MILDMAY, Charles (1670-1728)

MILDMAY, Charles (1670–1728)

suc. fa. 1 June 1679 (a minor) as 18th Bar. FITZWALTER (FITZWATER).

First sat 6 Nov. 1691; last sat 10 July 1727

b. 31 Aug. 1670, 1st s. of Benjamin Mildmay, 17th Bar. Fitzwalter, and Catherine Fairfax (d. 1725);1 bro. of Benjamin Mildmay†, later earl of Fitzwalter. educ. Clapham sch. c.1680. m. 8 June 1683 (with £9,000),2 Elizabeth (d. 1738), da. of Charles Bertie‡, of Uffington, Lincs., grandda. of Montagu Bertie, 2nd earl of Lindsey, sep. by Jan. 1715, s.p. d. 16 Feb. 1728; will 25 Mar. 1726, pr. 27 Feb. 1728.3

Associated with: Moulsham (Mousham) Hall, Essex.4

Fitzwalter succeeded to the family estates centred around their seat in Moulsham, Essex, at the death of his father in the summer of 1679. Although the poor survival of family papers leaves much about his life obscure, it is known that he attended a school in Clapham kept by a Mr Tanner and that his schoolfellows included Anthony Ashley Cooper, later 3rd earl of Shaftesbury, and two of the grandsons of William Maynard, 2nd Baron Maynard. The Maynards attended church but Fitzwalter, like Tanner and the schoolmaster, regularly attended a conventicle. Fitzwalter must have become aware of religious persecution at a young age, for in the mid-1680s Tanner and his schoolmaster both fell victim to the ‘Tory reaction’ and were prosecuted in the church courts.5 In view of this experience, it is perhaps not surprising that, although Fitzwalter was underage at the time, his name was included in a list of peers who opposed the policies of James II drawn up in the late spring of 1687. He was still underage at the 1690 election but was nevertheless active in support of Whig candidates in Essex, one of them being his kinsman Sir Henry Mildmay‡. After the poll, the successful candidates, Mildmay and Sir Francis Masham‡, were entertained by Fitzwalter and the other peers who had backed them and they later accompanied Fitzwalter to church.6

Although he was eligible to attend Parliament from the opening of the 1691–2 session on 22 Oct., Fitzwalter delayed taking his seat for a fortnight. Having taken his place at last on 6 Nov. he was then present for 51 per cent of the remaining sitting days (53 per cent of the whole) and was named to four committees. The following month he was one of those who ‘pressed it very much’ for the motion introduced by Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, calling for the suppression of playhouses following the attack on Henry Grey, Viscount Longueville.7 On 12 Feb. 1692 he registered his proxy in favour of Basil Feilding, 4th earl of Denbigh, which was vacated by the close of the session.

During the 1692–3 session Fitzwalter’s attendance dropped to just over 41 per cent of sitting days; he was named to five committees. On 7 Dec. 1692 he entered a protest against the failure of a proposal to form a joint committee of both Houses to consider the state of the nation. Although he was not present for the division on the second reading of the place bill on 31 Dec. he was in the House on 3 Jan. 1693 to vote for it and to subscribe the protest at its failure. The following month, in common with the majority of his colleagues, he found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder.8

In the summer of 1693 Fitzwalter married Elizabeth Bertie.9 The marriage brought financial reward, though the marriage settlement reveals the lady’s portion to have been £9,000 rather than the £10,000 recorded by Narcissus Luttrell‡.10 It also allied him with an extensive clan, closely connected to Thomas Osborne, marquess of Carmarthen (later duke of Leeds), whose Tory sympathies were very different from what until that date had seemed to be his own whiggish inclinations. Whatever the reason might have been, the marriage proved to be an unhappy one. Formal articles of separation were drawn up in 1714, apparently at Lady Fitzwalter’s request, but it seems likely that the couple had parted earlier for it was remarked that ‘Lady Fitzwalter does well to leave her Lord since he left her’.11

