styled 1634-71 Visct. Mandeville; suc. fa. 5 May 1671 as 3rd earl of MANCHESTER.
First sat 4 Feb. 1673; last sat 28 Mar. 1681
MP Huntingdonshire 1660, 1661–71.
bap. 25 Apr. 1634, 1st s. of Edward Montagu, later 2nd earl of Manchester, and 2nd w. Lady Anne Rich. educ. Oxf. MA 1665; travelled abroad (France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy) 1649–54.1 m. 27 June 1655, Anne (d. 1698), da. of Sir Christopher Yelverton‡, bt. of Easton Maudit, Northants. 5s. (2 d.v.p.) 4da. (?1 d.v.p.). d. 14 Mar. 1683; will 16 June 1682, pr. ?6 June 1684, 20 July 1684, 20 Jan. 1685.2
Gent. of the bedchamber 1666–d.; master of the swans 1672–d.3
Commr. for oyer and terminer, Midland circuit 1660, assessment, Hunts. 1660–71, Huntingdon and Northants. 1663–71; Dep. lt. Hunts. 1660–71; ld. lt. (jt.) Hunts. 1671–2, (sole) 1672–81; custos rot. Hunts. 1672–81;4 water-bailiff, Whittlesea mere 1672–d.;5 high steward, Camb. Univ. 1677–d.
Capt of militia horse, Hunts. 1660; capt. duke of Monmouth’s regt. of ft. 1666.
Associated with: Kimbolton Castle, Hunts.; Leez (Leighs) Priory, Essex.6
An inactive member of the Commons in the Convention and Cavalier Parliament, Mandeville, as he was styled until his succession to the earldom, never really emerged from the shadow of his more illustrious father and he was equally outshone by his more forceful wife. One commentator described him as ‘a bedchamber pimp’ and he seems to have won a reputation as a ‘gallant’.7 He was also one of several people at one time or another associated with Frances Stuart (later duchess of Richmond); in 1667 when he joined James Scott, duke of Monmouth, and various others in mobilizing against a Dutch assault near Harwich it was concluded dismissively that their gathering would be ‘to little purpose … but to debauch the country women thereabouts’.8 Such an unprepossessing reputation did not prevent him from enjoying some success as a courtier before drifting into opposition.
Two years after his succession to the peerage on 5 May 1671 (not, as is usually given, 7 May), Manchester took his seat in the House, on 4 Feb. 1673, when he was named to the sessional committees for petitions and privileges. He was thereafter present on approximately three-quarters of all sitting days in the session. Although he was missing from the attendance lists for almost three weeks after his first appearance, he does appear to have been present in the House on occasion during this time, as he was not noted as being missing at a call on 13 Feb. but was then added to the committee for attorneys two days later. Included on the attendance list again on 21 Feb. he was named to a further five committees in the course of the session, including the committee for preparing a bill of advice to the king, which seems to have comprised all those sitting in the chamber that day.
Following the close of the session, Manchester was involved in an argument with his kinsman, Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Sandwich, over the office of keeper of swans. The quarrel resulted in swords being drawn but seems to have been settled with no more damage done than a scratch to Sandwich’s arm.9 Manchester returned to the House in October for the brief four-day session, which he attended on three days, before taking his seat once more in the new session of January 1674. Although present on almost 87 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to just two committees. This apparent lack of activity was repeated in the subsequent session of April 1675, when he was present on just over half of all sitting days but was named to no committees bar the sessional committees for privileges and petitions. His only other perceptible imprint on the session was when he joined with John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham and Normanby), in introducing Charles Sackville, later 6th earl of Dorset, as earl of Middlesex. On 28 May he registered his proxy with Charles Gerard, Baron Gerard of Brandon (later earl of Macclesfield), which was vacated by the close of the session.
By the mid-1670s Manchester had aligned himself with the opposition and, having resumed his seat on 13 Oct. 1675, he was noted as being one of the ‘chief lords for the address’ requesting a dissolution of Parliament on 20 November.10 He then signed the protest when the measure failed to carry.11 Present on over 90 per cent of all sitting days in the short session, he was named to five committees, including that concerning his kinswoman Mary, dowager countess of Warwick, as well as the bill for rebuilding Northampton, a town with which the Montagu family were closely associated.
