MONTAGU, Edward (1616-84)

Montagu of Boughton represented one of the branches of a prolific family that dominated several areas of the country. The Montagus claimed descent from one of the companions of William the Conqueror and bore the arms of Warwick the Kingmaker’s brother, John Neville^†, marquess of Montagu (d.1471), but their true fifteenth-century forebear was said to have been Richard Ladde of Hanging Houghton, who adopted the surname of Montagu in about 1448. HP Commons 1640-60, draft biography by A. Barclay. It was Ladde’s grandson, Edward Montagu, lord chief justice successively of king’s bench and common pleas under Henry VIII, who established the family estates in Northamptonshire. In 1528 he purchased Boughton as the family seat, which in 1662 was assessed at 45 hearths. J. Heward and R. Taylor, Country Houses of Northamptonshire, 94. Although the family’s principal holdings and influence lay in Northamptonshire, other lands were acquired in Kent, Derbyshire and Leicestershire. P. Warwick, Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles I, 243; TNA, C108/62, 63. Edward Montagu’s son (also Edward Montagu^‡) sat as knight of the shire for Northamptonshire and two of the younger Edward Montagu’s sons lived to be elevated to peerages. One, Henry Montagu^†, was created earl of Manchester in 1626, the other, Edward Montagu^†, father of the subject of this article, was created Baron Montagu of Boughton in 1621.

Montagu was brought up believing firmly in the family myth of his clan’s antiquity, a conceit that was no doubt underscored by his extensive connections. Besides his cousins, Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, and Edward Montagu, earl of Sandwich, Montagu was also brother-in-law to Robert Bertie^†, earl of Lindsey, and to John Manners, 8th earl of Rutland. Firmly embedded in Northamptonshire society, he was also a distant relative (and close friend) of Sir Justinian Isham^‡. Isham Diary, 26.

Despite close relations with the royalist Berties and Ishams and his own father’s imprisonment for adhering to the king’s cause, Montagu supported Parliament during the Civil War for which he was dubbed ‘the Roundhead’. HP Commons 1660-90, iii. 90; C. Wise, Montagus of Boughton and their Northamptonshire Homes, 36. Even so, the activities of father and son are occasionally confused during this period. Wise, 36; E.C. Metzger, Ralph, 1st Duke of Montagu 1638-1709, p. 7. Following his father’s death in captivity and his own succession to the peerage, Montagu was nominated one of the lords to take possession of the king from the Scots. A letter from the Right Honourable Edward Lord Montagu (June 1647); Bridges, ii. 51. However, he opposed Charles I’s trial and execution, and from that point until the Restoration he played no further role in national affairs, preferring instead to retire to his estates in the country. During the 1650s he concentrated on consolidating his lands, and by 1662 Montagu was in possession of four residences and estates valued at £2,300 p.a. in Northamptonshire alone. Add. 29550, f. 168; Add. 34222, f. 38.

By the close of the 1650s Montagu had become favourable to the king’s return. CCSP, iv. 182. His eldest son, another Edward Montagu^‡, played a significant role at the time of the Restoration by assisting in recruiting Admiral Edward Montagu (shortly after created earl of Sandwich) to the royalist cause. HP Commons 1660-90, iii. 84. Montagu of Boughton remained a reluctant participant in politics, but he appears to have given his backing to the Northamptonshire address promoted by Sir Henry Yelverton^‡ in January 1660 calling for the return of the secluded members and to have offered his interest to Yelverton as knight of the shire for Northamptonshire in the election in March on the recommendation of his cousin, Manchester. Bodl. ms Eng. Lett. c. 210, f. 41; HMC Buccleuch, i. 312; HP Commons 1660-90, i. 335. Noted by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, in March 1660 as one of the lords who sat during the Civil War, Montagu of Boughton took his seat in the House on 10 May, after which he was present on 44 per cent of all sitting days prior to the September adjournment. On 19 July he was named to the committees considering the bills for poll money and for confirming judicial proceedings and on 23 July to the committee examining the bill for John Paulet, 5th marquess of Winchester. On 9 Aug. Montagu was granted leave of absence on account of poor health after which he was absent from the House for the remainder of the Convention.

