BERKELEY, Charles (1649-1710)

Returned to Parliament for Gloucester in the second Exclusion Parliament, unlike his father Charles Berkeley forsook the court for opposition in the 1670s. Glos. Archives, Smyth pprs. ii. f. 109. His apparently unexpected support for the exclusion of the duke of York from the throne earned him the distrust both of his sponsor during the election, Henry Somerset, marquess of Worcester (later duke of Beaufort), and of the corporation of Gloucester. Although Berkeley (from 1679 styled Viscount Dursley following his father’s promotion to the earldom of Berkeley) was re-elected in 1681, they resolved to offer his seat to Thomas Thynne, later Viscount Weymouth, at the next election, though this was forestalled by Thynne’s promotion to the Lords in 1682. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 631. The same year (1682) Berkeley travelled abroad and he did not stand in the ensuing election in 1685. HMC Rutland, ii. 75. Dursley’s absence may have been connected with a dispute with his father-in-law, Campden, over a legacy bequeathed to him in Lady Campden’s will, which had been left to the arbitration of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), and Dursley’s father. Add. 28053, f. 267. He had returned to England by 1688 when, in contrast to his father who was prominent in the debates at the time of the Revolution in insisting on fair treatment for James II, Dursley supported William of Orange, for which he was amply rewarded the following year. On 7 May a warrant was granted for his allowance as envoy extraordinary to Madrid (though in the event he appears not to have taken up the post), and in July he was made custos rotulorum for Gloucestershire. CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 95; Brit. Diplomatic Reps. 1689-1789, 127; CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 181. The same month he was summoned to the Lords in his father’s barony of Berkeley of Berkeley (though outside the House he continued to be styled by his courtesy title of Dursley). CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 182; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 558.

Ambassador, 1689-94

Dursley took his seat in the Lords on 11 July 1689, introduced between John West, 6th Baron De la Warr, and John Bennet, Baron Ossulston. In spite of his father’s long campaign to achieve precedency over De la Warr, Dursley was placed immediately below him on the barons’ bench, apparently without question. He was less quiescent in other matters and lost no time in registering his first protest, objecting to the amendments to the bill for reversing the perjury judgments against Titus Oates on 12 July. Thereafter he sat for much of the remainder of July and August (approximately 15 per cent of all sitting days in the session). On 18 July Dursley was added to the committee for privileges and he proceeded to be named to a further six select committees in the course of the session. His activities in the House were curtailed by his appointment as envoy extraordinary to the States General in September, a role that was later expanded to encompass duties as plenipotentiary at the congress at The Hague. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 578; CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 538. On 13 Sept. he registered his proxy with Charles Sackville, 6th earl of Dorset, who by virtue of his former marriages to the countess of Falmouth and Lady Mary Compton was related to Dursley twice over.

Dursley arrived at his new posting on 3 Oct. 1689, but by 21 Oct. he was complaining in despatches penned for him by his secretary, William Aglionby, that he was ‘so very ill’ that he was unable to write: an indisposition that incapacitated him for the greater part of the month. TNA, SP 84/222, ff. 3-4, SP 84/221, pt. 1, f. 4; BCM, SB 36 (A), ff. 2-3. Dursley appears to have suffered from chronic poor health (gout seems to have run in the family), but by December matters had improved and he was able to assure Charles Talbot, 12th earl, later duke of Shrewsbury, that ‘I am extremely well used for my master’s sake and much kindness shown to me from every body, which together with the perfect recovery of my health makes my stay here much more to my satisfaction that it was at first.’ Add. 4806, f. 42; BCM, SB 36 (A), f. 7. One matter that remained unresolved was the nomination of a plenipotentiary for the forthcoming congress. In February 1690 Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, advised the king that he believed Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, was unfavourable to Dursley’s appointment. CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 478. Dursley himself warmly recommended his friend Dorset as a suitable candidate. BCM, SB 36 (A), f. 12. Despite these doubts, Dursley was appointed and if Nottingham (who later described himself as being ‘an old friend’ of Dursley’s) was unfavourable, he evidently disguised his attitude effectively. CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 538; 1703-4, p. 18. Writing to him during the elections of 1690 Dursley offered to lend his interest in Gloucestershire to ‘anybody that your lordship [Nottingham] has any inclination for,’ declaring himself to be:

heartily glad to hear from all hands that there is so kind a correspondency betwixt his majesty and the Church of England, I hope such members will be chosen as are true sons of that Church for the ensuing Parliament, the happy union which that will cause at home, will have a very good influence on our affairs abroad. TNA, SP 84/222, ff. 43-44.

