BERTIE, Robert (c. 1630-1701)

Heir to one of the staunchest of cavalier houses, on the death of his father Lindsey succeeded not only to the earldom but also to the hereditary office of lord great chamberlain. With these he inherited one of the principal interests in Lincolnshire. The marriage of his sister to Sir Thomas Osborne, later earl of Danby, marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds, linked Lindsey to the foremost politician of the period and, together, the Bertie-Osborne interest developed into one of the most significant in Parliament. Despite this, Lindsey suffered from continual poor health that kept him from the House for long periods and from frequent challenges to his authority from rival magnates, notably from the Manners, Cecils and Saundersons and most particularly prior to 1683 from Sir Robert Carr^‡. C. Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire, 77, 241-2.

1666-85

Lindsey took his seat at the opening of the new session on 18 Sept. 1666 and was thereafter present on almost 77 per cent of all sitting days. Named to 15 committees in the course of the session, on 14 Nov. he reported from the committee for privileges considering a complaint made by Conyers Darcy, 6th Baron Darcy (later earl of Holdernesse) concerning the rights of English peers to precedence over foreign (i.e. Scots and Irish) nobles. Two days later he reported from the committee for privileges again detailing the report of the committee of both Houses examining the public accounts. On 17 Dec. Lindsey received the proxy of Henry Hastings, Baron Loughborough, with whom his father had served at Edgehill as a cavalry commander. The proxy was vacated by Loughborough’s death a few days later on 10 Jan. 1667 (though it was only noted as being vacated in the proxy book the following day). On 22 Dec. 1666, possibly in his role as lord great chamberlain, Lindsey presented the petition of George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, lamenting that he had ‘fallen into the displeasure of this supreme court’ and desiring to be restored to favour. Absent from the House for a little over a week from 11 Jan. 1667, Lindsey ensured his proxy was registered with Thomas Belasyse, 2nd Viscount Fauconberg, on 12 Jan, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 17 January.

Lindsey was present in the House on the two prorogation days of July 1667 and then took his seat in the new session on 10 Oct., after which he was present on approximately 69 per cent of all sitting days. On 24 Oct. he was added to the committee examining the bill providing for the better execution of laws concerning the pricing of wines, and he was thereafter named to a further 14 committees in the course of the session. On 4 Dec. he was ordered by the House to oversee improvements in the painted chamber for holding conferences, following which Lindsey moved on 9 Dec. for the House to order the setting up of a rail in the chamber so that the reporters from the Commons were not disturbed by the press of people. Lindsey again reported from the committee for privileges on 19 Dec. concerning the case of Charles Mohun, 3rd Baron Mohun, at the time a minor, recommending that Mohun’s guardians ought to be granted privilege of Parliament in their case with Dawes Wymondsall.

Lindsey was absent between 19 Dec. 1667 and 6 Feb. 1668. On 11 Feb. a report from the committee for privileges referred to him (in his capacity as lord great chamberlain) responsibility for ensuring that when the king attended the House none should be present in the chamber before him other than peers, their eldest sons and other ‘necessary attendants’. The demand reflected a continual preoccupation of the House to ensure that its proceedings were not infiltrated by strangers. On 15 Feb. the House ordered the attachment of three individuals for participating in the destruction of banks protecting Lindsey’s land at Saltfleet Haven in Lincolnshire from the sea: the malefactors having then compounded their crime by ‘using contemptuous words’ against him. The three were discharged on 14 Mar. following Lindsey’s intercession on their behalf. On 24 Feb. Lindsey joined with Thomas Howard, earl of Berkshire, and Henry Grey, earl of Stamford, in petitioning the House over rights to the manor of Hedingham in Essex, then in the possession of his cousin, Brien Cokayne, 2nd Viscount Cullen [I]. Lindsey was granted leave to go into the country on 16 Mar., but when he returned on 1 Apr. the three peers’ case against Cullen had been dismissed.

Lindsey took his seat in the following session on 19 Oct. 1669, after which he was present on just under 70 per cent of all sitting days. Named to the committees for privileges and petitions, on 25 Oct. he was named to that considering the decline in trade and fall of rents, and he proceeded to be nominated to a further two committees during the remainder of the session. He took his seat in the ensuing session on 14 Feb. 1670, of which he attended approximately 61 per cent of all sitting days. During the session he was named to 23 committees, including that considering the bill for his half-brother, James Bertie, Baron Norreys (later earl of Abingdon). On 24 Mar. Lindsey was ordered to take care to ensure that no one should enter the House during its debates except those authorized to be in attendance. Two days later he reported from the committee considering the bill for a treaty of union, recommending it as fit to pass. It was probably during the adjournment between April and October that Lindsey married for the third time. In August he petitioned Sir Joseph Williamson^‡ successfully on behalf of Isaac Watson, who had been found guilty at the Oxford assizes of highway robbery. Lindsey explained that Watson was related to one of his wife’s servants and hoped that his sentence might be commuted to transportation as it had been his first offence. CSP Dom. 1670, p. 366. He resumed his seat on 24 Oct. and on 31 Mar. 1671 he was named one of the reporters of the conference concerning the act for ascertaining the measures of corn and salt. He then reported the effect of the conference later the same day.

Present in the House for the prorogation day on 30 Oct. 1672, Lindsey took his seat in the following session on 4 Feb. 1673 and was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. The next day he was ordered to wait on the king to present the House’s thanks and over the course of the session, of which he attended just over half of all sitting days, he was named to a further seven committees. On 14 Mar., having obtained the king’s permission and undertaken to fund the project out of his own pocket, he instructed Sir Christopher Wren^‡ to see to the construction of an additional building adjoining his chamber in the palace ‘for the better conveniency of the execution of my office.’ PA, LGC/5/1, f. 46.

