MONTAGU, Ralph (1638-1709)

Excoriated as the epitome of the amoral restoration rake, Montagu undoubtedly deserves much of his notoriety. Throughout his career, the pursuit of wealth and place predominated. At one point an unequivocal proponent of exclusion, at the accession of King James he sought rehabilitation at court only to perform a further spectacular volte-face by setting his interest behind the Revolution. But in spite of all this, more positive elements did remain, among them his prominent patronage of the arts and his broadly consistent political loyalties after 1688. This was particularly apparent in his role as an influential mediator between the Junto and other prominent Whigs, for which he employed his seat at Boughton as the venue for a series of gatherings, and which serves in part to redress an otherwise unenviable and tarnished reputation. E.C. Metzger, Ralph, first duke of Montagu 1638-1709, pp. xix-xx.

Montagu’s political career long antedated his elevation to the peerage. His obsession with place and the development of his estate perhaps stemmed from his need as a younger son to make his own way in the world, but even after the death of his older brother, Edward Montagu, and his improved prospects as heir to the barony, he maintained his apparently insatiable appetite for gain. Having been appointed to a number of secondary household offices in the duchess of York’s family, in October 1662 he was appointed to a diplomatic post in France during the embassy of Denzil Holles, Baron Holles. At this point a creature of Henry Bennet, later earl of Arlington, on his return he was promoted to the queen’s household (his appointment said to have been a result of the ‘most violent prosecution’ of James Stuart, duke of York) and in 1669 he was again posted to France, though this time with full ambassadorial rank. Eg. 2538, ff. 260-2; Verney ms mic. M636/22, Dr. W. Denton to Sir R.Verney, 12 Nov. 1668. Montagu returned to England in December 1671, when it was noted that he was cloistered in private conference with the king and duke of York for two hours. Verney ms mic. M636/24, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 28 Dec. 1671. After relinquishing his embassy in May 1672, he took up a lucrative alternative position as master of the great wardrobe. Courting controversy with his marriage to Elizabeth, countess of Northumberland, in 1673, who had supposedly fled to France the previous year to avoid the unwanted attentions of the king, Montagu benefited from a generous settlement by his father, which comprised a number of manors in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire, while Lady Northumberland brought substantial estates in Hampshire and Middlesex to the marriage and an annual income reputed to be £6,000. Metzger, Montagu, 100; Northants. RO, Montagu letterbk. 4, p. 249; UNL, Pl/F4/6/1, 2. Soon after, Montagu’s financial position was strengthened further when he was made heir to his uncle, Richard Winwood, if the latter were to have no children, but despite so extensive an estate and an income in excess of £12,000, Montagu’s extravagance meant that he was often plagued by substantial debts. Verney ms mic. M636/26, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 1 Sept. 1673; Metzger, Montagu, 265. The death of Winwood in June 1688 was eventually to bring him some relief in the form of a substantial addition to his inheritance. HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 749.