Montagu returned for the opening of the first session of the Cavalier Parliament on 8 May 1661. Three days later, along with his Northamptonshire neighbour, Edward Watson, 2nd Baron Rockingham, he introduced another fellow countryman, John Crew, as Baron Crew. Named to the sessional committees for privileges and petitions, on 17 May he was also named to the committee considering the bill for Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset. Montagu was nominated to a further three committees before again being granted leave of absence on 11 June. Having sat on just one more day (13 June) he then absented himself from the House for the remainder of the session having attended just 12 per cent of all sitting days. At a call of the House of 25 Nov. 1661 he was noted as having entered a proxy, but the proxy book for this date is missing.

Montagu was sick in June 1662, and he was again excused at a call of the House on the grounds of ill health on 23 Feb. 1663. Northants. RO, Montagu Letters, xviii. 42. He rallied sufficiently to offer cautious support for Christopher Hatton, later Viscount Hatton, at a by-election in Northampton the following month, and he was sufficiently well to resume his place midway through the second session on 11 May. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 340. Four days later he was present at a dinner attended by his brother, William, and cousin, Sandwich, where the conversation was dominated by the recent brouhaha at a party hosted by Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford. Pepys Diary, iv. 136. Despite this, Montagu’s attendance in the session was limited to just 12 days, during which time he was named to no committees. Montagu’s disinclination to involve himself with the court or Parliament appears to have been as much a matter of principle as of poor health. He disapproved strongly of his two sons, Edward and Ralph Montagu, later duke of Montagu, both of whom were competing for offices at court. HMC Buccleuch, i. 312. Nevertheless, he was not averse to campaigning in his own interests. In September 1663 he wrote to Dorset, one of the commissioners assessing the peers, to request that he not be assessed according to the rates from his father’s time, explaining that ‘I have £1,500 a year lesser than my father had’ as a result of the loss of an annuity enjoyed by his father in right of his wife, and provision of a £1,000 annuity for his brother, William Montagu. Kent HLC (CKS), Sackville mss U269/C90. Montagu’s complaint was heard before the commissioners, but no immediate action was taken. Northants. RO, Montagu Letters, xvii. 25. Concerned that he was being ‘unkindly dealt with’ by his fellow peers, Montagu appears to have turned for support to his cousin, Sandwich. Montagu’s appeal reached the king’s attention as a result of which Sir Henry Bennet, (later earl of Arlington), told Montagu that the king regarded his being rated beyond his means as an ‘act of malice’ and assured him that the situation would be remedied. Bodl. Carte 223, f. 259-60. When the king reneged on his promises, fearful of ‘introducing a precedent that would have been of very ill consequence’, he assured Montagu that ‘care shall be taken of you’ in the following two subsidies. HMC Buccleuch, i. 314.

Perhaps disappointed at his experience, Montagu failed to attend the House for the ensuing six sessions. Excused at a call on 4 Apr. 1664, the following month he was again said to be ‘sick in the country’; his condition was not alleviated by the news that his eldest son, Edward Montagu, had been ordered from court in disgrace. Pepys Diary, v. 154; Northants. RO, Montagu Letters, xviii. 36. Disgusted with the immorality of court life, Montagu determined not to send the traditional New Year’s present to the king, a gesture that was met with dismay by his relative Montagu Lane who attempted to alter his resolution:

I make it my humble request that your lordship will be pleased not to omit the presenting one this year (though you never do it more) in regards your honour has been so long absent from the Parliament, and your son under some disfavour at court: least it be thought at court that your lordship does forebear presenting one now out of a sullen or discontented mind. Northants. RO, Montagu Letters, xviii. 45.

A year later, Montagu was still plagued with difficulties resulting from his children’s behaviour, though this time the culprit was his second son, Ralph, about whose ‘undutiful carriage towards me’ he complained to his kinsman, Henry Hyde, styled Lord Cornbury (later 2nd earl of Clarendon) in a long letter of December 1665. Glasgow UL, ms Hunter 73, iv.

