MONTAGU, Edward (1602-71)

‘Universally acceptable and beloved’, Mandeville was also considered by the French diplomat, Antoine de Bordeaux, to be ‘among the cleverest men in the land’. Manchester, Court and Soc. Eliz. to Anne, i. 366; Clarendon, History, i. 243; TNA, PRO 31/3/107, p. 77. Having initially been associated with James I’s favourite, George Villiers^†, duke of Buckingham, Mandeville progressed to become one of the central figures in the opposition to Charles I. He was one of a dozen peers to petition the king to summon Parliament in 1640 and was the only member of the House of Lords among the members the king sought to arrest for treason in January 1642. At the head of the most influential of the branches of the Montagu clan, Mandeville commanded interest in the Midlands and East Anglia (particularly in Huntingdon and Essex). He was related to both the royalist Henry Spencer^†, earl of Sunderland, and the parliamentarian Rich earls of Warwick and Holland. Vis. Northants. (Harl. Soc. lxxxvii), 139-40. Although Manchester was himself a Presbyterian and from an avowedly Protestant family, his brother, Walter Montagu, was a Catholic abbé and closely associated with the household of Queen Henrietta Maria.

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Mandeville became one of the key Parliamentarian commanders. Having raised a regiment of foot at the outset of the conflict, in 1643 (by which time he had succeeded to the earldom of Manchester) he was promoted to be general of horse and awarded overall command of the army of the Eastern Association. In 1645 he was one of two Parliamentarian peers to be recommended for promotion to a marquessate by the Commons, but following the conclusion of the First Civil War (1642-5) Manchester supported moves to reach an accommodation with the king. As a result he became increasingly isolated from his former protégé and subordinate in the army, Oliver Cromwell^‡. Although he was deprived of his military command by the self-denying ordinance, Manchester remained an important figure as Speaker of the Lords until he was put out at the time of Pride’s Purge. He then opposed the king’s trial and execution and from the mid-1650s onwards became increasingly involved in the movement to secure the restoration of the monarchy.

Although he was nominated by Cromwell in 1657 to be a member of the ‘Other House’, in common with almost all of the peers similarly honoured, Manchester refused to take his seat. In April 1659 he was sent a letter by the king, and by June, according to John Mordaunt, later Viscount Mordaunt, he was actively engaged in plotting a rising: Mordaunt and other royalists were hopeful that his interest would also engage the participation of William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele, his young kinsman, Charles Rich, 4th earl of Warwick, who had only recently succeeded to the peerage, and the Cornishman John Robartes, 2nd Baron Robartes (later earl of Radnor). The Letter Bk. of John Viscount Mordaunt 1658-1660 ed. M. Coate (Cam. Soc. ser. 3, lxix), 8, 12, 19, 21-23, 102; CCSP, iv. 190, 235. That summer, Manchester’s connection with Warwick’s family was further strengthened with his controversial and arguably incestuous marriage to his former mother-in-law, Eleanor, dowager countess of Warwick. LPL, MS 942/20. Both Manchester and his new countess had by then been married three times previously. Verney ms mic. M636/16, M. Elmes to Sir R.Verney, 20 July 1659. It was a liaison that attracted the attention of Sir John Bramston^‡ and of Robert Creighton, later bishop of Bath and Wells, who (according to Bramston) remarked incredulously of his successive marriages to Warwick’s daughter, niece and widow, ‘could any but a Presbyterian do this?’ Bramston Autobiog. 119-20.

The Restoration Settlement, 1660-2

In the early months of 1660 Mordaunt was at pains to assure the royalist court in exile of Manchester’s good will. In February he conveyed a request from the countess of Northampton for Manchester to be considered for the office of lord treasurer. The Letter Bk. of John Viscount Mordaunt, 178; CCSP, iv. 518-19, 532, 547. By the spring of that year Manchester was one of the foremost members of the ‘Presbyterian junto’ or ‘knot’ closely involved in the continuing efforts to secure a political settlement. Swatland, 18. In February he dined with Richard Boyle, Baron Clifford of Lanesborough (later earl of Burlington) and the following month he hosted a dinner at which were present his cousin, Admiral Edward Montagu, soon to be created earl of Sandwich; another kinsman, Sir Dudley North, the future 4th Baron North; Lord Saye and Sele's son, Nathaniel Fiennes^‡; and George Berkeley, 9th Baron (later earl of) Berkeley. Chatsworth, Cork misc. box 1, Burlington's diary, 17 Feb. 1660; Pepys Diary, i. 75. A letter of 23 Mar. from one royalist agent reported frequent meetings of a ‘junto’ sometimes at Manchester’s London residence and sometimes at that of Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton. Jones, Saw-Pit Wharton, 154. Reports that month suggested that Manchester, as the last Speaker of the Lords, had already written ‘to all the Lords to come and take their places in the House’ in the forthcoming sitting of the Convention. The report was at least in part mistaken, as Manchester was far from wanting all the peers in attendance, adamant that former royalists and their heirs should be excluded, and fearful of the consequences for his own safety should ‘so much as a kitchen boy’ of the royalist party be readmitted to his place. HMC Bath, ii. 144; Jones, Saw-Pit Wharton, 155. There were, though, a number of members of the House whose presence he considered to be of the first importance. Saye and Sele entrusted to Manchester the task of convincing Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland, to join the returning Lords, Northumberland having previously expressed his doubts at the wisdom of the peers asserting their rights before it was clear that there was a more general demand for the restoration of the upper House. PA, MAN/53; Manchester, Court and Soc. Eliz. to Anne, i. 395.

