BERTIE, Robert (1583-1642)

Described by the Venetian ambassador as ‘a man of small capacity’,54 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 288. Bertie was of limited intelligence but fearless and ambitious. Unhindered by considerations of his intellectual inadequacy, he spent much of his adult life vainly trying to emulate the military accomplishments of his father, Peregrine Bertie, 13th Lord Willoughby de Eresby, who famously led a cavalry charge at Zutphen in 1586, commanded the English forces in the Netherlands from 1588 and was widely regarded as one of the finest soldiers of his generation. The Willoughby barony dated back to 1313, making it one of the oldest in England, but Peregrine himself was the first member of his family to hold it, since it had come to him through his mother.

Early life, 1583-1603

The eldest of five sons, Bertie was born in January 1583 at Willoughby, in Lincolnshire.55 The True Travels, Adventures and Observations of Capt. John Smith (1630), 1. During his early youth he can have had little personal contact with his father, who was abroad almost continuously between 1585 and 1596. Presumably brought up on the family’s Lincolnshire estate, he was admitted to Corpus Christi, Cambridge in 1594, at the age of 11. There, according to the college’s master John Jegon^* (later bishop of Norwich) he lived in ‘excellent moderation’,56 HMC Ancaster, 351. an enforced state of affairs no doubt, his father having run up debts of more than £4,000 in the queen’s service. In common with many other university entrants at the time, he did not graduate.

According to his earliest biographer, the royalist writer David Lloyd, Bertie served on the 1596 Cadiz expedition under his godfather, Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, who allegedly knighted him in the marketplace. However, there is no truth in this claim, nor did Bertie serve on the privateering voyage to the Caribbean undertaken by the 3rd earl of Cumberland (George Clifford^*) between January and October 1598. From at least September 1598, Bertie was in Orléans, from where he kept his father, now governor of Berwick, informed of his movements. Indeed, he resided there for at least the next three years, during which time he undertook a tour of west and south-west France. However, he may have accompanied the 11th Lord Zouche (Edward La Zouche^*) and Dr Christopher Parkins^‡ on their embassy to Denmark, as Lloyd claims, as Bertie’s father had undertaken a similar mission in 1585-6, and close acquaintance would explain why Zouche subsequently became a trustee for Bertie’s estate. Bertie may also have spent some of his time while abroad in the company of the noted soldier Sir Francis Vere, observing ‘the exact way of modern and regular fortification’ and fighting at the battle of Nieupoort (2 July 1600), in which action he is said to have been unhorsed three times.57 Lloyd, 309-10; HMC Ancaster, 341, 343, 345, 347; HMC Hatfield, xi. 292.

Bertie was nevertheless in France when his father died in June 1601. Still a minor, he was subject to wardship, his lands being ultimately held of the crown. His father had foreseen this eventuality, though, and had appointed as his executor Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury),58 PROB 11/98, f. 144. the son of the late William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley, in whose household he had been raised. As well as being the queen’s chief minister, Cecil was master of the Wards, and thus able to sell wardships to sympathetic friends or family rather than to the highest bidder. Shortly before his death, Willoughby, whose debts now stood at £3,000, beseeched Cecil ‘to be a father to my eldest son when I am dead’.59 Lincs. AO, 10ANC/Lot 341/1; HMC Hatfield, xi. 242. Whether Cecil was moved by this plea is unknown, but in February 1602 the queen ordered Bertie’s wardship to be sold for no more than £2,100.60 WARD 9/159, f. 32.

The purchaser of the new Lord Willoughby’s wardship was none other than the principal trustee of his estate, Lord Zouche. The remaining trustees were the Essex magnate Robert Rich^*, 3rd Lord Rich (later 1st earl of Warwick), and two Norfolk gentlemen: Sir John Peyton^‡ of Beaupré Hall, Willoughby’s former comrade-in-arms and now lieutenant of the Tower, and Sir Dru Drury^‡ of Riddlesworth, the brother of Sir William Drury, one of Willoughby’s military followers. One of the trustees’ first decisions was to allow Willoughby to return to the Continent ‘for his further and better education’ once he had attended his father’s funeral and dealt with various lawsuits concerning his estate.61 CSP Dom. 1601-3, pp. 64-5. On Peyton’s associations with Bertie’s father, see HP Commons 1558-1603, iii. 213. However, as official permission was needed for this, Peyton approached Cecil shortly after Willoughby arrived in London in early September 1601. At the same time he asked the chief minister to take ‘under your protection’ Bertie’s lawsuits.62 HMC Hatfield, xi. 378.

During his short stay in England Willoughby sold his late father’s ships and boats, which were described by one of his servants as ‘a charge intolerable’.63 Lincs. AO, 2ANC 14/17; HMC Ancaster, 352. By July 1602 he was in Florence, from where he sent a letter of thanks to Cecil. He subsequently journeyed to Siena, where he and his younger brother Peregrine Bertie^‡ were both ‘cruelly wounded in a desperate fray’.64 True Travels, Adventures and Observations of Capt. John Smith, 5. At around the same time Willoughby also rebuffed an attempt by his friend Sir John Holles^* (later 1st earl of Clare) to arrange for him a match with Dorothy Hastings, daughter of the 4th earl of Huntingdon (George Hastings^*), declaring that he would not consider marriage until ‘I find myself in another humour’.65 HMC Portland, ix. 149-50. By early July 1603 he had reached Padua, from where he wrote to the new king, James I, thanking him for commending both himself and his brother to the grand duke of Tuscany and begging permission to continue his travels until such times as his trustees had cleared the debts incurred by his father.66 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 18.

Parliamentary debut 1604-10

Willoughby attained his majority in January 1604, and with it the right to sit in Parliament, which assembled the following March. He did not return to England until the spring, however, for not until the afternoon of 7 May did he present his writ of summons to the upper House. Although the 1604 session continued until early July, Willoughby played little recorded part in its proceedings, as he failed to attend regularly, missing 23 meetings from the time he began sitting. Indeed, his only appointments were to three conference committees. The first (to which he was named in his absence) was on wardship, on which subject he could claim some authority. The others were to consider the book by the bishop of Bristol, John Thornborough^*, criticizing the Commons for their tardiness in the matter of the Union, and the bill granting the king tunnage and poundage.67 LJ, ii. 293b, 303a, 309a, 323a.

During the 1604 session Holles, the senior knight of the shire for Nottinghamshire, was pressed by the countess of Huntingdon to renew his suit on behalf of Dorothy Hastings. However if the offer was made Willoughby was not tempted, even though the girl’s father promised him a dowry of £3,000, a sum calculated to eliminate his inherited debts. Willoughby’s need to find himself a wealthy wife was nevertheless pressing, for in August he borrowed around £750 from the London Goldsmith Henry Banister^‡, a friend and associate of Lord Zouche.68 C54/1797, bond for repayment of £1,500. By October Philip Gawdy^‡, a member of the king’s household, reported hearing that Willoughby ‘doth favour well my cousin Gargrave, the maid of honour’, a reference to a daughter of the Yorkshire gentleman Sir Richard Gargrave^‡, one of the wealthiest landowners in the West Riding.69 Gawdy Letters ed. I.H. Jeayes, 150. Over the winter of 1604/5 he remained at court in search of a wife, during which time he was made a knight of the Bath and took part in the masque held to celebrate the wedding of Sir Philip Herbert^* (later earl of Montgomery).70 Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, ii. 43. His choice eventually settled upon Elizabeth Montagu, the 17-year old daughter and heir apparent of Sir Edward Montagu^* (later 1st Lord Montagu) of Boughton, in Northamptonshire, who had a London house not far from his. The precise date of their marriage is uncertain, but it probably took place sometime between 4 Feb. 1605, when Montagu conveyed to Willoughby three Huntingdonshire manors in anticipation of the impending nuptials, and 15 Mar. 1605, when the conveyance was enrolled in Chancery.71 C54/1800.

