cr. 13 Dec. 1700 Bar. HALIFAX; cr. 19 Oct. 1714 earl of HALIFAX
First sat 11 Feb. 1701; last sat 11 May 1715
MP Maldon 1689-95, Westminster 1695-1700
b. 16 Apr. 1661, 6th but 4th surv. s. of Hon. George Montagu‡ of Horton, Northants. and Elizabeth, da. of Sir Anthony Irby‡ of Whaplode, Lincs; bro. of Christopher‡, Edward‡, Irby‡ and James Montagu‡. educ. Westminster 1675; Trinity Coll. Camb. 1679, fell. 1683-8, MA 1689, LL.D. 1705. m. c. Feb. 16881 Anne (d.1698),2 da. of Sir Christopher Yelverton‡, bt. wid. of Robert Montagu, 3rd earl of Manchester, s.p. KG 1714. d. 19 May 1715; will 10 Apr. 1706-1 Feb. 1713, pr. 18 June 1715.3
Clerk to PC Feb. 1689-Mar. 1692;4 commr. of Treasury Mar. 1692-May 1697, 1st ld. May 1697-Nov. 1699, Oct. 1714-d.; chan. of exch.1694-1699; auditor of receipt 1699-1714; PC 1694-1702,5 1714-d.; ld. justice 1698-9,6 1714.
Envoy to Hanover 1706.
Commr. preventing export of wool 1689, appeals for prizes 1694, trade and plantations 1696, union with Scotland 1706; trustee, receiving loans to Emperor 1706.
High steward Camb. Univ. 1697-d.; ranger Bushy pk. 1709; ld. lt. Surrey 1714-d.
FRS 1695, president 1695-98.
Associated with: Jermyn Street, Westminster;7 Great Newport Street, Westminster;8 Old Palace Yard, Westminster,9 and Bushy Park, Hampton Court, Mdx.
Likenesses: oil on canvas by Sir G. Kneller, 1690-95, NPG 800; oil on canvas by Sir G. Kneller, 1701-3, NPG3211; oil on canvas attrib. to M. Dahl, 1715, Royal Society.
Although Montagu achieved distinction both as a minister and as the godfather of the Bank of England in the decade following the Revolution, after his elevation to the Lords in 1700 further significant responsibilities eluded him until the Hanoverian succession at the close of his life. His career under Queen Anne was marked by thwarted ambition, which gave rise to fractious relations with his Junto colleagues, who never seem to have been wholly persuaded of his fidelity to the cause. For Arthur Maynwaring‡, quoting what he believed to be a well-informed source, Montagu was ‘like the fly upon the wheel, that would always thrust himself upon people and fancy he did great matters, when in truth he only made himself ridiculous.’10
His colleagues were right to doubt Montagu’s zeal. Unusually for one of the central figures in the Junto and, in spite of his close friendship with the group’s acknowledged head, John Somers, Baron Somers, Montagu seems not to have been a staunch adherent of party.11 He was willing to co-operate with politicians of very different political hues in the name both of national interest and personal aggrandizement or enthusiasm. His negotiations with Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, throughout the first decade of the eighteenth century were no doubt largely motivated by ambition but it also seems fair to conclude that the two men enjoyed a genuine friendship. At times this appeared to offer the prospect of a political rapprochement between moderate Whigs and moderate Tories. Such behaviour and his occasionally prickly manner earned Montagu the distrust of more stalwart Whigs. Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, thought him &lquo;as ill a man as ever I knew’ and some other Junto followers regarded &lquo;Mouse Montagu’, as he was commonly known on account of his diminutive stature, as little better than a traitor for his carryings-on with &lquo;Robin the Trickster’.12
Opinion was similarly divided on Montagu’s merits as a literary patron. Jonathan Swift, who at one point was close to him, later derided his &lquo;patronage’ of artists and writers as amounting to little more than &lquo;good words and good dinners’.13 Alexander Pope protested that Montagu was &lquo;rather a pretender to taste than really possessed of it’ while others suggested that far from being an original wit himself, Montagu rode on the back of other men’s ideas.14 Fellow Kit Cat members Joseph Addison‡ and Richard Steele‡ were, unsurprisingly, more generous, the one hailing him as &lquo;one of our greatest orators’ while Steele eulogized that &lquo;it is to you we owe that the man of wit has turned himself to be a man of business’.15 As an orator, Montagu was undoubtedly significant, bringing to the House a more informal style, which helped to transform the nature and quality of debate in the chamber. He was also a firm friend to some of his less fortunate contemporaries such as George Stepney, who relied on his former schoolfellow to promote his diplomatic career.16
Early career to 1700
As the younger son of a younger son of Henry Montagu†, earl of Manchester, and possessed of little more than a small annuity, Montagu needed to make his own way in the world.17 Through the king’s patronage he was awarded one of only two lay fellowships at Trinity College, Cambridge, where his cousin, John Montagu, was master.18 Following Charles II’s death Montagu came to the attention of Charles Sackville, 6th earl of Dorset, and Sir Charles Sedley‡, who were impressed by his verses commemorating the late king.19 At the Revolution, Montagu joined his cousin, Charles Montagu, 4th earl of Manchester, in rallying to Princess Anne at Nottingham. Earlier that year he had scandalized society by marrying Manchester’s mother, Anne, dowager countess of Manchester, his senior by more than 30 years. Following the Revolution, his association with key figures at court continued to serve him well. It was on Dorset’s recommendation that he was returned for Maldon on the interest of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, while in February 1689 he purchased the clerkship of the Privy Council for £1,500 through the influence of George Savile, marquess of Halifax.20
Instrumental in the establishment of the Bank of England, Montagu invested £2,000 of his own money in the venture and in May 1694 he was appointed chancellor of the exchequer. He over-reached himself the following year in his efforts to oust Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, and the attempt was followed by a rather hollow reconciliation.21 He retained sufficient interest to set up his brother, Irby, at Maldon in the general election leaving himself free to contest Westminster with the support of Princess Anne, William Russell, duke of Bedford, and John Holles, duke of Newcastle.22
By the middle of the decade, Montagu had become closely associated with several of the men who were to form the backbone of the Whig Junto. A close personal friend of Somers, Montagu was acknowledged one of the Whigs’ principal managers in the Commons, a role made the more vital by the removal of Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, to the Lords in 1696. By the following year, he was the only member of the Junto leadership still in the Commons. A report that year that he was to be created earl of Glasgow came to nothing.23 In the Commons he was instrumental in unseating the disgraced Speaker, Sir John Trevor‡, and in mounting the assault on Sunderland’s henchman, Charles Duncombe‡. He was also reported as being on the brink of an attack on Sunderland himself.24 Characteristically unable to restrain himself, Montagu was called to the Commons’ bar early in 1698 to apologize for implying that a number of his fellow Members were Jacobites. He then faced another backlash in the lower House following revelations of his knowledge of the partition treaties.25 In December 1700, his usefulness in the Commons compromised, he was saved from immediate retribution with his advancement to the peerage as Baron Halifax. His promotion was said to have &lquo;much dejected his friends’ and he caused considerable resentment both in his choice of title (William Savile, 2nd marquess of Halifax, having died only three months previously) and by the florid wording of his patent (penned by Matthew Prior‡) the tone of which was thought to be tasteless and self-important.26 Jack Howe‡ later complained in the Commons about its wording, while Robert Molesworth‡ (later Viscount Molesworth of Swords [I]) claimed it made him feel sick to his stomach: &lquo;since the Creation’, he complained, &lquo;there never was anything so insolent, arrogant and assuming … It deserves in my opinion an impeachment itself’.27
The Parliaments of 1701
Following the dissolution of Parliament in December 1700, Halifax was working with his Junto partner, Wharton, to secure the return of Whig candidates and campaigning on behalf of his brother, Irby, at Maldon. Cary Gardiner, writing to the Tory Sir John Verney, speculated that Halifax’s kinsman, Wriothesley Russell, 2nd duke of Bedford, would use his interest on behalf of pro-Church candidates, even though Halifax was thought to be ‘too great’ with him.28 Halifax took his seat in the House five days into the new Parliament on 11 Feb. 1701, introduced between Wharton and George Nevill, 13th Baron Abergavenny. Present on almost 82 per cent of sittings in the session, he was nominated one of the managers of the conference on 17 Feb. on the Address. On 14 Mar. he joined with several other peers who had been named by Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, as being involved with the drawing up of the Partition Treaty, in acknowledging that he had had sight of the draft agreement, but insisting that the document had been Portland’s responsibility.29 Halifax was again nominated a manager of two conferences with the Commons concerning the Partition Treaty on 2 and 10 April. Also on 10 Apr. the Commons investigated information that Halifax had hosted Captain Kidd on his release from Newgate but found it to be unreliable.30 Despite the Commons’ inability to prove conclusively that Kidd and Halifax had met on that occasion, their suspicions formed part of the motivation for the renewed assault on him and his other Junto colleagues. A few days later, he was impeached along with Somers and Edward Russell, earl of Orford, as well as Portland for their role in the negotiations surrounding the Partition Treaties.31 On 16 Apr. the Lords addressed the king requesting that he would undertake not to pass any censure upon the impeached lords while the case was under consideration. Over the following month, the Lords also periodically troubled the Commons with addresses requiring that they hasten the trials.32 On 14 June, the Commons at last sent up the articles against Halifax, in which they accused him of profiting from illegal grants of land out of forfeited estates in Ireland as well as failing to hinder the passage of the Treaty. Halifax submitted his answer two days later, denying the accusations made against him, and on 17 June Somers was tried and acquitted by the Lords (without the Commons’ participation). Halifax and Orford were granted leave to withdraw for the duration of their colleague’s trial and the following day a date for their own trials was reported, at which it was assumed they would both be discharged.33 On 21 June Halifax &lquo;desired the House of Lords not to press his trial upon the impeachment, being unwilling to retard his majesty’s journey to Holland’ but the case against him and the other peers collapsed three days later amidst general acrimony from the lower House.34
Halifax was one of three people nominated to oversee the prospective union of the old and new East India companies in September 1701. The following month he was present at a committee of the East India Company.35 Halifax took his seat in the new Parliament on 30 Dec. after which he was present on 79 per cent of all sittings in the session. On 6 and again on 10 Feb. 1702 he was appointed a manager of the conferences concerning the attainder of the Pretender. Following the death of William III, Halifax was one of a number of peers to be nominated managers of a conference concerning the queen’s accession. The same month he was dismissed from the Privy Council. It marked the beginning of a lengthy period out of office.36
In the absence of ministerial responsibilities, Halifax devoted his energy to business within the House, concentrating in particular on financial and economic measures. On 13 Mar. 1702 he reported from the committee of the whole concerning the bill for preventing the counterfeiting of coin. It was Halifax, according to his biographer, who introduced the complaint about the publication of libels claiming that King William had planned to secure the succession of the electress of Hanover instead of Princess Anne which led on 4 May to an address to the queen for the prosecution of their authors, and the subsequent interrogation of Dr Drake, author of The History of the Last Parliament, on 9 May.37 On 7 May he was nominated one of the managers of a conference for the bill for altering the oath of abjuration and the following day he reported from a committee of the whole for the bill for encouraging privateers. Halifax reported progress from a second committee of the whole considering the same measure on 11 May. On 15 May he reported the bill fit to pass with amendments. Halifax reported again from the committee for the address for the prevention of all intercourse between England and its allies with France and Spain on 18 and 20 May he was nominated a manager of a conference concerning amendments to the privateers’ bill and to a further conference for preventing correspondence with France and Spain. The following day he reported from the committee of the whole House considering an act for the relief of William Spencer and the wife and children of the late Alexander Gordon, 5th Viscount Kenmure [S], who, despite having fought against the Jacobite forces at Killiecrankie, had subsequently joined the court at St Germain.
