MONTAGU, Charles (c. 1662-1722)

Although a considerably more impressive figure than his father, Manchester was treated rather dismissively by Macky as ‘a gentleman of greater application than capacity; of good address, but no elocution; is very honest; a lover of the constitution of his country, which he takes pains to understand and serve’. While he was able to command substantial interest in Essex and Huntingdonshire and he was appointed to a number of prominent positions during his career, disappointment appears to have been one of the hallmarks of Manchester’s life. Although he was involved in a number of the central events of the period, he seems always to have lingered on the fringes, outshone by more talented rivals.

Shortly after his succession to the peerage, rumours circulated that Manchester was engaged in courting the daughter of the fabulously wealthy city merchant, Sir John Cutler^‡, bt. but it was speculated that he was unlikely to be successful as the king had her in mind for one of his sons, Charles Beauclerk, duke of St Albans. HMC Portland, iii. 379. Reports of this projected match circulated again a few years later in the autumn and early winter of 1687. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, ff. 318-19; BL, Verney ms mic. M636/42, newsletter [6 Dec. 1687]. In the event, Cutler’s daughter eventually married his Cornish patron, Charles Bodvile Robartes, 2nd earl of Radnor. Manchester officiated at the coronation of King James as carver to the queen consort and he continued to undertake ceremonial functions at subsequent coronations. He took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May 1685 and the same day introduced Daniel Finch^* [877], 2nd earl of Nottingham into the House. Manchester attended three quarters of all sitting days in the session during which he was named to four committees. By the close of the year he was already noted among those in opposition to the king’s policies and he was stripped of his command in the army. Add. 70013, f. 306; 72481, f. 95; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 367.

Manchester took the opportunity of his removal from office to travel abroad the following year. CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 446. He was at Brussels early in the summer of 1686 and in August he wrote from Utrecht to Bevil Skelton, ambassador at the Hague, passing on snippets of information about the movements of Ferguson and some of the other fugitives from Monmouth’s rebellion. Much of the information conveyed was public knowledge but it does appear that Manchester was attempting to curry favour with the regime by offering this intelligence. Add. 72524, ff. 180-1, Add. 41819, f. 221. Despite this, later that month he met with William of Orange at Dieren and it appears to have been as a result of this that Manchester became committed to the conspiracy to bring the prince over to England.

Reckoned an opponent of moves to repeal the Test in January 1687, Manchester was estimated an opponent of the king’s policies in May of that year. In estimates compiled in November 1687 and January 1688 he was again listed among those opposed to overturning the Test act and in January 1688 he was also included by Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds), among the opposition. In June he was one of those proposed as a surety for Francis Turner, bishop of Ely, and on 15 June he was reported to have been one of those to offer to stand bail for the bishops. Bodl. Tanner 28, f. 76, Bodl. Carte 76, f. 28. Rumours of an impending match with the widowed Lady Irwin that September failed to come to fruition. In the late autumn the invasion of William of Orange seems to have driven such considerations from Manchester’s mind as he was among the first to turn out for the Prince, leading a party of retainers from Huntingdonshire first to Northampton and then to the rallying point at Nottingham. Verney ms mic. M636/43, P. Stewkeley to J. Verney, 26 Sept. 1688; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 479; Morrice, Entring Bk. iv. 356, 405. Present in the cavalcade that joined Prince William at Oxford, Manchester took his place among the Lords gathering in the Queen’s Presence Chamber on 21 Dec. and then attended three sessions in the House. Bodl. ms Eng. hist. d. 307, ff. 12-13; Kingdom without a King, 153. On 28 Dec. he was again in attendance at St James’s to hear the Prince’s speech. Kingdom without a King, 168.

After the Revolution

Manchester took his seat in the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689 after which he was present on 83 per cent of all sittings. On 31 Jan. he voted in favour of inserting the words declaring William and Mary king and queen in a division held in the committee of the whole. He then entered his dissent when this was negatived. On 4 Feb. he again voted to support the Commons’ employment of the term ‘abdicated’ rather than ‘deserted’, dissenting once more at the Lords’ refusal to concur and two days later he voted the same way again. He subscribed the protest on 6 Mar. against the passage of the bill for better regulating the trials of peers. A report that Manchester’s support for the Revolution had been acknowledged with his appointment as captain of the Yeomen of the Guard circulated in March. It was confirmed the following month. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 479; Morrice, Entring bk. v. 85. On 15 Apr. he joined with Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury, in introducing into the House the new king’s favourite, Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland. Manchester protested again on 10 July against all of the resolutions that day concerning the reversal of the Oates’s judgments. A fortnight later (24 July) he acted as one of the tellers on the question of whether to insist on the amendments to the reversal of the Oates judgments and on 30 July he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill reversing Oates’s conviction for perjury. Later that summer, Manchester responded to the request for a self-assessment sent out on behalf of George Savile, marquess of Halifax, insisting that he had ‘not any moneys upon security or otherwise, nor any personal estate whatsoever than what is excepted in the late act.’ Chatsworth, Halifax coll. B.65. Lack of money would be a recurrent theme throughout Manchester’s career. He took his place in the House for the second session of the Convention on 23 Oct. 1689 of which he attended 86 per cent of all sitting days. In a list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690, Carmarthen (as Danby had become) reckoned Manchester to be an opponent of the court.

Active in employing his interest in the elections of early 1690, Manchester saw the return of his brother, Robert Montagu, for Huntingdonshire. He was also successful in supporting Henry Mildmay^‡ and Sir Francis Masham^‡, bt. for Essex in the face of a concerted challenge by Charles Sackville, 6th earl of Dorset, who appeared for Sir Anthony Abdy, 2nd bt. and Eliab Harvey^‡ as well as from Henry Compton, bishop of London, who also set his weight behind Harvey. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 179. Manchester took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690 after which he was present on 94 per cent of all sitting days. On 29 Apr. he introduced his kinsman Henry Yelverton, as Viscount Longueville, and on 13 May he subscribed the protest when it was decided not to allow the corporation of London more time to be heard over the bill for restoring the corporation. The following month Manchester accompanied the king to Ireland where he served alongside him at the Boyne. He returned to England in September and the following month it was reported that he was to be married ‘very favourably’ to Dodington Greville, one of the daughters and coheirs of Robert Greville, 4th Baron Brooke. Add. 70124, A. Stephens to Sir E. Harley, 12 Sept. 1690, Add. 61456, ff. 6-7. Further reports of the match circulated early in 1691 and they were married shortly after on 26 Feb. in the parish church at Hale, close to the new countess’s maternal home in Hampshire. HMC Finch, iii. 19; Manchester, Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 90.

