suc. fa. 26 Oct. 1682 as 4th Visct. MONTAGU.
Never sat.
b. aft. 1637, 1st. s. of Francis Browne, 3rd Visct. Montagu and Elizabeth Somerset; bro. of Henry Browne, 5th Visct. Montagu. m. (pre-nuptial settlement 10 Jan. 16761) Mary (d.1744), da. of William Herbert, earl of Powis, wid. of Richard Molyneux, s.p. d. 12 Apr. 1708; will 1686-12 Feb. 1708, pr. 12 July 1708.2
Ld. lt. Suss. 1688-9.
Associated with: Cowdray House and Park, Suss.
Barred from Parliament because of his catholicism, Montagu had little opportunity to engage in public life, although he did spend time in London. Household accounts for April-July 1685 suggest that he spent April 1685 in the capital then moved to his estate at Cowdray, Sussex, in the first week in May, before the commencement of the parliamentary session. Similarly, he was in London in January 1686, but left the capital in mid February.3
Montagu’s marriage to Mary Molineux cemented his links to the Catholic community. Not only was she a member of a prominent Catholic family, but one of her trustees (William Petre, 4th Baron Petre), was a Catholic, and another (Henry Somerset*, 3rd marquess of Worcester, the future duke of Beaufort), was a former Catholic. The third was William Craven, earl of Craven. Connections apart, the marriage brought little reward. Mary Molineux’s sole assets were her jointure of £1,000 a year from her first husband’s estate and a reversionary interest in an annuity worth £200 a year. Both were subsequently sold and the proceeds used towards the payment of Montagu’s debts. The arrangements Montagu put in place to compensate his wife became the subject of acrimonious litigation after his death. Montagu’s younger brother, the 5th viscount, who had no incentive to underestimate, later stated that the net income of the estate during his brother’s lifetime was £6,000 a year.4
As a Catholic, a major landowner and with a considerable interest over the parliamentary borough of Midhurst, it was perhaps only to be expected that the accession of James II would bring Montagu more firmly into public life. In the event he seems to have had little involvement in either county or borough politics until his appointment in February 1688 as lord lieutenant in the place of Charles Sackville, 6th earl of Dorset. Even then, Powis was named to deputize for him while Montagu was absent in France ‘on private affairs’, having been granted a pass to go abroad with his wife in March 1687.5 According to the borough regulators in 1688, Montagu had a ‘good interest’ at Midhurst and ‘may secure the election of Mr. [John] Lewknor‡ and Mr. John Mitchell [Michell‡], or who his Lordship shall think fit’.6 In July 1688 he was one of the peers written to by Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, to assist the king’s election agents.7 Yet what little is known of his activities as lord lieutenant suggests that he was probably conciliatory rather than confrontational. Although John Alford‡ returned unsatisfactory answers to the three questions, Montagu nevertheless ensured his restoration to the commission of the peace and made him a deputy lieutenant.8 He seems to have been sensitive to the increasing hostility to Catholics, and in August 1688, like his father before him, he responded by entering into a debt trust to reassure his creditors.9 Unlike his uncle Christopher Roper, 5th Baron Teynham, he had no need to flee the country at the Revolution of 1688. However, on 18 Sept. 1690, his wife, Mary was granted a pass to return from France, and she was indeed detained for a time by the zealous officials of Rye corporation upon her return in March 1691.10
Presumably Montagu’s low profile explains why he was listed as underage when the House was called on 28 Oct. 1689 and 31 Mar. 1690. Virtually nothing is known of his activities during the 1690s, apart from a brief involvement in a petition against the wording of a private bill on behalf of Edward Devereux, 8th Viscount Hereford. His concern stemmed from the recognition implicit in the bill of the Devereux claim to be recognized as the premier viscounts of England.11 The extent to which he actually exercised his electoral influence over Midhurst remains obscure. Given the predominately Tory inclinations of the Lewknor family with whom he shared control of Midhurst, he may not have cared to exercise pressure at all. Montagu’s electoral influence became noticeable only in 1701, when his client Laurence Alcock‡ replaced Sir William Morley‡ as the second Member.12 Montagu himself was said to have been increasingly frail in body and mind. He died on 12 Apr. 1708, being succeeded by his younger brother, Henry. In July 1710 his widow married as her third husband, Sir George Maxwell of Orchardtown, whereupon she became involved in an extensive legal dispute with the new viscount. This centred on her management of the estate as the 4th viscount had been ‘a man not very mindful of his affairs, and very much under the influence of his said lady’. He had become ‘very much indisposed and infirm for many years before his death’ so that she was able to undertake the ‘whole management of the estate’, and ‘managed it so that the annual expense was only £1,000 a year; therefore a surplus which she put out in her own name or concealed under other persons' names’. Not content with loading debts on to her husband’s estate, when her husband was ‘insensible’ she procured a codicil to his will adding £500 p.a. to her bequest.13
R.P./S.N.H.- 1 W. Suss. RO, Montague mss SAS-BA/272.
- 2 TNA, PROB 11/502.
- 3 W. Suss. RO, Cowdray mss 94, 95.
- 4 Henry Lord Viscount Montague ... The Appellants Case [1717].
- 5 CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 445.
- 6 Duckett, Penal Laws, 189, 192, 441.
- 7 CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 239.
- 8 HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 527.
- 9 HMC Portland, x. 361.
- 10 CSP Dom. 1690-1, pp. 124, 325.
- 11 Cowdray mss 182.
- 12 HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 612.
- 13 Henry Lord Viscount Montague ... The Appellants Case [1717].