It seems likely that the dowry paid by Montagu enabled Willoughby to satisfy some or all of his father’s creditors. However, he did not remain debt-free for long, as in January 1605 he had received instructions to accompany Lord Admiral Nottingham (Charles Howard^*) to Madrid to ratify the 1604 peace treaty with Spain.72 HMC Ancaster, 353; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 205. Like other members of Nottingham’s entourage, Willoughby was expected to meet the cost of equipping himself and his servants out of his own pocket. The sums involved were necessarily heavy. Indeed, he later calculated that the voyage to Spain cost him £4,000.73 Lincs. AO, 10ANC/Lot341/1. Three days after Montagu’s conveyance was enrolled in Chancery, Willoughby mortgaged his house in the Barbican, together with four Lincolnshire manors, to his father-in-law and Lord Zouche for £3,000.74 C54/1819. He subsequently spent the spring of 1605 in Spain, witnessing a bull-fight at Valladolid held before Philip III in May. Over the summer he and two other members of Nottingham’s entourage made their own way home, travelling via Bayonne and Paris.75 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 303.

Willoughby had returned to England by 9 Nov. 1605, when he resumed his seat in Parliament, which had reassembled on the 5th. As in 1604, his attendance of the Lords was fitful. In mid February 1606 he appeared to settle into a pattern, sitting for two consecutive business days before taking the following two off. However, by the end of the month he was attending every other business day. During March, and for much of the time thereafter, his behaviour was more erratic, and between 15 Apr. and 3 May inclusive, a period of almost three weeks, he was altogether absent, suggesting that he took an extended Easter break (which formally ran from 18 to 25 April).

As in 1604, Willoughby played only a modest role in the session, attracting just ten appointments, of which three concerned the attainder of Henry Brooke^†, formerly 11th Lord Cobham. Two others were to consider bills to avoid unnecessary delays in execution. The remainder of his legislative appointments were to increase observance of the Sabbath, repeal a clause in the 1604 Watermen’s Act, settle a manor belonging to a member of the Throckmorton family, and reform the Court of Marshalsea. The only conference committee to which he was named was to discuss the purveyance bill, the free trade bill and the proposed union with Scotland.76 LJ, ii. 364a, 379a, 384a, 395b, 403a, 413a, 433b, 436b. While Parliament was sitting, Willoughby continued to play the part of the courtier, for in January 1606 he helped convey the newly arrived Venetian ambassadors to their first audience with James.77 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 314. A few months after Parliament was prorogued, in July 1606, Willoughby and his wife were among those peers summoned to court to greet the newly arrived Christian IV of Denmark.78 Add. 11402, f. 113.

Willoughby attended the opening of the third session of James’s first Parliament on 18 Nov. 1606, and for a while regularly sat in the chamber. However, in December his appearances became irregular once more. He nevertheless attracted a couple of appointments before the Christmas recess, one to a conference committee concerned with the Union, the other to consider a bill to enable a Suffolk gentleman named Henry Jernegan to sell one of his manors to pay off his debts. In view of his own precarious financial situation, this latter measure may have held some interest for him.79 LJ, ii. 453a, 461b. When Parliament reassembled on 10 Feb. 1607, Willoughby attended the opening day but did not do so again until 5 May. Thereafter he attended in a desultory fashion until 2 June, after which date he again vanished, though the session continued until 4 July. His disappearance may have been connected with the Midlands Rising, for on 23 May his father-in-law was required by the Privy Council to return to Northamptonshire to deal with the disturbances.80 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 116. Despite his absence, the House named Willoughby to the committee for the bill to abolish the Hostile Laws between England and Scotland on 8 June. His only other appointments after the Christmas recess were to consider bills to improve the manufacture of woollen cloth and to remedy abuses in the Marshalsea Court, which subject he had been asked to consider in the previous session.81 LJ, ii. 514b, 516b, 520a.

In the summer of 1608 Willoughby came under pressure from Cecil, who was now both earl of Salisbury and lord treasurer, to settle his debts to the crown. The size of these debts, and the manner in which they had been incurred, is unclear, but as Willoughby was unable to satisfy Salisbury immediately he enlisted the aid of Lord Zouche, who requested the grant of an extension until early November.82 SP14/37/48. His financial difficulties were probably compounded the following February, when his sister Katherine married Sir Lewis Watson^† (later 1st Lord Rockingham) of Rockingham Castle in Northamptonshire. As head of the family, he was responsible for providing the dowry, which amounted to £3,500.83 HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 688. Interestingly, Watson’s family was inclined to Catholicism. Willoughby himself was never suspected of Catholic tendencies, but his younger brother Henry converted to Rome in 1607.84 Lincs. AO, 10ANC/Lot 340/2.

Willoughby missed the opening of the fifth session on 9 Feb. 1610, and is not recorded to have attended until the 15th (though he was named the previous day to the committee to confer with the Commons about supply). Thereafter, until the end of April, he attended assiduously, and was nominated to three committeess, including one to confer with the Commons over Dr Cowell’s controversial legal dictionary, the Interpreter. His remaining appointments were to consider bills to reform abuses practised by merchant seamen and to punish receivers of stolen goods in and around London. On 18 Apr. he also formed part of the deputation sent to see if the king would allow Parliament to buy out wardship.85 LJ, ii. 550b, 557b, 572b, 579b, 583b. Lindsey continued to combine service in Parliament with attendance at court, as one afternoon in mid April, James sent him with 20 well-equipped gentlemen to Gravesend to receive the duke of Württemburg and escort him to London.86 Eng. as seen by Foreigners in the Days of Eliz. and Jas. I ed. W.B. Rye, 58.

Willoughby was absent from the Lords for two weeks after 28 Apr. 1610, possibly because at around this time his younger brother Peregrine, now knighted, was badly wounded in a duel with the 2nd Lord Norreys (Francis Norris^*, later earl of Berkshire).87 Chamberlain Letters, i. 298. He had returned to Westminster by 12 May, when he was appointed to the committee for the bill to prevent the burning of moorland at unseasonable times of the year.88 LJ, ii. 579b. Thereafter he attended the House sporadically until the end of the session on 23 July, during which time he was appointed to several committees, most notably those to consider the bill to allow the 8th and 1st Lord Abergavenny (Edward Neville^*) and his son to sell lands to pay their debts.89 Ibid. 595b, 631b.

The state of his own finances may have been uppermost in Willoughby’s mind when the first Jacobean Parliament assembled for its fifth and final session in October 1610, for in the week before Parliament reconvened he borrowed around £1,500 from two separate lenders. Moreover, during the course of the session he induced Edward Seymour^*, 1st earl of Hertford, to lend him £750.90 LC4/30, mm. 5, 6, 8. As in previous meetings, he attended the Lords erratically, and after 15 Nov. he ceased doing so at all. Consequently, he secured just four committee appointments. One concerned a bill to preserve and increase timber, while another sought to prevent the export of iron ordnance and iron shot. His remaining appointments were to confer with the Commons over the Great Contract and to consider a bill to avoid lawsuits arising from wills.91 LJ, ii. 669a, 670a, 671a, 675a. Willoughby was appointed to both the commission for proroguing the Parliament on 6 Dec., and to the commission for dissolving the assembly on 11 Feb. 1611, but on neither occasion did he discharge the duties of his office. It may be significant that his sister Katherine died on 15 Feb. 1611, having given birth to a son (who also failed to live) ten days earlier.92 C. Wise, Rockingham Castle and the Watsons, 50.

Military career 1611-24

Willoughby continued to take up money after the Parliament ended, borrowing £1,000 on 8 Jan. 1611 from Lord Zouche, the former chief trustee of his estate, and £200 from a Staffordshire gentleman in May.93 LC4/30, m. 14; 4/31, m. 3. However, his financial difficulties may by then have eased, at least for the time being, for in August he alienated 30 acres of his Lincolnshire estate in order to augment the holdings of Spilsby grammar school, which had been founded by his forebears in 1550.94 VCH Lincs. ii. 486.

Following the outbreak of war between Denmark and Sweden in 1611, Willoughby offered his services to the queen’s brother Christian IV, whom he had met six years earlier. His application was supported by his kinsman, the 5th earl of Rutland (Roger Manners^*), who described him as ‘a man noble and strong’ both ‘in mind and body’, and by the soldier Sir John Poley, who pointed out that few members of the English nobility were as able as Willoughby to raise so many able-bodied men from their own estates.95 46th DKR, appendix ii. 42. Christian was pleased to accept this offer, and in December he instructed Willoughby (who had apparently seen off competition from the 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley^*) to raise and command a force of 1,500 men.96 Add. 37951, f. 1; HMC Ancaster, 354; HMC 14th Rep. IX, 277. In order to finance this expedition, Willoughby was obliged to sell some of his lands and borrow around £1,000 from his kinsman by marriage, Sir Charles Montagu^‡, himself a former soldier.97 Chamberlain Letters, i. 314; LC4/31, m. 6. However, the task of raising the required number of troops did not fall entirely on his shoulders, as the Privy Council issued instructions to several lord lieutenants to levy men.98 HMC Ancaster, 354; Maynard Ltcy. Bk. 1608-39 ed. B.W. Quintrell, i. 18.