Manchester’s marriage may have been the reason for his early departure from Parliament. Having taken his place in the House at the beginning of the new session on 2 Oct. 1690, he was absent from the final month of the session of which he attended 41 per cent of all sitting days. He reported the optimistic tone of the Commons’ debates over the army estimates to one correspondent noting that, ‘most of the speeches tended as if they did expect 40,000 men to land in France.’ Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 62. On 6 Oct. he voted against the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough from their imprisonment in the Tower, with Carmarthen adding the comment that he was ‘not willing to lose his place’. Browning, Danby, iii. 180. The same month he joined with Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, in standing bail for Peterborough, at £5,000 a piece. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 113. Having attended the prorogation day on 28 Apr. 1691 Manchester took his seat in the new session on 22 Oct., after which he was present on 82 per cent of all sitting days. On 17 Nov. he was nominated one of the managers of a conference for the safety of the kingdom and a month later (on 17 Dec.) he was named one of the managers of the conference for the treason bill. The same month he joined with his Essex neighbour, Charles Mildmay, 18th Baron Fitzwalter, Thomas Grey^* [1237], 2nd earl of Stamford, and Nicholas Stratford, bishop of Chester, in pressing ‘very much’ for the suppression of playhouses, following an incident during which Longueville was assaulted. HMC Portland, iii. 485; Add. 70015, f. 272.

Manchester was present for the prorogation of 24 May. He then returned to the House for the new session on 4 Nov. 1692, after which he was present on 89 per cent of all sitting days. On 5 Dec. he and his brother-in-law, William Pierrepont^‡, submitted a petition to the House in right of their wives, who were locked in a legal dispute with Fulke Greville, 5th Baron Brooke, over the former Lord Brooke’s personal estate. On 22 Dec. Manchester chaired sessions of committees concerning Sir William Mannock’s bill and Sir Robert Smith’s bill. The following day, chairmanship of the committee for Smith’s bill was assumed by John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater, though Manchester was in the chair again for a further session of the committee for Mannock’s bill that day, which was eventually reported to the House by Longueville on 30 December. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, pp. 125-6. In addition to undertaking his duties as a committee chairman, Manchester also registered his dissent at the order to reverse the judgment in the cause Leach v. Thompson on 23 December. Although he voted in favour of committing the place bill on 31 Dec, four days later, on 3 Jan. 1693, he voted to reject the bill (a division list for the business noting his apparent change of heart). Manchester presided over a session of the committee for Alwood’s bill on 2 Jan. 1693, which was adjourned without discussion and the chairmanship was again later taken over by Bridgwater. On 5 Jan., having in the meantime chaired two further sessions, Manchester reported from the committee for Smith’s bill. On 17 Jan. he chaired a session of the committee for Pitts’ bill, which was again adjourned without discussion, and the same day he registered a further dissent at the resolution not to hear the judges over the Banbury peerage claim. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, pp. 128-9, 130, 138. On 28 Jan. Stamford reported from the privileges committee concerning Manchester’s dispute with Brooke, which was concluded in Brooke’s favour. Manchester found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder on 4 February. State Trials, xii. 1048-9. The following month, on the final day of the session, Manchester was nominated one of the managers of the conference for the bill prohibiting trade with France.

Present for the prorogations of 2 May and 26 Oct. 1693 Manchester took his seat in the new session on 7 Nov., after which he was present on 81 per cent of all sittings. The death of Manchester’s brother, Robert, from a fever, necessitated a by-election in December, but Manchester was successful in securing the return of his candidate, John Proby^‡. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 235. He was named one of the managers of two conferences concerning the admirals who commanded the summer fleet on 3 and 15 Jan. 1694. On 17 Feb. he demonstrated predictable family loyalty by voting in favour of reversing the court of chancery’s dismission of the case between his kinsman, Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, and John Granville, earl of Bath. Manchester acted as one of the tellers for the division and the same day he also registered his dissent at the order to dismiss Montagu’s petition. Manchester was again to the fore in a by-election at Essex brought about by the death of John Lemott Honeywood^‡ in January 1694. Both Manchester and Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, were said to have been active in supporting the candidate of the ‘factious party’, Fitzwalter’s younger brother, Benjamin Mildmay^* , later 19th Baron Fitzwalter. Their efforts on Mildmay’s behalf proved to be even more controversial when it was revealed that Manchester and two other peers had actually voted in the poll on 23 February. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 180-1, 183. Despite this, they were frustrated in their attempt and Sir Charles Barrington,^‡ bt. was elected instead. Bramston Autobiog. 378. Manchester returned to the House the following day and on 28 Feb. he was one of the peers to sign off the Journal. He was also nominated one of the managers of two conferences concerning the mutiny bill on 6 and 29 March. Manchester was again active as a committee chairman; in January he chaired sessions of select committees on an estate bill on behalf of Sir Charles Barrington; in February one on behalf of Nathaniel Brent; and in March he presided over a series of committees considering bills for Sir John Maynard^‡, Brewer, Turner and the bill vesting the estates of the Mildmay heiresses in trustees to be sold for satisfaction of debts. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, pp. 191, 196, 209-13, 215-16, 224-5. On 8 Mar. he reported from the committee on Maynard’s estate bill. Manchester reported from the committee considering Mildmay’s bill on 19 Mar. (presumably a cause in which he had some local interest) and on 31 Mar. he again signed off the Journal record for the day. The following month, on 16 Apr., in the absence of Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey, he officiated as lord great chamberlain for the day and the following day he chaired the committee of the whole considering the bill for the better discovery of coin clippers. Manchester chaired a further committee of the whole for the militia bill on 18 Apr. and on 25 Apr. he again put his name to the Journal.

Manchester took his seat in the House on 12 Nov. 1694, after which he was present on 91 per cent of sitting days in the session. On 6 Jan. 1695 he reported from the committee for Henry Northleigh’s bill (though there seems not to be any record of his having previously chaired any meetings considering the bill) and on 26 Jan., he reported from the committee for John Estoft’s bill (of which he had presided over two sessions in committee). PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, pp. 245, 247. Manchester was also active in a series of divisions on the treason trials bill early in the year, acting as teller on three separate divisions on 8 Jan. (alongside Louis de Duras, earl of Feversham), on a further division on 23 Jan. (alongside Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester) and again on 20 Feb. (alongside Robert Leke, 3rd earl of Scarsdale). Manchester was one of those to subscribe the protest of 18 Apr. against exonerating John Sheffield, marquess of Normanby (later duke of Buckingham) from any wrongdoing over accusations that he had benefited financially from the passage of certain bills during the session. Four days later he was among the dozen peers to be selected by ballot to undertake examination of Sir Thomas Cooke^‡. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 464.