Rumoured to be one of those in line to succeed Bennet (since promoted earl of Arlington) as secretary of state in March 1674, Montagu was overlooked for the office, but despite his former inglorious recall from France he was once more appointed ambassador in 1676 through the patronage of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds), to whom he had turned on the removal from political significance of his former patron. Verney ms mic. M636/27, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 5 Mar. 1674. As a member of Arlington’s circle, however, Montagu’s relations with Danby had never been good and the new association was complicated further by Montagu’s efforts to secure an advantageous match for his stepdaughter, Elizabeth, Lady Percy, with Danby’s protégé, Charles Fitzcharles, earl of Plymouth. Browning, Danby, i. 223-24. They broke down completely in the summer of 1678 when Danby opposed Montagu’s efforts to purchase the office of secretary of state from Sir Henry Coventry^‡ for £10,000, a post for which Montagu had been touting since the autumn of the previous year. Add. 39757, f. 105; Browning, Danby, i. 285. Montagu’s intriguing in France, and indiscreet amours, most particularly his injudicious dalliance with both the duchess of Cleveland and her daughter the countess of Sussex, compelled him to quit his post without leave and return to England in July 1678 in an effort to respond to accusations of his misconduct. HMC Bath, ii. 166; Browning, Danby, i. 286. Montagu’s efforts to justify his actions to the king availed him nothing. He was dismissed as ambassador and put out of his office of master of horse to the queen. Verney ms mic. M636/31, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 11 July 1678; HMC Portland, iii. 361; Hatton Corresp. i. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxii), 167-8; Browning, Danby, i. 287. Five years later he was still attempting to recoup unpaid wages from his embassy totalling £22,000. CSP Dom. 1683, p. 24. Out of pocket and determined to have his revenge, Montagu, aided by his sister, the widow of Sir Daniel Harvey^‡, set about plotting Danby’s ruin with the French minister, Barillon, in return for a substantial French pension. Browning, Danby, ii. 372, 375; Haley, Shaftesbury, 487-8. To further his plan and afford him parliamentary immunity from prosecution, Montagu was returned on petition for Northampton on 10 Nov. 1678, employing both his father’s interest in the corporation and that of a group of opposition members intent on Danby’s destruction. Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 26 Sept. 1678; Browning, Danby, i. 301. When Danby attempted to pre-empt him with an accusation of undertaking secret negotiations with the papal nuncio during his embassy, Montagu riposted with revelations of Danby’s role in negotiating a subsidy from France for the king. Browning, Danby, i. 301-7. Although the Commons were eager to make use of Montagu’s evidence against Danby and cleared him of any wrongdoing, at the close of the session in December, bereft of his parliamentary privilege, Montagu made an attempt to flee the country. He was foiled by bad weather but though he was arrested at Dover in January 1679, no effort was made to secure him, and he returned home. He was returned at the next election in February for Huntingdonshire, and continued to exert himself to secure Danby’s impeachment. Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 2 Jan. 1679; Browning, Danby, ii. 379. Returned for Northampton once more in the second Exclusion Parliament in October, the following year he seconded his brother-in-law, William, Lord Russell^‡, in proposing the Exclusion bill for a second time, but by the opening of the Oxford Parliament in 1681 he appears to have distanced himself from the opposition. Although he avoided involvement in the Rye House Plot and thus the fate of Lord Russell, in the late summer of 1683 he fled to France, where he remained for the following two years, seeking, unsuccessfully, to secure the payment of his French pension. Metzger, Montagu, 280-1; Add. 70262, R. Watson to R. Harley, 15 Sept. 1683.

The Reign of James II and the Revolution, 1684-9

Montagu succeeded his father to the barony of Montagu of Boughton on 10 Jan. 1684 while he was living in France. The accession of James II the following year promised Montagu little hope of advancement but, even so, he announced to Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, his intention of returning to England for the coronation and hoped that the king might be sufficiently magnanimous as to overlook his past actions:

I know not how unfortunate I may be as to lie under his Majesty’s displeasure, but I know the generosity of his nature to be such, that as Louis duke of Orleans, when he came to the crown of France, said it was not for a king of France to remember the quarrels and grudges of a duke of Orleans, so I hope his Majesty will be pleased to think the king is not to remember any thing that has passed in relation to the duke of York; for whatever my opinions were when I delivered them, being trusted by the public, they are altered now I am become his subject, knowing myself obliged, by the laws of God and man, to hazard life and fortune to the defence of his sacred person, crown, and dignity. Clarendon Corresp. i. 114-5.