It was presumably on Nottingham’s recommendation that Dursley undertook to use his interest on behalf of James Thynne^‡, brother of Dursley’s old rival Weymouth, as he wrote enthusiastically on 25 Feb. assuring Nottingham that the family’s steward, ‘an honest Church of England man … will heartily bestir himself for so worthy a person as Mr Thynne.’ Ibid. f. 49. Despite this, and the additional support of Dursley’s father Berkeley and of Beaufort, Thynne failed to gain the seat. He complained that in spite of their promises, ‘Lord Berkeley’s and Lord Dursley’s friends and tenants were all against me.’ HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 203.

Financial concerns were a constant refrain in Dursley’s correspondence. He found his foreign posting an increasingly costly one, and on 18 Mar. 1690 in anticipation of the congress at The Hague, he appealed to Nottingham for additional funds:

I have nothing to give your lordship an account of, but shall again recommend my additional allowance upon my new character, if I live like others of the same degree there will be a considerable increase of my expenses in every thing, as liveries, furniture, table, gentlemen servants, I refer it wholly to your lordship’s representation to the king and shall be contented with whatever the king and your lordship shall determine, not desiring to pocket up any thing, if I may have the liberty of naming any sum £300 present money will be absolutely necessary, and truly my lord considering the increase of my family £3 a day more during the time of the congress and no longer, I suppose your lordship will not think too much. TNA, SP 84/222, f. 62.

The funds were duly awarded and Dursley’s continuation in post at The Hague meant that he was absent from the opening of the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690. On 31 Mar. he was excused at a call of the House, and he was probably absent for the entirety of the first session (the Baron Berkeley noted as attending for ten days in May was almost certainly John Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley of Stratton). News of the poor conduct of Arthur Herbert, earl of Torrington, in the naval action fought with the Dutch against the French off Beachy Head in June provoked an angry mob to besiege Dursley’s residence in The Hague the following month. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 76. William Harbord^‡ was despatched as ambassador to the United Provinces to quell Dutch unease, but before his arrival it was left to Dursley ‘to represent so ill a thing’ in the best possible light. HP Commons 1690-1715, iv. 199; Stowe 305, f. 182. Dursley annoyed Nottingham when he had one of Nottingham’s letters condemning Torrington’s actions translated into Dutch and printed. HMC Finch, ii. 351, 355. Equilibrium at the embassy was further unbalanced when William Aglionby retired on grounds of ill health in September 1690. The same month Dursley also sought permission to return to England to attend to his estate. TNA, SP 84/222, f. 171.

Dursley may have been present in the House for one day (7 Oct.) of the subsequent session, which commenced on 2 Oct. (but again the Baron Berkeley recorded on the attendance list was probably Berkeley of Stratton). Dursley was then absent from the House for the following 12 months. An intention to register his proxy his favour of Dorset appears to have miscarried as no proxy was recorded, despite Dursley’s evident determination that Dorset should have his voice:

If your lordship does not send me the form of a proxy to sign, I doubt Mr Smith and I have not law enough to form one here that will be valid, but if it be once sent me it will be good as long as this parliament lasts. When your lordship has possession of my voice I shall sleep with a quiet conscience being certain that it will be made use of for the good of the king and kingdom. BCM, SB 36 (A), ff. 86-87.

Concerned at finding a suitable replacement for Aglionby, Dursley complained how he was ‘afraid of recommendations at a distance, for commonly people do not mind how fit a man is for his place provided he be their friend.’ TNA, SP 84/222, f. 171. He then proceeded to acquiesce in the appointment of Matthew Prior^‡ merely on Dorset’s recommendation. BCM, SB 36 (A), ff. 86-87. Dursley’s initial reaction to his new secretary was unenthusiastic. Writing to Sir William Colt, his counterpart at Hanover, on 16 Nov. 1690 Dursley described Prior as ‘an ingenious young man’ but warned Colt that:

you must not expect such letters as Mr Aglionby used to write for this young man is wholly unacquainted with the business he is in, I hope he will learn, but in the meantime I have double trouble, which cannot be helped, and I hope my friends will have patience as well as myself. Add. 34095, ff. 170-71.

Two days later Dursley was once again unwell, ‘in bed having taken physic’, writing to Colt with Prior as amanuensis. BCM, SB 36 (B), f. 4. Dursley’s poor health continued into the new year.

In December 1690 he found himself embroiled in a family drama as a result of concerns that his godson, Sir Berkeley Lucy, was on the point of converting to catholicism. Add. 45511, f. 52. Meanwhile financial concerns added to his disquiet at remaining at The Hague. Writing to Henry Sydney, Viscount Sydney (later earl of Romney), on 6 Jan. 1691, Dursley complained that:

the truth is I am in a very honourable post but without health, pleasure or profit, though I must needs say the king has been very kind to me in an extraordinary allowance, and I am better paid than these things have been formerly … and yet not altogether so well neither as is necessary for a man who has a father alive. BCM, SB 36 (B), ff. 13-14.