Manchester’s good standing with the regime was reflected in the king’s agreement to stand godfather to his heir, William Montagu, styled Viscount Mandeville, in February 1695. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 439. The elections that autumn saw the Manchester interest successful in several contests with Heneage Montagu^‡ returned for Huntingdonshire and John Pockington^‡ at Huntingdon. Manchester took his seat in the new Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695, after which he was present on 85 per cent of all sitting days. On 23 Dec. he acted as teller for those in favour of adding a clause to the treason trials bill requiring all the peers to be summoned to attend the trial of a peer or peeress, which was carried by a majority of 17 votes. HMC Hastings, iv. 318-19; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/31, p. 116. Manchester chaired the committee considering the papers from the commissioners for customs on 8 Jan. 1696, reporting back to the House the following day. He chaired a subsequent session of the same committee on 16 Jan. and reported back once more four days later. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, pp. 313, 334. On 31 Jan. he reported from the committee considering the bill enabling trustees to sell part of the manor of Berkhampstead, which was passed with the committee’s recommended amendments. Prior to this, on 9 Jan. Manchester acted as one of the tellers for the division over the reading of the petition of Sir Richard Verney, later 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke, to be granted a writ of summons and on 17 Jan. he was one of 11 peers to subscribe the protest at the resolution to allow Verney’s counsel leave to be heard at the bar. PA, HL/PO/JO/1/67, pp. 148-9. On 13 Feb. Manchester again served as one of the tellers for the division on whether the House should continue during discussions of the Verney barony, which was carried by 43 votes to 31. Although Manchester was listed as the first teller, it seems reasonable to assume that he told for those opposed to the motion on this occasion. A newsletter of 15 Feb. reported that Manchester then joined with more than 20 peers in subscribing the protest at the resolution that Verney was entitled to be summoned as Baron Willoughby de Broke, though only one protest was recorded in the Journal on this occasion, which was signed by just five peers, Manchester not being one of them. The following day (14 Feb.) he was one of 15 peers nominated to the select committee to draw up a report to the king concerning the Verney peerage. HEHL, HM 30659 (55); PA, HL/PO/JO/1/67, pp. 229, 233. The following month, on 9 Mar, Manchester acted as teller in the division held in a committee of the whole for the elections regulation bill and, following this, he was again active as chairman of a series of committees of the whole. On 25, 26 and 27 Mar. he reported from the committee of the whole considering the bill for the encouragement of seamen. On 6 Apr. he reported from the committees of the whole concerning the bill requiring lawyers to take the oaths and the bill for the better regulation of juries: he asked that more time be given for discussion of the latter. The same day he was nominated a manager of the conference for the privateers’ bill. On 7 Apr. he reported from the committee of the whole on the bill for prohibiting the wearing of India silks and calicoes, which was ordered to be recommitted. Manchester reported from a second committee of the whole touching this business on 20 Apr. and three days later from a further committee of the whole for the bill for better regulating juries, which was recommended as being fit to pass with certain amendments but was then ordered to be recommitted. Two days later he reported from a third committee of the whole concerning this bill, after which it passed with the recommended amendments.

Embassy to Venice and after, 1697-1702

Manchester dined with the Venetian ambassadors on 12 May 1696 and on 16 June he was present in the House for the prorogation. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 57. He then took his seat in the second session on 20 Oct, after which he was present on 82 per cent of all sitting days. On 20 Nov. he presided over the committee for the bill to enable trustees to sell part of Edmund Warner’s estate, which he reported to the House on 24 November. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, p. 409. On 23 Dec. he voted in favour of attainting Sir John Fenwick^‡, bt. Add. 47608 pt. 5, f. 138. Although he continued to attend the House conscientiously, it was not until 5 Mar. 1697 that Manchester was again prominent in chairing a committee of the whole, this one concerning the bill for continuing additional duties on certain types of merchandise. The same day he was also nominated one of the managers of a conference for the bill prohibiting India silks.

That spring Manchester was appointed ambassador to Venice, for which he was granted £1,500 for equipage and £10 a day for his expenses. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 199; CSP Dom. 1697, p. 96. He delayed his departure until later in the year and in June he and Mr Pocklington (presumably John Pocklington^‡, a lawyer closely associated with Manchester, and Member of the Commons for Huntingdon), appeared before the lords justices to request that Huntingdon be spared from having troops quartered on the town, complaining that the inhabitants had lost all their hay the previous year. CSP Dom. 1697, p. 201. The following month it was reported that Lady Manchester, by then reputed an ‘eminent toast’ and much ‘followed by the fine gentlemen’, was retiring to the country for the duration of her husband’s embassy, for which Shrewsbury had by then recommended Manchester should be ‘putting himself in readiness.’ Add. 75376, f. 82; HMC Buccleuch, ii. 492. In August Manchester was ordered by the king to hasten his departure but he continued to drag his heels. CSP Dom. 1697, p. 308. Part of the reason was no doubt the need for him to settle his affairs before leaving the country but there also appears to have been some dispute over the size of his establishment and particularly whether he would be permitted to take a secretary. He considered it a ‘diminution’ to have less than the previous ambassador was allowed. Such matters seem to have been settled by the middle of the summer and on 7 Sept. Manchester informed Shrewsbury that he would be ready to set out within a fortnight. HMC Buccleuch, ii. 511-12, 549. Later that month Manchester finally departed on his embassy accompanied by his brother, Heneage Montagu, who was inaccurately described by at least one correspondent as being heir presumptive to the earldom after Lady Manchester suffered a miscarriage. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 282, 285; CSP Dom. 1697, p. 402; Verney ms mic. M636/50, A. Nicholas to Sir J. Verney, 30 Sept. 1697.

Manchester arrived at Venice in December 1697 where he remained until the spring of the following year. The embassy proved an unhappy experience, tainted towards the end by the death of Heneage Montagu from a fever. Beinecke lib., Osborn collection, Biscoe-Maunsell newsletters, 23 Apr. 1698; Flying Post or the Post Master, 19 Apr. 1698. In his distress over the loss of brother, Manchester omitted to inform Shrewsbury of his intention to leave his posting. Manchester, Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 36. Having secured permission to depart from the Venetian senate in March, he returned to England on 19 May 1698. The following day he arrived in London and on 21 May waited on the king to present his formal report of his return. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 350, 383; CSP Dom. 1698, p. 282. He took his place in the House two days later and proceeded to attend on 28 days during what was left of the session. On 25 May he was nominated one of the managers of the conference for the blasphemy bill. The following month, Manchester’s nominee, Robert Apreece^‡, was returned in the by-election for Huntingdonshire caused by the death of Heneage Montagu. On 17 June Manchester chaired the committees for the Shaftesbury workhouses bill and for the bill for preventing the coining of half-pence and farthings. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, p. 604. He reported from the former the same day and from the latter committee on 20 June. The same day he reported from a further two meetings of the committee of the whole: first, on the bill to increase the time for purchasing annuities and second on the bill for preventing frauds in collecting duties on marriages. The following month, on 5 July, Manchester was added to the committee for the Journal.