Although Manchester was summoned as one of the triers for the trial of Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, in June 1676, he was one of a handful who failed to appear.12 For all his apparent lethargy and identification with the opposition, he retained a reputation as a courtier of some significance and in September rumours circulated that he was to be appointed as chamberlain of the queen’s household in return for paying £5,000 to the Portuguese ambassador, but this failed to come to anything.13 He resumed his seat at the opening of the following session on 15 Feb. 1677, after which he was present on 68 per cent of all sitting days. Named to 13 committees during the session, Manchester’s attention was also taken up with the passage of a bill to enable him to sell lands to settle his debts. Following a report by John Carey, 2nd earl of Dover, the House ordered the bill to be engrossed with amendments and, after the addition of a proviso by the Commons, it received the royal assent on 16 April.
Manchester was noted as ‘worthy’ by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, at the beginning of May. He was again the subject of the House’s scrutiny the following February over the Langley v. Twisden case, when Francis Twisden attempted to forestall an action brought against him by producing a protection from Manchester. The House was unimpressed with Twisden’s plea, the protection was set aside and Langley was granted leave to proceed. Absent at a call on 16 Feb. 1678, Manchester resumed his seat on 4 March. On 4 Apr. he voted Thomas Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, not guilty in his trial for murder. At the close of the month he left town briefly to attend the funeral of the dowager countess of Warwick.14 He resumed his seat once more on 2 May and later that month he was again to the fore when the inhabitants of Hallowell petitioned the House to prevent him from enclosing land there. On this occasion, the House took Manchester’s part and the petition was dismissed.
Manchester took his seat in the House for the following session on 23 May 1678, after which he was present on 44 per cent of all sitting days and named to two committees. He appears to have spent the summer following the prorogation engaged in making improvements at Leez Priory, formerly part of the Warwick estate, but he took his seat once more on 21 Oct., after which his rate of attendance increased considerably to just short of 80 per cent of all sitting days.15 Even so, his activity within the House barely fluctuated. Again named to just two committees, on 15 Nov. he voted in favour of disabling papists from sitting in Parliament and on 26 Dec. he supported the resolution to insist upon the Lords’ amendment to the supply bill.
In February, in advance of the new Parliament, Manchester’s countess wrote to her niece Baroness Hatton, hoping to see her in town before the session got under way.16 Lady Hatton presumably disappointed her aunt as her husband (Christopher Hatton, 2nd Baron, later Viscount, Hatton) delayed attending the House until April but Manchester was present on two days of the abortive session of March 1679 before taking his seat on 20 Mar., after which he was present on 64 per cent of all sitting days. Although he had voted against committing Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), on 27 Dec. 1678, he was noted as a likely opponent of the former lord treasurer in an assessment of 1 Mar. 1679 and Danby continued to include him among his probable opponents in subsequent forecasts over the following two days. In April, as predicted, Manchester voted in favour of the early stages of the Danby attainder. Three days later he voted in favour of passing the bill and on 14 Apr. he was one of several of the ‘court party’ to abandon Danby and vote in favour of supporting the Commons’ resolutions on the measure.
In parallel with the moves against Danby, Manchester found himself involved once more in a squabble with some of the inhabitants of one of his manors. On the same day that he voted to attaint Danby (4 Apr.), the House heard a complaint against five individuals who were said to have trespassed on Manchester’s property in Harlow and other locations, breaking down fences and causing other damage there. The House ordered the five to be attached but on 17 Apr. they were released having undertaken to put right the damage they had done. Manchester was missing at a call on 9 May, though it was noted that he would be present the following day. He resumed his seat accordingly on 10 May, when he voted in favour of appointing a joint committee of both Houses to consider how best to proceed against the impeached lords. He then subscribed the protest at the failure to carry this proposal and three days later he put his name to the subsequent protest against the resolution to allow the bishops to remain in the court during capital cases prior to sentencing.