A rumour that Lindsey’s daughter, Lady Arabella Bertie, was to marry John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham and Normanby), circulated in April; in the event no match resulted and Lady Arabella eventually married Thomas Savage, 3rd Earl Rivers, instead. Lindsey was present on all four days of the brief session of October 1673. He then took his seat at the opening of the following session of January 1674, after which he was present on 55 per cent of all sitting days. Named to the committees for privileges and petitions, on the same day (7 Jan.) he was ordered to wait on the king to discover when the House might present its address. On 20 Jan. Lindsey was ordered to move the king to order the windows in the court of requests to be glazed and on 24 Jan. he was again ordered to wait on the king to enquire when the House might present their thanks. Lindsey undertook similar duties on 3 and 11 Feb. and towards the end of the session was also named to four committees. HMC Portland, iii. 337; PA, LGC/5/1, f. 47.

In March Lindsey purchased the place of gentleman of the bedchamber from Buckingham for the reputed sum of £6,000. Verney ms mic. M636/28, Dr. W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 20 Mar. 1674; Add. 25117, f. 172. It was also reported that Lady Lindsey was to be honoured with a place in the queen’s bedchamber but this failed to transpire. Verney ms mic. M636/27, Sir R. to E. Verney, 5 Mar. 1674. Lindsey was reported to have been in Scotland in the summer of 1674 taking part in talks with members of the administration there. NAS, GD 406/1/2701. By August he had returned to Grimsthorpe where, despite his improved position at court, he complained of his poor health, lack of money and loss of interest in Lincolnshire. Eg. 3338, ff. 50-51.

Lindsey rallied his spirits to return to Parliament for the session of April 1675 but he does not appear to have been particularly active. Although he was present on over 83 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to just one committee on 31 May, and on 4 June he was ordered to wait on the king to request the nomination of a new sergeant at arms. Noted in advance of the session as a supporter of Danby’s non-resisting test (the forerunner of which Lindsey had opposed while in the Commons), on 15 Apr. he presented the bill to the House. Browning, Danby, i. 152. On 21 Apr. he received the proxy of Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Nottingham, which was vacated by the close of the session, and five days later (26 Apr.) that of his brother-in-law, Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount Campden, which was also vacated by the prorogation.

Lindsey took his seat in the following session on 13 Oct. 1675 (of which he attended all bar two days) when he was again entrusted with Campden’s proxy. The following day he also received that of Charles Howard, earl of Carlisle, which was vacated on 4 November. On 20 Nov. (still holding Campden’s proxy) he voted against addressing the crown to request a dissolution.

During the year’s interval in between the two sessions, Lindsey attempted to distance himself from a possible dispute with the lord chamberlain over the right to erect scaffolding in Westminster Hall for the trial of Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis. Convinced that precedent dictated that the right did not lie in the office of lord great chamberlain if Parliament was not sitting, he protested to Danby in mid June 1676 that he ‘would not for all the world engage your lordship in a business which I could not go through in … And to make a great bustle for a thing of that small importance and to be worsted in it too I am afraid would very much reflect upon my judgment’. In spite of Lindsey’s declared intention of not pressing the point, a committee of the Privy Council was shortly after appointed to consider the matter following which Lindsey was requested to produce evidences supporting his claims. Eg. 3330, ff. 105-6; PA, LGC/5/1, ff. 69-70. By this time he had joined with Danby and four other peers in finding Cornwallis guilty of manslaughter in defiance of the majority of the triers who voted to acquit. State Trials, vii. 157-8; HEHL, EL 8419. In addition to his involvement in these proceedings, Lindsey was also engaged in promoting his kinsman, Henry Noel^‡, for the by-election at Stamford necessitated by the promotion of William Montagu^‡ to the bench. Reporting to Danby he assured him of having:

taken all the pains I could in a certain borough for my friend who if I may judge according to human success will carry it and by that I am to observe to you how powerful a conjunction of families are and how ridiculously insignificant they make themselves when upon all occasions they do not express a high concern one for another. Eg. 3330, ff. 28-29.

Lindsey returned to the House at the opening of the subsequent session on 15 Feb. 1677, in advance of which he received the proxies of his half-brother, Norreys, and brother-in-law, Campden. Norreys later transferred the proxy to Richard Arundell, Baron Arundell of Trerice, while Campden’s was vacated by his resumption of his seat. Present on almost 79 per cent of all sitting days, on 17 Feb. Lindsey was again required by the House to make efforts to prevent non-members from inveigling their way into the House and between 20 and 22 Feb. he was named to four committees. Absent for the last few days of February, Lindsey registered his own proxy with John Granville, earl of Bath, on 22 Feb, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat on 5 March. His absence from the House at that time was the result of his attendance at the Stamford poll, whence he was ‘sent for down by his party’ to support Noel, who comfortably carried it against the challenge of John Hatcher^‡. Verney ms mic. M636/30, Lady Lindsey to Sir R. Verney, 23 Feb. 1677. Having resumed his place, Lindsey was named to a further dozen committees, including that for the Deeping Fen bill in which he had a particular interest.