Active in the elections that summer, Manchester was again to the fore voting in both the county election and the election for Maldon, actions that precipitated an order of the following year forbidding peers from voting in elections for the Commons. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 199. Manchester took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698, after which he was present on 83 per cent of all sitting days. On 8 Mar. 1699 he chaired and then reported from the committee established to inspect the Journals for precedents in preparation for the trial of his kinsman, Edward Rich, 6th earl of Warwick. The same day he also chaired sessions of two other committees, though both were adjourned to later dates when the chairmanship was taken over by Rochester. Manchester chaired further sessions of the committee concerning Warwick’s trial on 22 and 23 Mar. and the following day he reported the committee’s opinion that no peer who failed to attend the trial should be provided with tickets for places in the court, as well as their findings concerning the previous trials of Pembroke and Mohun. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, pp. 37, 68. The following month, Manchester was appointed by the court of arches to act as one of the commissioners considering the appeal lodged by Thomas Watson, bishop of St Davids, against his suspension. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 506.

Towards the end of spring 1699, Manchester was again entrusted with an embassy, this time with the post at Paris, which had fallen vacant following the king’s decision to promote Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, to the office of secretary of state. Bodl. Carte 228, f. 311; UNL, PwA 967/1-2. Again granted £1,500 for his equipage, Manchester was allowed £100 a week for his ordinary expenditure. CSP Dom. 1699, p. 104. In his absence his London residence in Duke Street was leased to the lord privy seal, John Lowther, Viscount Lonsdale. Add. 75369, R. Crawford to Halifax, 30 May 1699. Manchester arrived in France towards the end of July. He was absent from England and the House for the ensuing two years. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 540-1. His expedition was again marked with sorrow by the death of his heir, Mandeville, who appears to have succumbed shortly before Manchester’s departure, by his own poor health during the first weeks in Paris and also by warnings from the outgoing ambassador of the activities of Jacobite intriguers in France. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 528; CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 230; Chatsworth, 73.28, Ld. Tavistock to Lady Russell, 12 Sept. 1699; Beinecke Lib., Manchester pprs. (mic. reel 1), Jersey to Manchester, 28 Aug. 1699. During his absence he was kept informed of events in Parliament through a series of newsletters conveyed to him by Robert Yard^‡ and by a regular correspondence with his friend, Jersey, and protégé, Matthew Prior^‡. Beinecke Lib., Manchester pprs. (mic. reel 1), Yard to Manchester, 28 Dec. 1699, 29 Jan. 1700, 15 Feb. 1700, 4 Apr. 1700; HMC 8th Rep. pt. ii. 72. These enabled him to comment in May 1700 on the turbulent alterations at home surrounding the attempts to impeach John Somers, Baron Somers, and others:

I do not doubt but that the king will take such measures as will be for his service and should be sorry if the Whigs should carry themselves so as not to be as zealous for the king’s interest out of employment as ever they was when they was in. You may easily think Lord Somers cannot but have a great many friends, but they may show their friendship and yet continue their duty to the king; I suppose all affairs are to be managed by other hands, which I hope will make the Parliament more reasonable, though I very much fear it, and it will be well if they do not come at last to name our ministers; for my part, as I have always acted on a principle with little regard to my own advantage, so I shall continue, let the consequence be what it will. HMC Bath, iii. 408; Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 6, f. 43.

In July Manchester was included in a list of Whigs peers thought likely to support the Junto. Eg. 3359, ff. 37-38.

The majority of Manchester’s embassy was dominated by the need to tread carefully within the French court while avoiding unwelcome encounters with members of the exiled Jacobite household. London Post, 6 Sept. 1699; Manchester, Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 125. Shortly after his arrival he was said to have been involved in an embarrassing encounter with the former queen, Mary Beatrice, when his retinue barred her way in a narrow lane. When he refused to give way, she threatened to pistol him, to which he was reported to have said, ‘she might if she pleased’ before allowing the guards to lead his horses past her carriage. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 670. Such comical episodes hinted at the more serious diplomatic tensions Manchester was required to negotiate in France. At the opening of 1700 he gave it as his opinion that, ‘I cannot think there is any method taken now at St Germain, the late king being so ill that he cannot last long’, but in May he hinted at the unsettled state of affairs that still persisted:

the little hopes our friends at St Germain have is now in Scotland and if that fails, all things will be quiet till the next meeting of our Parliament. I should think instead of a change in the ministry, we had a new Parliament, it would be more for the king’s service, not much good can be expected from a last sessions.

Besides his general concerns about the consequences of a change in the ministry, Manchester was also bothered by the repercussions of the expected removal of Jersey to Ireland. ‘It will be a concern to me, having now to deal with a man of honour and one who is true to the king.’ Matters were rendered more delicate still by the unexpected death of Princess Anne’s last remaining child, the duke of Gloucester, towards the end of July. Not long before this, Manchester had written to Prior expressing his agreement with him that, ‘it is now of great consequence who dies in case the king is well, whose life is all we have to trust to’, thereby emphasizing the slight thread by which men of Manchester’s stamp hung their hopes at this point. Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 6, ff. 5, 28, 43, 55. Manchester alerted London to the refusal of the Jacobite court to go into mourning for Gloucester, and the appointment of Charles Middleton^‡, 2nd earl of Middleton [S], as governor to the Pretender in an effort to woo protestant opinion in England. Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 48/109. Other reports suggested that it was only the former king and queen (and not their entire court) who had decided not to adopt mourning for the young prince. HMC Portland, iv. 4. Manchester himself fell dangerously ill towards the end of August, but he had recovered by the following month when he agreed reluctantly to visit the French king at Fontainebleau. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 681; Beinecke Lib., Manchester pprs. (mic. reel 2), Manchester to Lord Chamberlain, 24 Sept. 1700. Warned that the Pretender was also expected to be there, Manchester reported the effect of his visit triumphantly and claimed to have humbled the Jacobites ‘mightily’; he noted that he had seen ‘several faces I knew in England but I hope never to see them there again.’ Beinecke Lib., Manchester pprs. (mic. reel 2), Manchester to Jersey, 27 Sept, 11 Oct. 1700.