During the 1693–4 session Fitzwalter was present for just under 47 per cent of sitting days and was named to 12 committees. On 17 Feb. 1694 he voted in favour of the appeal submitted by Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, in the Albemarle inheritance case. During that month he was also active at the Essex by-election in collaboration with Charles Montagu, 4th earl (later duke) of Manchester, on behalf of his younger brother, Benjamin.12 Fitzwalter’s intervention was somewhat clumsy and resulted in splitting the Dissenting vote. Moreover, both he and Manchester infuriated the Commons by voting at the poll.13

The 1694–5 session saw a slight rise in his attendance, which now averaged 50 per cent of sitting days. He was named to nine committees in addition to the sub-committee for the Journal, one of which concerned the claim of Richard Verney to the barony of Brooke, a case in which Fitzwalter may have had an interest on account of the descent of his own peerage. His father’s example was later cited as supporting evidence for Willoughby de Broke (as Verney became) not needing to pay fees on his first appearance as he was deemed to be a lord by descent rather than as a new creation.14 On 23 Jan. 1695 he entered a dissent at the resolution that the implementation of the provisions of the bill for regulating treason trials be put off until 1698.

Fitzwalter was active once more in his native Essex for the election in the autumn of 1695. He joined with Manchester in support of Sir Francis Masham and another kinsman, Francis Mildmay, in opposition to the Tory candidate, Sir Charles Barrington‡. The result was victory for Barrington and Masham.15 During the first session of the 1695 Parliament Fitzwalter’s attendance fell to just over a third of sitting days. He was named to six committees and signed the Association in the House on 5 Mar. 1696 as well as signing it locally.16

Fitzwalter was absent for the first few weeks of the contentious 1696–7 session and was one of the peers ordered by the House to attend. He responded to the command and thereafter attended the House conscientiously for the period of Sir John Fenwick’s‡ attainder. He was also present for the subsequent disputes about the role played by Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth (later 3rd earl of Peterborough), but, in common with his Bertie in-laws, he used his attendance to oppose the court. On 23 Dec. he voted to acquit Fenwick and entered a protest at his conviction stressing the procedural irregularities that had occurred during the course of the trial. Although listed as present on 15 Jan. 1697 Fitzwalter was not named to the committee to draw up a representation to the king concerning the resolution to imprison Monmouth. That the omission was deliberate is suggested by an account of the debates by Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, which indicates that Fitzwalter was one of about a dozen disgruntled peers who voted against the resolution and whom Godolphin accused of ‘idle and frivolous impertinencies as well as … strange and extravagant madnesses’. All were excluded from the committee.17 Fitzwalter was back in the House on 20 Jan. when he informed James Brydges, later duke of Chandos, of the imminent promotion to the peerage of Arnold Joost van Keppel, as earl of Albemarle.18 Thereafter his attendance tailed off and overall averaged just over 38 per cent of sitting days. He was absent from the House between 10 Feb. and 7 Apr. but did not register his proxy until 13 Mar., when it was entered in favour of Leeds (as Carmarthen had since become). During the course of the session he was named to 12 committees.

Over the summer of 1697 Fitzwalter was responsible for committing John Leatherhead to gaol in Chelmsford on suspicion of having come into the country from France. Leatherhead was summoned to appear before the secretary of state, Sir William Trumbull‡.19 Fitzwalter returned to his place for the following 1697–8 session, during which he was present for approximately 37 per cent of sitting days and was named to 14 committees. On 4 Mar. 1698 he protested against giving a second reading to the bill to punish Charles Duncombe‡. On 16 June he acted as one of the tellers for the vote concerning amendments to the Russian trade bill, which had been proposed by the Russia Company. His last attendance of the session was on 17 June, on which day he was named to the committee for Trafford’s bill, but it was not until 28 June that he registered his proxy in favour of John Jeffreys, 2nd Baron Jeffreys.