Willoughby’s troops probably sailed for Denmark in late March 1612, but for reasons that remain unclear Willoughby himself remained in England until late May.99 For the March sailing, see CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 314; Gawdy Letters, 173 (letter misdated 1613). For Willoughby’s own departure, see CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 372. During this interval, the English companies (no doubt commanded by Sir John Poley, whom Willoughby had appointed as his lieutenant general), took part in the assault on Elfsborg Castle, which surrendered to the Danes on 15 May.100 HEHL, EL 1641. By the time Willoughby arrived, the fighting was all but over. That summer, Willoughby’s troops were decimated by sickness, and by mid August fewer than one in six were still alive.101 Chamberlain Letters, i. 377; HEHL, El 1641; HMC Ancaster, 356. How long Willoughby remained with the wreck of his small army is unknown, but his services were no longer needed as a peace treaty was signed in January 1613.102 Eng. and the North: the Russian Embassy of 1613-14 ed. M. Jansson and N. Rogozhin, 53. It may therefore have been him, rather than the 3rd Lord Willoughby of Parham (William Willoughby^*), who accompanied Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) and the Elector Palatine to Cambridge in early March.103 The Eagle, xvi. 232 (episode misdated to mid Jan. 1613).

Following his return to England, Willoughby was again forced to grapple with his finances, especially his debt to the king which, despite the assurances given in 1608 to Lord Treasurer Salisbury, remained unpaid. In February 1614 Sir Charles Montagu thought that the money owed to the crown was likely to prove so troublesome that ‘I shall be driven to lay down £200 or £300 for him’.104 HMC Montagu, 96. It may have been partly to escape these financial worries that at about this time Willoughby contemplated serving in France, which appeared to be about to descend into civil war.105 Add. 78679, f. 164. In the event, he attended the opening of James’s second Parliament on 5 Apr., along with his younger brother Sir Peregrine, who had been elected junior knight of the shire for Lincolnshire. He subsequently sat in the Lords assiduously, missing only a few days, including 14 May, when he was excused as ‘being not well and in physic’. However, as usual, his committee appointments were thin on the ground. Their subjects included the bill to confirm that the children of the Elector Palatine were capable of inheriting the throne, a measure to punish abuses committed on the Sabbath, and a private bill concerning a dowry. He was also once again appointed to consider the bill to prevent lawsuits arising from wills. During the course of the session, the Lords intervened on behalf of one of Willoughby’s servants who, despite his parliamentary privilege, had been arrested by the under-sheriff of Middlesex.106 LJ, ii. 691a, 694a, 695b, 699b, 708b, 713b; HMC Hastings IV, 242, 246.

In September 1615 Willoughby and his servants visited Bath, where they encountered Lord Norreys, who had seriously wounded Willoughby’s brother Sir Peregrine four years earlier. In the ensuing brawl, which he initiated by striking Norreys, Willoughby was ‘sore hurt’ and one of his servants, Jonathan Pigott, was killed.107 Chamberlain Letters, i. 614; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 82-3. On learning of this affray, the king summoned the protagonists to court and ordered the Privy Council to carry out an investigation.108 FSL, G.b.10, f. 56; APC, 1615-16, p. 293. Shortly thereafter a local jury found Norreys guilty of manslaughter.109 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 308; SP14/81/82. Only a royal pardon, issued in December, prevented him from being punished.110 C231/4, f. 12.

Despite his own lawless behaviour, Willoughby served on the jury which tried the earl of Somerset (Robert Carr^*) and his wife for murder in May 1616. Six months later he was summoned to court to attend the creation of Prince Charles as prince of Wales. That November he also rode alongside his wife’s uncle, Sir Henry Montagu^* (later Viscount Mandeville and 1st earl of Manchester), when the latter processed to Westminster Hall to take his oath as lord chief justice of King’s Bench.111 Lincs. AO, 10ANC/Lot343; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 198.

With war in northern Italy brewing, Willoughby offered his services to the Venetian Republic.112 CSP Ven. 1615-17, pp. 209-10. Negotiations were begun in earnest in January 1617, and were conducted on Willoughby’s behalf by Sir Henry Peyton, who had served under Willoughby in the Danish expedition of 1612.113 Add. 28621, f. 9. On Peyton’s former service in Denmark, see Gawdy Letters, 173. By early February 1617 Willoughby had offered to raise all the soldiers under his command from his own estates, and to build a ship to transport them.114 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 433; HMC Ancaster, 390. However, as nothing came of these negotiations, Peyton, together with the former pirate Sir Henry Mainwaring^‡, led a force to Venice in 1618 without Willoughby, who nevertheless kept himself informed of its progress.115 CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 524, 531; Add. 37951, f. 2r-v. By December 1618 Willoughby was restless for employment and, on hearing it rumoured that the office of lord deputy of Ireland might soon fall vacant, his friends at court, including the queen, who was grateful for the assistance he had given her brother, urged the king to consider him for the job.116 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 193; HMC Ancaster, 393-4. In the event, however, the lord deputyship did not fall vacant until April 1622.

Willoughby was a mourner at the funeral of Anne of Denmark in May 1619.117 Harl. 5176, f. 235v. The following March he was one of several peers who pressed the king unsuccessfully to be allowed to volunteer for service in the Elector Palatine’s forces in the war over Bohemia.118 Add. 72253, f. 104v. His enthusiasm to fight was not matched by an equivalent eagerness to contribute financially to the Palatine cause, however, for when at the end of September 1620 the Privy Council called for donations from peers Willoughby failed to reply.119 SP14/117/97. Financial difficulties were undoubtedly to blame: in 1618 he had sold his London house to the 1st earl of Bridgwater (John Egerton^*) for £3,000, and two years later he was obliged to mortgage two of his manors to a Middle Temple lawyer as security for repayment of a £1,400 loan.120 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 193; Lincs. AO, 5ANC/1/2/3/16.

Willoughby failed to attend the first two weeks of the 1621 Parliament, making his first recorded appearance in the Lords on 16 February. At around this time, though, he signed the petition asking the king to deny the English purchasers of Irish or Scottish viscountcies precedence over English barons like himself. (The signatories were headed by his first cousin, Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford.)121 A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 187. This petition was presented to an angry king on 20 Feb., on which day Willoughby was recorded as being absent from the Lords. Over the course of the next few months Willoughby, as was his wont, attended the House only sporadically. Consequently, he was appointed to just a handful of committees. Their subjects included the 10 bills drafted by a gentleman about the court; the proposal of George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, to create a new academy to educate the nobility and gentry; abuses on the Sabbath and writs of certiorari; and the mischief caused by those employed to hunt for concealed lands. On 3 Mar. Willoughby was also appointed to the committee that was ordered to help confer with the Commons regarding the escape of the monopolist Sir Giles Mompesson^‡, although the attendance record indicates (presumably in error) that he was then absent.122 LJ, iii. 25b, 26b, 37a, 39b, 47a. Towards the end of March Willoughby anticipated the Easter recess by a couple of days – he did not appear on either 26 or 27 Mar. – and when Parliament reassembled on 17 Apr. he failed to resume his seat, remaining absent for the rest of the sitting, which ended on 4 June. Instead, he assigned his proxy to the earl of Oxford.123 Ibid. 4a.

Willoughby attended the Lords when Parliament reconvened on 20 Nov., for although the Journal indicates his absence he formally introduced to the House two newly ennobled peers, one of them his father-in-law. His subsequent attendance rate, like that in the previous sitting, was erratic, and at one point he evidently reverted to the pattern he had established in 1606, when he worked a sort of two day on, two day off shift.124 24 and 26 Nov.: attended; 27 and 28 Nov.: absent; 30 Nov. and 1 Dec.: attended. In early December he was nevertheless appointed to four committees, all of them concerned with bills. Their subjects were the pleading of the general issue, the debts of attainted persons, the relief of crown tenants and the Merchants of the Staple.125 LJ, iii. 181a, 182b, 184a.