Manchester wrote to his cousin (and former stepfather), Charles Montagu, Baron (later earl of) Halifax, in December 1700, congratulating him on his elevation to the peerage, but bemoaning the fact that he could not ‘comprehend what we are doing or what measures we intend to take with France.’ Beinecke Lib., Manchester pprs. (mic. reel 2, Manchester to Halifax, 19 Dec. 1700; Manchester, Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 82. More particularly, he sought information from Halifax about the state of affairs in England. He complained of his continuing financial difficulties, worrying about his future given the recent ministerial alterations: ‘when I see all my friends in a manner laid aside, what can I expect?’ Understanding that there was likely to be a new post in Spain he queried whether he might be better off there as ‘the expense will be less and the allowance the same.’ At the same time, Prior sought Manchester’s assistance in the forthcoming elections at Cambridge University, although in the event he withdrew and was returned at East Grinstead on Dorset’s interest instead. Manchester, Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 82, 84-5; HP Commons, 1690-1715, v. 221.

By the following year, Manchester’s mission appeared to be in trouble. It was reported that he was received coldly at Versailles and in February 1701 that he was to be recalled ‘suddenly’ from his embassy. HMC Cowper, ii. 416; Bodl. Carte 228, f. 367. Lady Manchester, who was expecting another child, was granted leave to return to England in April to lie in (an heir, William Montagu^* , later 2nd duke of Manchester, and for now styled Viscount Mandeville, had been born in Paris the previous year), but the order for Manchester’s return was delayed until the end of the summer. Post Boy, 26 Apr. 1701; London Post with Intelligence Foreign and Domestick. At that point he was summoned home without first taking his leave in protest at the decision of the French court to recognize the Pretender’s succession to the throne of Britain upon the death of the James II. Flying Post, 20 Sept. 1701; London Gazette, 22 Sept. 1701; Luttrell, Brief Relations, v. 91, 93-94; CSP Dom. 1700-02, p. 422.

Manchester returned to town in October, after which he travelled to Windsor to wait on Princess Anne and her husband, Prince George, duke of Cumberland. English Post, 10 Oct. 1701; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 99; Post Boy, 16 Oct. 1701. He took his seat in the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701 and then proceeded to attend 78 per cent of all sitting days in the session. The previous month it had been rumoured that he was to be appointed lord privy seal as compensation for the loss of his place as ambassador. Add. 70149, Lady A. Pye to A. Harley, 22 Nov. 1701; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 109. In December reports circulated of further changes in the ministry and that either he or William Cavendish, styled marquess of Hartington (later 2nd duke of Devonshire), was to succeed Sir Charles Hedges^‡ as secretary of state. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 124. Although Manchester’s appointment as secretary was confirmed early the following year, a promotion that in all probability owed not a little to his being Halifax’s kinsman, some confusion ensued over whether he would be permitted to retain his place as captain of the Yeomen of the Guard. Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 3 Jan. 1702; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 125, 128; Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 299; NRS, GD406/1/7441. The king eventually ruled that he saw no reason why holding the one post should be incompatible with maintaining the other. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 44, f. 161. Sworn in as secretary of state on 4 Jan. 1702, on 19 Jan. Manchester was mentioned in Fuller’s examination before the House. On 8 Mar. it fell to him to inform the House of the king’s death and of the queen’s proclamation later that day. Towards the end of the following month he was one of the early ministerial casualties when he was put out of the office he had by then held for less than four months. Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 21 Apr. 1702; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 168.

The reign of Queen Anne 1702-6

Manchester took his seat in the new Parliament on 21 Oct. 1702, after which he was present on 88 per cent of all sitting days in the session. Between 24 Nov. and 2 Dec. he chaired four sessions of the committee concerning the trade commissioners and the following day (3 Dec.) he acted as one of the tellers for the division over the resolution to agree to the instruction to the committee of the whole concerning the occasional conformity bill. On 14 Dec. he chaired and then reported from the committee for John Cowper’s bill, in which he may have had some local interest, Cowper’s estate lying in Essex. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, pp. 238, 239, 241, 242, 243-4. Later that month, on 23 Dec. he was one of several peers present at a meeting in the Parliament office to search for precedents of bills with penalties begun in the Lords, a number of examples from the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII being unearthed in the search. Nicolson, London Diaries, 150.

At the beginning of January 1703, Nottingham estimated Manchester to be an opponent of the occasional conformity bill and on 16 Jan. Manchester voted accordingly in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. Three days later, he courted the queen’s displeasure by subscribing the protest when the House failed to agree with the committee’s recommendation concerning the bill for Prince George. Manchester was nominated one of the managers of a series of conferences towards the close of the session between 17 and 25 February. Following the prorogation, Manchester was one of several former envoys to be alarmed by news that the queen had given orders for all plate issued prior to her reign to be returned, though it was predicted that he and his cousin, Montagu, would be likely to be allowed to retain theirs in lieu of debts owed to them. Add. 72498, f. 77. Manchester returned to the House just under a fortnight into the following session on 22 Nov. and was present on 69 per cent of all sittings. In advance of the session he had been noted by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as a likely opponent of the occasional conformity bill and was noted similarly in Sunderland’s subsequent forecast at the end of November or beginning of December. On 14 Dec. Manchester voted accordingly against passing the bill. On 1 Feb. 1704 he chaired and then reported from the committee for Sir Robert Kemp’s bill (another Essex landholder) and on 5 Feb. he reported from the committee considering the bill for his kinsman, Edward Henry Rich, 7th earl of Warwick, which was recommended as fit to pass with one amendment. On 17 Feb. he reported from the committee for the bill enabling the treasury to compound with one John Ferrar (a session of which he had chaired two days previously) and the same day he also reported from the committee for the estate bill of Thomas Harlackenden Bowes. Four days later (21 Feb.) Manchester reported from the committee for a naturalization bill, though this appears to have been presided over by Stamford. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, pp. 362, 374, 384, 386-7. Present at a gathering held at Sunderland’s on 21 Mar., and again at the home of Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, two days later, on 24 Mar. Manchester signed the protest at the decision not to put the question whether the information contained in the examination of Sir John Maclean was imperfect. Many of his fellow subscribers had also attended the dinner the previous night. On the 27th Manchester was one of a number of peers present at a dinner held at the Queen’s Arms. TNA, C 104/116, pt. 1.

Manchester took his seat in the following session on 3 Nov. 1704, after which he was present on almost 70 per cent of all sitting days. The following month he invited the Essex gentlemen to his seat at Leez to settle on candidates for the forthcoming county election, as a result of which Sir Francis Masham^‡ and Henry Howard, styled Lord Walden, later earl of Bindon, were selected. Back in the House, on 16 Feb. Manchester reported from the committee, which had met the previous day, for the bill to allow the lord treasurer or treasury commissioners to compound with John Mason and John Pickering Silkman. On 27 Feb. he was nominated to the committee to consider the heads for a conference concerning the Aylesbury men. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/7, p. 70.