Montagu was excused once more at a call of the House on 1 Oct. 1666. His absence did not prevent him from retaining an interest in family affairs, and on 16 Nov. he wrote to his sister, Lady Rutland, to encourage her to consider seriously the match then in train between Lady Dorothy Manners and Francis Brudenell^‡, styled Lord Brudenell. Belvoir Castle, Rutland mss vol. xviii. f. 71; HMC Rutland, ii. 7-8. The following year, on 29 Oct. 1667, he was again excused at a call on the grounds of poor health, and a few days later he finally got around to registering a proxy to cover his extended absence, employing his kinsman, Montagu Lane, to retrieve the appropriate form from the clerk of Parliaments. On 11 Nov. 1667 the proxy was duly registered with his cousin, Manchester, and vacated only by the close of the session. Northants. RO, Montagu Letters, xviii. 47.

Although Montagu retained his distance from Parliament, he was unable (or unwilling) to escape the draw of political life completely, and he appears to have hosted a number of gatherings at Boughton in the intervening period. One correspondent noted how ‘all the great persons I think come to Boughton to see your lordship for truly I hear of none else of our country lords that entertains them.’ Ibid. xviii. 25. Missing again at a call of 26 Oct. 1669, when it was noted that he was travelling to London, Montagu eventually resumed his seat three days later on 29 October. For all his entertaining in the intervening years, Montagu appears to have made little impact in the House, and although he was present on 72 per cent of all sitting days, it was not until 10 Dec. that he was finally named to a committee. When the session closed the following day, Montagu was again absent.

At about this time Montagu was embarrassed by a series of incidents involving a distant relation, Francis Lane, who appears to have been mentally unstable. Lane declared publicly that his own mother was Montagu’s mistress, and that Montagu himself was ‘an enemy to the king’ and of ‘very mean extraction.’ Rehearsing the story of Richard Ladde, Lane did not confine himself to Montagu but proceeded to slander the entire family accusing Sandwich of being a coward and that, ‘he hoped he should see in a short time never a Montagu in England have their head upon their shoulders.’ Montagu appears to have displayed unusual patience in the face of Lane’s fulminations, which must have been particularly galling as Lane appears to have made formal statements both to Arlington and Basil Feilding, 2nd earl of Denbigh. Ibid. xvii. 45, 47-48.

Montagu was again excused at a call of the House on 21 Feb. 1670. He resumed his seat a few weeks later, on 10 Mar. but was present on less than ten per cent of all sitting days in the session. His indifferent level of attendance did not prevent him from receiving the proxy of Robert Rich, 2nd earl of Holland, on 14 Mar., which was vacated on 1 April. On 15 Mar. he was named to the committee considering an act to enable Anthony Ashley Cooper, styled Lord Ashley (later 2nd earl of Shaftesbury), to acknowledge fines and suffer recoveries of lands despite being under age. Four days later, Montagu was named to the committee considering the bill enabling his nephew John Manners, styled Lord Roos (later duke of Rutland) to remarry, and on 24 Mar. Montagu was named to the committee examining the bill to prevent the malicious burning of houses. Two days later, he was one of those to enter his protest against the conventicle bill. He was entrusted with a further proxy on 28 Mar., that of his Northamptonshire neighbour, Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, but he sat for the last time three days later on 31 Mar. 1670. On 2 Apr. he registered his own proxy (thereby vacating Sunderland’s) with Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey.

For the remaining 14 years of his life Montagu remained absent from the House. On 14 Nov. 1670 he was again excused at a call of the House on account of sickness, with no mention being made of his proxy, still registered with Anglesey, but at a subsequent call of 10 Feb. 1671 the proxy was the reason allowed him for his continued absence. His failure to attend did not mean that he was divorced from politics or society. In April 1671 he seems to have been present at Newmarket, where he was noted among those to have lost money (despite his poor luck on this occasion, horseflesh appears to have been an interest that endured for the remainder of his life). Verney ms mic. M636/24, H. to Sir R. Verney, 6 Apr. 1671; M636/29, J. to Sir R. Verney, 23 Mar. 1675; W. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 14 Oct. 1676; M636/30, J. to Sir R. Verney, 23 Nov. 1676. The same month he gave his assent to the passage of the river Wey bill, which was considered in committee on 18 April. In March 1672 he subscribed £100 for the building of a new sessions house in Northampton. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, 455; Isham Diary, 91. Montagu was missing without explanation at a call of 13 Feb. 1673, but Montagu remained jealous of his privileges as a peer. In June 1673 he brought an action of scandalum magnatum against one Hall, a clergyman in one of his livings, who had had the temerity to describe his patron as ‘a scoundrel and a rogue’. Montagu was awarded £1,000 in damages; Hall, unable to pay, committed suicide. Isham Diary, 215.