Following the dissolution that summer, Manchester was at the centre of a family dispute over the settlement of property as laid out in the will of his brother-in-law, Robert Rich, 5th earl of Warwick. Warwick had made a number of bequests to Manchester’s siblings, with a reversion to Manchester’s heir, Charles Montagu, then styled Viscount Mandeville (later duke of Manchester). In spite of this, Manchester was accused of having taken control of the estates himself and of insisting on his privilege to prevent the case being brought to court.17 Manchester’s father had been one of Warwick’s trustees, so Manchester had presumably inherited this role. The matter, which was further complicated by intricate jealousies within the Rich family, was still unresolved the following March when Manchester’s sister, the 5th earl of Warwick’s widow, sought the assistance of Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, to help bring the case to a conclusion.18
Elections for the new Parliament further complicated affairs for Manchester. As his countess explained to Lady Hatton, Essex, where Manchester commanded some interest through his connection with the Rich family, was in a ‘great bustle about the election’ following the intervention of Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle.19 Albemarle had succeeded in luring Sir Eliab Harvey‡ away from his former partner, Henry Mildmay‡, persuading him to stand with Sir Thomas Middleton‡ instead, only to see Mildmay and John Lamotte Honeywood‡ returned following a fierce contest.20 It is not clear whom Manchester favoured on this occasion, though it seems likely that he would have backed the anti-court pairing of Mildmay and Honeywood.
Manchester’s countess found out about the intention to prorogue Parliament from William Howard, Viscount Stafford, during a visit the Tower the day before the December 1679 council meeting at which the king made the decision.21 Manchester attended the two prorogation days on 17 Oct. 1679 and 26 Jan. 1680. That spring there were further developments over the family suits relating to the Rich estates.22 He took his seat in the new Parliament (which met a few days earlier than planned) on 21 Oct., after which he was present on over three-quarters of all sitting days, but he was named to just one committee. On 15 Nov. he voted against putting the question that the exclusion bill should be rejected at first reading and at the subsequent proposal to reject the bill at first reading. He then subscribed the ensuing protest and on 23 Nov. he voted in favour of establishing a joint committee with the Commons to consider the state of the kingdom. Manchester found Stafford guilty of treason on 7 December. His countess was an assiduous attender of the trial and provided an account of its proceedings to Lady Hatton.23 Manchester protested again on 7 Jan. 1681, first at the resolution not to put the question whether to address the king to suspend Sir William Scroggs, and second at the resolution not to put the question whether Scroggs should be committed on articles of impeachment brought up from the Commons. Two months later, he was assessed by Danby again as a likely opponent in preparation for Danby’s attempt to secure his release from the Tower.
Manchester’s opposition to the court led to rumours of his impending dismissal from his offices early the following year.24 In March 1681 he was ordered to cease attending the king as a gentleman of the bedchamber (though he does not seem to have been formally removed from this post). He was also put out as lord lieutenant of Huntingdon, though Lady Sunderland reported two months later that he was engaged in making his peace with the king.25 At the end of July Manchester and his countess arrived at Whitehall, though the immediate cause of their journey (according to Lady Manchester) was so that Manchester could take the waters at Epsom ‘that he might not grow too fat’ and so that she could purchase mourning in town.26 Manchester’s efforts to effect a reconciliation with the king clearly failed as, shortly after he returned to the country, messengers were sent to him to demand the keys of his lodgings at Whitehall.27