In this optimistic manner, Montagu set about ingratiating himself with the new monarch, but initially without success. Refused permission to kiss the king’s hand, he was put out of his post of master of the great wardrobe in favour of Sir Richard Grahme^‡, Viscount Preston [S]. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 341; Add. 70013, R. Harley to Sir E. Harley, 8 Dec. 1685. Denied hopes of office at home, Montagu retreated once more to France, where he was noted as being one of the associates of Gilbert Burnet, later bishop of Salisbury. HMC Buccleuch, i. 342; Burnet, iii. 73. Montagu’s fortunes took a further downturn the following year when his London residence, Montagu House, was burned to the ground while being tenanted by William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire. Evelyn Diary, iv. 497; Verney ms mic. M636/40, A. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 24 Jan. 1686. Blame for the conflagration was laid at the door of Montagu’s own servants, who were said to have made a fire in one of the rooms set aside for storing their master’s possessions. Add. 72481, f. 107. The disaster was presumably the cause of Montagu’s return from France in July 1686. In spite of the reports that the loss was not Devonshire’s fault, Montagu launched an action in chancery against his former tenant in an attempt to recoup £60,000 in compensation. CSP Dom. 1686-7, pp. 203, 209; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 369-70. The dispute was noted as one ‘in which all the great lawyers in the kingdom are concerned’, but the case was thrown out when the court accepted that liability lay with Montagu’s own servants. CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 209.

In spite of this setback, Montagu’s fortunes at court were perceived to have considerably improved. In July 1686 reports circulated that he was to be made a marquess and the following month he was said to have been ‘extraordinarily well received by the king’, following which there were rumours that he was to be appointed secretary of state in place of Charles Middleton^‡, 2nd earl of Middleton [S], and that he was to be again appointed an ambassador. Verney ms mic. M636/41, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 19 July 1686; Clarendon Corresp. i. 522; Add. 72525, ff. 7-8. Rather more improbable were the reports of Montagu establishing a new alliance with his former bête-noir, Danby. Letters of Lady Rachel Russell, 106. In March 1687 it was rumoured that he was to be restored as master of the wardrobe (which resulted in him initiating a legal dispute with Preston over the profits of the office), but he did not regain the place. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, ff. 139-40, 145-6. The same month he began rebuilding the devastated Montagu House. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 397; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, ff. 145-6. In April he was again unsuccessful, however, in another attempt to recover damages from Devonshire. A case brought before common pleas seeking compensation of £30,000 was dismissed, following which it was reported that Devonshire intended to launch a counterclaim for his losses in the blaze. NAS, GD 406/1/3447; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, f. 171; Verney ms mic. M636/41, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 26 Apr. 1687.

Montagu was perceived by contemporaries as attempting to ingratiate himself with the new regime, particularly through offering support for James II’s religious policies, though it might be noted that during the following reign he was consistent in supporting the policy of excluding all Protestant nonconformists from the penal laws. Montagu’s name appeared on three lists of 1687 of those expected to support repeal of the Test, and on another of January 1688. It is uncertain at which point Montagu abandoned James II, but he later claimed the credit for encouraging Frederick Herman Schomberg, duke of Schomberg, to ‘attend’ William of Orange in his invasion. CSP Dom. 1694-5, p. 138. It seems likely that he was the ‘Montagu’ that refused to subscribe to the loyalist petition of 16 Nov. 1688 asking the king to summon a free parliament. Montagu was a vigorous participant in the debates in London prior to the summoning of the Convention, attending meetings of the provisional government on 11, 12 and 13 December. Kingdom without a King, 67, 74, 79, 85. He was one of the peers to sign the declaration to the Prince of Orange of 11 Dec, having joined with Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, and others in moving that the paragraph in the declaration calling on the king to be allowed to return with honour and safety be removed. The following day he moved that Titus Oates might be discharged from prison and on 13 Dec. he was again prominent in discussions over the treatment of the king. Montagu was absent from meetings of the provisional government on 14 and 15 Dec. but he took his place once more in the meeting held in response to the prince’s summons in the queen’s presence chamber on 21 Dec. and he was again present in the meeting held in the House the following day. Kingdom without a King, 71-72, 75, 93, 98, 105, 109, 124, 153. In the heated debates of 24 Dec, in common with Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, he looked to the period of exclusion for a solution to the constitutional hiatus. One of the ‘most bitter and fierce’ in the debates held that day, Montagu moved that the exclusion bill might be made use of for determining whether the king’s flight was a demise in law. Clarendon Corresp. ii. 235; Kingdom without a King, 160.