Although Wharton in March had listed Manchester among those Lords who had sat in the House during the Civil War and might, therefore, be expected to be sympathetic to a Presbyterian settlement, by then Manchester appears to have been shifting his stance. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 63. In April he was promising George Morley, later bishop of Worcester and of Winchester, that he would help to reconcile the leading Presbyterian clergy with the Anglican Church, CCSP, iv. 654. although towards the end of March one royalist agent was reporting to Sir Edward Hyde, the future earl of Clarendon, that Manchester was one of at least three of the ‘Presbyterian party’ on the Council of State who had resolved to ‘issue terms to the king before Parliament meets’. Bodl. Clarendon 71, f. 22. On 19 April Mordaunt reported that Manchester and Northumberland had ‘debauched’ a number of senior political figures, among them Denzil Holles, later Baron Holles, and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, later earl of Shaftesbury, and that, suspicious of the intentions of General George Monck, later duke of Albemarle, they were proposing that only those Lords who had remained in the House in 1648 should be allowed to take their places. CCSP, iv. 665-6. On 24 Apr., the day before the Convention was due to meet Thomas Bunce, one of the king’s agents, told the king that on the 20th Manchester had told him that he would ‘endeavour what lay in his power to make the propositions easy’ for the king. Bodl. Clarendon 72, ff. 17-18. However, Mordaunt’s assessment of Manchester and his circle and their significance, made the same day, was that they carried little weight. In his letter to the king of 24 Apr. in which he mentioned Manchester’s attendance at a conventicle with William Pierrepont^‡ and Oliver St John^‡, Mordaunt sought ‘to acquaint your majesty with the plain truth Northumberland and Manchester we fear are not to be made yours, neither have they any interest … to do good or ill.’ Bodl. Clarendon 72, ff. 19-20. Although Manchester’s ability to influence the shape of the Restoration was limited, he remained one of the major figures among the Presbyterian peers. Prior to the opening of the Convention, Samuel Pepys^‡ noted how ‘the Lords do meet every day at my Lord of Manchester’s’, and that they had determined to take their seats on the first day that Parliament sat. Pepys Diary, i. 111.

Manchester was one of 10 peers to take their seats in the House at the opening of the Convention on 25 Apr. 1660, on which day he was also appointed Speaker pro tempore. Bodl. Clarendon 72, f. 53. He continued to fulfil this role until 1 June when the chair was assumed by Lord Chancellor Hyde. By the close of the first day the original intention that the Lords should only be attended by Presbyterian peers had been thrown into confusion by the arrival of a handful of former royalists, who had ignored Monck’s request that they should ‘bide their time.’ Pepys Diary, i. 116. Their admission, which it was said was greeted by the older peers with ‘some distaste… but no disturbance’, marked the beginning of a steady return to the House of all of those who had been qualified to sit prior to its abolition. Bodl. Clarendon 72, f. 53.

Present on over 90 per cent of all sitting days in the session, during which he was named to at least 27 committees, on the first day Manchester was one of those nominated to deliver the Lords’ message to Monck of thanks for his role in restoring the House. He reported delivery of the message to the House the next day when he was also appointed to the committee to prepare an ordinance declaring Monck captain general. The following day (27 Apr.) Manchester was nominated one of the commissioners of the great seal. The Lords’ proposal on this was held up in the Commons but they later consented to the nomination by message on 7 May. Bodl. Clarendon 72, ff. 180, 232. When Mordaunt reported this to Hyde that day, he told him that Manchester had been assiduously spreading damaging stories about Hyde himself: Manchester had, he wrote, been ‘set on from beyond sea’, possibly a hint at the Abbé Walter Montagu, his brother, and the circle around the queen mother in Paris. The appointment of commissioners, Mordaunt suggested, was intended to ensure that the executive power would be kept out of the king’s hands. T. Lister, The Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon, iii. 100. On 1 May Manchester was appointed one of the managers of a conference with the Commons to consider a reply to the king’s letter and on 3 May he reported from the committee considering the draft response, which was approved. Manchester reported from the conference considering the settling of the great seal on 10 May and on 19 May he also acted as one of the managers of a conference concerning the late king’s judges, from which he reported three days later.

The speed with which the old junto had lost any control of events appears to have unsettled Manchester: it was said that his ‘hope of some high office is making him very circumspect’, and in common with Saye and Sele and Northumberland, Manchester was said to be concerned for his safety under the new regime (a recurrent theme in his career). TNA, PRO 31/3/107, p. 66; Bodl. Clarendon 72, ff. 241-2. Although he was not among those nominated to greet the king at this arrival in England, his heir, Robert Montagu, styled Lord Mandeville, and later 3rd earl of Manchester, was included in the party. TNA, PRO 31/3/107, pp. 49-50, 55, 66. As Speaker he also retained a central role in mediating between king and the Lords. On 29 May he led the House when it waited on the king at Whitehall. In his speech, which was reported to the House on the 30th, he assured the king of the Lords’ ‘great joy for his majesty’s safe return’. Emphasizing the natural ties between king and peers, he continued:

I shall not reflect upon your majesty's sufferings, which have been your people’s miseries. Yet I cannot omit to say, that as the nation in general, so the peers with a more personal and particular sense, have felt the stroke that cut the Gordian Knot which fastened your majesty to your kingdom, and your kingdom to your majesty.