From the spring of 1677 Lindsey began active canvassing for the seat at Grantham. His robust use of the militia to support his agents generated vigorous complaints from his opponents and no doubt contributed to his being assessed as triply vile by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. Although Lindsey was said to have received ‘very good satisfaction’ from the king when he complained about the activities of his arch-rival Sir Robert Carr in Lincolnshire, his upholding of the court and proximity to Danby appear to have made him a target for opposition retaliation. Browning, ii. 40. By October it was predicted confidently that there would be a ‘great contest at Grantham’ between the followers of Carr and Lindsey. Verney ms mic. M636/30, Sir R. to J. Verney, 11 Oct. 1677. Moves by the opposition to stifle Lindsey led to a bewildered response at the close of the year by his kinsman, Robert Paston, Viscount Yarmouth, who wondered ‘what my Lord Lindsey should act capable of an impeachment: if the king suffer his lord lieutenants to be used so none will be safe’. HMC 6th Rep. 384. Despite Yarmouth’s concerns, no such effort appears to have been launched against Lindsey at this time, though in December Lindsey appealed to his neighbour, John Manners, styled Lord Roos (later duke of Rutland), to be in town in advance of the session ‘to consult our affairs and to fortify’ against an attempt by Carr, and Sir William Ellis to bring a complaint before the Commons. HMC Rutland, ii. 44.

The maintenance of the Bertie interest in the town of Stamford was ensured by the return of Charles Bertie^‡ in February 1678 following the death of Noel. On 1 Feb. Lindsey received Yarmouth’s proxy, which was vacated by the close of the session. Absent at a call on 16 Feb., Lindsey took his seat three days later, and on 26 Feb. he was entrusted with the proxy of Christopher Hatton, Viscount Hatton, which was vacated by Hatton’s resumption of his seat the following day. In March a heated contest at Grantham resulted in Lindsey’s candidate, Sir Robert Markham^‡, being returned but only after Lindsey had once more resorted to turning out the militia. A subsequent appeal by Markham’s opponent, Ellis, supported by Carr failed to overturn the result. HMC Ormonde, iv. 429, 431.

Lindsey took his seat in the House once more on 23 May 1678, on which day he again received Yarmouth’s proxy (which was vacated by the close). Despite being present on over 58 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to just one committee during the session. Having attended the single sitting day of 1 Aug. he took his seat on 21 Oct. 1678, after which he was present on almost 60 per cent of all sitting days during which he was named to two committees. In the interval between the sessions he had once again been involved in overseeing improvements to parts of the palace of Westminster. PA, LGC/5/1, f. 73. Lindsey suffered the loss of one of his daughters in the first half of November but this failed to distract him from his continued attendance of the House. Verney ms mic. M636/32, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 13 Nov. 1678. On 15 Nov. he voted against making the declaration against transubstantiation to be under the same penalty as the oaths and on 26 Dec. he voted in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the supply bill. The following day, predictably enough, he voted against committing Danby.

Canvassing for the general election found Lindsey once more at loggerheads with Carr in Lincolnshire. He complained to Danby how ‘a great part of the world are apt to believe that those who are in office are in favour and so consequently think they act not contrary but with the court’. Eg. 3331, ff. 101-2. Lindsey’s difficulties were exacerbated when Markham withdrew from Grantham so that he could contest Newark, leaving the borough free to be carried by Carr’s candidates, Ellis and Sir John Newton^‡. Lady Lindsey experienced similar difficulties in Woodstock, where she found previously loyal tenants deserting to support the candidates put forward by John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace. Ellis and Newton’s success at Grantham may have been assisted by Lindsey once more falling prey to poor health. In March 1679 it was rumoured that he was at the point of death if not already dead. Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. Heron to Lady Lindsey, 5 Mar. 1679; Sir R. to E. Verney, 17 Mar. 1679; J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 25 Mar. 1679. These proved to be premature and towards the end of March he was expected to be sufficiently well to make the journey to London. He had previously been noted as an absent supporter by Danby (the word ‘absent’ subsequently scratched out) and thereafter he featured regularly in Danby’s forecasts of his likely supporters in the House.

Lindsey was not reappointed to the new Privy Council in April. On 1 Apr. he voted against the early stages of the Danby attainder bill and on 4 Apr. he voted to reject the bill, registering his dissent when the motion was carried. Ten days later he voted against concurring with the Commons over the attainder. Missing at a call on 9 May, Lindsey resumed his seat the following day when he voted against appointing a joint committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords. On 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases. In all, he attended 34 per cent of sittings in the 61-day session.