Out of office: the Parliament of 1702
In the space between the dissolution and the new Parliament, Halifax’s attention was divided between his efforts to settle a dispute with Peregrine Osborne, styled marquess of Carmarthen (the future 2nd duke of Leeds), over the place of auditor of the receipt, to which both laid claim, and his activities on behalf of various friends and kinsmen in the elections. Following hearings in the treasury council between May and July 1702 and, in spite of the warnings voiced by Halifax’s counsel, Sir Thomas Powys‡, that should &lquo;another be admitted there would be a scuffle between two auditors at the same time’, the lord treasurer, Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, ruled that the dispute would have to be settled at law.38 Having taken his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Oct. (after which he was present on 85 per cent of all sittings) Halifax was drawn into angry exchanges with Carmarthen’s father, Thomas Osborne, duke of Leeds, over the affair. Halifax challenged the duke to a duel when Leeds goaded him, saying that his family had been raised by rebellion.39 The duel was averted by the House’s interposition and Halifax was confined to his house by black rod to prevent the quarrel erupting again. Although violence was averted, litigation between Halifax and Carmarthen over the auditor’s office persisted during the spring and early summer of 1703.40
In the new Parliament Halifax was closely involved in the opposition to the Commons’ occasional conformity bill. He was said by his biographer to have been the author of the motion declaring the practice of ‘annexing any clause or clauses to a bill of aid or supply, the matter of which is foreign to, and different from, the matter of the said bill of aid or supply’ to be ‘unparliamentary, and tending to the ‘destruction of the constitution of this government’, agreed by the House on 9 Dec. 1702 in anticipation of another attempt to tack the occasional conformity bill.41 On 17 Dec. he was appointed one of the managers of a conference on the bill against occasional conformity. At the beginning of 1703 he was estimated by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, as a likely opponent of the bill. On 7 Jan. he reported from the committee for Fane and Vesey’s bill and, having managed a further conference concerning the occasional conformity bill on 9 January. On 16 Jan., he was one of the principal managers of a conference with the Commons on the subject, delivering, according to his biographer, the main speech in favour of the commons’ amendments, as well as adding words of his own emphasizing the Lords’ objections to the penalties.42 Later that day he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. Halifax courted the queen’s displeasure three days later when he was one of two peers to dissent from the decision on the bill for Prince George, duke of Cumberland, to leave out a clause that would allow the prince to serve as a member of the Privy Council, sit in the Lords and benefit from a number of grants in the event that he outlived the queen, although many of his Junto colleagues subscribed against it for other reasons.
That month he faced renewed attacks upon him in the Commons. The report of the commissioners for public accounts, presented on 26 Jan. revealed malpractice in the exchequer, which was pinned in the Commons’ resolutions of that day principally on Halifax as Auditor of Receipt; on the following day a resolution passed to address the queen to prosecute him. The Lords, however, defended Halifax, discussing the report of the commissioners for accounts on 2 Feb., when they established their own committee to examine it, and the accounts, in more detail. The commissioners themselves failed to attend it, but nevertheless, on 5 Feb. the committee reported their findings, concluding that Halifax was innocent of any neglect or breach of trust, and agreed that they should be printed. Their vindication produced a resentful exchange of conferences between the two houses on the subject, which raised an old dispute about the extent to which the Lords should participate in business relating to the accounts. Halifax himself was nominated one of the managers of three conferences on the subject on 17, 22 and 25 February. The commissioner later discovered another issue, the apparent appropriation of £500 a year out of the annuity office. Several months later, Sir Rowland Gwynne‡, who was alleged to have received precisely this sum from Halifax as payment for the detection of smugglers, wrote from his self-imposed exile in Hanover to apologize for Halifax’s trouble in this session, asserting that &lquo;if there was any fault, it was mine, not yours’. Gwynne had also written to Sir Richard Onslow‡ to explain his role in the affair and invited Halifax to lay the letter before the Commons ’or wherever else it might be of service to your lordship if you desire it.’43 On 24 Feb. he was also appointed one of the managers of the free conference for the occasional conformity bill. His biographer asserted that ‘towards the non-passage of that Act, none contributed more, by his interest with the peers, and strength of argument, than the Lord Halifax’.44
Having come through the difficulties of the last few months relatively unscathed, Halifax appears to have marked the occasion with a change of motto. The rather defeatist fuimus (we have been) was altered for the more confident and patrician otium cum dignitate (leisure with dignity).45 Halifax attended meetings of the Junto at Chippenham and Althorp during August. The same month he referred a case from Sir Richard Cocks‡ concerning the assizes at Gloucester to Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset.46 Halifax took his seat in the new session on 9 Nov. 1703, after which he was present on 92 per cent of all sittings. He was again a principal opponent of the occasional conformity bill, forecast in November to be against it in two assessments drawn up by his Junto colleague, Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland. At its second reading on 14 Dec. he was said to have demanded that the bill be thrown out, and voted either against reading the occasional conformity bill a second time or in favour of rejecting the measure outright.47 According to his biographer, it was at Halifax’s initiative that on 17 Dec. the Lords took custody of those involved in the Scotch plot and set up a committee to examine them, and it was Halifax who, when the Commons’ address to the queen objecting to their actions was debated on 12 Jan. 1704, who most vigorously asserted the Lords’ rights to examine suspects: he luridly painted the dangers of ‘the Houses of Parliament appealing against one another to the Crown… There are examples abroad, where proceedings of this kind have ended in the overthrow of the liberties of the people’.4849
On 10 Dec. 1703 Halifax had reported from the committee of the whole House drawing up heads for a bill to prevent the buying and selling of offices and he reported again from committee of the whole House on the same business on 15 December. Present at a dinner hosted by Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, on 17 Dec., three days later he chaired the first meeting of a committee established to enquire into the keeping of public records, which was to become his principal passion over the ensuing decade.50 During the period December 1703 to July 1713 he chaired the vast majority of some 50 meetings of the committee, in which he was joined by William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, with whom he developed a close working friendship as a fellow antiquarian.51
As a result of his activities, Halifax was regarded as a particular target by high Tories in the Commons – ‘singled out’, James Vernon‡ wrote on 24 Dec. 1703.52 Following the Christmas recess, Halifax waived his privilege to allow the Commons to continue their investigation of his financial dealings.53 The charges against him were further raised in the Commons on 10 and debated on 11 Jan., though, as reported by Vernon a few days later,
My Lord Halifax is come off easier than some intended he should: he was well advised to make it known that he insisted on no privilege. However, the information against him was ordered to be brought in, that a further charge might be added to it out of the last year’s report of the commissioners of the accounts, that he had taken 500l. per annum out of the annuity fund, for the gratification of persons employed under him, to recompence their additional trouble, which was represented as contrary to the act granting that fund. But the law being looked into, no such thing appeared; the remainder of the fund was no way disposed of, and therefore the Treasury might, as they did, by the king’s order, give convenient salaries out of it to those who did the business, and it was then observed that this cold be no peculiar crime in the auditor, but was the same in the tellers, who had 300l. per annum among them for keeping four clerks to attend the annuity payments.54
And so, Vernon wrote, ‘it passed over’, although the original charges remained to be decided at law over the summer.
On 28 Jan. 1704 he reported from the committee for the bill of Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, as fit to pass and on 13 Feb. he was present at a gathering at Sunderland’s, where the Scotch Plot, then being considered by the House, dominated the discussion. On 23 Feb. Halifax reported from a committee on a bill concerning personal estates in York. On 18 Mar. he dined with Charles Bennet, 2nd Baron Ossulston (later earl of Tankerville), at the Queen’s Arms, and three days later he attended at much larger Whig gathering at Sunderland’s house, both of which probably related to proceedings on the Scotch Plot.55 On 24 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to put the question whether the information contained in the examination of Sir John Maclean was imperfect. Three days later he was nominated one of the managers of the conference for the public accounts bill and on 30 Mar. he reported from the committee appointed to consider the keeping of public records. The following month he hosted a ‘great feast’ attended by Somerset, William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, at which ‘ about 50 persons of honour and quality were present all men of a kidney.’56
During the summer, a report circulated that Halifax was shortly to marry the countess of Warwick but it turned out to be groundless.57 He took his seat in the new session on 24 Oct. 1704, after which he was present on 88 per cent of all sittings. On 3 Nov. he received Dorset’s proxy and the following month on 5 Dec. that of Montagu, both of which were vacated by the close of the session. On 23 June the case against Halifax which the Commons had demanded to be prosecuted eighteen months before had come to trial, but ended with the attorney general entering a nolle prosequi after legal argument made it impossible for the case to be proved. The formal record was called for by the Commons and read on 18 Nov.; although there was a debate, the House was adjourned on a division. Elizabeth Burnet reckoned the failure of the Tories to make more of the case revealed
the weakness or disunion of the high party, for the matter of the debate had the advantage of being a pretended privilege of the House of Commons, which is a dear thing and against Lord Halifax, a man who has there very many who hate him heartily and yet the majority was very considerable.58
The Commons had, however, agreed to bring in another occasional conformity bill on the day (14 Nov.) on which they called for the record of the trial. An unlikely story from Halifax’s biographer suggests that it was Halifax who was behind the attempt in the Commons to tack the bill to the supply bill, as a way of defeating the Lords’ veto: he had suggested it to Harley, as a means of wrecking the unity of the high Tories. If untrue, it was some indication of a relationship between Halifax and Harley. When the occasional conformity bill came into the Lords, to be as usual rejected on first reading on 15 Dec., Halifax spoke in response to John Sharp, archbishop of York.59 Halifax’s sharp response to Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham’s remarks on King William’s role in the Partition Treaty and his argument for a union of Scotland and England probably came in the debates on the Scottish Act of Security on 29 Nov. and 6 Dec., though his biographer’s claim that he was the first to propose the Scottish union was overblown.60
At some point early in this session – perhaps shortly after the vote on the occasional conformity bill – Halifax mounted an attack on the recently-elevated high Tory bishop, George Hooper, bishop of Bath and Wells. Having spent the morning with Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, who had drawn it to his attention, Halifax presented the House with a sermon that had been preached by Hooper before the Commons some three years previously which he insisted should be censured.61 Hooper rejected Halifax’s assertion that the sermon smacked of popery and said that Halifax had misinterpreted his argument. The House was said to have agreed to hear the whole sermon so that the offending passage could be heard in context, following which they backed the bishop and Halifax’s motion of censure was over-ruled: none of this, however, appears in the Journal.62 On 31 Jan. 1705 Halifax reported from the committee concerning public records, communicating its recommendations for the improvement of storage facilities, and on 7 Feb. from the committees for Thomas Whitley’s bill and the Gainsborough vicarage bill. On 12 Feb. he once more brought to the House’s attention a question concerning his privilege, informing them that he had been sent a summons two days earlier contrary to his rights as a peer. The following day he acted as one of the tellers in a division held in the committee of the whole House on the promissory notes bill. Halifax was named to the committee to draw up the heads of a conference with the Commons concerning the long-running case of the Aylesbury men on 27 Feb., in which Halifax, Wharton and Sunderland strove to neutralize the Tory majority in the Commons.63 He managed a further conference the following day and on 3 Mar. he reported from the committee for Pitkin’s creditors’ bill as well as from the committee of the whole concerning the bill for prohibiting trade with France. On 6 Mar. he reported progress from the committee of the whole considering the mutiny bill, and on 7 Mar. he was appointed a manager of two conferences, one concerning the Aylesbury men and the other examining the bill to prevent traitorous correspondence. Halifax reported from a further committee of the whole on the mutiny bill on 8 Mar. and, the following day, reported the measure fit to pass without amendment. On 13 Mar, the penultimate day of the session, he was appointed a manager of the conference considering amendments to the Pechels’ naturalization bill.