Manchester reported the king’s answer to the House’s address on 30 May and the same day he conveyed the thanks of the royal princes, James Stuart, duke of York, and Henry Stuart, duke of Gloucester, for the House’s ‘civility’ towards them, and communicated their desire to take their seats. Manchester was admitted to the Privy Council at the close of May and appointed lord chamberlain at the beginning of June. HMC De Lisle and Dudley, vi. 622; TNA, PRO 31/3/107, p. 82. On 16 June he proposed that the queen mother’s dower should be paid, which was approved nem. con. On 27 July he was appointed to move the king for permission for his speech encouraging the Lords to pass the indemnity bill to be printed. Four days later he reported the king’s answer concerning the impact on the royal revenue of arrears owed the king being forgiven in the bill. Manchester received North’s proxy on 30 July, which was vacated by the close of the session, and on 8 Aug. he also received that of Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount Campden, which was vacated when Campden resumed his seat the following day. Add. 32455, f. 193; C. Jones, ‘Further Proxy Records for the House of Lords’, PH, xxviii. 439. Four days later, Manchester hosted a dinner attended by his cousin, now earl of Sandwich. Pepys Diary, i. 220. The following day (13 Aug.) he was nominated one of the managers of a conference concerning public bills and the establishment of a joint committee to go to the City to seek a loan of £100,000. On 15 Aug. Manchester was appointed a manager of the free conference considering amendments to the indemnity bill. On 8 Sept. (Saturday) he communicated the king’s willingness to defer the adjournment to the following Tuesday (11 Sept.), though in the event the House continued sitting for a further two days beyond that, allowing Manchester to report on the 12th from the committee for the bill explaining defects in the poll money bill before the House adjourned.

Manchester’s influence was seen as important in a series of letters exchanged by members of the Verney family towards the end of October 1660 over a cause they had pending. Cary Gardiner hoped Sir Ralph Verney^‡ (who had been one of the parties to Manchester's marriage settlement with Countess Eleanor) would make Manchester ‘our friend, who is a very considerable person and he will draw many after him.’ The following month, Gardiner reported that Manchester had been appointed lord privy seal and that Thomas Howard, earl of Berkshire, was to be made lord chamberlain in Manchester’s stead, but these rumours proved to be inaccurate. Verney ms mic. M636/16, settlement, 15 July 1659; M636/17, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 31 Oct, 7 Nov. 1660. During the recess, Manchester (according to Richard Baxter’s account of its proceedings) was one of a number of peers with Presbyterian backgrounds who participated in the conference at Worcester House on 22 Oct. to hear the proposals of the lord chancellor to deal with the religious settlement: the others were lords Albemarle, Annesley, and Hollis, although it was Annesley and Hollis who were commissioned to draft the final deal, rather than Manchester. Reliquiae Baxterianae, Bk. 1, pt. 2, 276.

Manchester resumed his seat in the House following the adjournment on 6 Nov. 1660, after which he was present on 82 per cent of all sitting days and was named to at least 11 committees. On 14 Dec. he reported from the committee of the whole considering the bill to attaint the late king’s killers and, the following day, he reported from the committee for the college leases bill. Two days later (17 Dec.) he reported the effect of the committee for privileges’ ruminations on the militia bill and on 21 Dec. he reported part of the conference concerning the abolition of the Court of Wards relating to the bill for confirming marriages.

Following the dissolution, Manchester was successful in recommending Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, bt. to his kinsman, Edward Montagu, 2nd Baron Montagu of Boughton, as a ‘worthy person’ to be one of the members for Northamptonshire in the elections for the new Parliament held that spring but he otherwise fared poorly in securing the return of his candidates. HMC Buccleuch, i. 312; HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 786. According to Bramston, Manchester was ordered by the king to restrain his kinsman, Warwick, from appearing at the Essex poll and he appears to have avoided attempting to use his own interest at Cambridge University, expecting a reversal there. More damaging still, he was subjected to an unexpectedly severe battering at Huntingdon, where his own tenants refused to support his nominees. Bramston Autobiog. 119-20; HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 149, 274. Manchester took his seat in the new Parliament on 8 May 1661. He was present on almost 80 per cent of all sitting days of the first session and was named to some 35 committees. On 13 May he reported from the committee considering the address of thanks, which was ordered to be presented to the king and on 17 May he informed the House that the king had appointed him to deliver a petition concerning precedence in the House, which had been submitted by Berkeley. At the end of the month, on 31 May, the House ordered that Manchester should move the king for a proclamation for a fast day to be appointed: Manchester reported from the conference on the subject and (on 6 June) the king’s response. Five days later, the House took into consideration a case referred from the court of delegates in which Manchester and Northumberland were involved as executors of the late earl of Essex (Robert Devereux^†, 3rd earl of Essex). Proceedings in the court were stayed as a result. On 19 June Manchester reported from the committee of the whole House which had considered the bill for a free gift to the king. The same day, the House heard further evidence relating to the affair in the court of delegates but made no alteration to its previous order in the business. On 25 June Manchester was appointed with William Russell, 5th earl (later duke) of Bedford, to act as teller on the question whether the words ‘or new matter’ should be added to the order concerning the petition of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, to be restored to the lord great chamberlaincy. The following month, Manchester opposed Oxford’s suit, presumably preferring the claims of Montagu Bertie, 2nd earl of Lindsey. Bodl. Carte 109, f. 317. Manchester was excused attendance on account of sickness on 17 July but he was well enough to resume his place two days later. During his absence he appears to have registered his proxy with Leicester Devereux, 6th Viscount Hereford, though no record of this was entered in the proxy book. PH, xxviii. 436. Appointed a manager of the conference on the corporations bill on 26 July, the following day he was nominated one of the managers of the conference on the bill of pains and penalties and two days after (29 July) he was named a reporter of the conference for the printing bill. Following the close of the session, Manchester continued to be courted by members of the Verney family, who hoped he would employ his interest on behalf of Sir Ralph's sister, Margaret Elmes, in a case involving the settlement of her jointure, Manchester being involved as one of the trustees. Verney ms mic. M636/17, T. Elmes to Verney, 4 Sept. 1661.