Out of favour and plagued by poor health, Manchester resolved to quit England for France and in March 1682 he was granted a warrant to travel abroad with his cousin Irby Montagu‡ and seven servants.28 Prior to his departure, he contrived to arrange the marriages of three of his daughters concurrently. The eldest, Lady Anne Montagu, was married to James Howard, 3rd earl of Suffolk, but far less advantageous matches were said to have been secured for the younger girls. One was reported to be set to marry the septuagenarian Colonel Bright, whose son, it was also stated, had previously been married to another of Manchester’s daughters. The other was said to be intended for a Captain Brett, who was reputedly little better than a highwayman.29 If they took place, no evidence for the younger daughters’ marriages or the marriage of any of Manchester’s daughters to Bright’s son appears to have survived. When Manchester made his will in the summer of 1682 (by which time his health was said to have improved) his three younger daughters were all listed as unmarried. They were still so at the time of his death.30 In 1697 Lady Catherine Montagu married one of the sons of Sir Humphrey Edwin and it was not until 1713 that Manchester’s second daughter, Elizabeth, married her cousin, James Montagu‡, though it is possible that this was a second marriage.31
Manchester died in his self-imposed exile at Montpellier of dropsy in March 1683.32 According to his wishes outlined in his will, his body was returned to England for burial at Kimbolton.33 His countess was said to have been forced to dissemble grief, being only too pleased to be rid of ‘an ill husband’.34 Probate of the will was initially disputed.35 The cause was presumably the clerical error which gave the date of passing the will as 6 June 1664 rather than 1684. In the will, Manchester divided his estates between his widow and heir and made provision for the payment of portions of £3,000 a piece to his unmarried daughters, as well as annuities for his younger sons, Robert‡ and Heneage Montagu‡, both of whom were later returned to the Commons. Manchester’s widow and heir, along with his cousin Edward Montagu‡, were appointed joint executors. His widow continued the family tradition of making decidedly scandalous marriages by later marrying her former husband’s kinsman, Charles Montagu, afterwards earl of Halifax, who was at least 35 years her junior. Manchester was succeeded in the earldom by his far more capable son, Charles Montagu, who was later advanced duke of Manchester.
R.D.E.E.- 1 J. Stoye, English Travellers Abroad 1604–1667 (1989), 282; Bodl. Rawl. D. 76.
- 2 TNA, PROB 11/377.
- 3 CSP Dom. 1672, p. 214.
- 4 CSP Dom. 1680–1, p. 204.
- 5 CSP Dom. 1672, p. 214.
- 6 Add. 29569, f. 231.
- 7 Pepys Diary, iii. 15.
- 8 Ibid. viii. 184, 255.
- 9 Williamson Letters, i. 41–42.
- 10 Timberland, i. 183.
- 11 Bodl. ms Eng. Hist. e. 710, ff. 14–15; Carte 72, ff. 292–3.
- 12 HEHL, EL 8419; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fb 155, pp. 460–1.
- 13 TNA, PRO 31/3/133, ff. 87–93.
- 14 Add. 29569, f. 230.
- 15 Ibid. f. 231.
- 16 Hatton Corresp. i. 175; Add. 29569, f. 237.
- 17 TNA, C9/414/22.
- 18 Add. 18730, f. 68.
- 19 Add. 29569, ff. 233–4.
- 20 HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 229.
- 21 Add. 29569, f. 244.
- 22 Add. 18730, f. 68.
- 23 Add. 70013, ff. 57–58; Hatton Corresp. i. 241–2; Add. 29569, f. 251.
- 24 HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 566; Add. 70127, A. Stephens to Lady Harley, 1 Feb. 1681; CSP Dom. 1680–1, p. 185.
- 25 Bodl. Carte 222, f. 264; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, ii. 271; Add. 75356, [Lady Sunderland] to [Lady Burlington], 12 May 1681.
- 26 Hatton Corresp. ii. 5–6.
- 27 Castle Ashby ms 1092.
- 28 Add. 29558, f. 465; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 623.
- 29 Verney ms mic. M636/36, J. to Sir R. Verney, 4 May 1682; Sir R. to J. Verney, 8 May 1682; HMC Astley, 51; Bodl. Carte 216, f. 39; HMC Rutland, ii. 72.
- 30 Add. 29558, ff. 195, 199.
- 31 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 272, 277.
- 32 W.D. Montagu, duke of Manchester, Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 26; Add. 29560, f. 174.
- 33 HMC 7th Rep. 285.
- 34 Add. 29583, f. 91.
- 35 TNA, PROB 18/16/58.