During the 1698–9 session Fitzwalter’s attendance rose to 44 per cent of sitting days. He was appointed to eight committees, including that for enlarging the trade to Russia. In February he opposed the king’s retention of the Dutch guards and entered a protest at the passage of the resolution in their favour. The increase in his attendance proved to be a temporary one, for during the 1699–1700 session he was present on just under 23 per cent of sitting days, and did not attend the first half of the session at all. He first took his seat on 8 Feb. 1700, when he was clearly attracted by the debates over the Darien scheme and entered a protest against the decision to put the question that the settlement at Darien was inconsistent with the good of the plantation trade of England. Two days later he was missing from the attendance list but presumably took his place later on in the day as he was then named to his only committee for the session. Later that month he voted in favour of adjourning into a committee of the whole House to discuss whether to continue the East India Company as a corporation.

During the first Parliament of 1701 Fitzwalter’s attendance recovered to just under 38 per cent of sitting days, probably because of the political excitement caused by the impeachment of the Whig lords. Although he was missing from the attendance list (and from the list of those lords taking the oaths – an omission which he rectified the following day) at the opening on 10 Feb., he appears, once more, to have taken his place later that day as he was included in the list of lords nominated to the committee for privileges. Besides this, he was named to seven committees. In June 1701 he voted for the acquittal of John Somers, Baron Somers, and of Edward Russell, earl of Orford.

The Tory resurgence during the next Parliament (1701–2) probably explains why his attendance again fell back to 18 per cent (though he was named to ten committees during this period). In February 1702 he wrote to Somers, apparently assuring him of his continued support in response to news that the Commons intended to turn on the impeached lords again as ‘the cocks to be set up for that day’s sport’.20 During the first (1702–3) session of the new Parliament Fitzwalter’s attendance dropped to just under 12 per cent. The election had seen him willing to flout the Commons’ order prohibiting peers from voting in elections, which had in part been inspired by his behaviour together with Manchester at the elections in 1694, as well as the experience of the Maldon poll for 1698. The Commons seem to have paid no attention on this occasion.21 Fitzwalter’s attendances during the session were concentrated in December 1702, when the major issue was the bill to prevent occasional conformity. Since Fitzwalter was almost certainly an occasional conformist himself, he was not surprisingly listed by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as an opponent of the bill.

During the 1703–4 session his attendance fell still further, to just under 6 per cent of sitting days. On 4 Jan. 1704 he was one of a number of peers sent letters demanding that they appear in the House. It may have been in response to this that he was noted as having given his proxy to Somers (though this is not recorded in the proxy book) and it was not until 14 Feb. that he took his place; his subsequent attendances were concentrated in the remaining days of that month.22 While it is tempting to link them to worries about the Scotch conspiracy, it is more likely that he was in pursuit of an opportunity to raise an issue of privilege relating to a longstanding local dispute about fishing rights in Burnham Water.23 Despite his apparent lack of concern about attendance in the Lords, he nevertheless remained anxious to exert his interest in parliamentary elections. In April 1704 he seems to have been keen to back Sir Thomas Webster‡ as a potential knight of the shire for Essex.24

Fitzwalter was present for the opening of the session on 24 Oct. 1704. He was again present on 3 Nov. but, despite the political controversies of the day, he was then absent for the following three months. His proxy was held by Mohun from 22 Nov. until his return to the House on 1 Feb. 1705. This, like his support for Somers and the other Whig lords, suggests a growing distance between Fitzwalter and his Bertie relatives. He attended the House almost daily until the end of the month but it is difficult to relate his attendance to any specific issue or issues. His presence on 12 and 13 Mar. was almost certainly related to discussions on the militia bill, since it was later reported that there had been several changes to the Essex militia ‘ever since the Whig party came in fashion’ and that one of the beneficiaries had been Fitzwalter’s brother, Benjamin.25 In April 1705 he was unsurprisingly listed as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession.