Following the close of the session, Lindsey was involved in a dispute with Lady Wynn (his son, Willoughby’s mother-in-law) over the fulfilment of the terms of Willoughby’s marriage contract. NLW, Wynn of Gwydir, 2805. Although he was expected back in town in October, it was predicted that Lindsey would ‘not come at the Parliament’ and from the close of the first Exclusion Parliament to the end of the reign, Lindsey remained absent from the House, largely it would appear on account of cripplingly poor health. Verney ms mic. M636/33, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 2 Oct. 1679. He was not so sick as to be unable to attend an entertainment for James, duke of York, at Stamford while the duke was en route to Scotland. HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 234. In October 1680 Lady Lindsey complained of a ‘new fever’ that had not only incapacitated her husband but 19 members of the family, and the same month Lindsey wrote to Black Rod explaining that he was ‘so powerfully seized upon by this general new fever’ that he was unable to be present at the opening of the new session. He was not so unwell, though, to overlook ordering Black Rod to see to it that the usual searches of the palace were carried out prior to the opening or to make provision for a deputy to officiate at the introduction of new lords. Verney ms mic. M636/34, Lady Lindsey to Sir R. Verney, 12 Oct. 1680; Royal Society, ms 70, pp. 10-11. With his immediate duties dispensed with, Lindsey was able to retreat back to his sick bed. Although it was reported on 27 Oct. that Lindsey and his countess were expected in town, on 30 Oct. he was excused at a call of the House, predictably enough, on the grounds of poor health. Verney ms mic. M636/34, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 27 Oct. 1680. He was consequently absent from the exclusion vote on 15 Nov. and in December he continued to excuse his failure to attend because of sickness. Writing to Danby he presumed ‘the House of Lords has had by this time the same account by my servants as to my inability of coming up as they had from my Lord Campden’s’ and he explained how he had attempted to ‘harden myself by taking the air in the coach and sometimes walking in my stable and my gardens. But I have been recompensed for my rashness with quotidian fits.’ As the session drew to a close in January 1681 Lindsey, still incapacitated, comforted himself in a further missive to Danby that ‘it is improbable that one vote will be of that importance to weigh the scale of one side or the other,’ and thus, ‘there will be no occasion of my coming up this session.’ HMC Lindsey, 36-37.

Danby’s hopes that Lindsey, who he still viewed as one of his principal supporters, would rally in time for the Oxford Parliament in March and that he would present his petition to be bailed failed to be realized. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 6, box 2, folder 27, instructions, 17 Mar. 1681. In Lindsey’s absence it was left to his kinsman, Norreys, to present Danby’s petition. Lindsey’s ill health did not prevent him from launching a suit against one of his old family retainers, Edward Christian, for a debt of £300. Lindsey had previously brought an action against Christian, at the time of his accession to the peerage, over disputed leases to certain properties on his estate. TNA, C10/110/62. Christian, who was also being prosecuted for scandalum magnatum by Buckingham, complained that Lindsey’s heir, Willoughby, ‘has told persons of honour that I have cheated his grandfather and father.’ Add. 28051, ff. 105-6. In July Lindsey, whose health had presumably improved markedly by that point, hosted a magnificent entertainment at Grantham to help secure signatures to the county’s loyal address. Add. 75360, Sir W. Hickman to Halifax, 13 July 1681. Among the guests were Sir John Reresby^‡, who reported to Danby, ‘if good meat and drink will make men loyal (which used to be a good argument with Englishmen) my lord spares no cost to effect it in his lieutenancy.’ Reresby Mems. 228n. For all the expense of the Grantham entertainment, Lindsey was unable to win over the grand jury at the Lincoln assizes, which refused to give the address its approbation. Add. 75360, J. Millington to Halifax, 27 July 1681; Holmes, 245-6.

Although Lindsey was spared the responsibility of overseeing a new Parliament for the remainder of the reign he continued to exercise his responsibilities in the palace and in November 1681 he granted permission for the establishment of a new coffee house in part of the former court of wards. PA, LGC/5/1, f. 78. Lindsey was in London in June 1682 to oversee his ‘affair in law’ (probably relating to a dispute with his heir, Willoughby, though it could have been any one of a number of suits in which he was involved at that time) after which he was expected to travel to Windsor. Verney ms mic. M636/36, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 28 June 1682. Before quitting London he was one of those present in the court of King’s Bench to support Danby’s continuing efforts to secure his release. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 199. On 29 June Lindsey was reappointed to the Privy Council (for which he paid fees totalling £26) and early in July it was reported that he and Willoughby had at last come to terms, though accommodation had not been achieved ‘without some difficulty.’ PA, LGC/5/1, f. 80; Bodl. Clarendon 155, ff. 151-2; Verney ms mic. M636/36, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 1 July 1682; Sir R. Verney to J. Cary, 3 July 1682. He had returned to Grimsthorpe by August from which he wrote to Danby, still confined in the Tower, expressing his hope that ‘the ministers will be encouraged to call a Parliament leading to your release’ while conceding that he could not blame Danby’s opponents ‘for making hay whilst the sun shines, for if they are not happy in the constant esteem and good opinion of their master being always hated by the people, they run great hazards.’ By the close of September Lindsey was engaged in another dispute, this time with his neighbour at Belvoir Castle, which it was hoped Danby might be able to use his interest to compose. In November Lindsey signed the latest petition for Danby’s release, which he considered to be ‘admirably drawn’ but in spite of such efforts the king’s failure to summon Parliament left the former lord treasurer languishing in the same predicament. Eg. 3334, ff. 37-38, 43-44, 65, 75-76.

The following year Lindsey employed his interest on behalf of Dr. Price for a vacant prebend’s stall at Lincoln, assuring William Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, how he had ‘made it my business, not only to observe amongst the clergy and laity who is most active to promote the king’s interest and the public good of the church, but also have endeavoured to have them encouraged and gratified’. Bodl. Tanner 34, f. 36. Lindsey responded energetically to the clampdown that followed revelations of the Rye House Plot. In July 1683 he was actively engaged in seizing arms from suspected persons in Lincolnshire, among them Sir William Ellis^‡, ‘the head of all the Presbyterians in the county’ and believed to be closely involved with James Scott, duke of Monmouth. CSP Dom. 1683, p. 180. The following year Danby was at last successful in securing his release from the Tower, the latest petition for his release once again bearing Lindsey’s name at the head of the list. Eg. 3358 F. In April 1684 it was Lindsey’s turn to be grateful, on this occasion to his half-brother Abingdon, for his kindness to his youngest son, Philip Bertie^‡, then a student at Oxford, and he requested that he might ‘send him [Philip] a warrant for a buck out of Rycote park so that he might pleasure some of his friends at the university’. Bodl. ms. Eng. lett. e. 129, f. 110.