Manchester resumed his seat after the recess on 20 Nov. 1661. On the following day he was one of six peers appointed to attend the king concerning the proclamation about the removal from London of former soldiers and other suspicious people. On 4 Dec. the House ordered Manchester to attend the king to remind him of the House’s former order recommending that the House’s chaplain, Dr. Hodges, should be rewarded for his dutiful service. Two days later Manchester reported from the committee of the whole considering the manner of swearing witnesses at the Bar and on the following day (7 Dec.) he was nominated one of the managers of a conference to consider the same business. On 17 Dec. he was also appointed one of the managers of a further conference for the corporations bill. Towards the close of January 1662, Manchester became involved in a heated dispute between Northumberland and George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, that had arisen out of Buckingham’s motion for the reconstitution of the northern marcher court. Although the House ordered the two peers to desist from quarrelling, Manchester overheard the two men continuing to berate each other as a result of which they were ejected from the chamber. TNA, PRO 31/3/110, pp. 53-58. Manchester reported on 1 Feb. 1662 from the committee of the whole House considering the bill for the execution of those regicides who had been excepted from pardon in the Act of Indemnity. He was then named one of the managers of three conferences concerning the same business held that day, and on 3 and 4 February. On 3 Feb. he also chaired a session of the committee considering the bill for collectors of public money. The bill and a proviso were read and orders given for witnesses to attend two days later, but when the committee reconvened on 5 Feb. it was chaired by the lord privy seal, Lord Robartes. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, pp. 115, 126. On 6 Feb. Manchester joined with at least 25 other peers in subscribing the protest at the resolution to pass the estate bill for Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby. Add. 33589, ff. 220-1. The Verney family’s efforts to secure a resolution to the settlement of Margaret Elmes’s jointure continued that spring and towards the close of March Elmes pressed her brother, Verney, to bring the matter to a conclusion before Manchester retired to the country ‘for fear his stay there should be long.’ Verney ms mic. M636/18, M. Elmes to Verney, 13, 20 Mar. 1662. Manchester continued to attend the House until the middle of the following month and on 9 and 10 Apr. he was appointed one of the managers of a conference for the bill for mending streets and highways. On 14 Apr. it was reported that he was to be one of the officials to travel to Portsmouth to greet Queen Catherine. He attended for the last time during that session on 19 Apr. and was then absent for the final month occupied with his duties at Portsmouth. Bodl. Clarendon 76, ff. 111, 285-6.

Such influence as Manchester had was waning by the end of 1662, when Pepys reported talk that the court had become weary of Albemarle and Manchester and that none that had been in arms for Parliament in the Civil War would be permitted to retain their offices. Pepys Diary, iii. 290-1. Neither, in fact, was removed, and Manchester retained at least significant local influence: in January 1663 Edward Montagu wrote to Christopher Hatton, later Viscount Hatton in advance of a by-election at Northampton, where Manchester wielded considerable authority as recorder, assuming that Hatton had secured Manchester’s support for his candidacy. Add. 29551, f. 5.

1663-68

Manchester continued to play an active role in the life of the House. Although he was missing from the attendance list at the opening of the new session on 18 Feb. 1663, he was named to the standing committees for privileges and the sub-committee for the Journal that day, so it is to be assumed that he was present. He had certainly taken his place by 20 Feb. when his name appeared once more on the attendance list, and he attended on approximately 90 per cent of all sitting days. Named to 22 committees in the course of the session, on 27 Feb. he was chosen chairman of the committee of the whole House during its consideration of the extent of the king’s power in ecclesiastical affairs. Manchester reported from the committee on 6 Mar. and chaired further sessions on 12 and 13 March. At the close of the month Manchester informed the House of the king’s desire to be waited on with the petition concerning Jesuits and Catholic priests. At the same time, he was embarrassed by a case brought before the committee for privileges prompted by the activities of one of his servants, Bird, who had sold a counterfeit protection to one Shawcliffe, then engaged in a dispute with John Carey, 5th Baron Hunsdon (later 2nd earl of Dover). On 2 Apr. Manchester conveyed his appreciation to the committee for the manner in which the case had been handled and left it to their discretion how the disgraced Bird was to be proceeded with. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1, p. 85. Two days later, the House requested Manchester to attend the king to discover when the Lords and Commons should present themselves to him.

On 14 Apr. 1663 Manchester received the proxy of William Cecil, 2nd earl of Salisbury (which was vacated by the session’s close). On 12 June he provided the House with an account of the recent quarrel between John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, and Lionel Cranfield, 3rd earl of Middlesex, adding to this three days later with a plea on Bridgwater’s behalf for the House to show some compassion for Bridgwater, who was by then confined under house arrest in the same place where his wife had recently died. Manchester was entrusted with the proxy of his kinsman Robert Rich, 2nd earl of Holland, on 20 June and on 2 July he chaired a session of the committee considering the bill to settle differences between John Paulet, 5th marquess of Winchester, and his heir, Charles Powlett, the future duke of Bolton. Having read the record of the previous session’s progress in the matter, it was resolved to proceed with the bill only for further consideration to be adjourned to the following Saturday. Manchester chaired and then reported from the committee considering the bill to prevent butchers from selling fat cattle alive on 7 July, even though he had not been named to the committee when it had been established the previous day. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, pp. 409-10, 414. On 13 July he reported the king’s response to a request for a fast day to be appointed and the same day he communicated the king’s message concerning the attempt by George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, to impeach Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon. Wharton noted Manchester as a probable supporter of Bristol's efforts. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 224. Named one of the reporters of a conference for the bill for licensing wine on 23 July, four days later Manchester chaired and then reported from the committee considering Pitcairne’s bill, the committee resolving that the bill should be returned to the House without amendments by a majority of four voices. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 437.