In March 1622 Willoughby’s cousin the earl of Oxford was sent to the Tower for allegedly disparaging the king. He subsequently fell sick, and in early June Willoughby presented to James the earl’s petition asking for permission to be treated by physicians, bypassing Buckingham, who normally controlled access to the king and hated Oxford. However, James angrily rebuked Willoughby for his presumption, accusing him of ‘intermeddling in a matter that belonged not to him’.126 Add. 72275, f. 143v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 438; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 252.

By the beginning of 1624 Willoughby was in need of a large cash sum, for on 8 Feb. he mortgaged three of his Lincolnshire manors to Edmund Pye of London for £10,000.127 Lincs. AO, 2ANC/3/C/27. He subsequently attended the opening of the fourth Jacobean Parliament on 19 Feb., having doubtless first arranged the election of his eldest son, Sir Montagu Bertie^† (later 2nd earl of Lindsey), as senior knight of the shire for Lincolnshire, though Sir Montagu was still under-age. Thereafter, until 5 Mar. inclusive, he sat every day. Appointed by the crown one of the triers of petitions for England, Scotland and Ireland on 19 Feb., he was subsequently named to both the committee for privileges and the committee for the defence of the kingdom. On 5 Mar. he was also required to consider the bill to authorize an exchange of lands between Prince Charles and his former brother-in-law Sir Lewis Watson. His earliest conference committee, on 1 Mar., was to clear Buckingham, now a duke, from the charge of having disparaged the king of Spain in his address to both Houses on 24 February.128 LJ, iii. 208a, 215a, 237b, 238a, 246a.

Willoughby was recorded as absent on four consecutive business days between 6 and 10 Mar. inclusive, but had resumed his seat by the 11th, when he was appointed to the committee for conferring with the Commons over the condition of the king’s estate. Thereafter he sat continuously until 24 Mar., during which time he attracted five further appointments, of which one was to consider the monopolies bill.129 Ibid. 256a, 257b, 258b, 263b, 267b, 273b, 275a. He also paid the clerk for copies of the king’s recent speeches to Parliament.130 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 60r-v. He evidently rose early for Easter – the House was not formally adjourned until 25 Mar. – and did not resume his seat until 2 Apr., the day after the Lords reconvened. He subsequently proceeded to miss the next three business days, but sat without break between 7 and 26 Apr. inclusive. On the 7th he was appointed to the committee for making the arms of the kingdom more serviceable, a subject on which he was well qualified to speak as he had been a deputy lieutenant for some years. Six days later he was named to the committee for a bill to allow the 2nd earl of Hertford (William Seymour^*, subsequently duke of Somerset) and his brother Sir Francis Seymour^† (later 1st Lord Seymour) to sell part of their estate to pay off the debts of the 1st earl, now deceased, from whom Willoughby had borrowed money in 1610. His remaining appointments during this period were to consider the concealments bill (again), and to attend a conference with the Commons concerning Parliament’s advice to James to break off the marriage negotiations with Spain.131 LJ, iii. 293a, 302a, 304a, 312b.

Willoughby failed to attend the House on 27 and 28 Apr., and on 3 May obtained formal leave of absence.132 Ibid. 337a. He resumed his seat on 10 May, and though he missed two afternoon sittings, he sat continuously thereafter until 27 May. During this period the Lords passed sentence on Lord Treasurer Middlesex, who lost office and was imprisoned for profiteering at the king’s expense. Willoughby took advantage of Middlesex’s discomfiture, submitting to the House on 24 May a petition in which he claimed that the former lord treasurer owed him £1,500. This debt had originally been owed by the late Sir Thomas Shirley of Wiston in Sussex, but had allegedly passed to Middlesex after the latter purchased Shirley’s lands. Willoughby complained that by the ordinary course of the law he had been unable to obtain payment, whereupon the House ordered the lord keeper, on the final day of the session, to look favourably on his case whenever he submitted his bill to Chancery.133 Ibid. 404a, 421a, 422b.

Shortly before the session was prorogued, Prince Charles negotiated a treaty of military cooperation with the Dutch. In return for Dutch assistance in recovering the Palatinate, the English were to provide and maintain four regiments of infantry for service with the States, comprising 6,000 men. By 21 May three of the four colonels needed to command these units had been chosen, but the fourth remained to be decided.134 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 324. Willoughby, who desired the appointment, found himself in competition with Sir John Borlase and the earl of Morton, a Scot.135 Add. 72276, ff. 91v, 97v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 562. However, by mid June he had secured the position with the backing of Prince Charles,136 CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 353. whose gratitude he may have earned for the assistance he had given to his uncle Christian IV in 1612. Not content with this, though, Willoughby thereupon proceeded to quarrel over precedence with two of his fellow colonels, the earl of Southampton and Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex. By July he had triumphed over them both by virtue of his previous service in Denmark.137 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 567; C. Dalton, Life and Times of Sir Edward Cecil, ii. 62-3; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 286.

Over the autumn of 1624, Willoughby’s regiment participated in Maurice of Nassau’s unsuccessful attempt to relieve Breda, and by March 1625 it was seeking volunteers to fill its depleted ranks.138 Dalton, ii. 65, 68; Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Pols. 1621-5 ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxxiv), 357. Willoughby himself did not spend all his time in the Low Countries occupied with military affairs, though, as he eagerly sought out pictures to add to his art collection. Indeed, according to the wife of the English ambassador at The Hague, he was ‘a great buyer’.139 Orig. Unpublished Pprs. Illustrative of the Life of Sir Peter Paul Rubens ed. W. Noel Sainsbury, 308. Following the accession of Charles I, Willoughby evidently obtained leave to return to England to serve his monarch in the forthcoming war with Spain.140 SP84/130, f. 144.

The parliaments of 1625 and 1626

Willoughby was present at the opening of the first Caroline Parliament on 18 June 1625. Despite the brevity of the Westminster sitting of this assembly – it lasted only until 11 July – he contrived to miss five days of business, though he obtained leave of absence only once, on 5 July. As in 1624, he was appointed to the committee for privileges, but his only legislative appointment was to consider a bill for the better maintenance of hospitals. However he was twice named to committees for conferring with the Commons, both times in respect of petitions that were to be submitted to the king. On 27 June he and Thomas Wentworth^*, 4th Lord Wentworth (later 1st earl of Cleveland), formally introduced Edward Conway^*, Lord Conway (later 1st Viscount Conway) to the chamber.141 Procs. 1625, pp. 43, 45, 59-60, 88, 95, 99. As Conway was a client of the duke of Buckingham, this suggests that Willoughby had decided to associate himself with the favourite, who, as both lord admiral and the king’s chief minister, was well placed to procure him employment in the war with Spain which had now broken out.

When Parliament reassembled at Oxford on 1 Aug. Willoughby, perhaps no longer distracted by London society, proved more assiduous in his attendance, missing only the afternoon sitting on the 4th. During the course of this short-lived gathering, Willoughby was appointed to four legislative committees, the first being for the bill to preserve the king’s revenues. The rest concerned the relief of London and Westminster, which were then in the grip of a plague epidemic; a clause in the 1606 Recusancy Act; and a bill to increase merchant shipping and permit free fishing off the coast of north America. In addition, Willoughby was named to one of only two conferences with the Commons which took place that sitting, concerning the pardon that had been granted to 11 papists.142 Ibid. 127, 139, 146, 174, 179.

Viewed from Willoughby’s perspective, perhaps the most striking feature of the 1625 Parliament was that it included no debate about the earldom of Oxford. In May 1625, shortly before the Parliament assembled, Willoughby’s cousin, the 18th earl, had died of camp fever while on campaign in the Low Countries. Since he left behind him no sons, it was widely assumed that Robert de Vere^*, then a humble lieutenant serving in the Netherlands, would inherit the title, since he was the grandson of John de Vere (d.1540), the 15th earl. Indeed, Robert received a writ of summons to the 1625 Parliament, though he was unable to attend. However, by August Willoughby, urged on by his wife’s uncle, Viscount Mandeville (lord president of the Council), had decided to claim the earldom himself,143 HMC Portland, ii. 117; HMC Buccleuch, i. 261. since his mother was daughter of the 16th earl and sister of the 17th. He thereby caused widespread consternation, as the claims of the heir male were generally considered superior to those of the heir general. According to Simonds D’Ewes^‡, who joined forces with the antiquarian scholar Sir Robert Cotton^‡ to uphold de Vere’s right to the title, Willoughby assumed that he would easily triumph, since he was wealthier and more powerful than his rival.144 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, i. 290.