Despite such concerns, Dursley remained at The Hague without interruption until the following October, when he was again granted leave of absence. HMC Downshire, i. 382. He took his seat in the House at the opening of the third session of the 1690 Parliament on 22 Oct. 1691, after which he was present on approximately 72 per cent of all sitting days and was named to eight committees. On 2 Nov. he acted as one of the tellers in a division held in committee of the whole House debating the clandestine marriages bill on the motion that the ages 16 and 18 should be retained in one of the clauses. The motion was rejected by five votes. On 20 Jan. 1692 he acted as a teller on the question of whether to agree to the Commons’ amendment to the trials for treason bill. Despite earlier speculation that he was to relinquish his post, the same month he was once more preparing for departure to Holland. HMC Hastings, ii. 338. On 19 Feb. he received his father’s proxy, which was vacated by the close of the session on 24 Feb. and on 22 Feb. he again acted as one of the tellers on the question whether to adjourn into a committee of the whole during consideration of the judges’ commissions and salaries bill. The same day he told on the question of whether to adjourn to the following day.

Dursley had returned to The Hague by August 1692. Add. 70116, A. Harley to Sir E. Harley 20 Aug. 1692. He seems still to have been there in mid October but his stay proved to be of shorter duration than previously, and he returned to the House for the opening of the fourth session of the 1690 Parliament on 4 November. Verney ms mic. M636/46, A. Nicholas to Sir R. Verney, 12 Oct. 1692. Present for 80 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to all three sessional committees and a further three committees during the course of the session, including that considering the bill for preserving fishery in the river Severn, in which he may have had local interest. On 31 Dec. he voted against committing the place bill and on 1 Jan. 1693 he was estimated to be opposed to passing the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk. On 3 Jan. Dursley acted as a teller for a series of divisions in a committee of the whole concerning proposed amendments to the place bill. He then acted as teller again on the question of whether to pass the bill, which he also opposed. Dursley continued to be prominent in the House during the remainder of the session. On 25 Jan. he acted as teller for the not contents on the question of whether to commit the disaffected persons bill, and on 4 Feb. he found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder.

Dursley returned to his posting once more after the conclusion of the session on 14 Mar. 1693. By August he appears at last to have earned Nottingham’s approbation. Nottingham wrote praising his latest despatch, which he concluded ‘was so very good that I have read your letter more than once with great satisfaction.’ HMC Finch, v. 221. The same month Dursley’s uncertain health intervened to interrupt his mission again and in October he was once more granted leave of absence. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 171; HMC Downshire, i. 434; L.G. Wickham Legg, Matthew Prior: A Study of his Public Career and Correspondence, 20. Renewed speculation that he was to be replaced was rife in November, when it was also rumoured that he was to be made secretary of state, but the latter failed to transpire and it was not until June 1694 that Dursley formally relinquished his post as envoy. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 228; CSP Dom. 1694-5, p. 225.

Gloucestershire and the House of Lords, 1694-98

Dursley’s health improved back in England, such that he was able to attend the House for the prorogation day on 3 Oct. 1693. He was present once again at the opening of the fifth session of the 1690 Parliament on 7 Nov, after which he attended approximately 69 per cent of all sitting days. On 10 Jan. 1694 he subscribed the protest at the resolution that the admirals had done well in executing their orders in the last campaign, and on 17 Feb. he voted in favour of reversing the court of chancery’s dismission in the case between Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, and John Granville, earl of Bath. In April he was prominent in the debates about the tonnage bill, speaking with John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham and Normanby) and Carmarthen (as Danby had since become) in favour of retaining the bank scheme as part of the bill rather than reopen a dispute with the Commons over the Lords’ right to amend supply measures. Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 131.

Dursley was appointed lord lieutenant of Gloucestershire in May 1694. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 354. The same month he was replaced at The Hague by Anthony Carey^‡, 5th Viscount Falkland [S], whose death almost immediately after his appointment left the post vacant for the ensuing year. HP Commons 1690-1715, iii. 470. Present in the House for the prorogation day on 18 Sept., Dursley took his seat at the opening of the sixth session on 12 Nov. but he was not named to the committee for privileges. The reason for the omission is unclear. On 26 Nov. his name was omitted from the attendance list, but as he was not one of those marked absent at a call of the House it seems likely that he took his seat at some point later during the day, after which he was absent until 20 December. Marked present for less than half of all sitting days, he was named to nine committees in the session. The dissolution in May 1695 finally offered Dursley an opportunity to exert his influence as lord lieutenant in Gloucestershire, which he did with mixed results. In advance of the elections in October he was honoured at Gloucester, where he was appointed high steward for life, but two Tories were returned for the city at the election. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 533; HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 220. At Tewkesbury, Dursley intervened successfully in opposing Sir Francis Winnington^‡, who had sought to be named as recorder in the town’s new charter. HMC Downshire, i. 473, 477-8; Add. 72483, ff. 140, 143. The subsequent election was predictably ill-tempered, but the result was a compromise with Dursley’s candidate, Richard Dowdeswell^‡, being returned along with the slighted Winnington. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 224.