Montagu finally took his seat in the House four years after succeeding to the peerage on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he sat for approximately 66 per cent of all sittings in the session. Named to the standing committees for privileges and petitions on 23 Jan., on 29 Jan. he noted that under King James, ‘none can be safe but those who contributed towards our slavery’. ‘Parliament and the Glorious Revolution’, BIHR, xlvii. 50. On 31 Jan. he spoke during the debates on the state of the crown professing to be ‘so perfectly satisfied that the throne was vacant, that he had a dispensation within him’, without the help of one from James II’s lord chancellor, George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys, or Sir Edward Herbert^‡, recently appointed by James in exile to replace Jeffreys: ‘and therefore did declare’, he went on, ‘that from this day he looked upon himself to be absolved from all allegiance to King James.’ Clarendon Corresp. ii. 257. The same day he voted in favour of declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and queen, entering his dissent when the House resolved not to agree with the Commons that the throne was vacant. On 4 Feb. he again voted in concert with the Commons, agreeing that James had abdicated, and entered his dissent once more when the House failed to concur. Two days later he voted again in favour of employing the word ‘abdicated’, and the phrase ‘that the throne is thereby vacant’. Later he would claim that his role in the vote ‘against the regency’ (presumably this crucial vote on 6 Feb.) was critical, bringing around Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, the bishop of Durham, Nathaniel Crew^* , 3rd Baron Crew and ‘Lord Ashley’ (presumably his cousin Anthony Ashley Cooper, later 3rd earl of Shaftesbury) to vote against it, and giving William and Mary the crown, which, he claimed, was passed only with these votes. In fact the margin was rather greater than this, and Clarendon recorded that Huntingdon had consistently voted ‘against the king’, though he certainly saw Crew’s vote as significant. CSP Dom. 1694-95, p. 138; Clarendon Corresp. ii. 261-2. On 23 Mar. he subscribed the protest against the resolution to reject the proviso extending the time for taking the sacramental test and allowing the sacrament to be taken in any Protestant church.

Earl of Montagu, 1689-92

Montagu’s support for the new regime was rewarded with membership of the Privy Council on 14 Feb., restoration to the mastership of the great wardrobe and on 9 Apr., in recognition of his services in bringing about the revolution, promotion in the peerage as earl of Montagu and Viscount Monthermer, the last title an acknowledgement of his purported descent from the Montagu earls of Salisbury. TNA, PC 2/73, first page; NAS, GD 157/2681/40. Introduced to the House with his new honours on 13 Apr. between his cousin Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury, and Charles Gerard, earl of Macclesfield, on 24 Apr. Montagu was named to the committee for the bill to reverse the attainder of Algernon Sydney^‡. The following day he was named to the committee for the bill making it a treasonable offence to correspond with the former king. Nominated one of the reporters of a conference for the additional poll bill on 27 May, Montagu was named a reporter of a second conference on the same matter four days later. Named to some 12 committees between June and August, on 10 and 12 July he registered protests over the House’s resolution not to reverse the judgments against Titus Oates and on 12 July he was again included as one of the reporters of the conference for the bill concerning the succession. On 16 July, Schomberg registered his proxy with Montagu, which was vacated by the close of the session. Montagu employed it on 30 July when he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the reversal of the judgments of perjury against Oates. He subscribed the protest when the motion was carried.