Lindsey and his countess returned to London in May. They made a point initially of living privately at lodgings in Essex Street, though they were expected to ‘own themselves to their friends’ later in the month. Verney ms mic. M636/38, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 11 May 1684. Having been excused from waiting on the king in mid-May, Lindsey was engaged with his duties at court at Windsor in June before making a brief stay at his residence at Chelsea. Eg. 3350, ff. 7-8; Add. 28053, f. 308; Verney ms mic. M636/39, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 27 July 1684. There negotiations were undertaken for the match between Lindsey’s daughter, Lady Arabella, and Earl Rivers, which was solemnized in August. With this business settled, Lindsey left London for a spell at Woodstock before returning to Grimsthorpe for the remainder of the year. Verney ms mic. M636/39, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 31 July 1684; J. to Sir R. Verney, 11 Aug. 1684; Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 28 Aug. 1684; J. Cary to Sir R. Verney, 1 Oct. 1684.

1685-1701

In January 1685 Lindsey was replaced as one of the gentlemen of the bedchamber by Thomas Bruce, styled Lord Bruce (later 2nd earl of Ailesbury). The death of Charles II not long after, offered Lindsey a fresh opportunity to re-establish his credentials at court. The late king had never thought very highly of the earl and Lindsey had at one point accused him of laying ‘a new indignity upon me by not sending me a letter as to other lord lieutenants’, and of putting out his friends and appointing his enemies as justices. Lindsey had found Charles II’s preference for Carr particularly galling. Holmes, 240; Eg. 3331, ff. 126-7. Doubtless, he hoped that the new king would prove more amenable and that his unambiguous support for James during the exclusion crisis would help him to curry favour with the new regime. Although he admitted ‘I never saw the gentleman in my life’, he dutifully communicated the king’s request that Richard Graham^‡ should be returned for Grantham to his neighbour, Rutland. Lindsey apologized for being unable to attend in person and assumed that as recorder Rutland would face no difficulty. In the event Graham stood for Windsor instead. HMC Rutland, ii. 86-87; HP Commons 1660-90, i. 302, ii. 427. Lindsey appears to have been similarly compliant in assisting with the court’s desire that Sir Thomas Meres^‡ be returned for Lincoln. Add. 75360, John Millington to Halifax, 9 Mar. 1685. He was then occupied with overseeing the election at Stamford, where he was delighted to be able to secure a minor revenge with ‘the exclusion of the excluder’, following which Lindsey was expected back in London accompanied by his family in mid March. HMC Rutland, ii. 87-88; Verney ms mic. M636/39, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 15 Mar. 1685.

Lindsey took his seat in the new Parliament on 19 May 1685. Present on just under three-quarters of all sitting days, he was named to six committees in addition to the usual sessional committees. On the opening day he joined with a number of Danby’s friends in moving for the lord treasurer’s case to be treated in the same way as that of the Catholic lords who had been imprisoned in the wake of the Popish Plot. Bodl. ms Eng. hist. c. 46, ff. 37-46. Curiously, having been named to the committee for petitions on 22 May he was then added to the same body three days later (presumably the result of a clerical oversight). Lindsey took advantage of the Monmouth rebellion to imprison a number of Lincolnshire nonconformists in Hull and was notable for keeping such prisoners interned for longer than any other lord lieutenant. His excuse for doing so was that they had not been ‘more mannerly’ in requesting their release. Holmes, 249. His support for the Deeping Fen bill earned both him and his family still greater disfavour in Lincolnshire. Sir John Brownlow^‡ commented that, ‘all the Berties have lost their esteem in the country very much by voting for the drainers which has done my Lord Lindsey an injury and made him not to be respected amongst the gentry.’ Bodl. Tanner 31, f. 119.

Having attended the House on 4 Aug. 1685, Lindsey was absent for the remainder of the Parliament. In October it was reported that he had been bitten by a mad dog, which presumably explains his absence and the report that he had sent his proxy to the king to be conferred on whoever the king chose: it was registered subsequently with the lord chancellor, George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys. Verney ms mic. M636/40, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 13 Oct. 1685; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 57. The same month it was reported that Lady Lindsey had converted to Rome. Verney ms mic. M636/40, Dr. W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 28 Oct. 1685; C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 4 Nov. 1685. Her decision was not mimicked by other members of Lindsey’s family, who subsequently fell foul of their refusal to toe the new line. In December Lindsey’s heir and two other kinsmen were put out of their places for voting contrary to the king’s wishes. Reresby Mems. 402.