Dursley took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695. He was present on almost 72 per cent of all sitting days, and was named to ten committees. In June 1696 he was one of those recommended to the king as a lord justice of Ireland but no further progress was made in this business at that time. CSP Dom. 1696, p. 242. Dursley took his seat in the second session on 20 Oct., and attended on approximately 70 per cent of all sitting days. On 23 Dec. he found in favour of passing the bill for attainting Sir John Fenwick^‡. Add. 47608 pt. 5, f. 138. Dursley registered his proxy with Normanby on 15 Feb. 1697, which was vacated by his return to the House on 25 February. On 10 Apr. he was appointed one of the managers of the conference for the bill to prevent the buying and selling of offices. That month it was again rumoured that he was to be appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland but this once more proved to be premature. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 214. The following month he was given additional responsibilities in his locality with his appointment as constable of St Briavel’s castle and keeper of the Forest of Dean but the appointment was delayed while the lords justices considered a claim made by Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, for the office. CSP Dom. 1697, pp. 150, 190.

Following the prorogation on 16 Apr., Dursley was present on each of the six prorogation days throughout the summer and autumn. He then took his seat at the opening of the new session on 3 December. That day, with Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, he introduced John Somers, Baron Somers. He was present for 72 per cent of all sitting days and named to 39 committees. On 13 Jan. 1698 he may have been one of those appointed managers of the conference concerning the Lords’ amendment to the bill for continuing the imprisonment of those involved in the assassination plot (though again it is possible that the Lord Berkeley mentioned in the Journal refers to Berkeley of Stratton), and on 21 Feb. he reported from the committee of the whole House considering the bill to explain the malt act. That month Dursley was one of a number of people to put themselves forward for the post of ambassador to Constantinople, which had been left vacant by the death of Sir James Rushout^‡, who was to have succeeded William Paget, 7th Baron Paget. Ibid. 1698, p. 97; Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 18, 20. Dursley swiftly gained the king’s approbation, though it was reported that the Levant Company preferred James Brydges, 8th Baron Chandos, in spite of the fact that Dursley’s father had served as governor of the company for more than 20 years. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fc 37, box 1, no. 44; CSP Dom. 1698, p. 105. In the event Dursley proved ‘very acceptable’ to the Company and the following month it was reported that he was preparing his equipage. CSP Dom. 1698, p. 112; Luttrell, iv. 355-6. Still active in the House, on 15 Mar. Dursley voted in favour of punishing Charles Duncombe^‡. The following day he probably entered his dissent at the resolution to grant relief to the appellants in the case between James Bertie^‡ and Lucius Henry Carey, 6th Viscount Falkland [S], but the presence in the House that day of both Dursley and his father, Berkeley, make definite identification difficult. On 17 Mar. he registered a further dissent against a second resolution in Bertie’s favour, and on 6 May he reported from the committee for the Gloucester highways bill. Dursley may have presented a petition to the Lords from the East India Company on 28 June, following the first reading of the two million fund bill (though this may have been done by his father shortly before he retired from the House), and on 1 July, in support of the ‘old’ company, he entered his protest at the resolution to establish the fund and settle the East India trade. Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 114.

Earl of Berkeley and Ireland 1698-1701

Dursley’s son, Charles Berkeley, was one of three pages appointed to the household of Princess Anne’s son, William, duke of Gloucester, in September 1698. Dursley took his seat a month into the new Parliament on 27 Sept. but was then absent until 6 December. His absence may have been on account of business resulting from his succession to the earldom in October. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 429, 438; Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 183. Prior noted his satisfaction that, ‘old Methusalem is sleeping with his fathers, and that our Dauphin Dursley reigns in his stead,’ but the death of the old earl raised doubts about the likelihood of Berkeley (as he was now known) taking up his embassy at Constantinople. Wickham Legg, 109n.; Luttrell, iv. 438; Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 12, pp. 45-47. Taking his seat in the House as 2nd earl of Berkeley on 6 Dec., Berkeley was thereafter present for approximately 70 per cent of all sitting days in the session during which he was named to 13 committees. On 19 Jan. 1699 when the disbanding bill was brought up from the Commons, Berkeley proposed the next reading should be put off for a fortnight, ‘which’, James Vernon^‡ concluded, ‘was a strange motion.’ Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 254. It is not clear why Berkeley wanted consideration of the bill delayed but his motion was not heeded and the bill received its first reading on 24 January. Excused from attendance at the trial of Edward Rich, 6th earl of Warwick, on 28 Mar. on the grounds of sickness, Berkeley was also absent from Mohun’s hearing the following month. He returned to the House on 17 Apr. and on 29 Apr. he was named one of the managers of the conference with the Commons concerning amendments to the Richard Legg naturalization bill.

