicholas to Sir J. Verney, 6 Oct. 1698. Berkeley’s will, dated 21 Sept. 1698, was composed in an unusual style, lacking any of the conventional phraseology, which may have given rise to doubts about its validity. On 1 Dec. two witnesses swore that the writing was Berkeley’s, enabling probate to proceed. Berkeley left his entire estate to his son and heir, Charles, Viscount Dursley, requesting only that his debts be paid and that ‘something considerable’ might be given to some poor Christians. An inventory of his possessions at Cranford in Middlesex and Durdens in Surrey listed goods valued at approximately £1,300, but his total wealth was certainly much greater than this. TNA, PROB 4/8805. He was buried at Cranford, where a monument was erected, matching one for his father and celebrating his ‘affability, charity and generosity’. He was succeeded by Dursley as 2nd earl of Berkeley.