Lindsey excused himself from attending the trial of Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington), at the opening of 1686, pleading ‘shortness of the time and distance of places’ for his absence. Royal Society, ms 70, pp. 57-58. The death of his brother, Richard Bertie^‡, in January prompted Lindsey to approach Abingdon to recommend his son, Philip, to the now vacant seat at Woodstock but in the event no by-election ensued and Philip Bertie was compelled to wait until 1694 before he could secure a place in the Commons. Bodl. ms Eng. lett. e. 129, f. 118; HP Commons 1690-1715, iii. 204. Detachment from affairs in London may have helped exacerbate ongoing disputes between Lindsey in his role as lord great chamberlain and the lord chamberlain (Mulgrave) and the earl marshal (Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk) and in February a hearing was appointed to determine the disagreement, though once again Lindsey failed to attend, this time on the grounds of poor health. CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 23. In March the king ordered a further day to be put aside for the disputants to be heard but it was not until the following month that Lindsey finally put in his answer. The dispute was eventually settled broadly in favour of Mulgrave. PA, LGC/5/1/32-33; CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 90. While his interest at court appeared to be in question, Lindsey was also embroiled in family disagreements involving his wife and his heir, Willoughby. Lindsey complained that his wife’s conversion had upset his already compromised interest in Lincolnshire, and in June arguments over this and the disputed settlements reached such a pass that it was reported that he had resorted to turning his wife out of doors. Lady Lindsey denied that any such thing had occurred and after this public humiliation the pair were reconciled. Later the same month it was reported that Lady Lindsey had returned to the Church of England. Verney ms mic. M636/40, C. Bates to Sir R. Verney, 4 May 1686; Lady Lindsey to Sir R. Verney, 2 June 1686; M636/41, Dr. W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 29 June 1686.

Despite Lindsey’s apparent discontent at his wife’s brief conversion, at the beginning of 1687 it was rumoured that Lindsey himself was on the verge of converting to Rome but there seems little reason to credit the report. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 355, 360. He appears to have been disinclined to treat other nonconformists with any great leniency, and in March he was ordered by the king to see to it that the persecution of Quakers by the justices in Holland in Lincolnshire was halted. CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 389. By the summer he was noted among those opposed to the king’s policies. This presumably explains the report that circulated soon after that he was to be removed from his lieutenancy. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 120; Add. 34510, f. 49. A renewed bout of ill health incapacitated Lindsey in the autumn, the severity of which caused him to despair of his own life. Writing to Danby he apologized for his long silence, but asserted that:

I have been in such a condition that I never thought to have had the honour of seeing your lordship any more in this world, occasioned by a strain in the hip, and the gout falling upon that part converted it to a violent sciatica, which is a torture equal if not superior to the stone, and will sooner persuade a man to the choice of death than a continuance in a pain past all possibility of description. HMC Lindsey, 49.

Although it was again rumoured in November that Lindsey would join his half-brother, Abingdon, in being put out as a lord lieutenant, he survived the cull. Verney ms mic. M636/42, J. to Sir R. Verney, 17 Nov. 1687; J. to Sir R. Verney, 30 Nov. 1687. The same month he was noted among those thought to be in favour of repealing the Test Act, an assessment that was repeated in January 1688.

The expected invasion of William of Orange initially found Lindsey divided from his usual allies. In September he replaced his son, Willoughby, as recorder of Boston and he was one of several peers to offer to raise forces for the king out of their own pockets. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 464; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 317. The following month he turned out the militia for Lincolnshire. Although he was pleasantly surprised to find them ‘in a much better posture for his majesty’s service than I could reasonably have expected’, by December when it was clear that the king could not survive, Lindsey adroitly rejoined Danby, whose ‘great name’ he assured his brother-in-law, ‘has a powerful influence to make the gentry follow such an heroic example’. Add. 41805, f. 85; Eg. 3336, f. 44. Other members of the Bertie family (including Willoughby) had been present among the ranks of the northern rebels since November, which presumably aided Lindsey’s seamless change of loyalty. Reresby Mems. 529.

Lindsey was in London for the final week of December 1688. On 24 Dec. he took his place in the meeting of the provisional government convened in the Lords. HMC Lords, ii. 12. Having seconded the motion of Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, that the letter said to have been sent from King James to Middleton should be sent for, he then pressed that Ailesbury (as Bruce had since become) should provide an account of what was of public import in the letter. Kingdom without a King, 158-60. Lindsey’s absence from Lincolnshire at the time of the election to the Convention in January 1689 was believed by some of the local ‘sages’ to have cost his heir the county seat and Willoughby had once more to be content with representing Boston. Eg. 3336, f. 150; HP Commons 1660-90, i. 300. Present at the opening of the Convention, on 29 Jan. 1689 Lindsey was noted among those in favour of establishing a regency. He subsequently followed Danby’s lead and on 31 Jan. altered his stance to support the declaration of William and Mary as king and queen. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 504. On 4 Feb. he voted against concurring with the Commons’ use of the word ‘abdicated’ but two days later performed another volte face and voted in favour both of the term ‘abdicated’ and the phrase ‘that the throne is thereby vacant’. His timely changes of heart no doubt ensured Lindsey was continued in office as lord lieutenant of Lincolnshire by the new regime. He was also named to the new Privy Council. Lindsey subscribed the protest of 6 Mar. against the resolution to pass the bill for better regulating the trials of peers, perhaps conceiving it to be harmful to his perquisites as lord great chamberlain. On 31 May he voted against reversing the perjury judgments against Oates and on 30 July he divided in favour of adhering to the lords’ amendments to the reversal of the perjury judgment. The following day Lindsey received the proxy of Anthony Grey, 11th earl of Kent, which was vacated by the close of the session.

Despite his apparently successful alignment with the new regime, by July Lindsey was dismayed to find himself ‘so unfortunately fallen into his majesty’s displeasure as not to enjoy those perquisites which belongs to my office as well as the rest of his majesty’s subjects … who have all long since received their fees according to their allowance.’ Lindsey’s complaint probably stemmed from his failure to be awarded furniture from the coronation. Venting his frustrations to Carmarthen (as Danby had become) he lamented that he had ‘so often mentioned this affair to his majesty and have been so unsuccessful in that attempt that I can scarce think it good manners to give him any more trouble in it.’ He beseeched Carmarthen to use his interest with the king and, for his part, offered to accept an alternative fee, ‘though to the prejudicing my own right’ if it should be more to the king’s satisfaction. Eg. 3337, ff. 76-77.