The same year Montagu’s son, Ralph (now heir to the barony following the death of his older brother), married Elizabeth, dowager countess of Northumberland, daughter of Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton. HMC Montagu, 170-1. It was a match in which Montagu was able to take particular delight, later describing it as ‘a great blessing of God to my family’, and he marked the alliance by settling his estates and a £2,000 annuity on his heir. TNA, PROB 11/379; J. Habakkuk, Marriage, Debt, and the Estates System, p. 36. His efforts to secure a match for his granddaughter (probably one of the daughters of Daniel Harvey^‡ and Montagu’s daughter Elizabeth) with Samuel Grimston^‡, son of Sir Harbottle Grimston^‡, at about the same time were unsuccessful. HMC Buccleuch, i. 320-1. A far more prestigious alliance with Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, was secured instead, but the marriage proved to be a disaster. Montagu’s daughter, Lady Hervey, engaged in a series of feuds with her new son-in-law, which threatened to engulf Montagu as well. Isham Diary, 201. Two years after the marriage Lady Hervey importuned her father, ‘if my Lord Stamford should have the confidence to wait on your lordship, I hope you will be pleased to resent his ingratitude to me so much as to give him but a very cold welcome.’ HMC Montagu, 172-3.

Montagu was again absent without explanation at a call of 12 Jan. 1674, but the following day he registered his proxy with James Cecil, 3rd earl of Salisbury. The following year, on 10 Apr., he registered his proxy with Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), perhaps in the hopes of furthering a bill which he appears to have been involved in drawing up, which also involved Sir Thomas Leventhorpe and a neighbour, one Bedell, but it is unclear whether the business ever came before the House. Northants. RO, Montagu Letters, xvii. 62. Montagu registered the proxy with Danby again on 10 Oct. 1675, which was noted at a call a month later. The following year, always eager to consolidate his own holdings, he petitioned for a grant of Geddington Woods, part of Rockingham Forest, as a private chase. CSP Dom. 1676-7, p. 334. For this he turned once more to Danby for assistance, and through Danby’s offices he was successful. Eg. 3330, f. 47; HMC Buccleuch, i. 323; Northants. RO, Montagu Letters, xvii. 74; Bridges, ii. 309. The profits from Geddington Chase thereafter provided Montagu with a further annual income of £150. P.A.J. Pettit, Royal Forests of Northamptonshire (Northants. Rec. Soc. xxiii) 180. Danby appears to have used his influence on Montagu’s behalf on more than one occasion, and on 6 Feb. 1677 Montagu entrusted him with his proxy once again. Eg. 3329, f. 87; HMC Buccleuch, i. 324; Northants. RO, Montagu Letterbook, iv. 77.

Montagu received encouragement to return to town from several quarters in 1677, but he continued to avoid court and Parliament and in May he was assessed as ‘vile’ by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. HMC Buccleuch, i. 323-4. He may have been the Edward Montagu approached by the 2nd Baron (later Viscount) Hatton to employ his interest at Stamford in the by-election of February 1678, but if so, he declined to act. Add. 29557, f. 91. On 16 Feb. he was again missing without explanation at a call of the House. Later that year Montagu also came under pressure from his son, Ralph, who hoped that his father would use his influence on his behalf. Eager to steer Montagu away from Danby’s sphere of influence, Ralph informed him that he had found ‘many people very inquisitive why your lordship does not come to town. I wish, if your lordship thinks fit, you would be pleased to send your proxy to my Lord Salisbury, [Bedford William Russell, 5th earl, later duke, of Bedford], or Wharton, or who else you shall like best.’ HMC Buccleuch, i. 331. Despite such appeals, Montagu remained disinclined to exercise his interest either on his son’s behalf in the House of Lords or at Stamford where his brother William Montagu had previously been one of the burgesses. Add. 29557, f. 91. Contrary to his son’s wishes, on 24 May 1678 he entrusted his proxy to Danby once more. Even so, in October when Ralph Montagu stood for Northampton at the by-election triggered by the death of Henry O’Brien^‡, styled Lord Ibrackan [I], Montagu did mobilize his interest on his son’s behalf, family loyalty presumably overcoming political scruple. Between them they were said to have spent almost £1,000 on ale in their efforts to secure his election. Metzger, 189. Despite this, and Montagu’s reputed ‘good interest in the parsons’ in the corporation, there was a double return and the seat was eventually only secured on petition. Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 26 Sept. 1678.