At the 1705 election Fitzwalter backed the election of Tory-turned-Whig Henry Howard, then styled Lord Walden (later earl of Bindon and 6th earl of Suffolk).26 During the 1705–6 session he was present on just over a quarter of sitting days, but, although the session began on 25 Oct. 1705, he did not arrive in the House until 21 Jan. 1706. He was named to eight committees, one of which concerned a private bill promoted by an Essex neighbour, William Forbes, and another whose task was to draw up an address to the queen for a census of Catholics living in England. In August 1706 Narcissus Luttrell reported the appointment of Benjamin Fitzwalter as equerry to Prince George of Denmark, duke of Cumberland.27 During the next session, 1706–7, Fitzwalter was present for just under a third of sitting days. Again his attendances were concentrated in the spring and again there is no obvious political or local issue to which his presence can be ascribed: some of his attendances coincided with discussions of union with Scotland, others did not. Although his name was omitted from the attendance list in the printed Journal for 14 Mar. 1707, the manuscript minutes indicate that he acted as one of the tellers during a division on the game bill that day in a committee of the whole House.

Fitzwalter was present for just two days of the brief April session in 1707, for three days during the 1707–8 session of the first Parliament of Great Britain and for four days during the first (1708–9) session of the 1708 Parliament. His somewhat mercurial attendance was presumably responsible for him being classified both as a Whig and as of unknown party loyalty in a list of affiliations drawn up in May 1708. The revival of political and religious controversy caused by the Sacheverell affair brought about a similar revival of Fitzwalter’s interest in Parliament. Over the course of the 1709–10 session his attendance increased to some 40 per cent of sitting days, almost all of which were concentrated into the period after 26 Jan. 1710. On 20 Mar. he found Sacheverell guilty.28

Following the fall of Godolphin and his Junto allies in the summer of 1710, Fitzwalter was listed by Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, as one of a group of peers of ‘doubtful allegiance’ whose support Harley was eager to gain for the ministry. Fitzwalter was recruited by Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, who had clearly promised him some reward in return for his support. As such he appears to have been relatively unusual among Whig peers brought into the fold, but the importance of securing these two peers’ votes was apparent enough.29 Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, wrote anxiously in October 1710 that ‘If something be not done for Lord Fitzwalter that will lose him and disgust Lord Rivers, who engaged for it’.30 Fitzwalter’s attendance over the 1710–11 session remained at what for him was a fairly high level, some 35 per cent of sitting days. The pattern of attendance in January 1711 suggests concern about the state of the war with Spain after the defeat at Alamanza, but thereafter there is little indication as to what attracted his attention and it is noteworthy that he did not attend the House for the hearings in the Greenshields case.

By the end of 1711 Fitzwalter was in receipt of a court pension worth £600 a year.31 He was present for the prorogation days of 10 July, 9 Oct. and 17 November. On that of 9 Oct. he introduced the lord keeper, Simon Harcourt, as Baron (later Viscount) Harcourt. Nevertheless, his attendance dropped to some 28 per cent of sitting days in the 1711–12 session. His presence on 8 Dec. 1711 ensured his nomination to the committee for privileges but his real purpose in attending the House was to vote against the ministry on the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion. His vote seems to have become the subject of a bidding war, for Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, acting on behalf of the Hanoverian resident, Bothmer, offered Fitzwalter £1,200, which he accepted, as he later wrote, ‘with the more pleasure’ as he had become aware of the bad intentions of the ministry.32 Oxford’s subsequent list of ‘poor lords’ indicates that Fitzwalter’s failure to support the court led directly to the loss of his court pension. A forecast in December 1711 predicted that Fitzwalter would vote in favour of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S] (duke of Brandon), but in the event he abstained by leaving the House.