Lindsey was absent from the opening of the second session of the Convention and on 28 Oct. 1689 he was excused at a call of the House. His absence may have been the result of the deaths in quick succession of his niece and daughter-in-law the previous month. Eg. 3338, ff. 134-5; Verney ms mic. M636/43, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 25 Sept. 1689. He arrived in London towards the end of November and took his seat on 25 Nov. after which he was present on just under a third of all sitting days. In a list prepared between October 1689 and February 1690, Carmarthen classed him as among the supporters of the court. Active in the Lincolnshire elections, Lindsey’s heir, Willoughby, was again returned for Boston in February and, on his promotion to the Lords in April, the seat was taken by Lindsey’s younger son, Peregrine Bertie^‡.

Incapacitated by gout, Lindsey was absent from the opening of the new Parliament, having been advised by his physicians to undergo a ‘purge and clear the relics of that distemper that so I may be freed from the danger of a relapse’, but he was ‘confident to be in Parliament before anything of moment can be transacted’. Eg. 3337, ff. 175-6. In his absence he was advised by Black Rod (Sir Thomas Duppa) of the ruinous state of much of the furniture in the chamber, but Duppa left it to his judgment whether replacements should be ordered from the lord chamberlain’s department, so that ‘the fault may not lie at your lordship’s or my neglect.’ Royal Society ms 70, pp. 98-99. Lindsey took his seat on 4 Apr. 1690 but was able to attend just 18 days of the fifty-four-day session. Four days after he took his seat it was reported that he had no sooner arrived in London than he was again seized with gout forcing him to be carried to the House in a chair. Verney ms mic. M636/44, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 8 Apr. 1690. He returned to the House for the opening of the following session on 2 Oct. 1690, and attended 41 per cent of all sitting days. On 6 Oct. he voted for the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, from their imprisonment in the Tower.

In April 1691 his attention was dominated by lieutenancy affairs. Finding that no lords within his county were prepared to muster their horses without an order from the House he informed John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater, that he would insist on the same privilege as regarded his obligations in Bridgwater’s lieutenancy. TNA, C104/109. Lindsey was absent from the opening of the subsequent session and he was once more excused at a call of the House on account of sickness on 2 November. He returned to town towards the end of the month and took his seat on 23 Nov. 1691. He was present on approximately 41 per cent of all sitting days. Verney ms mic. M636/45, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 24 Nov. 1691. At some point between December and January 1692 Lindsey was assessed by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, as being a likely supporter of Derby’s efforts to recover lands lost in the period before the Restoration but Derby’s bill was rejected on second reading. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9. On 1 Feb. 1692 Lindsey received the proxy of his brother, Abingdon, which was vacated by the close of the session, and the following day he registered his dissent at the resolution not to agree with the Commons’ reasons against the lords’ amendments over the appointment of commissioners of accounts.

Lindsey returned to London in preparation for the meeting of Parliament in early November 1692. He took his seat in the session on 4 Nov., and was present on approximately 53 per cent of all sitting days. Early in December he was joined by Lady Lindsey, whose absence from town the previous month had been remarked upon but whose delayed arrival may have been connected with the birth of Lindsey’s nephew about that time. Verney ms mic. M636/46, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 15 Nov., 3 Dec. 1692. On 31 Dec. he voted in favour of committing the place bill. Four days later he voted in favour of passing the measure and subscribed the dissent when it was rejected. The same month he was forecast as being opposed to the Norfolk divorce bill, which he voted against reading on 2 January. On 17 Jan. 1693 he entered two dissents in response to the rejection of Charles Knollys’ claim to be recognized as 4th earl of Banbury, and two days later (19 Jan.) he dissented once more at the resolution not to refer consideration of the lords’ amendments to the land tax to the committee for privileges. Lindsey found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder on 4 February. Two days later he again received Abingdon’s proxy.

Lindsey was beset with family troubles once again during the summer when he fell out with his son, Willoughby, over the felling of trees on the Grimsthorpe estate. Willoughby insisted that the money raised by selling the timber should have gone towards payment of his sister, Arabella Bertie’s (Countess Rivers) marriage portion rather than into the earl’s pocket, but the disagreement was symptomatic of a broader dispute within the family over the terms of Willoughby’s marriage settlement. C9/445/68; HMC Ancaster, 433-5. Absent for the entirety of the ensuing session of Parliament, towards the end of October it was reported that neither Lindsey nor his countess intended to be in London that winter. Verney ms mic. M636/47, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 24 Oct. 1693. On 14 Nov. 1693 Lindsey was marked as sick at a call and on 2 Dec. he informed Abingdon of his inability to attend. He asked Abingdon to hold his proxy, which he promised to send by the next post, offering him carte blanche for using it as he pleased, ‘for I dare say neither of our votes will alter the course as affairs now stand.’ On Abingdon’s acceptance, Lindsey emphasized that he should ‘by no means … oblige you to an attendance or the giving it any way than according to your own mind’. Bodl. ms Eng. lett. e. 129, ff. 120-1, 127. The proxy was duly registered on 18 Dec. and the following month Willoughby was ordered to officiate as lord great chamberlain during Lindsey’s continued absence.