The 1705 Parliament and the quest for office
Parliament was dissolved in April 1705. According to his biographer, Halifax wrote a response to a speech by the high Tory champion of occasional uniformity William Bromley‡ (1663-1732), called An Answer to Mr B’s speech, which was printed, though no copy has been found. The pamphlet, which particularly attacked the practice of tacking, had, he claimed, a ‘great influence’ on the elections.64
Noted a supporter of the Hanoverian succession in April, Halifax visited Newmarket, accompanying the queen (who also dined with one of the Junto, Orford, at Chippenham), and took the opportunity to oversee business involving his friend, George Stepney. At Cambridge Halifax received his honorary degree, and his brother a knighthood.65 A major preoccupation was the forthcoming election. John Morley Trevor‡, husband of Halifax’s niece, Lucy Montagu, approached Halifax to employ his interest with Somerset on his behalf for the Sussex elections. Trevor subsequently topped the poll, securing 1,867 votes, though Sir Henry Peachey, who had also sought Halifax’s favour in the county, was pushed into third place.66 The same month Halifax made the most of his interest with John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, by recommending Captain Ralph Congreve and Ensign Barton for promotions. The latter may possibly have been the brother of Halifax’s companion (believed also to be his mistress or secret wife) Catherine Barton, a niece of Sir Isaac Newton‡.67 It is perhaps no coincidence that Robert Barton was listed in 1702 as an officer in the regiment commanded by Emanuel Scrope Howe‡, whose election expenses at Morpeth the previous year had been paid for by Halifax.68 Other efforts to employ his interest were less successful. In May he recommended his brother James Montagu to James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond for the place of steward of the Westminster courts, but Ormond insisted that he was pre-engaged to support Thomas Medlycott‡.69 The elections were also, by and large, a disappointment. In spite of lavish treating of the town, Halifax’s brother-in-law, John Lawton‡, was unsuccessful in his bid to secure re-election at Newcastle-under-Lyme (though both Lawton and his partner Crew Offley‡ were later returned on petition).70 Halifax condoled with Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, who had been subjected to a similar disappointment in the elections at St Albans. Nevertheless, he was at pains to refute the Tory press’s accounts of runaway victories and professed himself otherwise largely heartened by the results.71 Although Halifax was later vilified by the duchess, who accused him of consorting with Harley and Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, at this time in an effort to ‘crush’ Godolphin, at this juncture she and Halifax appeared to have been on good terms.72 Halifax used his interest with her to secure financial assistance for Daniel Defoe, who had penned some verses in praise of her husband.73
Halifax was involved with Somers and Godolphin in the early stages of the union negotiations that autumn.74 Halifax was said to have been the first to propose ‘the Equivalent; without which, that happy agreement between both nations, had never been accomplish’d’.75 In advance of the sitting of the new Parliament, he and Somers interposed with Godolphin on behalf of William Wake, bishop of Lincoln, to ensure a favourable settlement of the restoration of the temporalities of his new see.76 He took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Oct. 1705, and was present on 81 per cent of all sittings. On 6 Dec. Halifax was the first to respond to the speech by Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester setting out the case that the ‘Church was in danger’. He pointed out several examples of dangers to the Church which had emanated from Tory circles, such as the act establishing presbytery in Scotland and the occasional conformity bill. He ended by dismissing the Tory attacks on the grounds that ‘there’s always a cry for the Church when a certain faction is disregarded.’77 Not surprisingly he supported the motion at the end of the debate which pronounced that the Church was not in danger, but in a safe and flourishing condition. A few days later, it was reported that in response to their ‘great dispute’ over the matter that a challenge had been issued for a duel in Hyde Park (although it is unclear whether a duel took place). On 7 Dec. he reported from the committee for Peter Silvestre’s naturalization bill and the same day he was appointed one of the managers of the conference considering the resolution that the Church of England was in no manner of danger. Another duel, this time with Carmarthen over their continuing dispute concerning the place in the exchequer was also narrowly averted at about this time.78 Halifax was appointed to manage further conferences on the issue of the Church in danger on 14 and 17 December. The same month he wrote to Marlborough to ask him to help Lionel Sackville, styled Lord Buckhurst, later duke of Dorset, who was abroad with the army in the low countries and whose ‘father has sent for him home, and all his relations were under the utmost difficulty what they should advise him to do.’79
Halifax attended a dinner at the beginning of 1706 which it was said was intended to help bring about a reconciliation between him, Somers and Harley.80 The dinner coincided with Shrewsbury’s return to England, after his five-year-long self-imposed exile in Italy. Unlike the rest of his Junto colleagues, who resolved not to forgive the duke for abandoning them in their hour of need, Halifax had maintained a friendly correspondence with Shrewsbury in the intervening years. He had also entrusted his nephew to the duke’s care when he visited Rome.81 With Shrewsbury back in England, though, Halifax was disappointed by the duke’s disinclination to rejoin the Whig leadership. Regretting that Shrewsbury was possessed of ‘too much fine silver in his temperament,’ Halifax asserted that had he only been ‘made of coarser alloy, you had been better fitted for public use.’82 Halifax continued his interest in the question of safeguarding public records. On 4 Jan. 1706 he attended a session of the records committee taking evidence from the trustees of the Cotton Library and the officers of the rolls.83 He reported from the committee on 17 January. The following month he was instrumental in persuading some of the country Whigs to drop their advocacy of aspects of the regency bill. John Chamberlain wrote to him on 27 Feb. to
congratulate the same spirit, that has had so great a share in the happy conclusion of the affair of the regency &c; my lord, your conduct in turning their own cannon upon those persons whose real grief it has been that the dangers of the Church, and the dangers of the Protestant succession are only imaginary and chimerical, is matchless and inimitable; and a good account of that whole transaction will be one of the brightest periods of your lordship’s story.84
On 7 Feb. 1706 Halifax had been appointed one of the managers of a conference concerning the regency bill. After the Commons had put off discussing the Lords’ amendments to the bill, Halifax seems to have been instrumental in persuading at least one of the country Whigs, Robert Eyres‡ to give up the ‘Whimsical’ clause.85 On the 19th he was again appointed manager of a further conference on the regency bill. On 18 Feb. he had reported from the committee of the whole considering Rice’s bill and on 22 Feb. he was named a manager of the conference for Cary and Hatley’s bill. On 2 Mar. he was named one of the managers of the conference appointed to consider the bill making the exemplification of the will of Edward Conway, earl of Conway and other documents originating in Ireland, evidence in trials at law. Two days later Halifax reported from the records committee and the same day he again received Montagu’s proxy (which was vacated by the close of the session). Along with the majority of those present in the House at the time, Halifax was named a manager of the conferences of 9 and 11 Mar. considering Sir Rowland Gwynne’s‡ Letter to Stamford, namely Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, and on 13 Mar. he was named a manager of the conference for the militia bill. Shortly before the end of the session, on 15 and 18 Mar., he again reported from the records’ committee.
Having taken an early lead in the negotiations, Halifax was appointed one of the commissioners for union with Scotland in April 1706. The same month he was despatched to Hanover as envoy to the Electress Sophia.86 En route he participated in the negotiations with the Dutch over the barrier treaty (and was invited into their synagogue in Amsterdam by the Portuguese Jews), before presenting himself at the electoral court in June.87 His return in August 1706 was warmly welcomed by Sunderland, who confided to Newcastle, ‘as he has done a great deal of good abroad, so I am sure he will join very zealously to do all he can at home’.88 His efforts were less enthusiastically greeted at court. When Halifax presented the queen with the request that the Electoral Prince George, the future duke of Cambridge (and later George II), should be awarded an English peerage, it met with a decidedly muted response.89 He (and his Junto colleagues) faced a similarly uphill struggle in their negotiations with Godolphin for ministerial places for the Whigs. In September Halifax and Sunderland postponed a trip to Woodstock, fearing that the queen would assume they were caballing with the duchess of Marlborough.90 The conspiratorial climate no doubt encouraged Harley to authorize Defoe to communicate with Halifax. Between December 1706 and January 1707 Halifax was also engaged in correspondence with Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, over the progress of the peninsular campaign.91
Halifax took his seat in the new session on 3 Dec. 1706, and was present on 77 percent of all sittings. The opening of the session coincided with a series of removals from office of Tories and concessions to the Whigs, including those of the Junto: elevations for Wharton and Cowper, and appointment of Sunderland as secretary of state. Halifax’s brother was made solicitor general, though Halifax himself obtained no appointment. Prominent in the union debate on 14 Jan. 1707, he joined with Wharton and Somers in arguing that the House should delay further consideration of the business until the treaty had been ratified by the Scottish parliament.92 Although Halifax and Somers fell out during the Union negotiations, they were able to patch up their differences and prevent news of their disagreement circulating too widely. Halifax for one, begged Somers’ pardon, ‘if my very great trouble has given you any’ and desired that he would ‘take no notice of what has passed, which would be a triumph to some.’93 Halifax dined at Ossulston’s with other Whigs including Wharton and Somerset on 24 Jan., presumably to discuss the Union.94 On 27 Jan. he combined with Somers in an effort to deal with the conflict in Spain between the expedition’s commanders Rivers and Henri de Massue du Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I]. Halifax suggested that Galway’s errors, the cause of Rivers’ particular resentment, were the result of his over-fondness for ‘the old rogue’ John Methuen‡, now conveniently deceased.95 Towards the end of the month he was one of those to gather at Bishop Wake’s to discuss amendments for the bill for securing the Church of England in advance of passing the Union bill.96
Halifax received Montagu’s proxy once more on 4 Feb. 1707 (again vacated by the close). On 6 Feb. he dined with Somerset. He spoke in the debates on the Union bill on 15 and 24 Feb., speaking especially to the proportion of the land tax to be paid by the Scots and on the Equivalent payment. After the second occasion he joined the company at Wharton’s.97 Halifax reported from the records committee on 3 Mar. on the bill for purchasing Cotton House. On 6 Mar. he reported from the committee considering the Hertford highways bill and on 8 Mar. from the committee for the bill for Henry O’Brien*, 7th earl of Thomond [I] and the future Viscount Tadcaster. On 20 and 21 Mar. he reported from the committee of the whole considering the bill for amending the form of the royal assent, which provided for the abolition of archaic French from proceedings. On 7 Apr. he reported from the committee of the whole considering the bill for duties on salt. The following day he reported from the records committee again and the same day was nominated one of the managers of a conference for the vagrants bill. Halifax attended six days of the brief nine-day session of April 1707.