Manchester found himself the subject of unwanted attention in the early autumn of 1663 when one Captain Atkinson named him alongside Wharton and Thomas Fairfax^‡, 3rd Lord Fairfax of Cameron [S], as having been made aware of the northern rebellion, which had finally stuttered to a halt a few weeks before in the near-farcical rising at Farnley Wood. CSP Dom. 1663-4, pp. 352, 540. Manchester and Fairfax denied all knowledge of the insurrection. Their denials appear to have been believed quite readily and there seems to be no reason to believe that they were not sincere in their protestations. Saw-Pit Wharton, 201-2; A. Hopper, ‘The Farnley Wood Plot’, HJ, xlv. 295. Later that year, Manchester was at the heart of a violent altercation at the exchange in the City of London. With the help of a local justice, he succeeded in closing the place down after a fight resulted in one of the king’s coachmen losing an eye. Following an appeal by the brokers, the king allowed the exchange to be reopened. Pepys Diary, iv. 431. Manchester resumed his seat in the House on 16 Mar. 1664 and on the following day he was entrusted with North’s proxy. Present on approximately 92 per cent of all sitting days in the session, Manchester was named to three committees as well as continuing with his ceremonial role as the principal point of contact between the court and the House. He dined with Burlington (the former Baron Clifford of Lanesborough) on 29 Mar. and on 5 Apr. he was appointed to wait on the king to give the House’s thanks for the king’s speech. On 13 Apr. he was again entrusted with Salisbury’s proxy and later that month, on 22 Apr, he reported from the conference concerning foreign trade. On 3 May he chaired and then reported from the committee considering the bill for confirming land in Frome forest on Roger Boyle^‡, earl of Orrery [I]. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, p. 453. Manchester’s own petition concerning an action before the court of delegates over the administration of Warwick’s will was read on 9 May and referred to the committee for privileges. HMC 7th Rep. 176. On 14 May he reported the king’s response to the House’s request that the recess should be put back a few days.

Manchester was present in the House for the prorogation of 20 Aug. 1664 before taking his place in the new session on 24 November. He was present on 81 per cent of all days in the session. Named to 10 select committees during the course of the session, he was also named to the standing committee for privileges on the opening day, but was not included on the list of those nominated to the other two sessional committees. On 2 Dec. Manchester reported the answer of the City of London to the House’s vote of thanks for their loans to the king in anticipation of the war with the Dutch. On 7 Feb. 1665 he reported from the committee of the whole House considering the bill for granting an aid to the king and two days later he was ordered to attend the king to acquaint him with the passing of the bill. On 20 Feb. Manchester informed the House of the king’s desire to bring the session to a conclusion in just over a week’s time but following the House’s request to be permitted to sit a little longer, at the close of the month Manchester was able to assure them of the king’s agreement to extend the session by two or three days. That month Manchester earned the thanks of Robert Paston, later earl of Yarmouth, for his assistance in seeing his bill for the development of Yarmouth harbour passed. Paston had dined with Manchester and ‘150 people’ during the passage of his bill through Parliament. It had received warm support from a variety of peers with interests in East Anglia and the Fenlands such as Manchester. Add. 27447, ff. 334-5, 338. Because of Paston’s role in persuading the Commons to grant an unprecedented level of supply for preparations for war with the Dutch, the bill had also attracted the support of the king who had insisted that it be passed prior to the prorogation. Named one of the reporters of the conference to consider the bill for Nicholas Tufton, 3rd earl of Thanet, on 1 Mar, the same day Manchester informed the House that he had waited on the king to seek his permission to be attended with an address and the following day, he communicated the king’s agreement to a fast day.

Manchester attended the prorogation of 21 June 1665 on which day he officiated as lord great chamberlain in Lindsey’s absence and introduced the newly created peers Henry Bennet, Baron (later earl of) Arlington and John Frescheville, Baron Frescheville. Two months later, amid growing concern at the inactivity of the fleet, Manchester advised his kinsman, Sandwich, to put to sea and engage the Dutch to prevent the continuation of such complaints at home:

I cannot omit the tendering my service to you, and to give you this account of my friendship that the sooner you can put to sea it will be the more to your advantage for if the Dutch get back into their own harbours without some blows I find there are those that will make discourses… Bodl. Carte 223, f. 309.

At the end of the year Manchester advised Sandwich again on dealing with the controversy over his handling of prize goods captured from the Dutch, in a letter to which Clarendon appended a postscript. Bodl. Carte 75, f. 419.

In September 1665, Manchester travelled to Oxford to prepare for the king’s arrival in advance of the session of Parliament to be held there. Arriving in company with Clarendon, he was accommodated in the dean’s lodgings at Christ Church and treated to a series of ceremonial welcomes in his capacity as chancellor of Cambridge University. Bodl. Wood d19(3), f. 20. On 9 Oct. he took his seat in the temporary chamber which had been set up in the geometry school, after which he was present on 68 per cent of all sitting days. Eg. 2539, f. 9; Verney ms mic. M636/20, Sir R. to E. Verney, 4 Sept. 1665; Bodl. Carte 46, f. 201. On the opening day of the session Manchester informed the House of the indisposition of his kinsman, Warwick. Two days later, he moved that the House should present its address of thanks to the king on the first season of the war, which was ordered accordingly. Manchester was named to five committees in the course of the session. On 20 Oct. he chaired the committee considering the bill to raise a month’s assessment for the king, which he reported to the House ten days later. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 87. The same day (30 Oct.) he joined Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton, and John Lucas, Baron Lucas, in voicing his opposition to the five mile bill, arguing that he thought the measure ‘unseasonable’ and objecting to the manner in which ‘those concerned were used worse than common beggars.’ Verney ms mic. M636/20, Sir N. Hobart to Sir R. Verney, 1 Nov. 1665. Bodl. Carte 80, f. 757. He then seconded the motion to have the bill recommitted but this was rejected after a concerted effort by York and the bishops. Bodl. Rawl. A 130. The following day, Manchester was named one of the reporters of a conference for the additional plague bill. That afternoon he reported from the committee for the bill for the attainder of the regicides Dolman, Bamfield and Scott.