Montagu continued to sit through much of August, on 10 Aug. being named to the committee for the bill for prohibiting trade with France. The following month he was compelled to reveal the extent of his financial woes in response to a demand for the peers to provide a self-assessment of their personal estates. He declared that he was ‘sorry to say that I owe above £20,000 for which I pay interest and lost all my plate and [furniture] when my house was burnt.’ Chatsworth, Halifax Coll. B.10. Although missing from the attendance list on that day, Montagu presumably resumed his seat in the new session on 23 Oct. when he was named to the standing committees for privileges and petitions. He was thereafter present for almost 81 per cent of all sittings in the session, during which he was named to 11 committees. On 11-12 Nov. 1689 Montagu proved inadvertently to be the cause of Viscount Preston being arrested when he (Preston) attempted to claim privilege in the course of proceedings on a case brought by Montagu against Preston over the office of the great wardrobe. Preston (the holder of a Scots viscountcy and an unrecognized English earldom granted to him by the exiled king) was ordered to be prosecuted for the high misdemeanour of pretending to be a peer. Verney ms mic. M636/43, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 13 Nov. 1689; Add. 72527, ff. 125-6. On 23 Nov. Montagu registered his protest at the rejection of a rider to the succession bill that sought to prevent the crown from pardoning upon impeachment. This was presumably related to his hostility towards Danby. On 13 Dec. he was teller against the motion to resume the House from committee considering the land tax bill. On 23 Jan. he entered his protest against the passing of the corporation bill. Carmarthen (as Danby had now become) classed him as an opponent of the court on a list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690.

Absent at the opening of the new Parliament, Montagu was also noted as absent at a call of the House on 31 Mar. 1690. He resumed his seat on 14 Apr., and attended approximately 52 per cent of sittings in the session. On 13 May he registered his protest at the resolution not to allow the Corporation of London more time to be heard by their counsel. Montagu was one of those spoken of as a possible replacement for Shrewsbury as secretary of state in May (he had also been mentioned as one of those who might succeed Nottingham the previous month). Add. 72516, ff. 108-9; Add. 70014, f. 322. During the summer he was successful in securing damages of £1,300 from Preston following his case in common pleas over the profits of the great wardrobe. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 48. Although he was appointed a commissioner for proroguing Parliament on 4 July, Montagu was not present at the time of the eventual prorogation on 7 July, perhaps distracted by the last illness of Lady Montagu, who died two months later. CSP Dom. 1690-91, p. 49; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 106. Spoken of again as a possible replacement for Nottingham as secretary of state in November 1690, he resumed his seat on 17 Nov., after which he was present on 38 per cent of all sittings. Add. 70014, f. 361. Although he does not appear to have been added to the standing committees, he was named to the committee for Elizabeth Montagu’s bill on 20 Nov. and to a further three committees during the course of the session.

Montagu played host to the king at his rebuilt London residence on 23 Apr. 1691, an event that provoked ‘great discourse’, and was no doubt one of the causes of a rumour that circulated shortly afterwards suggesting that he was to be appointed lord privy seal as part of a general redistribution of offices. Add. 70015, ff. 57, 59; CSP Dom. 1690-91, p. 350. In November it was also speculated that he might be appointed lord lieutenant of Middlesex, but neither office was forthcoming. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 301. Having resumed his seat at the opening of the session on 22 Oct. 1691, of which he attended approximately 64 per cent of all sittings, Montagu was given the proxy of Edward Ward, 2nd Baron Ward, on 5 Nov., which was vacated by the close of the session. On 21 Nov. he was named to the committee for the bill for the better determination of causes on bills of review in chancery and other courts of equity, the irony of which cannot have been lost on him during his ensuing lengthy legal tussle with John Granville, earl of Bath. In December, Montagu employed his interest in the by-election at Chippenham, which had previously been represented by his son-in-law, Alexander Popham^‡, working with Thomas Wharton, the future marquess of Wharton, on behalf of Major General Thomas Tollemache^‡, who was eventually seated on petition the following January. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 655. Named to a further nine committees during the course of the session, Montagu may have acted as teller for the not contents during a division in a committee of the whole considering the bill against correspondence with the enemy on 22 Jan. 1692. The vote, on a clause declaring all those returning to England from France without the king’s leave guilty of high treason, was resolved in the negative by 32 votes to 24, but as the clerk merely recorded the phrase ‘E. Mon’ it is possible that it was Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth, who was intended. HMC Lords, n.s. iii. 448. On 2 Feb. 1692 Montagu registered his dissent at the resolution not to agree with the Commons over the Lords’ amendments to the appointment of commissioners of accounts.