Confusion over the succession at Constantinople continued until April 1699 when Berkeley finally requested to be excused from taking up the position. Northants. RO, Vernon-Shrewsbury letterbooks, ii. (47), f. 176; SOAS, Paget pprs. PP ms 4, Box 4, bdle. 26, f. 80. In May he was given additional cause to wish to remain at home when his heir, Dursley, died from smallpox. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 520; HMC Portland, iii. 605. Prior’s response to this personal tragedy was even more eccentric than his reaction to the death of the earl, writing to his former master that, ‘I should condole with you for the loss of my Lord Dursley, but … (to say the truth of things) little [Jacklin James Berkeley, later 3rd earl of Berkeley] will make a better Lord Dursley than him we have lost.’ Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 12, p. 297.

Berkeley was soon offered alternative employment to the Constantinople embassy when he was at last appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland at the end of May. CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 217; Luttrell, iv. 523. The post was a potentially lucrative one commanding an allowance of £6,953 6s. 8d. p.a. (shared between the three justices) as well as £1,000 for equipage. BCM, SB 35 (E), ff. 1-2; CSP Dom. 1699-1700, pp. 236-7. Vernon noted on 3 June how ‘My Lord Berkeley, though a melancholy mourner for his son, kissed the King’s hand on Thursday, for his being in the Irish commission,’ while Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I], continuing in his position as one of the lords justices, professed himself ‘pleased with the choice of Lord Berkeley; I admit that the news of another lord justice caused me great apprehensions until I heard his name.’ Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 299-300; CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 225. Matthew Prior complimented Berkeley on his appointment and declared that he was ‘infinitely more pleased with your going to Ireland than I was with your intended voyage to Constantinople’. Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 12, pp. 253-4. Writing to Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, from his post in Paris, Prior adopted a more patronizing attitude to the appointment and remarked that:

I am glad for my own private interest that my poor Lord Dursley (for I shall call him so till he dies) is got into that government; but, my lord, this is giving the whole power to Crop [Galway], and setting up at Dublin as absolute a monarch as him to whom I paid my adorations yesterday. Wickham Legg, 292.

Despite his belief that Galway would dominate affairs in Ireland, Prior approached Berkeley in July seeking his support in his long-running dispute with the government over his dual role as secretary to the embassy in Paris and as deputy to the lords justices in Ireland. Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 12, pp. 295-7.

Berkeley’s departure for Ireland was delayed while he attended to his private business and the settlement of the Gloucestershire lieutenancy in his absence. CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 250; Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 301, 320. Landing at Waterford on 19 Aug. 1699, he almost immediately precipitated a crisis within his own household when he appointed a local civil servant, Arthur Bushe, as his secretary, to the great indignation of Jonathan Swift who had accompanied Berkeley to Ireland (as he thought) in the dual roles of secretary and chaplain. BCM, SB 35 (J), p. 47; Corresp. of Jonathan Swift ed. F.E. Ball, i. 31n.; Swift, Works, ed. Davis et al. v. 195. Swift lost no time in penning a series of vituperative attacks on Berkeley. In one he lampooned his master with the lines:

When wise Lord Berkeley first came here,
Statesmen and mob expected wonders,
Nor thought to find so great a peer
Ere a week past committing blunders. Works of Dr. Jonathan Swift, (1758), vii. 135.

In more scatological vein, he exploited Berkeley’s personal hygiene, discoursing how, ‘My lord on fire amidst the dames,/F[ar]ts like a laurel in the flames.’ Swift, Works (1758), vii. 138. Remarkably, despite these unkind outpourings and Swift’s evident disdain for Berkeley, the disgruntled cleric remained in post as chaplain for the duration of Berkeley’s time in Ireland and the pair were on amicable terms for the rest of Berkeley’s life. Jnl. to Stella ed. Williams, i. xii. After his death it was to Swift that Berkeley’s relatives turned for an epitaph for his tomb.