Lindsey was one of several peers mentioned in a letter conveyed to the exiled king at the beginning of 1694 (or perhaps 1695) who were said to be sympathetic to James’s cause but besides this there seems not to be any particular evidence that he was engaged in Jacobite endeavours. Bodl. Carte 181, ff. 563-5. Further difficulties with his heir, Willoughby, preoccupied both Lindsey and his countess that spring and he failed once again to attend the opening of the following session, although it was thought that he might return to town soon after. Verney ms mic. M636/47, Sir R. Verney to Lady Lindsey, 24 Feb. 1694; Lady Lindsey to Sir R. Verney, 10 Mar. 1694; Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 22 Aug. 1694; M636/48, Lady P. Osborne to Sir R. Verney, 20 Nov. 1694. Lindsey was excused at a call on 26 November. By then he may have been distracted by the contest of his younger son, Philip Bertie, for the seat at Stamford left vacant by the death of the former member, William Hyde^‡. Lindsey’s brother, Peregrine Bertie^‡ questioned ‘not but your interest will help him to carry it’, and the following day he underlined the importance of Lindsey’s support emphasizing that his nephew was ‘in no very good posture to carry on such an election without yours and my Lord Willoughby’s help.’ HMC Ancaster, 436-7; Lincs. Arch. 8ANC9/20, P. Bertie to Lindsey, 26 Nov. 1694, 8ANC9/21, P. Bertie to Lindsey, 27 Nov. 1694. Having successfully dissuaded Sir Pury Cust from contesting the seat, who declared himself unwilling to stand against ‘so great a family’, Philip Bertie was duly returned on the family interest, but only after expending some £250 on his election. Lincs. Arch. 8ANC9/23, P. Bertie to Lindsey, 29 Nov. 1694; HP Commons 1690-1715, iii. 204. Lindsey took his seat in the House finally on 21 Jan. 1695, and was present on 39 of the remaining days of the session (approximately one third of the whole).

Lindsey appears to have failed to make an impact on the county electorate for the 1695 poll and the sitting members, Castleton and Sir Thomas Hussey^‡, were returned having faced little opposition. The family interest held firm at Boston and Stamford, though, and in the latter both seats were secured by Berties. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 354, 357, 367. Lindsey took his seat in the new Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695, after which he was present on almost 38 per cent of all sitting days. On 10 Apr. he received the proxy of George Berkeley, earl of Berkeley, which was vacated by the close of the session. He then took his seat in the second session on 12 Nov. 1696 and on 18 Dec. he subscribed the dissent at the resolution to read the Fenwick attainder a second time. On 23 Dec. he voted against passing the attainder, signing the protest when the bill was passed.

Lindsey returned to the House on 3 Dec. 1697, after which he was present on 44 per cent of all sitting days. On 15 Mar. 1698 he voted against committing the bill for punishing Charles Duncombe^‡ and on 25 Mar. he received Berkeley’s proxy again, which was vacated by Berkeley’s return to the House on 8 June. Towards the end of June the House deputed him to wait on the king to request an order for the building of scaffolds in Westminster Hall for the forthcoming trials of several French merchants. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 163, box 1, Biscoe to Maunsell, 25 June 1698. Following the trials Lindsey successfully claimed his perquisites as lord great chamberlain and was granted leave to remove the scaffolding for his own use. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 399.

Following the dissolution, the Berties appear to have suffered a setback at Boston, where neither of the sitting members, Peregrine Bertie and Sir William Yorke^‡, contested the seats, which were taken by Richard Wynn and Edmund Boulter. Peregrine Bertie’s withdrawal may have been indicative of divisions within the Bertie family but it is possible that Lindsey countenanced Wynn, who may have been remotely connected to the family through his connection to the Massingberds. Elsewhere Lindsey had greater success and he was able to employ his interest in Buckinghamshire in alliance with Edward Henry Lee, earl of Lichfield, in support of William Cheyne^‡, 2nd Viscount Newhaven [S] (more usually styled Lord Cheyne), who came top of the poll. Verney ms mic. M636/50, Lichfield to Sir John Verney, 15 July 1698.

Advancing age and declining health appear to have combined to limit Lindsey’s activities in the final years of his life. He was absent at the opening of the new Parliament in August 1698 and failed to take his seat until 22 Dec., after which he was present on almost 40 per cent of all sitting days. In January 1699 he was presumably involved in dealing with problems in his home county of Lincolnshire, which was the scene of mass rioting when a mob of over 1,000 people attacked the drainage works on the Deeping Level. In March responsibilities in the palace again predominated as he was required to erect a court in Westminster Hall for the trial of Edward Rich, 6th earl of Warwick. CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 104. In the summer reports of the imminent demise of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, precipitated reports that Lindsey expected to succeed to the earldom, though rumours that Oxford’s son by Hester Davenport might be legitimate threatened again to stymie the Berties’ efforts to acquire the title. UNL, PwA/1149. Absent again at the opening of the second session in November, Lindsey returned to the House on 4 Mar. 1700 but sat for just 16 days before the close on 11 April. That year his heir, Willoughby, was appointed lord lieutenant of Lincolnshire in his stead, no doubt reflecting Lindsey’s increasing frailty as well as his distance from the administration’s political composition.

Lindsey died in May of the following year. Throughout his career he appears to have struggled to balance his duties at court against the demands of overseeing a large and challenging county and the problems of genuinely poor health. He also seems to have found it difficult to keep in line his more ambitious heir. It is thus perhaps telling that he constituted his widow sole executrix of his will. He was succeeded in the peerage by Willoughby, as 4th earl of Lindsey.