Following the dissolution, Manchester was noted in a list compiled in April as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession. Stowe 224, ff. 330-1. The elections of the following month saw the Whigs successful in Essex. Manchester was also able to secure the return of his nominee, Pocklington, for Huntingdonshire, but he was subjected to a humiliating reception at Cambridge University, where he should have expected to wield some interest as its high steward but was instead abused by the chaplain of Trinity. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 56; Nicolson, London Diaries, 358-9. Having taken his seat in the new Parliament on 7 Nov. 1705, on 15 Nov. he officiated as lord great chamberlain for the introduction of his kinsman, Ralph Montagu, now duke of Montagu. Nicolson, London Diaries, 304. Manchester attended approximately half of all sitting days in the session and on 23 Nov. he reported from the committee of the whole concerning resolutions relating to Scotland. The following year, on 15 Feb. 1706 he reported from the committee for Vorbes’s bill, though Charles Finch, 4th earl of Winchilsea, had served as chairman of the committee. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/7, 159. On 28 Feb. he was nominated to the committee to draw up reasons in advance of a conference on a bill for settling the estate of Edward Conway, earl of Conway. Manchester reported from the conference on 2 Mar. and on 11 Mar. he was one of those nominated to manage the conference concerning letter sent by Sir Rowland Gwynne^‡ to Stamford.

Return to Venice and after, 1706-9

Manchester was visited by William Wake, bishop of Lincoln, during the summer recess and in June 1706 he introduced the mayor and aldermen of Huntingdon to the queen so that they could present her with their loyal address. LPL, Ms 1770, f. 22; London Gazette, 24 June 1706. In September it was reported that he would once again be sent ambassador to Venice in an effort to convince the Venetians either to join the grand alliance or to provide supplies for the war effort. (Thomas Wentworth, Baron Raby (the future earl of Strafford), had refused to take on ‘an employ so remote.’ London Gazette, 9 Sept. 1706; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 85; Marlborough Godolphin Corresp. 677; Add. 61138, ff. 142-4.) The following month it was suggested by Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, that Manchester should also to be given credentials to wait on the duke of Savoy on his way to his embassy, though John Churchill^*[747], duke of Marlborough requested that no such decision should be made until his own return to England. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 725, 729. With the extent of his mission still undecided Manchester attended the prorogation of 22 Oct. and he was then recorded as having been engaged in further discussions with Bishop Wake and others at the House on 18 Nov. in advance of the new session. LPL, Ms 1770, ff. 29-30. He took his seat in the House at the opening of the session on 3 Dec. after which he was present on just over half of all sitting days. On 25 Dec. he attended Christmas Eucharist with Nicolson, Richard Cumberland, bishop of Peterborough, and Henry Bentinck, styled Viscount Woodstock (later 2nd earl of Portland), at St Margaret’s, Westminster. Nicolson, London Diaries, 404. On 30 Dec. Manchester introduced a clutch of his colleagues who had been promoted within the peerage: Robert Bertie, formerly 4th earl, now marquess of Lindsey; Henry Grey, marquess of Kent; Lord Walden as earl of Bindon; and Godolphin as earl of Godolphin.

On 18 Jan. 1707, Manchester dined at the home of Charles Bennet, 2nd Baron Ossulston, along with Marlborough, Somers and Somerset, amongst others. TNA, C 104/116, pt. 1. The same month he was ordered ‘to make all diligence’ in hastening his departure for his embassy, taking in Vienna on his way where he was to encourage the Austrians to support the allied assault on the French coast while dissuading them from undertaking their own invasion of Sicily. Add. 70271, R. Harley to G. Stepney, 21 Jan. 1707. Despite this, Manchester continued to delay his journey. He dined at the Queen’s Arms with Ossulston and at least seven other peers on 15 Feb. and, despite reports of 18 Feb. that he was shortly to set out on his journey, on 24 Feb. he was present in the House for the debates concerning Union, after which he again dined with Ossulston at a party hosted by Thomas Wharton, earl of Wharton. Towards the end of the month it was reported that Manchester had put off his departure for a few days, which no doubt prompted a further command in March ordering him to make all haste for Vienna. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 139, 143; TNA, C 104/116, pt. 1. Later that month he arrived at The Hague en route to his embassy. Add. 61530, f. 3. By April Manchester was at Vienna where he and the ministers from several other allied states proved to be utterly unsuccessful in their efforts to secure an undertaking not to assault Sicily. Add. 61155, ff. 120-1, Add. 61126, f. 66; Daily Courant, 13 May 1707; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 170. Manchester was on the road again by the end of May, taking in Turin, where he waited on Prince Eugene and the duke of Savoy, by way of Milan, on his way to Venice. He arrived at his embassy towards the end of June. Daily Courant, 27 May 1707; London Gazette, 23 June 1707; Add. 61155, f. 122; 61530, ff. 40, 47, Add. 28141, f. 152. During his absence, Godolphin recommended Manchester’s restoration to the captaincy of the Yeomen of the Guard, which was likely to be rendered vacant by the succession of the marquess of Hartington (the current holder of the captaincy) to the office of lord steward on the death of his father, William Cavendish^* [1404], duke of Devonshire. Add. 61494, ff. 146-7. Writing to Marlborough on Manchester’s behalf, Godolphin recommended him as having ‘always behaved himself well, so that it would be a sort of injustice not to restore him, and consequently, all pretenders will more easily submit to him, than they would to one another.’ In the event, although Marlborough repeated to his duchess Godolphin’s recommendation that Manchester had ‘always behaved himself well’, the post fell to Charles Townshend^* [1391], 2nd Viscount Townshend. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 887, 895.

Writing from Venice in October 1707, Manchester expressed his impatience for ‘some good address from the Parliament for carrying on the war, which will set all things right again’ and warned that the Venetians were convinced that a peace treaty was imminent, which, he conceived, ‘if true is another thing, but otherwise it will do prejudice’. Add. 61530, f. 88. With matters thus balanced, Manchester found his posting at Venice quite as frustrating as he had his Viennese mission and by the beginning of 1708 he was again eager to be sent his letters of recall, recommending Christian Cole to be appointed resident in his place. Manchester heartily concurred with Parliament’s plan to send Prince Eugene to Vienna, though he noted pessimistically that ‘if anything will prevail with the court of Vienna I should think that should, but I am far from thinking it will.’ Add. 61531, ff. 5, 7.