Tragedy struck the family once more within a month of their arrival in Ireland with the sudden death of Berkeley’s daughter, Lady Penelope Berkeley, causing a grief-stricken Berkeley and his family to retire to the country to mourn. BCM, SB 35 (J), pp. 49-50. Berkeley’s health also declined in the wake of his daughter’s death, and although he had recovered by November, he was plagued by mounting financial difficulties, which added to the strains of office. CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 269. Writing from Dublin Castle on 14 Nov. he complained how:

besides difficulties in public matters, which I fear will every day increase, as things are between England and Ireland, the great business I designed by this employment was to pay my debts; but the expenses are so great and the profits so small that it’s well if I don’t increase them here. BCM, SB 35 (J), p. 55.

Another aspect of the posting that caused Berkeley particular irritation was the absenteeism of one of the three justices, Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton. Bolton continued to draw his allowance without suffering any of the costs of the position, but the notoriously prickly duke’s absence had its advantages, as Berkeley confessed in a letter to Prior noting that, ‘between you and I after all I had rather suffer this than have his grace’s company here.’ Ibid. pp. 58-59.

Absent from the House for the entirety of the second session of the 1698 Parliament, which opened on 16 Nov. 1699, on 13 Feb. 1700 Berkeley wrote to Arthur Moore^‡ from Dublin seeking his support in the Commons over the bill to remove duties from exported woollen goods. That month he invited further attacks from Swift when he recommended Dr. Bolton rather than Swift to the vacant deanery of Londonderry, but Berkeley was in no doubt that he had made the right choice and boasted to the lord chancellor of Ireland, John Methuen^‡, of the commendations he had received from the bishop of Derry for his role in selecting Bolton. Ibid. pp. 67-68, 69-71. On 28 Mar. the prospect of an alteration in the Irish establishment encouraged Berkeley to revive the divisive issue of Bolton’s continuing absenteeism, suggesting that:

It were much more reasonable if such third person would content himself with his salary and leave the perquisites to those who by residing here are at all the trouble as well as charge of the government. I might say danger too; for if any thing should happen amiss in this ticklish post, ’tis the residing and not the absent governor that must answer for it. Ibid. p. 74.

The following month, it was Berkeley’s turn to come under attack as he received severe criticism for the state of the militia in Gloucestershire. Defending himself, Berkeley insisted that:

if the militia of Gloucestershire has not been sufficiently taken care of since my being in Ireland, it is the fault of Sir Ralph Dutton^‡ and of the rest of the deputy lieutenants … You know that I was commanded away with all expedition, so that I allowed myself but ten days in Gloucestershire, in which short stay my own affairs were more neglected than the public. CSP Dom. 1700-2, p. 11.

Increasing criticism of the third lord justice, Galway, reinforced rumours of an impending alteration in the government of Ireland with Berkeley reluctant to accept a new commission if the absentee Bolton was to be continued in office. On 24 Apr. 1700 he wrote to Jersey requesting that he ‘would be pleased to represent to his majesty as far as it may be consistent with his service … that such alteration one way or another may not be to my prejudice.’ BCM, SB 35 (J), pp. 83-84. In May another ally, Lord Somers, was removed from office, eliciting a sympathetic letter from Berkeley who protested that:

it is a sad thing to live in a time when the greatest abilities and the greatest integrity are unpardonable faults, of which as a brother peer I must find you highly guilty upon my honour. Ibid. pp. 84-85.

The following month, Berkeley sought the advice of the lord president, Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke, over continuing problems concerning his Gloucestershire lieutenancy. Having received a list of those deputy lieutenants and justices of the peace put out for failing to take the Association, Berkeley questioned whether it was intended that these were to be restored to their offices and warned of the consequences if they were:

I cannot but think that if these men be restored to their commissions, not only every individual member of parliament will be chosen of their party and principles for the future; but it will have an influence too in all trials wherever the king is concerned. Ibid. pp. 86-88.

Although he was marked among the Whig lords in a list of the following month (possibly as one of those expected to support the Junto), in December Berkeley took the opportunity both to congratulate and seek the interest of the new Tory lord lieutenant of Ireland, Lawrence Hyde, earl of Rochester, in representing to the king his continuing financial woes:

I cannot but extremely rejoice in the happiness this country is like to have in so wise and just a Governor as your lordship. This upon my word my lord is no compliment, but a truth that I have owned to every body since the first report of your coming hither … I shall with great pleasure and satisfaction resign the sword into your lordship’s hands not in the least doubting but that in the mean time you will be so kind to take an opportunity to represent to the king that the shortness of my stay here has made this post rather a prejudice than an advantage to me, and to move his majesty, if he approves of my services, to fix me in some suitable employment at home. Eg. 3359, ff. 37-38; BCM, SB 35 (J), pp. 89-90.