The matter was referred by the king to commissioners, who sat in January 1626. From a letter written by Sir Benjamin Rudyard^‡ on 3 Feb., it would seem that they found in favour of de Vere but concluded that an earldom ought also to be bestowed on Willoughby.145 Procs. 1626, iv. 306-7. However, Rudyard’s confident prediction that Willoughby would be made an earl following Charles’s coronation proved to be unfounded. Since the commissioners failed to report officially, the matter remained unresolved when a fresh Parliament assembled on 6 Feb., with the result that Willoughby and de Vere both petitioned the king, who referred the matter to the Lords. On the face of it, Charles’s decision favoured Willoughby, who was by now well known about the House, unlike de Vere, who had not even received a writ of summons. However, probably for reasons of self interest, his friends in the House proved reluctant to support him. They included his father-in-law, Lord Montagu, who absented himself when the Lords reached their decision on 22 Mar. out of ‘good discretion’. The Lords’ verdict, which was reached unanimously and in accordance with the judges’ findings, was that the earldom belonged to de Vere as heir male.146 Ibid. 183, 196.

Although Willoughby had suffered a humiliating defeat, an important prize remained within his grasp. The hereditary office of lord great chamberlain had been held by previous earls of Oxford and, like the earldom, its descent was now disputed. On 28 Mar. the judges of the common law courts reported that they were divided between Willoughby and de Vere. However, the scales were tipped decisively in Willoughby’s favour by Buckingham, who was now the target of impeachment proceedings and needed to ensure the support of his ally Willoughby. Behind the scenes, he persuaded most members of the House, including all the bishops, to throw their weight behind Willoughby. Consequently, when the matter was put to a vote three days later, only two peers found against the heir general.147 Ibid. 216, 231; Memorials of the Holles Fam. ed. A.C. Wood (Cam. Soc. ser. 3, lv), 105; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 278. This was not quite the end of the matter, however, as by now the 6th earl of Derby (William Stanley^*) had also thrown his hat into the ring on behalf of his wife, Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the 17th earl of Oxford,148 Procs. 1626, i. 184. meaning that there were now two rival heirs general. Fortunately for Willoughby, though, the threat posed by Derby was quickly ended, as the earl proceeded to antagonize the House by employing as his legal representative a civilian, Dr Thomas Eden^‡, rather than a common lawyer, on the grounds that the matter ‘has some affinity with honour’.149 Ibid. 244, 245; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 278. Consequently, when the Lords voted again, on 1 Apr., ‘the whole House but one went clearly for the Lord Willoughby’. Less than two weeks later, on 13 Apr., a triumphant Willoughby entered the House carrying the staff of the lord great chamberlain and took his place ‘above all the barons’.150 Procs. 1626, i. 265.

While the Lords were busily engaged in deciding between these rival claims, Willoughby broke with his customary practice and attended the House fairly assiduously. During this time he was appointed to ten committees. For the third time in a row he was named to the privileges committee and, being a military man (and as in 1624), he was appointed to consider the bill, now reintroduced, to make the arms of the kingdom more serviceable. As England was now at war with Spain, he was also appointed to the committee for the safety and defence of the kingdom and the subcommittee responsible for setting prices for weapons and armour. His membership of the committee for the bill to place the Charterhouse hospital on a statutory footing perhaps reflected the fact that his former London house, in the Barbican, was situated near this building. Willoughby had no obvious connection with the subjects of the rest of the committees to which he was appointed.151 Ibid. 48, 53, 57, 128, 239.

Willoughby continued to attend Parliament for a few weeks after the king decided to recognize him as lord great chamberlain, during which time he was appointed to five further committees. Four were concerned with apparel, scandalous ministers, abuses committed on the Sabbath and the lands of the late Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset. The fifth was to accompany the lord keeper, who was instructed to convey to the king the House’s thanks for referring to the Lords the case of the earl of Bristol. Willoughby was also one of four peers chosen on 19 Apr. to attend the king to discuss a time for presenting to Charles the House’s petition regarding the recent imprisonment of Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th earl) of Arundel.152 Ibid. 265, 267, 287, 296, 300, 303. However, after the House adjourned on 25 Apr. to celebrate the St George’s day feast, Willoughby disappeared for the rest of the session, which lasted until 15 June. This lengthy absence may have been occasioned by a desire not to become involved in the impeachment of Buckingham, or it may suggest illness, as by 24 July it was being reported that Willoughby had retired to his Lincolnshire estates ‘to cure himself of the yellow jaundice’.153 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 131. However, Willoughby was well enough on 8 July to receive an extraordinary ambassador from Denmark at Tower wharf.154 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 180.

Wars with Spain and France, 1626-8

Over the summer of 1626 Buckingham chose Willoughby to serve as his vice admiral in the fleet then preparing to put to sea to intercept the Spanish Plate fleet and attack Spain. However, the duke subsequently decided against leading these ships in person, and on 25 Aug. he formally handed over the baton to Willoughby,155 Birch, i. 131. who had never before held a naval command. In early September, having received a warrant for an advance of £600 on his wages, Willoughby left London for Portsmouth, where he discovered to his horror that, despite the lateness of the season, most of his ships had not yet been victualled.156 SP16/28 f. 27; Add. 37816, ff. 154v-5; Birch, i. 147; CSP Dom. Addenda 1625-49, pp. 159-60. Provisions finally arrived on the 12th, but further delays were caused by the lack of fireships, pinnaces and men. It was thus not until 7 Oct., the fireships and pinnaces having still not arrived, that the fleet finally put to sea.157 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 430, 433, 450; Birch, i. 149. It did not get far, for on the night of 12/13 Oct. it was struck by a violent storm in the Bay of Biscay. The damage suffered by the ships was so great that Willoughby felt compelled to return to port. On learning of this misfortune Buckingham initially declared that ‘it was God’s doing and we may not repine at it’, but the fleet’s rear admiral, the 1st earl of Denbigh (William Feilding^*) clearly felt that Willoughby should have pressed on regardless since the two men subsequently quarrelled.158 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 461; Add. 37816, f. 175; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 6. Consequently, on his arrival at court later that month, Willoughby was reproached by Buckingham for returning so soon. However Willoughby, who had warned the duke’s secretary Edward Nicholas^‡ as early as 17 Sept. of the poor condition of the fleet, silenced the duke by producing a certificate signed by the Navy’s masters attendant certifying that the ships had been unseaworthy.159 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 430; Harl. 390, f. 147.

In the aftermath of this disaster, Willoughby and the colonels of the other three English regiments in Dutch service were ordered to prepare themselves for transfer to the service of Christian IV of Denmark, whose army had recently suffered a heavy defeat at the hands of Spain’s ally, the emperor.160 CSP Dom. Addenda 1625-49, pp. 168-9. In November Willoughby, being the senior officer, was offered command of all four regiments, but, despite being formally appointed on the 17th, he declined, probably because fewer than half of the 5,000 troops were left.161 E.A. Beller, ‘Military Expedition of Sir Chas. Morgan to Germany, 1627-9’, EHR, xliii. 530; Rymer, viii. pt. 1, p. 111. He pleaded ‘indisposition of his body’ according to one observer, or ‘his domestic affairs’ according to another.162 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 310; Birch, i. 170; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 22; C115/107/8498. He had his eyes instead on a quieter posting, the lord presidency of Munster, which office had fallen vacant following the death on 7 Sept. of Buckingham’s elder half-brother Sir Edward Villiers^‡. However, he was never offered this position, presumably because the king could not afford to send to Ireland one of the few members of the peerage with any military experience.