Montagu v. Bath, 1692-8

Montagu was mentioned as one of those being considered for the lord lieutenancy of Ireland in February 1692, but high office again eluded him. Add. 70119, R. Harley to Sir E. Harley, 4 Feb. 1692. In spite of his previous history of political opportunism, Montagu remained largely consistent in his associations after the revolution. He was present at a dinner held at Pontack’s in August attended by a number of his regular companions, among them his cousin Shrewsbury, John Churchill, earl (later duke) of Marlborough, and Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin. Bodl. Carte 79, f. 461. Shortly afterwards, he married Elizabeth, duchess of Albemarle, no doubt intent on securing her reputed fortune as widow of the childless 2nd duke of Albemarle and one of the four daughters and coheirs of Henry Cavendish, 2nd duke of Newcastle, who had died in 1691. Add. 29596, f. 169; HMC Portland, iii. 500; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 563. The story that Montagu wooed his new wife, who was generally reputed to be insane and had sworn that she would marry none but royalty, in the guise of the emperor of China, is of uncertain origin, but Montagu and the duchess would probably already have known each other, she having been sister-in-law to his stepdaughter, Elizabeth, Lady Percy. Metzger, Montagu, 304-5; E.F. Ward, Christopher Monck, Duke of Albemarle, 344. The marriage gave rise to concerns for Montagu’s wellbeing, as some reckoned that the cause of the duchess’s madness was the result of furor uterinus (nymphomania), which was considered to be infectious. Bodl. Carte 79, f. 455. Soon after the marriage, the duchess disappeared from public view. It was rumoured occasionally that she had died and Montagu was eventually compelled to produce her to put an end to the gossip. Ward, Albemarle, 347. Montagu’s motives in marrying someone of such notorious mental instability were open to speculation. One rumour was that he was to secure promotion in the peerage to a marquessate as a result of the match, though no such honour was forthcoming, but the duchess’ greatest attraction was undoubtedly her reputed wealth. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 574. The marriage was certainly unpopular with her family and among those expecting inheritances from the Albemarle estate. Although her brother-in-law, Thomas Tufton, 6th earl of Thanet, claimed the ‘marriage was not more surprising than pleasing to me’, the earl of Bath was said to be ‘in great disorder with the match,’ as was John Holles, 4th earl of Clare, with whom it was said Montagu had resolved early on ‘to have a suit of law … for a share of the duke of Newcastle’s estate.’ Ward, Albemarle, 345; Add. 70116, A. Harley to Sir E. Harley, 13 Sept. 1692. And indeed, soon after the marriage Montagu was cited as one of the co-defendants in an action brought by Thanet in right of his wife, complaining at Newcastle’s uneven treatment of his daughters in his will. UNL, Pl/F3/1/15. Aside from the suit over the Newcastle estate, the alliance plunged Montagu into the heart of one of the greatest legal tussles of the decade, as a party (on his wife’s behalf) in a cause in chancery against Bath and others, over the division of the Albemarle inheritance. In its simplest terms the origin of the dispute was over the doubtful validity of two wills made by the 2nd duke of Albemarle in 1675 and 1687 and of a deed drawn up by the duke in 1681. The two earlier documents settled the bulk of the Albemarle estates, thought to be worth between £7,000 and £11,000 per annum, on Bath, while the later will preferred some of Albemarle’s obscure Monck relatives, whom he hoped to see ennobled. Portledge Pprs. 201; Evelyn Diary, v. 167; TNA, DEL 1/211. Albemarle had come under pressure in December 1684 not to favour Bath, whom it was believed he had mistaken for a kinsman of his father, and to acknowledge instead Elizabeth Pride, his ‘nearest relation.’ Northants. RO, Montagu letterbk. 1, f. 98.