Berkeley was indisposed with gout again in January 1701, while he and Galway awaited instructions for handing over the government of Ireland to the new administration. CSP Dom. 1700-2, p. 203; Post Boy, 30 Jan.-1 Feb. 1701. Berkeley was still waiting to ‘get rid of my share’ two months later. To add to his woes, a bill for stripping officials of unwarranted gifts threatened to deprive him of the perks he had been awarded in the Forest of Dean. On 6 Mar. 1701 he wrote to Arthur Moore asking that he would employ his interest on his behalf in the matter. Berkeley hoped that there were ‘very few members of the House so prejudiced against me as to think that I have not deserved the small and only recompense I have had for my services’ and that in spite of Moore’s failure to be elected at the recent election, he retained sufficient interest to ensure that Berkeley would be excepted out of the bill’s provisions:

I am quite ruined if the small recompense that I had for my services must be taken away by act of Parliament, not but that I am willing to submit to that too for the good of my country, if all people were obliged to pay the same proportion out of their estates, according to what they possess. Certainly the gift that I have of £6,000 out of the weeds of the Forest of Dean is as much my property as any part of my estate, and honestly acquired as any thing any man has, by industry and labour made him master of. … If they judge others may have had gifts without any desert, it is very hard the innocent should be punished with the guilty. BCM, SB 35 (J), pp. 92-94.

Berkeley and Galway finally received instructions for the handover of the administration at the end of March, and on 5 Apr. they announced their intention of quitting Ireland at ‘the first opportunity.’ Ibid. (K), f. 83. Having missed the first two months of the new Parliament, Berkeley resumed his seat on 24 Apr. after which he was present for approximately 35 per cent of all sitting days. On 26 May he reported from the committee for Lady Bulkeley’s bill and on 17 June he voted in favour of acquitting his old ally Somers of the articles of impeachment against him. He voted similarly to acquit Edward Russell, earl of Orford, on 23 June.

The reign of Queen Anne

Berkeley presented the Gloucester address at Whitehall in his capacity as high steward of the city on 21 October. London Gazette, 20-23 Oct. 1701. His interest there was also evident in the second general election of the year that saw his heir, James, now styled Viscount Dursley, returned as one of the city’s Members. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 220. Berkeley took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701, after which he attended on 64 per cent of all sitting days. In January 1702 it was rumoured that he was to return to Ireland as a lord justice but nothing came of it. Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 27 Jan. 1702. Following the death of King William, Berkeley was confirmed in office as lord lieutenant of Gloucestershire and constable of St Briavels, and on 28 Apr. 1702 he presented a second county address to the queen, the first (presented by John Grobham Howe^‡) having been rejected for its criticism of the late king. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 205. It was probably at this time that Berkeley was compelled to defend his actions as head of the militia and in a letter to Arthur Moore he denied strenuously the allegation that he had purposely removed officers to damage Howe’s chances in the forthcoming election:

I am entirely of your opinion especially (considering the great station Mr Howe has at court) that it would be very absurd to turn anybody out of commission for giving him their voice and I desire any hot headed informer to prove that I have ever done it, even before this government in the late reign, because it is against my principle. I would have no man be the worst for giving his vote according to his conscience. KSRL, Moore mss, ms 143 Ca, Berkeley to A. Moore, 24 Apr. n.y.

The elections of that summer saw Berkeley active on behalf of Maynard Colchester^‡ and Sir John Guise^‡. In spite of his expostulations, he was the subject of bitter complaints made by Howe to Nottingham in July who claimed that ‘my Lord Berkeley is rather more zealous and violent against me this than last election.’ HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 206. Despite Berkeley’s efforts Howe was returned with Colchester.

Berkeley was absent from the opening of the new Parliament. He took his seat on 13 Nov. after which he was present for almost 55 per cent of all sitting days in the session. He was estimated by Nottingham to be an opponent of the occasional conformity bill on 1 Jan. 1703 and on 16 Jan. he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. Berkeley probably resumed his seat at the opening of the ensuing session on 9 Nov. (he was omitted from the attendance list but was named to the sessional committees so presumably took his seat after it was taken) after which he was present for approximately 48 per cent of all sitting days. Estimated by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, to be opposed to the occasional conformity bill in two November forecasts, on 14 Dec. Berkeley again voted against the bill. On 5 Jan. 1704 Berkeley dined with Charles Bennet, 2nd Baron Ossulston (later earl of Tankerville), and several members of his family, and on 14 Jan. he accompanied Ossulston to the House during the debates over the case of the Aylesbury men. TNA, C104/116, pt. 1.

Berkeley took his seat one day after the opening of the third session on 25 Oct. 1704, after which he attended 67 per cent of all sitting days. In March 1705 his heir, Dursley, was summoned to the House as Berkeley of Berkeley. Writing to Moore with the news on 1 Mar., Berkeley requested that he might use his interest to ‘quicken the warrant’, noting that the lord keeper had ordered Charles Hedges^‡ to draw it up though Berkeley himself ‘should rather have chosen Harley(’ Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford). KSRL, Moore mss, ms Ca, Berkeley to A. Moore, 1 Mar. 1705. James Berkeley was duly summoned to the House four days later. The following month Berkeley was, unsurprisingly, noted as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession.