Despite declining the Danish command, Willoughby was elevated to an earldom on 22 November. He was probably not wealthy enough to have purchased the honour, though he contributed £200 to the Forced Loan six days later.163 E401/1913, unfol. (28 Nov. 1626). Instead, his creation, as earl of Lindsey, may have been intended to acknowledge his recent service at sea, and to console him for his failure to secure the presidency of Munster. In December 1626 Buckingham established a commission to discover why the king’s ships had ‘proved so defective as that they were not able to endure a storm’ at sea. Lindsey was naturally appointed to this body, which met for the first time on 13 Dec., but although the commission quickly set aside its brief to consider other, more immediate concerns, Lindsey took little interest in its proceedings. Indeed, almost the only meetings he attended were those held in mid February, when the commissioners sat to consider the number and design of ships needed for home defence.164 SP16/28, ff. 5, 75, 78, 93.

The outbreak of war with France over the winter of 1626/7 meant that Lindsey was once again called upon by Buckingham, who appointed him vice admiral of the fleet that he led to the Île de Ré the following summer. However, Lindsey had a generally undistinguished campaign. In mid August Buckingham reportedly sent him with a squadron to block up 11 French ships in St Malo, to prevent them from launching an attack on the English fleet. By mid September, Lindsey had returned, the danger of a French naval assault having apparently receded, and was cruising with his ships off the nearby island of Oleron.165 Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 367; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 339. In the early hours of the morning a few weeks later, while he was on night watch, the French broke through the naval blockade established around Ré. Despite being in only a small hoy, he valiantly attempted to intercept the enemy, narrowly escaping injury in the process.166 Add. 26051, f. 6v; Gonville and Caius ms 143/193, p. 132. Soon thereafter, in common with many of his fellow soldiers and sailors, he fell ill, for on 3 Oct. Buckingham expressed concern at his ‘heavy’ sickness.167 Add. 37817, f. 148.

During the course of the expedition, Buckingham, who was running short of funds, asked Lindsey for a loan. However the earl, who had already been forced to dip into his own pocket to provide his crews with wine, stockings, shirts and shoes, replied that he was unable to oblige, even though a small privateer that he had fitted out had recently seized a prize worth £4,000. Despite this refusal, Lindsey was now considered by one observer to be the duke’s ‘Afranius’, or right-hand man.168 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 339; 1628-9, pp. 81, 298; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 319; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 367. Lucius Afranius, consul and right-hand man to Pompey the Great.

In February 1628, following the retreat from Ré, Lindsey was reappointed to the newly reconstituted council of war. He was also one of three peers ordered to raise Ship Money in his native Lincolnshire (though this levy was subsequently abandoned).169 APC, 1627-8, p. 285. He continued to invest in privateering, fitting out not only the 40-ton pinnace, the Expedition of Saltfleet, which had made such a spectacular haul in 1627, but also the 120-ton Content of London.170 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 304. However the Content was subsequently snapped up by a Dunkirk warship, and though it was finally recaptured it was not restored to Lindsey until April 1629.171 APC, 1628-9, pp. 402-3.

A fresh Parliament assembled in March 1628, in which Lindsey, in his capacity as lord great chamberlain, was busily employed in introducing new peers to the House.172 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 74, 90, 106-7, 123, 221, 233. This was a new departure, the lord great chamberlain having not previously discharged this function, and suggests that Lindsey was seeking to breathe new life into an office that had become moribund. Lindsey’s longest period of recorded absence was between 31 May and 5 June, when he missed five consecutive business days. As in the previous assemblies in which he had sat, he made no recorded speeches. He was appointed to just six committees, including the privileges committee, the standing committee for petitions and, once again, the committee for the bill to make the arms of the kingdom more serviceable.173 Ibid. 73, 88, 133, 699. As a member of the privileges committee, he voted not to allow privilege to the estranged wife of Buckingham’s brother John Villiers, Viscount Purbeck,174 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/33 (31 Mar. 1628), no. 12. which decision underlined his continued loyalty to the duke. His continued association with Buckingham may also help to explain why, on the opening day of the Parliament, he was appointed by the crown to the largely honorific role of trier of petitions for England, Scotland and Ireland. On 4 Apr. his name was added to the committee for the bill to maintain hospitals and almshouses, but was excised. The only other mention that Lindsey receives in the records of this session was on 29 Mar., when he, the lord chamberlain (William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke) and the lord president of the Council (Henry Montagu^*, 1st earl of Manchester) were instructed to find out from the king when it would be convenient to present the recusancy petition.175 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 123, 151n. Unusually, Lindsey was present in the House on the final day of the session.

Lindsey was admitted to the Privy Council on 20 July, and was with Buckingham at Portsmouth one month later when the duke was murdered; indeed, he was one of the three men who examined the assassin immediately afterwards.176 Procs. 1628, p. 215. Following Buckingham’s violent death, the king instructed Lindsey to take command of the fleet that was then preparing to relieve the Huguenots of La Rochelle. Charles arrived at Portsmouth himself on 30 Aug., and on three successive days in early September spoke privately with Lindsey,177 NLS, Newbattle ms 5741, unfol. (entries of 30 Aug., 3, 4 and 5 Sept. 1628). both in order to hasten his departure and to brief the new commander on the best course of action to take in the event that the French king, Louis XIII, decided to abandon the siege. According to the Venetian ambassador, Charles did not have the same confidence in Lindsey as he had previously reposed in Buckingham, for despite regarding him as ‘competent and prudent’ he recognized that he was ‘a man of the sword rather than the toga … better at action than negotiations’. Consequently Lindsey was instructed that if Louis offered peace he should refer to Charles rather than try to conduct the negotiations himself.178 CSP Ven. 1628-9, pp. 289, 309.

Lindsey’s fleet arrived off La Rochelle towards the end of the third week in September. Its prospects for success were not high, as a previous attempt to relieve the city, led by Denbigh four months earlier, had failed. Although Lindsey had at his command a far more powerful force than the one commanded by Denbigh, the French defences were virtually impregnable, for across the mouth of the harbour the French had constructed an enormous palisade topped with gun positions and protected by a swarm of small vessels. Nevertheless, at dawn on 23 Sept. Lindsey launched his assault, targeting the enemy ships anchored under Charlebois Point. His own flagship led the way, closing to within short range of the enemy and firing broadside after broadside. However he was poorly seconded, despite having threatened to execute any captain who hung back. The following day a further attack was made, but once again the supporting vessels, fearing injury, discharged their ordnance at long range rather than close with the enemy. A third assault, mounted on 13 Oct., was spearheaded by fireships, but the wind dropped and the fireships merely impeded the supporting warships. Only the Huguenot flagship contrived to get within close range of the enemy.179 SP16/118/8; 16/120/17.I; Three Sea Journals of Stuart Times ed. B.S. Ingram, 6, 11-12.

Following the first two unsuccessful attacks, the king, apprised of Lindsey’s difficulties, instructed the earl to do his best to force a passage, and that if this proved impossible ‘we shall hold ourself to be excused to the world’.180 SP16/118/66. Five days later, on the 19th, Lindsey gave orders for a fourth assault the next day, but that night Louis’ forces entered La Rochelle and offered quarter to all but the leaders of the rebellion. Two days later the city surrendered, leaving Lindsey with no alternative but to return home.181 Three Sea Journals of Stuart Times, 13-14, 18; HMC Cowper, i. 368. In the inquiry which followed, Lindsey was accused of being insufficiently severe with his captains, but he answered, not unreasonably, that to have done otherwise would have provoked a mutiny.182 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 503. It was also claimed that the councils of war held aboard the flagship were little better than ‘tumults’, in which ‘every man spake, and nothing was put to the vote’ except those propositions made by a select few officers. One of these favoured officers, the seaman Sir John Weddell, was said to have ‘wholly ruled’ Lindsey.183 SP16/120/72. However, the king was chiefly troubled by the conduct of many of the fleet’s captains, seven of whom were committed to the Marshalsea for cowardice.184 SP16/119/1; Birch, ii. 3. See also SP16/28, f. 81r-v.

During his absence at sea, Lindsey had been appointed to the commission that took over management of the Navy following Buckingham’s murder. Many observers expected that the new admiralty commission would be short-lived, especially if Lindsey returned from La Rochelle trailing clouds of glory.185 Beaumont Pprs. ed. W.D. Macray, 61. In the event, however, it continued for the next nine-and-a-half years. Lindsey was so disappointed that, following his return to England, he attended meetings of the commissioners only infrequently.186 SP16/475/106.