The immediate consequence of Montagu’s marriage, as far as the case with Bath was concerned, was in bringing the proceedings to a halt as Montagu claimed privilege to protect his (and his new wife’s) interests. He resumed his seat in the House on 4 Nov. 1692 when he was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. Presumably because of the court case his rate of attendance increased: he was present for some 82 per cent of all sittings in the session. On 9 Nov. the House read a petition submitted by Bath requesting that Montagu’s privilege should not obstruct the suit. Bath’s complaint was referred to the privileges committee, which convened on 21 Nov. chaired by Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford: the following day Stamford reported back rejecting Bath’s petition. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/3, pp. 102-3. Free for the moment to concentrate on parliamentary matters, Montagu subscribed the protest at the resolution not to propose to the Commons a joint committee to consider the state of the nation on 7 December. On 30 Dec. he was nominated a reporter of the conference examining the conduct of Admiral Edward Russell, later earl of Orford. On 31 Dec. he voted in favour of committing the place bill, and the same day he was named to the committee considering a bill to permit his son-in-law, Alexander Popham^‡, to direct his wife’s portion to the use of their children.

The forecast made by Thomas Bruce*, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, at the beginning of January 1693 listed Montagu as being likely to oppose the bill permitting Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, to divorce. The following day he duly voted against reading the bill, perhaps as a demonstration of loyalty to the duchess as a member of the Northamptonshire elite. If this was so, he did so in the teeth of the queen’s opposition and that of many of his usual Whig allies. Montagu voted in favour of the place bill on 3 Jan. and subscribed the protest the same day when the measure was voted down. Nominated one of the managers for the conference considering the Commons’ vote approving of Admiral Russell’s conduct on 4 Jan., on 11 Jan. Montagu was again given Ward’s proxy, which was vacated by the close of the session. Six days later he entered his dissent at the decision not to hear all the judges regarding the claim of his Northamptonshire neighbour, Charles Knollys, to the earldom of Banbury. On 19 Jan. Montagu dissented again at the decision not to refer the land tax bill to the committee for privileges and the same day he entered a further dissent at the decision to recede from the Lords’ amendments to the bill. Montagu found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder on 4 February. State Trials, xii. 1048-9. The following month, on 6 Mar., he entered his dissent at the resolution not to communicate to the Commons information concerning Ireland heard at the bar of the House, after which he sat for a further eight days before retiring for the remainder of the session.

During the summer, Montagu’s Northamptonshire seat was one of three venues used by members of the Whig elite discussing ‘considerable alterations in the ministry.’ A party of notables including Marlborough, Godolphin and Admiral Russell as well as Montagu convened at Althorp, home of Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, on 26 Aug. before progressing to Boughton two days later. Add. 75375, f. 14. Once again, it was reported that Montagu was one of those to be rewarded with his appointment as lord privy seal, but the principal goal of the discussions was thought to be the replacement of Nottingham with Sunderland. Verney ms mic. M636/47, A. Nicholas to J. Verney, 31 Aug. 1693. According to Richard Hampden^‡ ‘the meeting at Boughton was intended to work upon my Lord Montagu’, who was hostile to his neighbour’s preferment. According to Gilbert Dolben^‡, Montagu remained unwilling to countenance Sunderland’s rehabilitation, declaring in reference to Sunderland’s service under James II that he ‘deserved rather to be impeached than to be preferred.’ HMC Finch, v. 243.