In October 1705 Berkeley was absent at the opening of the new Parliament and on 12 Nov. he was excused at a call of the House. He took his seat on 14 Jan. 1706, after which he attended for approximately 26 per cent of all sitting days. On 15 Feb. he reported from the committee for John Sands’ bill and the following day from that considering Guy’s bill. He returned to the House for the following session on 30 Dec., of which he attended 42 per cent of all sitting days. He was then present for four of the nine days of the brief third session, which was prorogued on 24 Apr. 1707.

After several years of retirement from major office, Berkeley appears to have begun once more to agitate for a foreign posting. In September 1707 he wrote to John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, informing him of his desire to return to his former posting at The Hague, flattering himself ‘that my long experience may make me useful in that country.’ Add. 61365, f. 173. His offer was not taken up and Berkeley took his seat at the opening of the first Parliament of Great Britain on 23 Oct., after which he attended 58 per cent of all sitting days. On 7 Feb. 1708 he registered his protest at the resolution to pass the bill for completing the Union, and on 11 Mar. he reported from the committee for privileges recommending acceptance of the claim of William Ferdinand Carey, a distant relation of Robert Carey 7th Baron Hunsdon, to be admitted to the House as Baron Hunsdon. Berkeley renewed his petition to be employed in April. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. ii. 948. Marlborough referred him to the lord treasurer (Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godolphin) on whom, Marlborough assured him, he could depend for ‘a favourable answer’. At one point it was rumoured that Berkeley was to return to The Hague as he desired. Add. 61389, f. 72. The following month it was rumoured that he would replace Sir Philip Meadowes^‡ who was to be recalled from Vienna, though Berkeley reputedly made this more difficult by demanding an allowance of £10 a day. HMC Portland, iv. 491. Berkeley was again noted as a Whig in a list of party classifications in May. He reported from the committee considering the Bath highways bill on 28 June and, soon after, in August, it was confidently reported that Swift was to travel to Vienna as the queen’s secretary and to be followed by Berkeley in the spring. Ibid. 502.

Having spent the previous few months petitioning for a place, Berkeley appears to have changed his mind about pursuing office by the beginning of 1709, perhaps on account of renewed ill health. Swift Corresp. ed. Ball, i. 131-2. His countess’s efforts to secure a cornet’s commission for one of his sons had also proved unsuccessful, the queen rejecting the petition as being ‘very inconsistent with a man of business, which is what this young man’s father designs to breed him to.’ Add. 61417, ff. 173-4. Disappointed in his ambitions for himself and his family, Berkeley returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708, after which he attended approximately 40 per cent of all sitting days. On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted in favour of permitting Scottish peers with British titles to vote in the election of Scottish representative peers. Resuming his seat in the second session on 16 Dec. 1709, he sat for 22 days before attending for the final time on 28 Mar. 1710. That month, to the surprise of a number of commentators, he was mistakenly reported to have been one of nine peers to support Henry Sacheverell. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. iii. 1445-6. In reality, as expected, he found the doctor guilty. Add. 15574, ff. 65-68.

In June 1710 it was widely reported that Berkeley was to be replaced as lord lieutenant of Gloucestershire by his local rival, Beaufort. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 207. The same month Berkeley was said to be dangerously ill. HMC Portland, iv. 546. In July, ‘old and infirm’ he appealed to Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, for his interest in enabling him to resign his lieutenancy to his heir, pointing out that but for one exception, ‘none of the family of Beaufort ever was lord lieutenant of Gloucestershire’. W. Suss. RO, Petworth House Arch. 14, Berkeley to Somerset, 10 July 1710. He was disappointed in his request. His appeals for Swift to come to him at Berkeley were also rebuffed and on 24 Sept. he died from an attack of dropsy. Jnl. to Stella, 23; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 45-46. In his will Berkeley bequeathed an annuity of £100 to his heir, Dursley, annuities amounting to £220 4s. 8d. to his younger son, Lord Henry Berkeley^‡, and annuities totalling £154 to his third son, Lord George Berkeley^‡. He was buried in the church at Berkeley, where a memorial was later added with a fulsome Latin epitaph composed by Swift; Swift wrote though in his copy of Macky’s Memoirs that he was ‘intolerably lazy and indolent and somewhat covetous’. D.F. Passmann and H.J. Vienken Library and Reading of Jonathan Swift ii. 1152. Berkeley was succeeded in the peerage by his son, Admiral Lord Dursley, as 3rd earl of Berkeley.