By the spring of 1708 Manchester’s embassy to Venice appears to have all but ground to a halt. News of the Pretender’s projected invasion of Britain he believed would make the Venetians ‘the longer defer saying anything to me, and they know so little the disposition of England that they easily give into it he may be received.’ Add. 61531, f. 25. Rumours of the impending dismissal of Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, as one of the secretaries of state prompted Manchester’s brother-in-law, Edwin, ‘to assure your lordship you are not out of everyone’s mind, there are some that talk you into his place.’ Manchester, Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne, ii. 276. In May and June Manchester appealed to be sent his letters of recall. Before he was able to quit Venice, Manchester was subjected to further indignity when his private gondolas were searched by Venetian customs officials for contraband cloth said to have been smuggled aboard Manchester’s vessels by one Brown, son of a city of London merchant. Manchester was accordingly compelled to make a formal complaint to the Venetian senate, though the affair looked set to rumble on as the Venetians proved ‘very unwilling to do what they ought’. Pressure from London seems to have reconciled the Venetians to making amends. By the beginning of July Marlborough predicted confidently that Manchester would soon ‘have just satisfaction’ and moreover that the queen would ‘readily grant your desire of returning home.’ In the event it was not until the middle of September that the matter was resolved. Add. 61155, ff. 142, 144, 146, Add. 61531, ff. 27-8; Daily Courant, 18 Sept. 1708.

Manchester finally secured his letters of revocation towards the close of the summer. Add. 61531, f. 106. By the time he received them Manchester was making no effort at all to hide the frustrations he found with his employment, complaining to Marlborough of Venice that it was &lquo;a place that a minister can be of no real service.’ Add. 61155, ff. 149-50. By the beginning of September Manchester was busy with his preparations for his departure but almost a month went by before he set out at last for Hanover leaving the redoubtable Cole behind as resident. Add. 61531, ff. 118-19, 132, Add. 61155, ff. 153-4, Add. 61532, f. 19. By the middle of November he was at the Hague and by the beginning of December had set foot in England once more. Add. 61531, ff. 148, 150; London Gazette, 15 Nov. 1708; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 374.

In his absence, Manchester was noted a Whig (+) in a list of party affiliations and in May 1708 his nominee Pocklington was returned once again for Huntingdonshire on the family interest. Manchester returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 7 Dec. 1708. He proceeded to attend on 67 per cent of all sitting days. Despite his apparent discontent with his foreign journeyings, at the close of the month he approached Marlborough seeking his recommendation for Manchester to be one of the plenipotentiaries at the forthcoming peace congress. He insisted that:

It is a justice due to the services I have performed, as also to my reputation abroad, having always maintained to the last degree the dignity of the crown and the honour of the nation… It must be owned I have had but a hard fate, but I have ever preserved what is most dear to me, my honour and reputation in the world and I should not desire this were I not sensible all abroad will be surprised at such a conjuncture I should not be thought of.

Although Marlborough asserted that he would be glad of Manchester’s ‘assistance in concluding the peace’ he professed himself unable to assure Manchester of his desire given the number of other pretenders. Add. 61155, ff. 158-9. In the event he was disappointed in his ambition. Reputation aside, Manchester’s true concern increasingly came to be dominated by his woeful financial predicament, the result of his vast expenditure in his diplomatic postings. In December, Edward Harley^* , later 2nd earl of Oxford, informed Abigail Harley that he had heard that ‘a white staff will not do Lord Manchester’s business, he must have a post that will reimburse the extraordinary expenses he has been at in his embassies.’ He understood that Manchester was therefore to be made paymaster of the army, a post formerly occupied by Richard Jones^‡, earl of Ranelagh [I]. Harley did not doubt that Manchester would ‘tell the money as carefully over his grate as the other did over his.’ HMC Portland, iv. 514-15. The following month it was said that Manchester had responded to rumours that he was to receive the unprofitable position of lord chamberlain by letting it be known that he sought a more profitable situation. Talk of the paymastership of the army persisted, but in February 1709 Manchester asserted that he was unaware of any place being intended for him and in the event he was appointed to neither post. Wentworth Pprs. 69; HMC Portland, iv. 519. Manchester voted in favour of permitting Scots peers holding British titles to vote in the election of Scots representative peers on 21 Jan. and, although by this time he appears not to have been so prominent in the House as a committee chairman, on 2 Mar. he both chaired and then reported from the committee for Gideon Haydon’s bill. PA, HO/PO/CO/1/7, p. 342.

Out of office, 1709-14

Manchester seems to have identified himself strongly with the Churchill-Godolphin interest. In August Arthur Maynwaring^‡ reported to the duchess of Marlborough an encounter with Manchester, during which the earl was said to have been ‘full of the common complaint that you are not more with the q[ueen], upon which I told him the story of your office and of the new bedchamber woman. This changed his opinion so much that he agreed with me in everything afterwards.’ Add. 61459, ff. 179-82. Towards the end of September 1709, it was reported that Manchester had resolved to travel abroad again, aiming to visit Hanover and the Hague. If he made the visit, he had returned by the middle of November. He took his seat in the House on 15 Nov., after which he was present on 73 per cent of all sitting days. In mid-January 1710 rumours circulated that he was set to be appointed constable of the Tower in succession to Algernon Capell, 2nd earl of Essex, but again the hoped-for appointment failed to be realized. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 46, ff. 215-6. Two months later, Cole reported from Venice that ‘Mr Godolphin’ was handing out gifts in acknowledgement of those who had helped press his lawsuit and that Manchester was expected to be the recipient of a gratuity of 1,200 ducats, presumably a reference to the ‘famous lawsuit betwixt the Godolphins and the Jesuits’ over part of the estate of William Godolphin^‡. Add. 61533, ff. 1, 148. Manchester was one of those present at a dinner held in the House on 17 Mar. attended by Ossulston, Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, and a handful of other peers, presumably in anticipation of the forthcoming trial of Henry Sacheverell. TNA, C 104/113, pt. 2. Three days later, predictably enough, he found Sacheverell guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. The previous month he had been noted as delivering tickets to the Lords to ensure their attendance at the trial. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 549.

Manchester lingered in town in September, remaining there in the hopes of securing payment of a pension of £1,000 promised to him by the queen. Add. 70249, Manchester to Harley, 8 Sept. 1710. The elections that autumn again resulted in a victory for the Montagu interest in Huntingdonshire, the two candidates having once more been decided on in advance of the poll. Add. 70201, E. Lawrence to Harley, 8 Aug. 1710. In an assessment taken in advance of the new session, Harley noted Manchester as being unlikely to support his new ministry. Manchester took his seat in the new Parliament on 29 Nov, but he was then absent for the remainder of the year, only resuming his seat on 2 Jan. 1711. Present on 44 per cent of all sitting days, he was one of a number of peers to dine at Halifax’s house on the queen’s birthday. TNA, C 104/113, pt. 2. On 16 Apr. he reported from the committee for Robert Jones’s estate bill.