Having attended two of the prorogations following the close of the session held at Oxford, Manchester returned to the House on 18 Sept. 1666, after which he was present on 81 per cent of all sitting days and was named to at least 19 select committees. In the period in between the close of the previous session and the opening of the new one, Manchester’s attention had been taken up by a legal challenge to the will of his kinsman, Sir Francis Wortley, who had died leaving only one bastard child as his heir. The claim of this girl, Anne Wortley, to inherit Wortley's estates was opposed by the widowed Lady Wortley, but without success. TNA, DEL 1/74. Noted as one of the principal advocates of the bill for preventing the importation of Irish cattle, Manchester’s support for the measure may have been a demonstration of his suspicion of the current regime in Ireland and its relative leniency towards Catholics, which he may have shared with other former Parliamentarian proponents of the measure such as Ashley and Robartes. Seaward, Cavalier Parlt. 270. With tempers running high, on 29 Oct. he informed the House of a quarrel between Buckingham and Thomas Butler, Baron Butler of Moore Park (better known as earl of Ossory [I]), arising out of this business and on 3 Nov. Manchester was involved in a meeting at which Buckingham and Ossory were compelled to reconcile. Bodl. Carte 46, f. 394. Manchester again received North’s proxy on 5 Nov. (which was vacated by North's death).

On 19 Nov. 1666 Manchester chaired the committee on the controversial measure to render illegitimate the children of John Manners^* [613], styled Lord Roos, the future duke of Rutland, by his estranged wife, Lady Anne Roos. On 26 Nov. he was entrusted with the proxy of her father-in-law, John Manners, 8th earl of Rutland. On 29 Nov. 1666 he reported from the committee that Buckingham wanted to be heard by counsel before the bill was reported, as he regarded himself as the rightful holder of the title of Lord Roos. On 6 Dec. the committee was ordered to find some expedient to settle this matter, and Manchester continued to preside over the committee, reporting on the 12th that none could be found. However, after further debate the problem was recommitted to the same committee. On 7 Jan. 1667 Manchester reported the bill together with a proviso dealing with Buckingham’s claim to the title of Roos. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 112, 116-17, 127, 129, 131. Underscoring once again his role as a mediator between court and Parliament Manchester was supposed to have been ordered by the king to scour the playhouses and brothels in search of absent members to force them to attend the House and forestall the business, though despite his best efforts, he was not able to secure the attendance of sufficient members to prevent the passage of a measure which was said to have made ‘the king and court mad’. Pepys Diary, vii. 399.

Manchester had been present at York’s installation as a Garter knight at the beginning of December 1666, the ceremony being performed in the king’s drawing room at Whitehall. TNA, ZJ 1/1, no. 110. Towards the end of the year attention returned to the question of prohibiting the importation of Irish cattle. Manchester was nominated one of the managers of a conference concerning the Irish cattle bill on 14 Dec. and on 17 Dec. he was appointed to the committee named to draw up reasons why the Lords chose to insist on opposing the use of the word ‘nuisance’ within the bill, which had been inserted by the Commons in order to prevent any attempt to issue dispensations to individuals from complying with it. On 19 Dec. Manchester informed the House of another dispute involving Buckingham: a dispute with Henry Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester, during a conference in the Painted Chamber over the Canary patent. Once again, the two peers were ordered to appear before Manchester and Albemarle and undertake not to quarrel any more. The following day Manchester reported from the committee considering the petition to the king for a commission for examining the public accounts, and chaired a session of the committee concerning the inheritance of the Bodvile estate by Hon. Robert Robartes^‡. He reported the latter bill to the House on 29 December. On 2 Jan. 1667 he was again named one of the managers of conferences for the Irish cattle bill and the poll bill. On 10 Jan. he reported from the committee for the Swaffham churches bill. On 12 Jan. he reported from the conference concerning the public accounts bill and three days later from the committee of the whole House considering the same business.

From the middle of January reports circulated that Lady Manchester was at the point of death. Manchester was missing from the House for just over a week at the close of the month, presumably to deal with the consequences after his countess finally succumbed on 23 Jan. 1667. Bodl. North c.4, ff. 124-7; Verney ms mic. M636/21, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 17 Jan. 1667. In his absence, the House was informed on 29 Jan. of his desire to be heard along with two other trustees who were involved in the passing of the bill settling the lands of James Bertie, 5th Baron Norreys (later earl of Abingdon), during his minority. He resumed his place on 31 Jan. and on 2 Feb. he appeared before the committee considering Norreys’s bill. Although Manchester informed the committee that Colonel Cooke, another trustee, had much to offer on the subject and asked that he might be summoned, the committee resolved in a series of votes against delaying proceedings until Cooke could attend. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 173. In a move perhaps intended to safeguard the trustees’ position, Manchester was added to the committee on 4 February. On the same day he reported from the committee for privileges concerning the House of Commons’ desire to have a conference concerning the Lords’ judicature. He then reported from a subsequent committee of the whole concerning the bill to explain the poll bill.

During the summer of 1667 Manchester was involved in discussions surrounding the prospective marriage of his kinsman, Edward Montagu, styled Lord Hinchingbrooke (later 2nd earl of Sandwich), to Lady Anne Boyle. Add. 75354, ff. 44-45, 70-77. He also appears not to have allowed grief over the loss of his own wife to trouble him for long: reports circulated at the same time that he intended to marry for the fifth time. Bodl. Clarendon 85, f. 322. By July, it was clear that Manchester had set his cap at the widow of James Hay, earl of Carlisle, reports being put about that he was ‘so in love with the Lady Carlisle that he runs after her like one of twenty’. Verney ms mic. M636/21, Lady A. Hobart to Sir R. Verney, 4 July 1667. The king took a personal interest in Manchester's new suit, writing to Clarendon that:

I have long foreseen my lord chamberlain had a design to enter again into the bonds of matrimony, you know I never fail a friend at a dead list, I will do my part, if he can perform his, all’s well, the failings will not be on the widow’s side. CCSP, v. 615.