Fitzwalter’s somewhat maverick behaviour probably explains why his name appears on Oxford’s list of peers to be canvassed over the Christmas recess. In January 1712 Bothmer, having concluded that Fitzwalter’s loyalty to the ministry and the Hanoverian succession could indeed be bought, included his name on a list of ‘poor lords’ sent to the elector (the future George I), recommending payment of the £1,200 a year pension.33 Fitzwalter’s commitment to the Whigs is indicated by his pattern of proxy-giving. On 16 May 1712 he entered his proxy in favour of Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend. The proxy was vacated by Fitzwalter’s return to the House on 22 May and seems to have been intended for use in the divisions over the bill to examine grants since the Revolution. On 28 May he again sided with the opposition by voting in favour of the motion to overturn the orders restraining James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from pursuing an active campaign against the French.34

Having paid the price of his disloyalty with the loss of his court pension, Fitzwalter was dismayed to discover just how difficult it was to secure payment of his Hanoverian one: it was paid only until Christmas 1712.35 He was present for just over 31 per cent of sitting days during the 1713 session. In June Oxford forecast that he would oppose the confirmation of the eighth and ninth articles of the French commercial treaty. Later that year his name was again included on a list of ‘poor lords’, with a recommendation for a pension from Hanover.

Whether it was renewed hope for a pension or the result of political uncertainty, Fitzwalter’s attendance rose over the spring/summer session of 1714 to nearly 39 per cent of sitting days. He covered most of an absence in May by entering a proxy in favour of Manchester, his old comrade in the Essex elections, on 8 May, which was vacated by his return to the House on the 28th. Nottingham predicted that Fitzwalter would oppose the Schism bill but he appears to have told in its favour (he was first teller marked on the list) on 15 June. Another absence (during the first week of July, when the only consistent item of business was the commercial treaty with Spain) was covered by a proxy in favour of John Campbell, earl of Greenwich (better known as 2nd duke of Argyll [S]). During the brief session that met in the wake of Queen Anne’s death, he was present on only three occasions. His career after the death of Queen Anne will be considered in the next section of this work.

Fitzwalter died in 1728, leaving his entire estate to his brother, Benjamin, who succeeded him as 19th Baron Fitzwalter and who was elevated to an earldom two years later.

R.P./R.D.E.E.

  • 1 Daily Journal, 23 Mar. 1725.
  • 2 Essex RO, D/DPI/53.
  • 3 TNA, PROB 11/619.
  • 4 HMC Rutland, ii. 140.
  • 5 Bodl. Rawl. Letters 59, no. 477.
  • 6 HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 179–80; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, v. 409.
  • 7 Add. 70015, f. 272.
  • 8 State Trials, xii. 1048–9.
  • 9 Add. 70081, newsletter, 17 June 1693.
  • 10 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 43.
  • 11 Essex RO, D/DM/T109; Verney ms mic. M636/55, Sir T. Cave to Sir R. Verney, 3 Jan. 1715.
  • 12 Bramston Autobiog. 375, 378, 391–2.
  • 13 HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 180, 183.
  • 14 SCLA, Verney pprs. DR 98/1731/18.
  • 15 HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 181.
  • 16 TNA, C 213/107.
  • 17 HMC Buccleuch, ii. 439–40.
  • 18 HEHL, Stowe (Chandos) ms 26, vol. i. p. 2.
  • 19 CSP Dom. 1697, p. 155.
  • 20 Surr. Hist. Cent. Somers 371/14/N/6.
  • 21 HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 183.
  • 22 Add. 61495, f. 21.
  • 23 LJ, xvii. 444.
  • 24 HP Commons, 1690–1715, v. 821–2.
  • 25 Verney ms mic. M636/52, E. Adams to Fermanagh, 24 Jan. 1706.
  • 26 HP Commons, 1690–1715, iv. 403.
  • 27 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 75.
  • 28 Add. 15574, ff. 65–68.
  • 29 Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 78–80.
  • 30 HMC Bath, i. 199.
  • 31 Eg. 929, f. 142.
  • 32 Ibid.
  • 33 Peers, Politics and Power: the House of Lords, 1603-1911, ed. Jones, 176.
  • 34 PH, xxvi. 177–81.
  • 35 Eg. 929, f. 142.