Despite his former commitment to the duumvirs, the quest for financial recompense appears to have proved more important for Manchester, leading him to enter into negotiations with Harley, now lord treasurer and earl of Oxford. Manchester was thus included in one of Oxford’s memoranda in May 1711, and the following month he approached Oxford about waiting on the queen in hopes of securing payment of his pension. Insisting that he would be ‘glad to get out of town, but cannot well do it till you have done something in my affair’, Manchester asked that he might be granted £2,000, insisting that he had not been properly reimbursed for his last embassy. The sum, he emphasized, ‘would be very convenient for my affairs at present.’ Add. 70333, Harley memorandum, 5 May 1711; Add. 70027, f. 248; HMC Portland, v. 12. Manchester’s name appeared on a further memorandum compiled by Oxford in September. Add. 70332, Oxford memorandum, 22 Sept. 1711. The same month Manchester enquired again about his ‘affair’ disappointed at the lack of progress, ‘notwithstanding all the assurances I have had.’ HMC Portland, v. 91-2. His complaint was repeated in November. His failure to receive payment was, he insisted, ‘a great disappointment to me having depended upon it’ and he hoped that Oxford would ‘not defer it any longer. I believe I am the only one in my case that has not received something.’ Add. 70249, Manchester to Oxford, 19 Nov. 1711.

Manchester had remained in London, and had attended the prorogations of 21 Aug, 9 Oct. and 27 Nov. 1711. Noted on 2 Dec. as a peer to be canvassed about the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion, Manchester took his seat in the House for the new session on 7 Dec. and presumably voted for the amendment of the address to the queen, for on 8 Dec. he was included in an assessment of those thought likely to oppose the court’s attempt to prevent the presentation of the address as amended. Further, on 10 Dec. he was noted in a list of office-holders as having voted against the ministry. Although Manchester was listed as a potential supporter of permitting James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to take his seat in the House as duke of Brandon on 19 Dec. there was a query by his name and he was not listed as voting on the matter on the 20th, although listed as present in the Journal. By the close of the year his patience over the continued failure to pay his pension was wearing thin and on 27 Dec. he complained to Oxford:

I did not well understand what your lordship meant by the commissioners of accounts preventing you keeping your word with me… The way to meet with a grateful return is to do as one would be done by, and if after all the promises I should find myself deceived in a case of mere justice, I cannot reasonable [sic] expect any favour, though I shall always show that duty to the queen to serve her to the utmost of my power in anything that is consistent with her preservation, and the good of my country, which has been my constant practice even from the Revolution, when I had the honour to wait on her majesty, though my services have not been thought considerable enough to have had any return. Add. 70249, Manchester to Oxford, 27 Dec. 1711.

Nevertheless, Oxford’s peculiar talent for politicking ensured that Manchester did not remained wedded to the Whig cause. On 28 May he voted against the Whig motion to address the queen to order James Butler*, 2nd duke of Ormond, to act offensively against France. On 7 June he was noted as one of the Lords ‘that went off’ from the opposition and voted with the ministry over the address in response to the queen’s speech on the peace. Christ Church, Wake mss. 17, f. 329. Manchester last attended on 13 June 1712, having been present for 58 per cent of all sittings.

Manchester attended the prorogation on 17 Feb. 1713 and the following month he was listed by Jonathan Swift as a likely opponent of the ministry in a forecast compiled in advance of the new session. Manchester took his seat on 9 Apr. after which he was present on 53 per cent of all sittings. Behaving as Swift had surmised, on 13 June he was noted by Oxford as being likely to oppose passage of the bill confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French treaty of commerce. Following the dissolution, Manchester was successful in securing the return of Robert Pigott^‡ and Sir Matthew Dudley,^‡ bt. for Huntingdonshire in the face of a new challenge from his kinsman, Edward Montagu, 3rd earl of Sandwich, who had set up his heir, Edward Richard Montagu^‡, styled Viscount Hinchingbrooke, and Nicholas Bonfoy^‡ for the Tories. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 301.

In advance of the new Parliament, Manchester reminded Oxford once again about the non-payment of his pension, grumpily excusing the manner of this latest supplication because ‘I pass most of my time in the country and can very ill solicit especially if I see it is to little purpose.’ Add. 70032, f. 21. Manchester took his seat in the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714, after which he was present on 55 per cent of all sitting days. On 11 Mar. he registered his dissent at the failure to amend the address requesting a proclamation for the discovery of the author of the Public Spirit of the Whigs. On 19 Apr. he registered his proxy with his kinsman, Halifax, which was vacated by his return to the House on 28 April. On 7 May Manchester reported from the committee for Kirchoff’s naturalization bill and the following day he was entrusted with the proxy of his Essex neighbour, Fitzwalter, which was vacated by Fitzwalter’s return to the House on 28 May. Towards the end of May, Manchester was forecast by Nottingham as likely to oppose the schism bill. On 2 June he registered his proxy with his fellow court Whig, Hugh Cholmondeley, earl of Cholmondeley, which was vacated by his return to the House on 7 June. Having attended a further five days, he last attended on 15 June then registered the proxy with Evelyn Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester on 16 June.

After 1714

Manchester attended seven days of the brief session that met in response to the queen’s death at the beginning of August and on 2 Aug. he received Dorchester’s proxy. The accession of the new king offered Manchester improved prospects at last, though in the event his preferment was confined to his appointment as one of the new gentlemen of the bedchamber and his promotion to a dukedom in 1719. Manchester remained an active member of the House until shortly before his death in early 1722. Details of the latter part of his career will be covered in the second phase of this work. In his will of June 1721 (the precise dating of which is obscured) Manchester made a series of bequests, including grants of £5,000 a piece to three of his daughters and a further £1,000 to another daughter, Lady Charlotte Montagu, whose reduced inheritance was explained as being on account of money she had already received from Manchester’s sister, the countess of Suffolk and widow of James Howard, 3rd earl of Suffolk. To his younger son, Lord Robert Montagu, Manchester bequeathed an annuity rising to £600 after he attained the age of 21. Manchester named his heir, Lord Mandeville, and his brother-in-law, Sir James Montagu^‡, as his executors. He was buried along with other members of his family at Kimbolton and succeeded by his son, Mandeville. TNA, PROB 11/584.