By the middle of July it was spoken of confidently that the marriage between Manchester and Lady Carlisle would ‘soon follow’. They were secretly married early the following month. Add. 75355, H. Hyde to Burlington, 18 July 1667; HMC Le Fleming, 52. At the same time, Manchester was one of a number of peers granted permission to raise a regiment. He was appointed along with Bridgwater and Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, to a committee that was established to advise on the retrenchment of royal expenditure at the end of July, of which Manchester, presumably because of his responsibilities as chamberlain, was a member. Bodl. Carte 46, f. 516.

Manchester took his seat in the House two days after the opening of the new session on 10 Oct. 1667. The same day, he received Holland’s proxy, which was vacated by the close of the session. Present on approximately 90 per cent of all sitting days, Manchester was named to at least 20 committees during the session and the same month he was also active as one of the commissioners deputed to negotiate with the French ambassador, Ruvigny, over the terms of the commercial treaty with France. TNA, PRO 31/3/116, p. 101. In a letter to Sandwich he expressed his surprise at the reports that Clarendon was to be put out of office and ‘hoped that it will go no further.’ On 12 Oct. Ossory reported that he had also expressed support for James Butler, duke of Ormond [I] and earl of Brecknock, in the House in the face of criticism of him led by Buckingham and others. Bodl. Carte 75, f. 562; Carte 220, ff. 296-8. On 29 Oct. Manchester informed the House that he had received a message from the king in response to concerns that a writ of summons had been sent to John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham), though still under age. In the event, Mulgrave defused the situation himself by avoiding taking his seat for a further two years. On 11 Nov. Manchester was entrusted with the proxy of his kinsman, Montagu of Boughton, who had by then all but retired from court. The proxy had been delivered to him by another relative, Montagu Lane. Four days later Manchester was himself excused attendance in the House on account of ‘extraordinary occasions’ at Whitehall for the queen’s birthday. Northants. RO, Montagu letters, xviii, p. 47. Having returned to his place, Manchester was nominated on 21 Nov. one of the reporters of the conference concerning the Lords’ failure to commit Clarendon and the resulting crisis in relations between the two Houses. The following day, he was named to the committee appointed to draw up the heads for a conference about the same business, from which he reported on 23 November. Again named a manager of two conferences concerning Clarendon on 25 and 27 Nov., on 29 Nov. he reported the effect of the second conference at which the Lords had rejected the precedents offered by the Commons for allowing impeachments to be brought without specific charges contained in them. Cork misc. box 1, Burlington's diary, 28 Nov. 1667. On 3 Dec. he was appointed by the House to inform the king that Clarendon had withdrawn and the following day he reported the king’s response. The same day (4 Dec.) he was also named to a subsequent conference from which he reported two days later. On 11 Dec. he reported (with Ashley) from the conference concerning freedom of speech in Parliament. Three days later (14 Dec.) Manchester reported from the committee nominated to draw up reasons why the Lords dissented from the Commons’ vote about Clarendon.

Final years, 1668-71

At the opening of 1668 there were rumours that Manchester was likely to be put out as lord chamberlain. Sir John Hobart^‡ was at pains to quash this as a misunderstanding, emphasizing that ‘we never talked here of the removal of the lord chamberlain to the king but only to the queen’s.’ (The queen’s chamberlain was Clarendon’s son, Henry Hyde, Viscount Cornbury, later 2nd earl of Clarendon). Bodl Tanner 45, f. 249. Manchester wrote to Arlington in February 1668 to recommend the head bailiff of Westminster as one of the commissioners for the wine tax. CSP Dom. 1667-8, p. 251. He remained active in the House, informing the Lords on 5 Mar. 1668 of the time appointed by the king to receive their address relating to foreign nobility and on 14 Mar. he reported from the committee of the whole House debating the bill against atheism and profaneness. He reported again from the committee of the whole considering the same business at the close of the month. On 7 Apr. he was added to the committee for trade. Manchester reported from the committee for the Ashdown forest bill on 13 Apr. and on 23 Apr. he was one of the peers nominated to join with a Commons committee to present the king with the votes of both Houses relating to the wearing of English manufacture. The following day, Manchester and Anglesey reported from the conference concerning Sir William Penn^‡, and on 5 May he informed the House that he and Charles Stuart, 3rd duke of Richmond, had attended the king with a message concerning Sir John Wintour. The same day Manchester was one of three peers ordered to request a delay to the adjournment so that the House could to respond to the Commons’ questioning of certain matters of privilege. Stowe 303, ff. 22-31. Later that afternoon, he reported the king's agreement to the postponement.

Manchester entertained the king, York and Prince Rupert, duke of Cumberland, at his house at Waltham in July, treating them ‘with much magnificence.’ London Gazette, 2 July 1668. The following month he attended for the adjournment of 11 Aug. when he informed the House of the king’s determination, ‘considering the season of the year, and that there are but few Lords in town’ to adjourn to 10 November. The House was then adjourned again to 1 Mar. 1669 before finally resuming in October. The king’s declaration of March 1669 that he would put into execution the laws against holding conventicles threatened to cause Manchester some embarrassment when it was pointed out to the king that Manchester was a member of the congregation at Manton’s meeting house. Manchester advised Manton to forbear from preaching, but the following week it was reported that he had resumed his services. Margaret Elmes believed that the Presbyterians had ‘prevailed with the king to let them alone, notwithstanding he said so much against them, which shows they have a great interest.’ Verney ms mic. M636/23, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 31 Mar., 7 Apr. 1669. Manchester was presumably involved in securing the concession. In June he was one of five peers named to a standing committee of the council appointed to investigate the question of conventicles. Add. 36916, f. 139.