At the end of March, Halifax had written to Marlborough expressing his unhappiness that his credentials had been passed over when choosing an envoy for the Netherlands: Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend, had gone instead, despite Halifax’s service the previous year in Hanover and at The Hague, and his efforts to encourage Somers to consider the Dutch concerns about peace. He had, he wrote, been treated ‘with great contempt, or unkindness’. (A note by the duchess of Marlborough on the letter suggests that her husband had found him in the previous embassy ‘so troublesome that he could not bear him’.)98 The disappointment may have contributed to his increasing disenchantment with the duumvirs. During the summer he joined with his colleagues in protesting at the proposed elevation of more Tories to the episcopate, though he confided to Manchester that he believed the matter would soon be ‘compounded’ and the most offensive Tory candidate withdrawn.99 Towards the end of July he joined with the lord chancellor and lord treasurer, officers of the mint and a deputation from the goldsmiths, to test the purity of the gold and silver coinage.100 The following month, he again attended a gathering of the Junto at Althorp intended ‘to fix measures for the approaching’ session.101
Halifax returned to the House for the new session, the first following the Union, on 23 Oct. 1707, after which he was present on 87 per cent of all sittings. The altered condition of the House, with the introduction of Scottish peers, gave rise to a belief that there would be a change of party distinctions. One correspondent thought he discerned the formation of a new court party when he saw Wharton, Halifax and Rochester going ‘hand in hand in the great debate in the House of Lords about the admiralty.’102 On 12 Nov. Halifax joined with Somers in seconding Wharton’s motion to adjourn into a committee of the whole to consider the state of the nation regarding trade and convoys and on 19 Nov. the Junto peers were joined again by Rochester and Haversham in moving for a committee to be established to hear the merchants’ complaints about the convoy system.103 On 26 Nov. and again on 15 Dec. Halifax reported from the committee considering proposals for fitting out and encouraging privateers in the West Indies. He was, according to his biographer, behind the moves to prosecute Commodore Kerr for his misbehaviour in Jamaica, originally raised on 1 December.104 On 19 Dec. he intervened in the debate considering the conduct of Charles Mordaunt, 3rd earl of Peterborough in the Spanish campaign, recommending that a vote of thanks should be put off until his conduct had been properly examined. Reflecting on Peterborough’s behaviour he noted sardonically ‘that he had never met with the like exploits anywhere but in Quintus Curtius’ (the controversial biographer of Alexander the Great).105 He also joined Wharton in seconding a motion put forward by Somers that ‘no peace could be safe or honourable’ until Spain and the West Indies had been recovered by the House of Austria.106
Halifax reported from the committee considering the state of trade on 7 Jan. 1708 and the following day from that considering the address for papers and accounts relative to trade. Between 21 and 23 Jan. he chaired the committee of the whole for the bill for the increase of seamen and manning of the navy and on 10 Feb. he reported from the committee of the whole considering the succession to the crown bill. On 5 Feb. Halifax had supported the motion to abolish the Scots Privy Council in May rather than delaying until October. He was also elected by ballot on 9 Feb. to the committee of seven charged with investigating the activities of William Gregg, Harley’s under-secretary. On 20 Feb. Joseph Addison referred to Halifax as the ‘chief promoter’ of ‘one of the greatest affairs before the House of Commons at present’ namely a scheme which sought to reform the system for awarding naval prizes, as part of the general reform of the admiralty.107 The state of the coinage remained another area of interest for him. On 27 Feb. and again on 5 Mar. he reported from the committee for the act for ascertaining the rates of foreign coin in the American plantations. On 31 Mar. Halifax was appointed one of the managers of the conference for the bill for encouragement of trade with America. The following day he was also appointed a manager of the conference for the waggoners’ bill.
In the late spring of 1708 he was forced to respond to concerns that efforts had been made to drive a wedge between him and his kinsman, Manchester, who was encountering difficulties in his embassy in Venice. Halifax insisted that he would ‘always espouse your interest and promote your good.’108 Halifax was marked, unsurprisingly, as a Whig in a list of peers’ party affiliations compiled in about May 1708. According to Maynwaring, writing in one of his regular bulletins to the duchess of Marlborough, Halifax was the person at that juncture most able to sway matters either for or against the Whigs: ‘if one could understand what would fix or please him’ he continued, ‘it would be of great use.’109 Halifax’s concerns were not just for his own advancement but also for that of his kin. That summer he employed his interest on behalf of his brother James, who was under threat of being dismissed from his place as solicitor-general. He insisted that the matter must be decided ‘in his favour or to his disgrace’ while emphasizing the extent to which the decision reflected upon him directly.110 Later in the year, Halifax was still at work on his brother’s behalf and one report of October attributed to Halifax a deliberate effort to destabilize the House and to encourage rivalries between his colleagues, ‘in hopes of carrying by a high hand his brother’s pretensions.’111 Always preoccupied with advancing the interests of trade, Halifax made a point of making an early start to head into the city in July 1708 in order
to push the American project, for now is the time to set that adventure afloat, when people’s hearts are up, when they [despise] the French and think a peace so near… my brains do so crow with our great success, that I cannot help drawing schemes for destroying the French in other places besides America.112
The Parliament of 1708
Halifax returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708 (after which he was present on over 90 per cent of all sittings). In advance of the session he had been engaged in further negotiations with Harley, which precipitated a falling-out with his some of his Whig colleagues. They were convinced that he was pursuing underhand dealings with both Harley and Shrewsbury to bring about a change of ministry. It was no doubt such concerns that gave rise to the unlikely rumours circulating early the following year that he was to be appointed lord treasurer.113 Thwarted ambition was probably at the root of Halifax’s posturing. At the close of the year he sought the duchess of Marlborough’s assistance in securing him a role in the peace negotiations but his request was opposed roundly by several senior members of the ministry.114
Halifax voted against permitting Scots peers with British titles to vote in the election of Scots representative peers in the division held on 21 Jan. 1709. Despite his faltering relations with the duumvirs, he retained sufficient interest to attempt to assist Patrick Hume, earl of Marchmont [S], that month in his efforts on behalf of Sir Andrew Hume (presumably a kinsman).115 He responded to Haversham on the state of the garrisons and fortifications in Scotland when the latter procured a debate on the subject on 25 Feb. 1709.116 He also continued to play an active part in the House’s management. On 9 Feb. he reported from the committees for Granger’s bill and George Penne’s bill and on 1 Mar. he reported from the committee considering the address to the queen that set out a series of demands for peace negotiations with France. It was presumably this that earned him the warm approbation of the electoral court: Ruperta Howe, daughter of Prince Rupert, duke of Cumberland, and the wife of Halifax’s former client, Emanuel Scrope Howe‡, observed from Hanover on 18 Mar. how Halifax’s speech in the Lords had been very well received there and how, ‘they express great obligation to him for procuring the address of both houses to the queen’ (a pencil note on this letter gives the date 1708, but it seems more likely to relate to 1709).117 He reported from the committee of the whole considering the Whitehaven harbour bill on 5 Mar. and 10 days later from the committee of the whole considering the general naturalization bill. This may have been the occasion for the exchange with the earl of Rochester, in which he responded to Rochester’s question, ‘what… could be the consequence of inviting thither, by a general naturalization, multitudes of poor foreigners, who would only employ themselves in trade and otherwise’, at a time when many families were destitute of work throughout the kingdom. ‘The increase of people’, Halifax argued, ‘was the means of advancing the wealth of a nation’.118 On 22 Mar., during the committee of the whole for the Union improvement bill, Halifax served as one of the tellers for the division on an amendment to the procedure on treason trials in which a list of witnesses would be delivered to a prisoner five days before the trial: the vote was carried by six votes.119 Two days later he reported from the committee considering proceedings between Robert Fitzgerald, 19th earl of Kildare [I], and Sir Arthur Shaen and on 14 Apr. he ‘spoke at large’ during the debates in the House concerning the Commons’ amendments to the Union improvement bill relating to the date upon which the provisions relating to treason became operative. Halifax considered the measure ‘unseasonable’ and moved for the amendments to be reserved until after the Pretender’s death.120 Two days later he reported from the committee of the whole House for the act to prevent coining. Halifax’s personal project, the scheme for the better accommodation of public records, continued to attract his attention during the session and on 20 Apr. he reported from the records committee with satisfaction how, ‘the great confused heap, which before lay covered with dust, has been thoroughly cleansed and put into chests and shelves, in order to be sorted.’ The same day he chaired the committee of the whole for the act for continuing former acts for the encouragement of the coinage.
Halifax’s relations with the duchess of Marlborough continued to decline. She accused him of implying that she had obstructed his brother’s admission as attorney general, and also of writing to the Electress Sophia asserting that the cause of their falling out was that he was a friend of Hanover and she was not.121 Relations with the duke remained more cordial. In July 1709 Halifax wrote to Marlborough on behalf of his cousin, John Montagu, 2nd duke of Montagu, who had expressed himself to be ‘very fond of seeing an army.’ Although Halifax had done his best to dissuade the young man, he had agreed to represent his wishes to Marlborough and conceded that a tour of Brussels and Lille ‘would be a great satisfaction to him and perhaps do him some good.’ The following summer Halifax was still on sufficiently good terms with the duke to secure his continued interest for Catherine Barton’s brother in the army.122
Ranger of Bushy 1709-10
It was not just Halifax’s relations with the duchess of Marlborough that were under strain. By November 1709 reports were circulating that Somers and Halifax were no longer ‘as well together as they used to be’. Sunderland added to the jealousies within the ranks of the Junto by criticizing Halifax roundly and making it known that he did not think it ‘at all necessary that Halifax should be in the cabinet’. During the summer, Halifax had been presented with the very minor sop of the rangership of Bushy Park and although it could be argued that by giving him responsibility for Hampton Court and thus access to the queen it was a more significant place than at first sight appears, it was in truth a paltry role that only served to emphasize his isolation from the rest of the Junto leadership, who had by now all secured senior places in the administration. By the close of the year Halifax claimed to have accepted his situation and professed that if his offer to aid the ministry was not taken up, he would retire quietly from the scene. Commenting on such avowals Maynwaring concluded tellingly, ‘if he keeps his word, the ministers will have less trouble upon that head.’123
Halifax took his seat in the new session on 15 Nov. 1709 (of which he attended 74 per cent of all sittings) and almost at once demonstrated the uneasiness of his current relations with his associates. The day before the opening he was waited on by Maynwaring at the bidding of Somers and Sunderland, and asked to move the address of thanks to the queen’s speech. Halifax’s initial response was said to have been a hearty oath followed by a flat refusal but by the next day he had succumbed to further pressure. He agreed to move the Address, ‘to which motion he has artfully (as they said) named the duke of Marlborough, so that nobody else can be mentioned but very improperly’: the text of the motion reported by Halifax to the House on the 16th referred to the success of the queen’s arms, under Marlborough’s command. The following month he had a conference with Marlborough and Godolphin. Although Maynwaring was unable to puzzle out the result of the discussions, he seemed to think that it was conducted on friendlier terms than previously.124
Halifax seems not to have been closely involved in the House’s committee work during the remainder of the session, though on 13 Feb. 1710 he reported from the committee for the Northampton and Stoke Goldington highways bill. Shortly after, however, he cooperated with his Junto colleagues in the efforts to impeach Dr Henry Sacheverell. The day after the trial opened in Westminster Hall, Halifax hosted the queen at supper.125 On 16 Mar. he voiced his support in debate for the motion that the Commons had made good the first article of their impeachment. On 18 Mar. Halifax was one of those engaged in the debate on the precise form of the question and response to be asked of peers when judging Sacheverell (he favoured content or not content) and whether judgment should be given on each article separately or collectively (he favoured the latter.126 On 20 Mar., he found Sacheverell guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.127 Despite this, according to his biographer, Halifax then seconded the proposal made by John Campbell, duke of Argyll [S] (earl of Greenwich in the English peerage) for a more lenient sentence than that initially proposed by the earl of Carlisle. If so, perhaps this reflected a desire to distance himself from his Junto colleagues. He may also have sought to keep his options open with Harley.128 No sooner had the trial concluded than Halifax resumed his role as a committee chairman and conference manager. On 24 Mar. he chaired the committee of the whole considering the Liverpool docks bill. On 27 Mar. he was appointed one of the managers of the conference for amendments to the act concerning the marriage settlements of Edward Southwell‡ and on 30 Mar. he acted as manager of the conference for the Eddystone lighthouse bill.