Such local activity did not encourage Montagu to return to the House for the new session in October 1678, though he may have registered his proxy with William Richard George Stanley, 9th earl of Derby (no record of this survives in the proxy book). Bodl. Carte 81, f. 364. He showed no greater inclination to rouse himself for the opening of the new Parliament in 1679 either. Danby assessed him as doubtful but unreliable in an assessment of March or April 1679, correcting this to ‘absent’ in a subsequent forecast. On 12 Mar. Montagu was included in a list of absent peers. Ibid. f. 456. His continuing recalcitrance clearly provoked irritation. At Montagu’s request, James Bertie, 5th Baron Norreys (later earl of Abingdon), one of Danby’s kinsmen and associates, undertook to inform the House that he was too sick to attend, but Norreys warned that the Lords would be ‘so strict as to receive no answer but what is sworn by two of your disability of your coming up.’ Northants. RO, Montagu Letters, xviii. 66. On 22 Mar. two of Montagu’s servants accordingly swore to his being ‘so ill with the flux of blood that he cannot travel to attend this House without danger of his life’ for which his attendance was excused. Despite this, a little under three weeks later Montagu received a letter from the lord chancellor (Heneage Finch, Baron Finch, later earl of Nottingham) commanding his attendance. HMC Buccleuch, i. 330. On this occasion his continuing absence was excused only (according to his brother William Montagu) ‘by the favour and kindness of Lord [Halifax George Savile, Viscount, later marquess of, Halifax], and our three countrymen, lords [Peterborough Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough], Rockingham and Hatton.’ Even with their intervention it required William Montagu himself to remind the clerks to record the excuse in the minutes. HMC Montagu, 175. Montagu received a further message requiring his attendance in the House in November 1680 but he remained unmoved. Northants. RO, Montagu Letters, ix. 51; HMC Buccleuch, i. 338. Reports of his demise had circulated the previous month and his unfitness to attend was attested once again by two of his servants. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 240; LJ, xiii. 693-5. The same month he was listed among those absent from the divisions on the Exclusion bill. Northants. RO, Finch Hatton mss 2893C.

Montagu was forced back into the forefront of politics in December 1681 with his election as recorder of Northampton. Recs Northampton, ii. 108. The election had little to do with Montagu himself, who presumably remained in an enfeebled condition. The driving force behind his nomination was his son, Ralph Montagu, who hoped to secure a pliant corporation sympathetic to his ambition for the parliamentary seat. HP Commons 1660-90, iii. 88. The scheme split the corporation, and the plan further misfired when the king refused to endorse Montagu as recorder. CSP Dom. 1680-1, pp. 633, 640-1; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 207. In July 1682 he was replaced by Peterborough. Recs Northampton, ii. 109; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 284. Despite this setback, Montagu himself seems not to have been tarnished by the affair, and in December 1682 he was still able to rely upon the interest of the new lord treasurer, Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester. HMC Buccleuch, i. 338.

Montagu played no further role in politics, and for the final year of his life he was left in moderate peace. He died in January 1684, according to one source of a sore throat that had proved ‘very fatal to several of the men of quality’ at that time. CSP Dom. 1683-4, p. 216-7. Another queried whether the decision of his son, Ralph Montagu, to enclose Barnwell and demolish the castle there ‘did any ways hasten his death.’ Add. 29560, f. 172. In his will Montagu made a series of modest bequests and otherwise merely confirmed the ‘bountiful portion’ he had provided for his daughter, Lady Hervey, at her marriage and the settlement of most of his estate on his heir. He was buried at Weekley and succeeded in the barony by Ralph Montagu as 3rd Baron Montagu of Boughton.