Shortly before the opening of the new session, it was reported that he was very sick, and that in the event of his death he was to be succeeded as lord chamberlain by Charles Howard, earl of Carlisle. Ibid. f. 144. He was absent at the opening of the session and although he rallied sufficiently to take his seat on 25 Oct, he attended just two days before absenting himself for a further fortnight. He returned to the House again on 10 Nov. after which he was present on 64 per cent of all sitting days. Speculation about his likely successor continued nevertheless to circulate that month. Richmond’s name was added to those believed to have pretensions to the office. HMC Buccleuch, i. 450. Manchester’s poor health seems to have limited his activities in the session. He was added to the committee for the bill to prevent frauds in the exportation of wool on his first day in the chamber and on 16 Nov. he was added to the committee for accounts, but he was otherwise named to just one further committee in the session.

By the spring of 1670, however, Manchester appears to have recovered much of his old vigour. He took his seat at the opening of the new session on 14 Feb., after which he was present on 87 per cent of all sitting days, and was named to some 39 committees. On 3 Mar. he reported from the committee considering the proposed union between England and Scotland and on 10 Mar. he and the lord steward, Ormond, were requested to wait on the king to arrange when the House might attend him with their votes concerning union. Manchester reported from the committee for Lady Lee’s bill on 18 Mar. and on 30 Mar. he was appointed one of the reporters of the conference for the conventicles bill. Nominated a reporter of two further conferences on the subject on 4 Apr., the following day he registered his dissent from the resolution to agree with the Commons’ amendment, which allowed peers’ houses to be searched.

Manchester took his seat following the summer recess on 24 October. On 17 Nov. he was entrusted with the proxy of his kinsman, Warwick, which was vacated by the session’s close, and two days later he was added to the committee for the naturalization bill. On 8 Dec. Manchester appeared before the committee considering the bill to empower the executors of his son-in-law, Henry Ingram, Viscount Irwin [S], to sell lands for payment of his debts, and reassured the committee that enough would remain to honour the payment of his daughter's £1,000 jointure. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 378. Continuing to sit after a break of just four days over the new year, on 16 Jan. 1671 Manchester informed the House (in the absence of the lord great chamberlain) of the appointment of Sir Edward Carteret as black rod. Two days later he was added to the committee for the bill for examining the accounts of money given to the poor during the last plague and on 20 Jan. he reported from the committee of the whole House on the bill to prevent maiming and wounding. He was heavily involved in the progress of this bill (the consequence of the unprovoked assault on a Member of the Commons, Sir John Coventry^‡, by army thugs responding to his off-colour joke about the king’s taste for actresses): he reported from the select committee on 22 Jan., from a conference on 27 Jan., chaired a further committee on 4 Feb. and a conference on 6 February. He reported the result of a conference on the bill for the bishops of Bangor and St Asaph on 6 Mar. and three days later he reported from the committee concerning the assault on Lord Steward Ormond. Two days later, along with the lord steward, he informed the House that he had attended the king about the presentation of the House’s petition against the growth of popery and on 13 Mar. he was nominated one of the reporters of the conference for the additional corn and salt measures bill. The following month, Manchester was appointed one of the managers of the conference for the bill imposing additional penalties on foreign commodities, from which he reported two days later (12 April). Ordered to attend the king to confirm when he would receive the House’s address concerning the wearing of garments of English manufacture on 17 Apr., Manchester reported back three days later and on 22 Apr. he was asked for the last time to attend the king to convey the House’s thanks.

Manchester died during the night of 5 May 1671, following the onset of an acute attack of colic. London Gazette, 4 May 1671; CSP Dom. 1671, p. 220. In spite of aspersions cast upon him by Bramston that he had indulged in selling offices, an accusation that seems to have been reflected in an inquiry into the sale of places in 1663, Manchester seems not to have profited much from his years as lord chamberlain. Seaward, Cavalier Parlt. 214, 224; Bramston Autobiog. 118. For a man of his rank, his income appears to have been comparatively modest: an assessment of 1662 valued his lands in Northamptonshire at £700 per annum. Add. 34222, f. 38. In his will, which he had drawn up ‘not a fortnight ago’ and which his kinsman, Sandwich, thought was not ‘over kind to his lady’, he named his heir, Mandeville, his younger sons, Edward and Henry Montagu, and his brother, George Montagu^‡, as executors. A loose paper accompanying the will conveyed an estate at Weybridge to the countess of Manchester, though Sandwich thought that it could not be disposed of in this way and further commented that the reason for Manchester’s relative lack of generosity to his wife was the result of a difference over the repayment of £1,500 to a Mr. Cheeke, Lady Manchester having pressed her husband to pay the debt, ‘which he was in no condition to do’. Mapperton, Sandwich mss jnl. x. 394-400. In addition to the Weybridge property, Manchester bequeathed a variety of furniture and jewels to his wife in the will proper; to his daughter, Lucy Montagu, he bequeathed £2,000 to be raised from his personal estate. To three of his seven sons, Manchester made provision for an annual rent charge of 500 marks to be divided between them, while he was at pains to explain the omission of another son, Henry Montagu, from any bequests, noting that it was ‘not for any dislike of him but by his own consent I having made a good provision for him by the place I gave him.’ He also gave instructions for his executors to secure the payment of a debt of £4,000 owing to him by the king. TNA, PROB 11/336. Manchester was buried, according to his wishes, at Kimbolton. The procession from London to the place of burial was reported to have been accompanied ‘by so many coaches as showed the high respect he was held in’. CSP Dom. 1671, pp. 237, 239. That respect was corroborated by Burnet, who referred to him as a man of ‘a soft and obliging temper, of no great depths, but universally beloved being both a virtuous and a generous man’, and by Ossory, who called him ‘one of the most obliging persons that ever I was acquainted with’. Burnet, i. 167; Carte 220, f. 264. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Mandeville, as 3rd earl of Manchester.