That summer there were renewed rumours that Halifax was to marry again. Once more, the reports (this time that he was to marry Juliana, dowager countess of Burlington) proved inaccurate.129 Halifax’s main concern though was with building a new political alliance. He held a series of talks with Harley during July 1710, the extent of which were hinted at in a draft in Harley’s hand in which he posed questions such as ‘I am in the dark – how far would you go’. They gave rise to reports that he had been ‘very instrumental in reconciling the contending parties.’ Later in the month, rumours circulated that Harley had been involved in meetings with ‘the great duchess’ (presumably Marlborough) hosted by Halifax.130 Halifax appears at the same time to have been offering his services to Godolphin, though the duchess of Marlborough was later emphatic that Halifax had all along been ‘underhand’ with Shrewsbury and Harley. His energetic wooing of all parties appears to have borne fruit with the promise of his appointment as ambassador to the States General. Henry Boyle, later Baron Carleton, could offer no explanation for Halifax’s selection though others postulated that the position had been gained for him through Shrewsbury’s influence, and by the close of the month it was still being said only that ‘overtures’ were being made to Halifax to join Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend as an additional plenipotentiary.131 Halifax sought Marlborough’s approval of his proposed new role:
the queen has been pleased to offer to send me over to assist at the making of the peace … as I shall not be willing to accept this commission till I see a better prospect of maintaining our credit at home, so I would by no means enter upon so nice an affair without the hopes of your favour and directions.132
Illness prevented him from taking up the post, however: out of town suffering with gout in July, Halifax was still struggling with poor health by the end of August.133 Harley continued to try to win him over during the ensuing weeks, though Harley complained to Newcastle of the impossibility of bringing Halifax and Cowper ‘out of general terms to particulars.’134 Nevertheless, on 10 Aug. Halifax wrote to congratulate Harley on the formation of his new administration, wishing him
much joy in the station you have accepted, which, as you foresee, will be attended with so great difficulties, that I tremble at them. Your great abilities and your knowledge of the revenue, will soon make you master of all the business, but how you will restore credit, and find money for the demands that will be upon you exceeds my capacity.135
In his correspondence with Newcastle, Harley reckoned Halifax to be ‘very sincere’ in his intentions but he thought that ‘others are underhand doing all the mischief possible.’ He later contrasted Cowper’s unwillingness to ‘come out of his reserve’ with Halifax’s more ‘frank’ approach.136 Harley’s belief in Halifax’s genuine interest in arriving at an accommodation appears to be borne out by the duchess of Marlborough’s annoyance with Halifax’s behaviour. She later asserted that Halifax had played the Whigs false at this time in his quest to secure a position for himself and that he ‘almost lived with the duke of Shrewsbury’, whom he had previously condemned.137
Halifax and Harley’s friendly relations did not save Halifax’s brother from being turned out of his place as attorney general in September.138 Halifax affected a stoical resignation to the development. It was a reversal that Halifax claimed long to have expected, ‘so it was no surprise or mortification to me when the edge of battle is against us I have so much of the Spartan temper in me, I had rather my friends and relations should fall honourably discharging their duty, than escape by basely avoiding it.’139 He also professed to Newcastle to be content to accept the situation, conceding that ‘our private interest must give way to the public good.’140 It did, perhaps, ensure that his brother was able to fight off a petition against his return for Carlisle in the ensuing election.141
The Parliaments of 1710-14
In spite of the Whigs‘ doubts about Halifax’s steadfastness (they were said to have dubbed him van der Dussen – the middle-way steering Dutch diplomat), reports from the Tory camp as well as Harley’s concerted wooing, by the end of the summer it was clear that Halifax would not be recruited into the new ministry.142 In October he entertained Swift at his lodgings at Hampton Court, where Swift recorded that he drank a health to ‘the resurrection of the Whigs, which I refused unless he would add their reformation too: and I told him he was the only Whig in England I loved, or had any good opinion of.’143 Halifax wrote a short pamphlet for the elections, Seasonable Questions Concerning a New Parliament, that clearly attacked the new ministry, the Tory reaction to Sacheverell, and Tory plans to pull out of the war.144 Unable to come to terms with his friend, Harley included Halifax’s name in a list compiled on 3 Oct. of those expected to oppose his administration.
Having failed to bring about an alliance with Harley, Halifax did all in his power to persuade Newcastle to come up in time to take his seat at the opening of the new Parliament. He emphasized the continuing downturn in the public finances, ‘though I must do Mr Harley the justice, he does what he can to support it.’145 Halifax took his own seat on 25 Nov. 1710, and was present on 80 per cent of all sittings. Prominent in the debates on the war in Spain in the new year, he spoke in support of Galway at the beginning of January 1711, and on 9 Jan. rallied to the support of Galway’s colleague, Charles O’Hara, Baron Tyrawley [I], who had requested to know whether he was accused before agreeing to answer questions put to him by the House. Halifax reasoned that Tyrawley’s question ‘was not altogether ill grounded. That anything that tends to a censure, may be looked upon as an accusation; and that the House of Peers, being the supreme court of judicature, they ought to observe the forms of justice, as well as inferior courts.’ He then joined with Wharton in opposing the motion submitted by Poulett to debate whether Galway’s advice submitted to the council of Valencia had been the cause of the allies’ defeat at the battle of Almanza. Two days later, having again appealed to the House to show fairness to the commanders under examination, insisting, ‘pray, my lords … proceed according to the rules of justice’, during debate in the committee of the whole on Poulett’s motion he queried how, ‘since the duke of Savoy was for an offensive war in 1706, he wondered how it could be a crime in 1707.’ He then subscribed the protests drawn up that day, first at the rejection of Galway’s and Tyrawley’s petitions and second at the resolution that the defeat at Almanza had been brought about by the actions of the three allied commanders, Galway, Tyrawley and James Stanhope†, the future Earl Stanhope. Tempers flared the following day (12 Jan.) when Halifax objected to what he believed had been a request that the queen should give the Lords an immediate reply to their address. On being corrected on this point, he backed down explaining that he had been out of the House when the address was sent. On 3 Feb. he subscribed two further protests at the resolutions that the regiments on the Spanish establishment had not been properly supplied and that the failure of ministers to supply the regiments satisfactorily amounted to a neglect of the service.146
Halifax hosted a dinner on 6 Feb. 1711, and also attended a gathering of Whigs on the 8th, possibly relating to the recent votes about the war in Spain.147 However, his activities over the next few months pointed to continued attempts to bring about an alliance with Harley. On 11 Feb. he wrote to Harley in support of the new lottery scheme, declaring himself ‘extremely pleased with the contrivance’, which he thought ‘more advantageous and more inviting than the last’. On 18 Apr. Halifax communicated his support to Harley once again, assuring him that ‘men’s eyes are turned towards you, expecting their safety from your interest and prudent management under the present difficulties.’ The sentiment was echoed in a letter of the same day to Harley from Poulett, in which Poulett reported that, ‘Lord Halifax, upon common talk which I told him you would not hear of, said he had power to assure you might command him, Somers, and every Whig in England.’148 Halifax’s boast may have been exaggerated but he could at least offer to wield the proxy of his young kinsman, Montagu, with which he had also been entrusted on the same day (and which was vacated by the close of the session). The possibility of some sort of accord between Harley and the Whigs appeared all the more credible following Rochester’s death in May. The day after the funeral Halifax wrote to Harley promising that he had ‘something to offer which I hope you will approve’.149 This may have related to financial policy; once again, however, expectations of an accord failed to transpire.
Appointed one of the managers of the conference for amendments to the act for the preservation of pine trees in America on 10 May, on 12 and 17 May 1711 Halifax was also appointed manager of a further two conferences concerning the preservation of game. Halifax received the proxy of William Cowper*, Baron (later Earl) Cowper, the following day (which was vacated by the close of the session). Assuring his colleague that it was in safe hands, he advised Cowper to work on his recovery from illness and to leave it to him to take care of the business then before the Lords: ‘we have raised a spirit in the House against the Scotch naval stores more than I expected and we have made amendments to it’.150 On 31 May he reported from the committee for the public records and the same day was again nominated a manager of the conference for the preservation of game.