In January 1629 Lindsey succeeded the 6th earl of Rutland (Francis Manners^*) as lord lieutenant of Rutland. That same month Parliament reconvened, and once again Lindsey was appointed to the standing committees for privileges and petitions. However, he received only three further committee appointments. One was to take a view of the kingdom’s military defences and another was to deliver to the king a petition to provide maintenance for the 19th earl of Oxford, whose poverty was something of an embarrassment to his fellow peers.187 LJ, iv. 6a, 6b, 34b, 37b. Lindsey himself had already done much to uphold Oxford’s estate, for in June 1627, apparently in return for a promise not to challenge his right to the office of lord great chamberlain, he had paid Oxford the sum of £2,000.188 LC4/56, m. 3; HMC 14th Rep. IX, 278. His remaining committee appointment was to consider a bill to naturalize the French wife of Lord Strange (James Stanley^*, later 7th earl of Derby). On 27 Jan. Lindsey was among those peers instructed to ascertain when the king would be available to receive from Parliament a petition calling for a general fast. Eighteen days later, on 14 Feb., he and the lord chamberlain were ordered to present Charles with a petition from the Lords requesting that the holders of Scottish and Irish titles be denied precedence over those with English titles. Throughout this short session Lindsey was recorded as being in attendance on all but three days, on one of which (16 Feb.) he obtained leave of absence (through another).189 LJ, iv. 14a, 15b, 31a, 32b.

The Personal Rule, 1629-40

The spring of 1629 saw the end of the war with France, and the following year peace was also concluded with Spain. In September 1629 the king, grateful for the earl’s wartime service, granted Lindsey a 51-year lease of the Oxfordshire forest of Shotover and Stowood. In return for just £3,000, and an annual rent of 100 marks, Lindsey was permitted to sell as much timber as he wanted, aside from 5,000 trees which were reserved for the king’s own use.190 Coventry Docquets, 217-18. However, Lindsey soon discovered that his grant was less valuable than he had imagined, for many of the 12,000 trees were ‘so extremely lopped and topped’ by the keepers ‘that most of them will suddenly die and become dotards, and so waste away in officers’ fees’.191 SP16/150/35. For evidence that Lindsey’s complaints were justified, see SP16/216/56i. To make matters worse, Lindsey’s grant was opposed by St John’s College, Oxford, whose master claimed that the forest was needed to provide building materials and firewood.192 SP16/149/105. Consequently, in August 1630 Charles ordered the felling of all timber in the forest to cease, thereby provoking howls of protest from Lindsey, who claimed that he had received no benefit from his grant.193 HMC Ancaster, 407; SP16/199/19. The matter does not appear to have been resolved until August 1632, when the king granted Lindsey in fee farm a manor and various chases in Herefordshire by way of compensation. Even then there were complications, as Lindsey subsequently discovered that these properties were already leased out to several trustees, among them Viscount Savage (Thomas Savage^*) and Lord Cottington (Francis Cottington^†), making him potentially liable for a double rent.194 Coventry Docquets, 256; CSP Dom. 1634-5, pp. 515-16.

In 1629 Lindsey and his wife acquired a house in the liberty of Havering-atte-Bower, in south-western Essex. Containing 30 hearths, it was the largest property in the liberty.195 HMC Buccleuch, i. 269; M.K. McIntosh, A Community Transformed, 172n. Lindsey therefore became an Essex magistrate, and by September 1630 he was also steward of Waltham Forest. However, his principal landed interests remained in Lincolnshire where, in 1632, in association with the queen’s vice chamberlain Sir Robert Killigrew^‡ and the barrister Robert Long^‡, he embarked on a series of ambitious schemes to drain various tracts of fen.196 CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 404-5, 534. Following Killigrew’s death in 1633 he entered into partnership with Sir Robert’s heir Sir William Killigrew^‡, to whom he assigned a quarter of the project’s shares, and in April 1635 the crown appointed him sole undertaker for draining the fens.197 HP Commons 1604-29, v. 19, 23-4; CSP Dom. 1635, p. 50. Two months later, with Killigrew’s assistance, he won the contract to drain the Lindsey Level, which was situated south-west of Boston. Of the 70,000 acres to be drained, Lindsey and his fellow contractors were promised 24,000 acres on completion.198 K. Lindley, Fenland Riots and the English Revolution, 51.

Although Lindsey was now well on the way to improving his finances, he craved high office, which he regarded as his due, particularly as the crown owed him money as a result of his wartime service. He remained disappointed at his failure to secure the admiralty, and sometime during the early 1630s he asked Charles to make him either lord high admiral or lord deputy of Ireland.199 Lincs. AO, 10ANC/Lot341/1. In respect of the admiralty, there was a strong possibility, between the autumn of 1630 and the spring of 1631, that he would be granted his wish. However, due to a series of timely reforms set in train by Sir John Coke^‡, the king was so impressed with the admiralty commission that he decided to keep it in being.200 A.D. Thrush, ‘Navy under Chas. I’ (Univ. London Ph.D. thesis, 1990), 35-6. Regarding the lord deputyship, a vacancy had existed since August 1629. However, Charles was not convinced that Lindsey was the right man for the job, and in 1632 appointed Viscount Wentworth (Thomas Wentworth^*, later 1st earl of Strafford) instead. Nevertheless Lindsey did not go entirely unrewarded. In April 1630 he was appointed to England’s elite order of knighthood, the order of the Garter, while in November 1631 Charles appointed him temporarily lord high constable. This office had long been in abeyance since the powers it conferred rivalled those of the crown, but a constable was now needed in order to preside over the Court of Chivalry, which had been newly revived in order to settle a quarrel between Donald, Lord Reay [S] and David Ramsay.201 Cases in the High Ct. of Chivalry ed. R.P. Cust and A. Hopper (Harl. Soc. n.s. xviii), xviii. This arrangement proved so successful that in February 1634 Lindsey was reappointed as constable, this time during pleasure. Along with the earl marshal, he was instructed to hear all cases of murder and manslaughter committed by the king’s subjects overseas.202 Coventry Docquets, 188. See also Cases in the High Ct. of Chivalry, pp. xx, 130; HMC Hastings, ii. 76.

In the summer of 1635 Lindsey was given an opportunity to demonstrate his abilities on the international stage. Alarmed by French claims to sovereignty over the Channel, and angered by frequent incursions by the Dutch into England’s territorial waters and coastal raids by north African pirates, the king decided to set out a large fleet to patrol the Channel over the summer, paid for by Ship Money. Lindsey, being the only member of the admiralty commission with any experience of naval command, was naturally chosen to serve as admiral. He was also granted a commission under the great seal rather than one issued by his fellow admiralty commissioners. This was a signal honour, since only admirals serving in foreign waters had previously been appointed directly by the king.203 Thrush, 31. However, the unusual nature of his grant suggested to Lindsey that he enjoyed greater authority than he actually held; he certainly regarded himself as more than a mere admiral of the Channel fleet. Writing to his fellow admiralty commissioners at the end of May, he complained that ‘I cannot but think myself a little maimed’, having not been issued with a royal standard, which ‘I conceive ... to be as due to me in this case as if I were lord admiral of England’.204 SP16/289/75. The following month he repeated his request for such a standard, arguing that as lord great chamberlain and lord high constable his status was already higher than that of a lord high admiral.205 CSP Dom. 1635, p. 157.

Lindsey’s delusions of grandeur might have proved easier to forgive had he given sterling service that summer. However, as early as the fourth week in June, Charles was unhappy with his performance. By then he had expected Lindsey to have intercepted the French fleet and forced it to acknowledge at gunpoint England’s claim to sovereignty over the Channel. Instead, he complained, he had been treated to an account of how Lindsey had suffered a fall from his coach and how the fleet had remained wind-bound near St. Helen’s Point. Lindsey was not unreasonably dismayed by these criticisms, for as he pointed out, the French fleet was deliberately avoiding contact with his squadrons in order to prevent the question of sovereignty over the Channel from being brought to a trial of strength. However, he also persuaded himself that the French refusal to put to sea represented an enormous personal triumph.206 Ibid. 146-7, 253. By the time he surrendered his command, at the end of October, Lindsey was reportedly ‘wondrous confident’, not only that he would retain command of the Channel fleet for life but also that he would be allowed to appoint its officers ‘in as absolute a manner as a lord admiral of England’.207 SP16/301/23. On the face of it his confidence was fully justified. Although irritated that Lindsey had knighted seven of his captains, none of whom had done anything to deserve this honour, Charles nevertheless ‘expressed a very good and gracious acceptance of his service and gave him thanks for it’ at the Council table.208 CSP Ven. 1632-6, pp. 474-5; Cal. of Corresp. of Smyth Fam. of Ashton Court, 1548-1642 ed. J.H. Bettey (Bristol Rec. Soc. xxxv), 127.