Following the close of the session, rumours abounded that the Junto had split and that Halifax and Somers were on the point (once again) of aligning themselves with Oxford (as Harley had since become).151 Halifax certainly persisted in making the most of his good relations with Oxford at this time to seek his help following the death of the duke of Montagu, the late ‘chief branch of our family’ on behalf of himself and Somers, the duke’s executors, particularly to help with difficulties with the commissioners of accounts.152 In July Halifax and Somers were forced to put in an answer to a bill entered by one of the duke’s creditors.153 Eager to demonstrate his usefulness to Oxford, towards the end of the month Halifax wrote warning the lord treasurer of the potential dangers of the peace negotiations:
The hints you gave me of a greater affair are very noble, and well secured will gain you immortal honour. But pray allow me to say you can never be secure of anything from that quarter, unless they think the queen’s affairs in such a posture, as to be afraid of her; while she is feared, you may command, and make the best figure ever man did in England, but you can obtain nothing, if they see you under difficulties.154
Negotiations between Oxford and Halifax continued into the autumn. The participation of Somers was also clearly still being sought. In November Halifax assured the treasurer that Somers was ‘as much disposed to wait upon your lordship as you can desire’ and on 2 Dec. he wrote to excuse their failure to visit on account of Somers’ current indisposition, but he was at pains to emphasize that ‘when you shall be informed of a certain negotiation now on foot and what treatment it has met with, you will judge better of the sincerity of our professions.’155
Despite Halifax’s dalliances with Oxford, his name appeared on a list of December 1711 in Nottingham’s hand of 19 Whig peers, in preparation for the attack on the ministry at the opening of the session. The day before the new session opened (6 Dec.) Halifax wrote to Oxford again in an effort to suggest a way forward in the expected clash in the House over the peace:
You best know your own calculation, but according to mine there will be a majority in our House against the terms of peace offered by France. If that be so, why should [the] lord treasurer struggle and labour that point, he has been willing to hearken to proposals of peace, he has communicated them to the allies, invited them to meet and consider of the terms, gone hand in hand with Holland in the steps that have been made; if their Lordships think the nation in a condition to insist on higher demands, and that their resolutions will obtain them, he wishes it as much as anybody. If you thought it not improper to turn the debate in this manner, you would remove the difficulties from yourself, leave room for reasonable measures, and throw the blame of extravagant ones on others.156
Halifax took his seat in the new session the following day (7 Dec. 1711) after which he was present on 59 per cent of all sittings, a significant falling off from his usual level of attendance. He voted, naturally, for the ‘No Peace without Spain’ amendment of the Address, and on the 8th he was listed among those in favour of retaining the amendment in the Address, in the ‘abandoned’ division of that day. Also on 8 Dec. he received the proxy of William Paget, 7th Baron Paget, which was vacated by the close of the session, adding the proxy of George Booth, 2nd earl of Warrington, to his tally on 9 Dec. (which was vacated on 14 Feb. 1712). On 19 Dec. he was forecast as being likely to oppose the motion to allow James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S] to sit in the House by virtue of his British dukedom of Brandon. On 20 Dec. he spoke in the House in answer to a ‘moving speech’ by Archibald Campbell, earl of Islay [S], who had stressed the awful consequences if the queen’s power to appoint to the Lords was curtailed. Halifax responded, ‘if we were to consider of consequences we of south Britain had some consequence to consider as well as they’. He then voted in favour of excluding Scots peers holding post-union British peerages from attending the House by virtue of those creations.157
Despite standing in opposition to Oxford in the early manoeuvres of the session, Halifax wrote to the treasurer on 26 Dec. 1711 to assure him once again of his willingness to assist him, insisting that ‘I do sincerely desire to promote the good of my country in your lordship’s hands, rather than struggle for it, any other way, which is less natural, more difficult and must prove less effectual.’ Within a few days, though, Halifax’s mood had changed. He now confessed to Oxford:
I must own I am in a most desponding way, till very lately I thought it was in your lordship’s power to save this nation, but I have now doubts of that. However since you think there is one way left, pray let me know it. I have the same inclination to serve the queen and my country, the same disposition impartially to pursue that end, though less hopes of attaining it.
Halifax agreed to meet with Oxford the following day when he would be ‘very ready to explain anything to you that makes me think it so difficult even for your lordship to save us.’158 Halifax resumed his seat in the House after the Christmas recess on 2 Jan. 1712, but when the lord treasurer engineered an further adjournment to the 14th, Halifax used the intervening time to negotiate with Oxford. On 10 Jan. he communicated to Oxford that he had passed on information to two other members of the House, ‘who are very desirous to serve your lordship’ and the following day he announced his intention of waiting on him that evening.159 During the month he was also one of several prominent peers to play host to Prince Eugene.160
On 31 Jan. 1712 Halifax acted as one of the tellers for the division held in a committee of the whole concerning the adoption of the preamble to the bill repealing the general naturalization bill (the motion was carried by 18 votes). On 11 Feb. he acted as a teller once again for the vote over whether to postpone the second reading of the Scots episcopal communion bill (which was rejected by eight votes). Two days later, after counsel had been heard on behalf of the Scots Presbyterians who opposed the measure, he spoke in the debate in the committee of the whole, emphasizing the ‘inconveniences and danger of such a bill’.161 On 15 Feb. he was able to capitalize on a general sense of irritation against the ministry within the House resulting from the circulation of the ignominious French peace proposals by moving that an address should be presented to the queen requesting her to reject the offers.162 The ministry’s attempts to delay further consideration of such an address were ineffective and the same day Halifax reported from the committee for preparing it.163 On 23 Feb. he reported from the committee of the whole for the Whitehaven harbour bill and three days later he received the proxy of Townshend, which was vacated two days later. Rumours circulated in April that both Halifax and Nottingham were engaged in attempting to win over opponents of the peace and the same month, Prince Eugene estimated that Somers, Halifax and Cowper were ‘for winning over the treasurer to their interest and reducing all things into the right channel, or in case of necessity to invite over the duke of Hanover to dissolve the new ministry.’164
Halifax received Warrington’s proxy on 7 Apr. 1712; it was vacated by the close of the session. On 12 Apr. he was reported to have been amongst those who spoke ‘a great many bold things but to no purpose’ in opposition to the Scottish episcopal patronage bill, but the court’s backing for the measure ensured that it was committed.165 For all his forwardness in making trouble for Oxford in the session, towards the close of the month Halifax again made known his willingness to assist him, while thanking him for continuing William Congreve ‘in his little office’.166 Nevertheless, the friendliness by now may have been wearing a little thin, as party competition became rather more intense. Halifax spoke in the debate on 19 May over the bill for appointing commissioners to examine lands granted by the Crown since the Revolution, saying that by drawing the line at the Revolution, the bill gave ‘too much credit to a ministry who, by the passing of the said bill, would have the means in their hands to ruin and oppress those who had not the good luck to please them’; according to his biographer, Halifax replied sarcastically to an intervention from Oxford that he ‘would not at all call in question what a Lord of such known probity and sincerity had advanced’. The bill was lost in a division on its third reading – as a result of Halifax’s contribution, his biographer implied. On 27 May, towards the close of the day’s proceedings, acknowledging that ‘they were fatigued’ after the debates on the Scots appeal, he moved that all lords should be present the following day to hear important information he had received.167 Following a meeting held at Orford’s the following morning, Halifax opened the debate triggered by Prince Eugene’s complaint about the restraining orders imposed on Ormond, voted for an address to the queen to order Ormond to act offensively, and duly subscribed the protest at the resolution not to do so: Halifax’s biographer wrote that he drew up the protest.168 The protest, which was subsequently printed, stated that the orders were ‘derogatory to her Majesty’s honour, to public faith, and to that justice which is due to her Majesty’s allies’; the publication led to a committee to inquire after the printer, and action to obliterate the protest. On 13 June Halifax acted as one of the tellers in a division on the motion to expunge the first reason from the protest of 28 May, presumably against the motion, especially as the other teller was the solid ministry supporter Samuel Masham, Baron Masham. The motion to expunge was carried by 36 votes. All of the reasons were removed from the Journal.169 Before this, on 7 June, Halifax had moved an amendment to an address thanking the queen for communicating the details of the proposed peace, and supporting the ministry’s actions, that emphasized the need to work with the allies. The amendment was defeated on division, a defeat blamed partly on proxies not being called for.170
Despite their considerable differences, Halifax’s correspondence with Oxford continued, though he betrayed some impatience with the treasurer on 14 June 1712 pointing out irritably, ‘I wish I knew the meaning of your lordship’s questions, for you should govern in that which is most to the purpose. It is miserable to see a nation undone knowingly, and willingly for want of resolution.’171 The same day Halifax reported from the committee of the whole for the East India Company bill. Halifax was evidently frustrated with his failure to make any impact in the session. In August, while expressing a desire of visiting Cowper, he conceded:
to confess the truth I am so out of humour for reasons that are too visible that the freedom, the familiarity and openness that makes the conversation of an intimate friend so agreeable at any other time serve to aggravate and heighten one’s uneasiness. It is better methinks to fly to the next trifling amusements for relief against the remembrance of our calamities than by looking nicely and freely into the circumstances of a foolish deluded people.172
By December, however, he was once more to be found tantalizing Oxford with his offers of assistance. On 21 Dec. he suggested ways in which to dispose of the office of chancellor of the exchequer and on 26 Dec. he apologized for the downturn in their relationship, insisting that, ‘whatever accidents or whatever fatality have hitherto hindered our clearly understanding each other, the loss, the misfortune, has been wholly mine.’173
Halifax was one of those present at a great meeting of the Whig leadership at Pontacks in January 1713.174 The assembly provoked Swift into commenting that the party evidently had ‘some damned design’.175 If that was so, Halifax’s participation was limited by his poor health. He was ill with gout the following month, though his indisposition perhaps gave him an opportunity to develop his plans for improving the state of the economy and for countering the clipping of coins by introducing a paper currency. By 7 Feb. he was ‘able in a great shoe to get abroad’ but was again obliged to apologize to Oxford for their latest misunderstanding. Halifax feared that ‘the plainness and freedom I showed in my last to your lordship might have given some offence though I do profess my heart is not only full of zeal for the good of my country but real affection and service for your lordship.’176
Despite such assurances Halifax was noted as a likely opponent of the ministry in a list compiled in March by Jonathan Swift with Oxford’s additions. That month his continuing efforts to negotiate the party divide provoked the ire of another of his colleagues when he hosted a dinner party for members of the former ministry. The presence of Oxford at the event caused Sunderland to turn back at the door and most of the rest of the Junto also chose to leave rather than break their bread in his presence.177 Aware of the ructions his decision had caused, Halifax was insistent in a letter to Oxford of 4 Apr. that he had done the right thing by welcoming him to his house for all the trouble it had caused:
The honour of your last visit gave occasion to a great many idle stories, but I hope you do not much regard such impertinence, and I am sure I would not lose one opportunity of showing my respect to you, and contributing anything to your service, and the establishing the queen, and the protestant succession, to avoid anything can be said of me.178
In spite of his blandishments, having taken his seat in the House in the new session on 9 Apr. 1713, Halifax contested the claim that a ‘general’ peace had been negotiated, and proposed an amendment to the Address in response to the queen’s speech, asking for the treaties of peace and commerce with France to be laid before the House.179 Present on three quarters of all sittings, by the middle of the session matters had altered once more amid the crisis over the Union. Towards the close of May Halifax again proffered his services to Oxford, hinting now that he was no longer a lone broker. This was underscored in a letter of 28 May (the last of three composed over consecutive days) when he confided,
I should be wanting to the confidence and favour your lordship showed me in your last letter, if I did not acquaint you that I have so far discoursed some of my friends as to be able to assure you that your lordship may depend upon their being ready to concur with your lordship, if you think fit to oppose the wild proceeding with which we are threatened.180
Despite the renewed overtures, the peace as ever proved a sticking point and it proved far too tempting for the Junto leadership to ignore the opportunity to court the disgruntled Scots peers. Both Somers and Halifax went some way towards offering the Scots’ calls for the dissolution of the Union a sympathetic hearing, though they balked at the more radical measures advocated by their colleague, Wharton. Consequently, when Halifax spoke in the House in the debate considering the state of the nation on 1 June, he said he supported dissolution, as long as the succession could be secured, but backed the calls for the debate to be adjourned so that more time could be given to consider the arguments.181 Predictably enough, Halifax was reckoned by Oxford on about 13 June to be likely to oppose the ministry over the French commerce bill. He reported from the committee for the Leighton estate act on 19 June. On 30 June, Halifax supported Wharton’s proposal for an address to ask the queen to negotiate with allies to ensure that they offered no protection to the Pretender, a motion which was designed to ‘render the Tory party suspected of being in the interest of the Pretender’.182 On 11 July, he reported from the committee enquiring into the state of the queen’s remembrancer books. Shortly before the close of the session, the Lords threw out the tobacco bill, which had originated in the Commons, believing it to be ‘so many tacks.’ Halifax proposed summoning the lower house to a conference to discuss the business, but John Sheffield, duke of Buckingham, rejected Halifax’s motion, arguing that ‘it was more becoming the dignity of their house to throw it out with contempt.’183
Halifax’s championing of the cause of dissenting congregations was called to mind during the summer amid divisions within the parish of Westminster over the intention to admit Heneage Finch, Baron Guernsey (later earl of Aylesford), as a vestryman. The dispute inspired the new dean of Westminster (Francis Atterbury, who would later become bishop of Rochester), ‘to desire them to have a care of bringing lords into the vestry, and to put them in mind that when they chose Lord Halifax they had soon after the Palatines brought in upon them.’184 That October, Halifax conveyed one of his more unusual messages of thanks to Oxford for overseeing the presentation of his lion to the queen (presumably an addition to the royal menagerie and perhaps connected with Halifax’s role as keeper of Hampton Court).185
Halifax took his seat in the new Parliament two days after it finally opened on 18 Feb. 1714 (after which he was present on 87 per cent of all sittings). The following month he was to the fore in the debates on the peace, and on 5 Mar. he received Somers’ proxy, which was vacated a month later on Somers’ resumption of his seat on 5 April.186 Halifax’s attack on 9 Mar. on the Tory pamphlet The Publick Spirit of the Whigs, planned with Wharton, was a retaliation against the attack in the Commons on Halifax’s ally Richard Steele and his pamphlet, The Crisis.187 On 17 Mar. Halifax joined with Wharton, Nottingham, Sunderland and Cowper in alerting the House to the danger of the succession occasioned by the failure of the French to force the Pretender out of Lorraine and on 31 Mar. he again joined Wharton, Sunderland and Cowper in insisting that the British promises to the Catalans should be honoured. Halifax’s motion (of 5 Apr.) for an address to be presented to the queen for the speedy removal of the Pretender from Lorraine was accepted without opposition and three days later he moved for a further address to be drawn up for putting in execution the laws against Jesuits and Papist priests and bishops, though in this case consideration of the motion was put off to the next day.188 Halifax received Cowper’s proxy on 13 Apr. (vacated the following day), which was presumably employed in the division held that day over the insertion of additional material into the protestant succession bill. Halifax received Somers’ proxy once again on 14 Apr. (which was vacated on 30 Apr.) and Manchester’s proxy on 19 Apr, which was vacated nine days later. On 16 Apr., following an impassioned speech by Cowper against the peace, Halifax lamented ‘the vile usage given my lord duke of Ormond’, wondering at the ‘anguish it must give his noble and generous heart, to receive such shocking orders, restraining the noble ardour of the soldiers, flushed with former victories, and hopes of still greater still.’189 He then acted as one of the tellers (the other being Robert Benson, Baron Bingley) on the motion to convey an address of thanks to the queen for the peace treaty, which was carried for those in favour by a margin of 20 votes. Again, although listed as the first teller it is inconceivable that Halifax, who ‘strenuously opposed’ the motion, could have been anything other than against.190 Halifax’s pointed repartee with Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke, over the terms of the peace settlement appears to have precipitated a duel between the two men, ‘the one to prove the peace honourable, advantageous and lasting, the other au contre’.191
At this late stage, Halifax still appeared persuaded that he would be able to arrive at an accommodation with Oxford. On 21 Apr. 1714 he wrote, ‘I can’t help saying I think in this juncture much good might be done, and I am zealous to do my part, that I will be so impertinent to desire to know if I could no way assist in making your lordship the happy instrument of saving our country which I think on the brink of ruin.’192 Halifax received the proxy of John Manners*, 2nd duke of Rutland on 1 May (vacated by the close) and on 13 May he also received those of Somers (vacated on 1 June) and Thomas Howard, 6th Baron Howard of Effingham, which was vacated by the close of the session. Concentration of great national issues did not prevent him from continuing to oversee local business and on 26 May he reported from the committee of the whole for the River Nene navigation bill and on 28 May from the committee for the bill for enclosing lands at Farrington. Assessed by Nottingham as likely to be opposed to the schism bill at the end of May or beginning of June, on 4 June he spoke against the bill, asserting that it would be ‘a piece of barbarity to make an act, which should debar many French protestants of means of subsisting, either by keeping public schools, or teaching in private families.’ He concluded with a reminder of the dire consequences that had resulted from Charles I’s alienation of dissenters.193 Following the order for the bill’s second reading, he then Halifax spoke again ‘extremely well’ in the debate concerning whether to receive a petition from the Dissenters, which the House rejected 71-66.194 In the committee of the whole on the bill on 9 June, Halifax proposed that nonconformists should be permitted their own schools. His motion was supported by Cowper and Sunderland but opposed vigorously by Bolingbroke and several others. It was defeated at last by a margin of 13 or 14 votes.195 He then served as teller in a tied vote for those in favour of resuming the House. On 15 June Halifax joined more than 30 peers in subscribing a protest against the bill’s passage.196
On 24 June 1714 Halifax found himself in the unusual position of concurring with Bolingbroke, when his habitual adversary proposed the introduction of a bill making it high treason to enlist in the Pretender’s service. Although Halifax asserted that such a bill was hardly necessary, the Pretender’s adherents already being attainted, he continued that ‘he should be glad such a bill were brought in; because, with some alterations, it might be made a very good one’. He subsequently moved the second reading and was vocal at the committee stage on 26 June. Their show of unity proved short-lived. On 2 July Halifax and Bolingbroke were once more ranged against each other over the question of trade, to Spain, Halifax arguing that ‘the most beneficial branch of commerce, the trade, for the recovery of which we entered into the late expensive war, had been notoriously neglected, and given up.’197 On 7 July, Halifax reported from the committee for equivalent accounts and the following day he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to make a representation to the queen stating that the benefit of the Asiento had been obstructed by the efforts of certain individuals to gain personal advantages from the contract.
The Hanoverian accession and final year
Halifax was named by the Elector as one of the regents on the death of Queen Anne, and this may explain why he attended on just two days of the brief session that assembled following the queen’s death.198 He also attended the prorogation of 23 Sept. 1714. The accession of George I promised Halifax long overdue recognition. He was restored to the Privy Council in September, nominated a garter knight and advanced to an earldom in mid-October and at the close of the year appointed lord lieutenant of Surrey.199 He remained frustrated in his ambitions to become lord treasurer, in spite of confident predictions that he would soon be confirmed in that post, and was forced to be contented with the first place in a new treasury commission.200 Such honours were overshadowed by a collapse in Halifax’s health and in November he found himself unable to head to the country being laid low by ‘a violent fit of the strangury and gravel.’201
Unlike most of his allies, Halifax determined to pursue ‘moderate measures’ in an effort to attract broad support for the new regime.202 He also proved a loyal friend to Oxford in the months following the former lord treasurer’s fall.203 However, his career was cut short by his death at his Westminster home on 19 May 1715, his demise at first attributed to pleurisy but later found to have been caused by an inflammation of the lungs.204 Halifax was buried in the Albemarle vault at Westminster Abbey. On his death the earldom reverted to the crown but he was succeeded as 2nd Baron Halifax by his nephew George Montagu, later earl of Halifax, according to the terms of a special remainder.205 An account of his life, dedicated to his heir, together with his will and a selection of his verse was published within a few months of his death and reissued the following year. In his will, Halifax left £1,000 a piece to his brothers Christopher and James Montagu and, in a codicil of 1 Feb. 1712, £5,000 along with his interest in the rangership of Bushy Park to Catherine Barton, whom at one stage he was thought to have married.206 Bishop Wake’s diaries make several references to a Lady Halifax, though it seems more likely that the bishop meant by this the dowager marchioness (by then more correctly duchess of Roxburgh).207 In all Halifax made bequests totalling in excess of £10,000, not including servants’ wages and reversions on annuities, though according to one estimate the real value of his bequest to Catherine Barton was closer to £20,000. The remainder of Halifax’s estate, which, according to some estimates, amounted to as much as £150,000, descended to his heir.208
Edward Harley‡ (son of Oxford’s brother, Auditor Edward Harley‡) noted Halifax’s death as ‘a great loss to his party, though some of the violent men don’t think so.’209 Elsewhere it was reported that he was ‘much lamented by all moderate men, especially the Tories who now say publicly in coffee houses Mr Caesar [Charles Caesar‡] and Goulston [Richard Goulston‡] had he been alive had not been turned out of the House.’210 It is possible to argue that Halifax’s continual offers of assistance to Oxford amounted to no more than cynical posturing and that his behaviour during Queen Anne’s reign was simply that of a man willing to do practically anything to secure advancement. The duchess of Marlborough certainly thought so, though her bitterness was in part due to his having dissatisfied her over Blenheim after George I’s accession. However, Halifax’s continuing commitment to constructing a broad-bottomed coalition when it was no longer necessary to do so seems to suggest that this was a project in which he was genuinely interested.211 It may also explain his Junto colleagues’ suspiciousness of his motives throughout as well as their reluctance to press too firmly for his advancement.
R.D.E.E./P.C.S.- 1 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 76, newsletter, 17 Feb. 1688; Add. 70149, A. Pye to A. Harley, 6 Mar. 1688.
- 2 Eg. 929, f. 14.
- 3 TNA, PROB 11/546.
- 4 CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 88; CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 387.
- 5 Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 14 Mar. 1702.
- 6 Eg. 929, f. 14; CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 208.
- 7 Oxford DNB.
- 8 Survey of London, xxxiv. 345.
- 9 Add. 22267, ff. 164-71; London Top Rec. xxix, 54.
- 10 Add. 61461, ff. 116-19.
- 11 Sachse, Somers, 104.
- 12 Add. 61458, ff. 165-6.
- 13 Swift Works ed. Davis, v. 258.
- 14 HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 851.
- 15 Addison Letters, 122; The Poetical Works of … Halifax, (2nd ed. 1716), 262.
- 16 Eg. 929, ff. 14, 63-66, 88.
- 17 Poetical Works, 2.
- 18 Notes and Recs. of the Royal Society, lix. 157n.
- 19 Poetical Works, 17.
- 20 CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 88.
- 21 Kenyon, Sunderland, 274-5.
- 22 HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 858-9.
- 23 Add. 29575, f. 38.
- 24 Add. 72517, ff. 57-58.
- 25 WSHC, Ailesbury mss 1300/278.
- 26 HMC Cowper, ii. 410; Poetical Works, 61.
- 27 HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 831; Cocks Diary, 85.
- 28 BL, Verney ms mic. M636/51, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 9 Dec. 1700; Bodl. Carte 233, f. 300; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 2.
- 29 Timberland, ii. 22.
- 30 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 37.
- 31 R.C. Ritchie, Captain Kidd and the War against the Pirates, 204.
- 32 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 52, 55-6.
- 33 HMC Cowper, ii. 430.
- 34 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 63-64.
- 35 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 89; Yale Univ. Beinecke Lib. Osborn Coll. Blathwayt mss, box 20, R. Yard to Blathwayt, 2 Oct. 1701.
- 36 Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 14 Mar. 1702; Verney ms mic. M636/51, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 19 Mar. 1702.
- 37 Poetical Works, 75-7.
- 38 TNA, PRO 30/26/228; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 190-91.