Lindsey’s expectation of continued employment was rudely shattered in February 1636, when it emerged that many of his captains had demanded payment from English merchant vessels for providing them with safe convoy, and that he himself had failed to dispatch a force to protect merchant shipping off the south-west coast. In his defence, Lindsey claimed that the captains of royal vessels customarily received payments from merchant ships by way of gratuities, and that he had been hindered from sending part of his force westward by his orders.209 SP16/304/126. However, these criticisms, coupled with his failure to bring the French to heel, sealed his fate, for on 21 Mar. 1636 command of the Second Ship Money fleet was bestowed on the young 4th earl of Northumberland (Algernon Percy*). Lindsey was so taken aback at this snub that, following Northumberland’s formal introduction to the commissioners on 8 Mar., he failed to attend the next 13 meetings of the admiralty board. Indeed, he did not resume regular attendance until 1637.210 SP16/475/106.

Over the next few years, Lindsey appears to have directed most of his energies towards the fen drainage scheme.211 T56/7, pp. 161-2; CSP Dom. 1637-8, pp. 475-6, 522; Coventry Docquets, 233. However, in late March 1639, with war against the Scots brewing, his military expertise was called upon once more. Although he had been inexplicably passed over for inclusion in the newly created council of war in July 1638, he was now added to this body.212 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 339; M.C. Fissel, Bishops’ Wars, 66, 71. Moreover, fearing invasion, Charles instructed him to take charge of the strategically important border town of Berwick. Were the Scots to invade, they could not safely ignore Berwick, which might provide a base from which to raid southern Scotland. Taking it might keep them fully occupied for most of the summer, allowing Charles a breathing space in which to gather his forces.213 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p.626; Strafforde Letters ed. W. Knowler (1739), ii. 326. At around the same time, Charles, mindful of the need to encourage Lindsey, who had reason to feel aggrieved at his earlier treatment, declared that the drainage of the Lindsey Level was now complete, whereas in reality the project was only half finished. Lindsey and his fellow undertakers were thereupon awarded 14,000 acres.214 Lindley, 51.

On learning that he had been appointed governor of Berwick, an office which had been held 40 years earlier by his father, Lindsey proceeded, not without some difficulty, to press 2,000 men in Lincolnshire.215 CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 6, 19-20, 49. After a short voyage by sea Lindsey arrived at Berwick on 29 Apr., where he not only found the fortifications in a chronic state of disrepair but also (since there had not been time to issue him with a formal commission) the townsmen unwilling to submit to his authority.216 Ibid. 66, 105, 225. Thankfully for him, however, he was never required to defend the town, for seven weeks after his arrival the king signed a truce with the Covenanters, whose representatives Charles met just outside Berwick. Tellingly, perhaps, Lindsey was not included among the English negotiators, but remained in Berwick for the rest of the summer. Consequently, in mid September, claiming that he had recently been ‘troubled with some tumours’ that ‘might have brought some dangerous sickness upon me’, he sought leave to return south. Permission was duly granted, and in January 1640 he was replaced.217 Ibid. 507; 1639-40, pp. 51, 332; 1640-1, p. 391. At about the same time he was granted an extension on his contract to drain the Eight Hundred Fen, in Lincolnshire, on the grounds that many of those working on this particular project had been drafted into service for the recent northern expedition.218 CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 324.

Final years, 1640-2

Although Charles had signed a truce with the Covenanters, he resumed the conflict in 1640. Lindsey, however, took no part in the Second Bishops’ War, which ended in disaster on the battlefield at Newburn (28 Aug. 1640), nor did he attend the ensuing Great Council of Peers at York. It may be that instead he retired in to Lincolnshire to deal with growing disorders surrounding the fen drainage scheme. Many of the commoners, encouraged by Theophilus Clinton^*, 4th earl of Lincoln, whose owns lands had been flooded as a result of the works, accused Lindsey of having stolen their land, and sought to regain the fens by force. During the early stages of the Long Parliament, Lindsey was the target of repeated complaints that the fen drainage scheme was illegal and maintained ‘by an arbitrary power’.219 A Relation of the Proceedings and causes of complaint between the undertakers with the Earle of Lindsey, in the Levell of Fenns in Lincolnshire, betwixt Bourne and Kime Eae, And the Owners and commoners there (1650), 1-2; LJ, iv. 343a; CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 447; Lindley, 15, 94, 120-1.

As relations between the king and the Long Parliament broke down, it became clear that Lindsey’s sympathies lay with Charles. On 11 Feb. 1642 the Commons therefore stripped Lindsey of the lord lieutenancy of Lincolnshire. Lindsey nevertheless remained at Westminster for the time being in order to try to halt Parliament’s continuing encroachment on royal authority. On 5 Mar., for instance, he and his son Montagu, now Lord Willoughy de Eresby, protested against the Militia Ordinance.220 Pvte. Jnls. Jan.-Mar. 1642, p. 351; LJ, iv. 627a. However, in late March or early April, he was given leave to fetch his letters patent as lord lieutenant, which he was now required to surrender to Parliament. He did not return, but instead travelled to York, apparently in response to a summons from Charles,221 HMC Buccleuch, i. 296, 299; Pvte. Jnls. June-Sept. 1642, pp. 5-6. who reappointed him lord lieutenant of Lincolnshire. However, it was the news that he had helped to prevent a petition from some of the inhabitants of Yorkshire from being presented to the king that led Parliament to brand Lindsey as one of the king’s evil advisers.

Shortly thereafter, England slid into civil war. Charles appointed Lindsey lieutenant general of his army, and in mid October Lindsey’s forces were intercepted at Edgehill, in south Warwickshire, by a parliamentarian army commanded by Lindsey’s former comrade-in-arms, the 3rd earl of Essex. On the eve of battle, Lindsey’s authority was undermined by the king, who exempted his nephew Prince Rupert^†, the commander of the cavalry, from the earl’s orders. He also insisted on adopting Swedish-style formations rather than the Dutch methods favoured by Lindsey. Once again Charles had failed to show complete confidence in Lindsey, who told his friends that, ‘since he was not fit to be a general, he would die like a colonel in the head of his regiment’. In the ensuing battle, fought on 23 Oct., Rupert’s cavalry chased both wings of the enemy horse off the field, leaving the royalist infantry to face not only the parliamentarian foot but also two regiments of enemy cavalry that had wisely been held in reserve. Undaunted, Lindsey placed himself at the head of his regiment and attacked, whereupon one of the parliamentarian cavalry regiments counter-charged. In the ensuing mêlée, Lindsey was shot in the leg and captured. According to Clarendon, he was subsequently taken to a nearby barn, where he bled to death. However, the records of the order of the Garter claim that he was actually conveyed to Warwick, where he died on 26 October.222 Clarendon, ii. 353, 365-6n; J. Sutton, ‘Poets at War: A Verse Hist. of the Battle of Edgehill’, Cromwelliana (1992), 16; A Relation of the Battaile lately fought between Keynton and Edghill by His Majesties Army and that of the Rebells (Oxford, 1642), 3; Bodl., Ashmole 1108, f. 152; S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of the Great Civil War, i. 45-9.

In the letter of condolence written to Lindsey’s son, written on 27 Oct., Charles claimed that the manner of Lindsey’s death had confirmed ‘the estimation I ever had of him’.223 HMC Ancaster, 410. Kind though this was, it was scarcely honest, for in reality Charles had never thought all that highly of Lindsey, who was subsequently buried at the parish church of St Michael and All Angels in Edenham, two miles south-east of Lindsey’s seat at Grimsthorpe Castle. At his decease Lindsey, who left no will, was more than £13,400 in debt, a far worse financial situation than he himself had inherited.224 CP, viii. 17; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 779. He was succeeded as earl of Lindsey by his son Montagu.