- 39 Badminton Muns. Coventry pprs. FMT/B1/1/1/20.
- 40 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 290, 303, 308-9, 314.
- 41 Poetical Works, 88-9.
- 42 Poetical Works, 89-96.
- 43 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 261-2; S. Baxter, Development of the Treasury, 144; Eg. 929, f. 53.
- 44 Poetical works, 98.
- 45 Northants. RO, IC 2201.
- 46 Boston Pub. Lib. Somerset mss (K.5.5), Cocks to Halifax, 11 Aug. 1703, Halifax to Somerset, 17 Aug. 1703.
- 47 Poetical Works, 98-9.
- 48 Poetical Works, 99-107.
- 49 Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 241, 244.
- 50 C. Jones, ‘Parliamentary Organization of the Whig Junto’, PH, x. 170.
- 51 Nicolson, London Diaries, 40-1.
- 52 Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 241.
- 53 Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 45, f. 9.
- 54 Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 244.
- 55 PH, x. 171-2.
- 56 Add. 70075, newsletter, 18 Apr. 1704.
- 57 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 451.
- 58 CJ, xiv. 426-8; Add. 61458, ff. 33-34; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 438-9.
- 59 Poetical Works, 110.
- 60 Poetical Works, 111-12; Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 276, 278-9.
- 61 LPL, ms 3016, ff. 14-15.
- 62 Verney ms mic. M636/53, R. Palmer to R. Verney, c.1 Jan. 1705.
- 63 Jones, Party and Management, 87.
- 64 Poetical Works, 113-30.
- 65 Stowe 224, ff. 330-1; Gregg, Queen Anne, 196-7.
- 66 Eg. 929, ff. 30, 72, 77-78.
- 67 Add. 61285, f. 111.
- 68 CSP Dom. 1702-3, p. 377; HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 410.
- 69 Eg. 929, f. 75.
- 70 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 3, folder 163, newsletter, 15 May 1705; HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 597.
- 71 Add. 61458, ff. 158-9, 165; W. Speck, Tory and Whig, 102-3.
- 72 Add. 61458, ff. 168-70.
- 73 Add. 61458, ff. 163-4.
- 74 Add. 28055, ff. 300-303, 316-17; HMC Portland, iv. 250.
- 75 Poetical Works, 137.
- 76 LPL, ms 1770, ff. 5-6.
- 77 C. Jones, ‘Debates in the House of Lords’, HJ, xix. 765; Nicolson, London Diaries, 321; Poetical Works, 132-6.
- 78 Verney ms mic. M636/53, C. Stewkeley to Visct. Fermanagh, 11 Dec. 1705, R. Palmer to same, 19 Dec. 1705; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 622.
- 79 Add. 61134, f. 150.
- 80 Cowper Diary, 33.
- 81 HMC Buccleuch, ii. 703.
- 82 Somerville, King of Hearts, 227.
- 83 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 2.
- 84 Eg. 929, f. 90.
- 85 Holmes, Pol. Relig. And Soc. 45-46.
- 86 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 34; London Gazette, 11 Apr. 1706.
- 87 London Gazette, 9 May 1706; Daily Courant, 31 May 1706; Poetical Works, 141-4.
- 88 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 78; London Gazette, 15 Aug. 1706; HMC Portland, ii. 196.
- 89 Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 656.
- 90 Add. 61443, ff. 13-15.
- 91 HMC Bath, i. 146-50, 155-6.
- 92 Timberland, ii. 167.
- 93 New York Pub. Lib. Hardwicke mss (33), p. 27.
- 94 PH, x. 173.
- 95 HMC Bath, i. 155-6.
- 96 LPL, ms 1770, f. 35.
- 97 Timberland, ii. 173-5; PH, x. 174-5; Poetical Works, 139-41.
- 98 Add. 61458, f. 174.
- 99 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fc 37, vol. 10, no. xliii, Halifax to Manchester, 19 July 1707; HMC 8th Rep. ii. 90.
- 100 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 197.
- 101 Christ Church, Oxf., Wake mss 17, f. 174.
- 102 NLW, Plas-yn-Cefn, 2740.
- 103 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 233, 236; LJ xviii. 341-2.
- 104 Poetical Works, 147.
- 105 Beinecke Lib., earl of Manchester’s pprs., 1696-1732, p. 6.
- 106 HEHL, ST 57 (2), pp. 5-7.
- 107 Addison Letters, 89, 93.
- 108 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fc 37, vol. 13, no. lxx, Halifax to Manchester, 20 Apr. 1708.
- 109 Add. 61459, ff. 66-67.
- 110 Add. 61118, ff. 102-4.
- 111 Add. 61459, f. 121.
- 112 Add. 61118, f. 106.
- 113 HMC Portland, iv. 519.
- 114 Marlborough Godolphin Corresp. 1180.
- 115 NAS, GD158/1174/78.
- 116 Poetical Works, 148.
- 117 Add. 61458, f. 116.
- 118 Poetical Works, 149-55.
- 119 HMC Lords, n.s. viii. 187.
- 120 Christ Church, Oxf. Wake mss 17, f. 204; NLS, ms 7021, f. 171.
- 121 Add. 61458, ff. 122-3.
- 122 Add. 61134, ff. 198-9, 207, 209.
- 123 Add. 61460, ff. 101, 134-5.
- 124 Add. 61460, ff. 118-20, 128-9.
- 125 Holmes, Trial of Dr Sacheverell, 135-6.
- 126 State Trial of Dr Sacheverell ed. Cowan, 72-73, 88, 94, 247.
- 127 Add. 15574, ff. 65-68.
- 128 Poetical works, 156-7.
- 129 Wentworth Pprs. 117.
- 130 Add. 70333, Harley memo. n.d.; HMC Portland, vii. 3, 5.
- 131 Somerville, King of Hearts, 266; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 602; Add. 61130, f. 105; Add. 61141, ff. 78-85; Add. 61460, f. 190; Add. 61461, ff. 58-59.
- 132 Add. 61134, f. 207.
- 133 Add. 70249, Halifax to Harley, endorsed 9 July 1710, Halifax to Harley, 24 Aug. 1710.
- 134 Add. 70333, Harley memo. n.d.; HMC Portland, ii. 213.
- 135 HMC Portland, iv. 560.
- 136 HMC Portland, ii. 218.
- 137 Add. 61458, ff. 191-2.
- 138 Add. 70278, Harley to Halifax (draft), 13 Sept. 1710.
- 139 Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Halifax to Cowper, 16 Sept. 1710.
- 140 HMC Portland, ii. 219-20.
- 141 HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 895.
- 142 HMC Portland, ii. 220, vii. 16.
- 143 Swift, Journal to Stella, 38-39.
- 144 Poetical Works, 157-9.
- 145 HMC Portland, ii. 223.
- 146 Timberland, ii. 283, 300, 308, 311, 321-2, 331, 332, 344-5; Poetical Works, 174-90.
- 147 PH, x. 175-6.
- 148 HMC Portland, iv. 658, 674, 675.
- 149 Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 123-4; HMC Portland, iv. 687.
- 150 Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Halifax to Cowper, 23 May 1711.
- 151 NAS, GD406/1/5729.
- 152 Add. 70028, f. 152.
- 153 TNA, C 11/12/26.
- 154 HMC Portland, v. 79.
- 155 Add. 70249, Halifax to Oxford, 14 Nov. 1711; HMC Portland, v. 120.
- 156 HMC Portland, v. 125.
- 157 Wentworth Pprs. 229; Add. 70269.
- 158 HMC Portland, v. 131-4.
- 159 Add. 70249, Halifax to Oxford, 10, 11 Jan. 1712.
- 160 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 720.
- 161 Timberland, ii. 364.
- 162 Wentworth Pprs. 267.
- 163 Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 188.
- 164 HMC Portland, v. 158.
- 165 NLS, Wodrow pprs. Advocates’ mss Wodrow Letters Quarto, VI, f. 162.
- 166 HMC Portland, v. 166.
- 167 Bodl. Ballard 36, f. 127; Poetical Works, 160-1.
- 168 Verney ms mic. M636/54, Sir T. Cave to Visct. Fermanagh, 29 May 1712; Cornw. RO, Antony mss, CVC/Y/4/28.
- 169 Poetical Works, 162-7.
- 170 Poetical Works, 168-74.
- 171 Add. 70249, Halifax to Oxford, 14 June [1712].
- 172 Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Halifax to Cowper, 7 Aug. 1712.
- 173 HMC Portland, v. 251-2, 254.
- 174 Add. 70213, Dr W. Bramston to Oxford, 26 Jan. 1713.
- 175 Swift, Journal to Stella, 608.
- 176 Add. 70249, Halifax to Oxford, 7 Feb. 1713.
- 177 Verney ms mic. M636/55, R. Palmer to Visct. Fermanagh, 24 Mar. 1713.
- 178 HMC Portland, v. 275.
- 179 Wentworth Pprs. 328. Poetical Works, 196-7.
- 180 HMC Portland, v. 292-3.
- 181 Holmes, ‘Great Ministry’, 254-5, 256; Poetical Works, 205.
- 182 Poetical Works, 206.
- 183 Wentworth Pprs. 343.
- 184 HMC Portland, vii. 157.
- 185 Add. 70249, Halifax to Oxford, 22 Oct. 1713.
- 186 Add. 22221, ff. 105-8; Wentworth Pprs. 362-3.
- 187 Poetical Works, 210-12.
- 188 Timberland, ii. 408, 411, 413-15; Poetical Works, 212-22.
- 189 Timberland, ii. 421.
- 190 Wentworth Pprs. 371.
- 191 Wentworth Pprs. 365-6; Verney ms mic. M636/55, W. Viccars to Visct. Fermanagh, 17 Apr. 1714.
- 192 Add. 70249, Halifax to Oxford, 21 Apr. 1714.
- 193 Timberland, ii. 424-5.
- 194 Surr. Hist. Cent., Somers, 371/14/O/2/60.
- 195 Timberland, ii. 426-7.
- 196 Poetical Works, 236-50.
- 197 Timberland, ii. 432, 433; Poetical Works, 253.
- 198 NLS, Wodrow pprs. Wodrow. Letters Quarto VIII, ff. 146-7.
- 199 London Gazette, 21 Sept. 1714; Post Man, 16 Dec. 1714.
- 200 Somerville, King of Hearts, 339; Northants. RO, IC 3838.
- 201 Add. 70249, Oxford to Halifax, 10 Nov. 1714.
- 202 HMC Portland, vii. 206.
- 203 HMC Portland, v. 500.
- 204 London Gazette, 17 May 1715; Post Boy, 19 May 1715; British Weekly Mercury, 14 May 1715; Poetical Works, 260-1.
- 205 CSP Dom. 1700-2, p. 155.
- 206 Add. 70113, Lady A. Clinton to Sir E. Harley, 16 Oct. 1698.
- 207 LPL, ms 1770, ff. 24, 68, 147.
- 208 TNA, PROB 11/546; A True Copy of the Last Will and Testament of Charles Lord Halifax (1716); Notes and Recs. of the Royal Society, lix. 162.
- 209 Add. 70145, E. Harley to A. Harley, 21 May 1715.
- 210 Bodl. Ballard 31, f. 147.
- 211 Add. 61458, ff. 185-90.