Montagu found himself immersed in October in the continuing dispute over the Newcastle inheritance between Clare, the duchess of Albemarle, and her sister, the countess of Thanet. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 208. He resumed his seat in the House on 7 Nov. 1693, after which he was present on 64 per cent of all sittings. The same day he was named to the standing committee for privileges and to the committee considering Thomas Skinner’s attempt to revive his case against the East India Company. The death of Anthony Parker^‡, one of the members for Clitheroe, necessitated a by-election later that month and it was reported that Montagu was active in promoting the claims of one John Allen, having assumed an interest in the borough by virtue of his marriage. Verney ms mic. M636/47, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 11 Nov. 1693. In the event Montagu failed to have his way. Allen appears not to have stood and the seat went to Fitton Gerard^‡, standing on the interest of Charles Gerard, styled Viscount Brandon, the future 2nd earl of Macclesfield. The same month, Montagu and Bath finally arrived at a mutual agreement to waive their privilege so that the suit over the Albemarle inheritance could proceed once more. On 22 Dec. the court of chancery issued a decree in favour of Bath’s claim. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 231. In response, Montagu appealed to the Lords. Meanwhile, in January 1694 he and Bath formed an alliance against a third party involved in the dispute, Thomas Pride, who questioned the 2nd duke of Albemarle’s legitimacy and thus claimed the Albemarle inheritance for himself as the ‘right heir’ of George Monck, duke of Albemarle. On 8 Jan. Montagu petitioned the House for the chancery decree in Bath’s favour to be reversed, provoking Bath in turn to demand that Montagu’s appeal be dismissed. PA, HL/PO/JO/3/186/23/776. On 26 Jan. 1694 the House ordered that Pride be heard at the bar and on 29 Jan, in response to his petition, Bath and Montagu agreed to waive their privilege so that he too could pursue his cause. On 1 Feb. counsel was heard in the principal action of Montagu v. Bath. There were further hearings between 1 and 17 Feb., at least one of which attracted the king’s personal attendance. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 262, 268. Montagu was named one of the managers for the conference on the intelligence of the sailing of the Brest fleet on 8 Feb. and for another on the same subject four days later. On 17 Feb. after lengthy debate in the House on Montagu’s appeal that the judgment given in chancery against him on 22 Dec. 1693 be overturned, the House found in favour of Bath and dismissed Montagu’s petition by a margin of three votes. Timberland, i. 424-31; TNA, SP 105/60, ff. 125. Eleven peers entered their dissents and on 20 Feb. 1694 Montagu submitted a further petition requesting a ‘re-hearing’. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 272; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/461/776e. Four days later the petition was rejected by 30 votes to 28. Thirteen peers entered their dissents. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 274-5. Thwarted in the case for the time being, Montagu continued to attend the House until 25 April. He was named to five committees during March, and on 24 Apr. he entered his dissent at the resolution to pass the supply bill (the dissent specifically aimed at those sections of the bill referring to the incorporation of the Bank of England).

In a characteristic demonstration of shameless self-aggrandizement, on 18 May 1694 Montagu wrote to the king requesting promotion to a dukedom. Making comparison with several families including that of his former in-laws, the earls (now dukes) of Bedford, Montagu requested that he be accorded the same dignity, being the head of a family ‘that many ages ago had great honours and dignities, when I am sure these had none.’ Complaining that by being overlooked, he was now ‘below the two younger branches’ of his own family, the earls of Manchester and Sandwich, Montagu insisted that by marrying the eldest daughter of the duke of Newcastle, he was entitled to expect the coveted promotion. If all this was not enough, Montagu continued to emphasize his role in the king’s successful assumption of power at the Revolution:

I may add another pretension, which is the same for which you have given a dukedom to the Bedford family, the having been one of the first and held out to the last in that cause which for the happiness of England brought you to the crown. I hope it will not be thought a less merit to be alive and ready in all occasions to venture all again for your service, than if I had lost my head when my Lord Russell did; I could not then have had the opportunity of doing the nation the service I did when there was such opposition made by the Jacobite party in bringing my Lord Huntingdon, the bishop of Durham and my Lord Ashley to vote against the regency and your having the crown, which was passed but by those three voices and my own. CSP Dom. 1694-5, p. 138.

Despite his protestations, and his expectation that both Shrewsbury and Schomberg would support his petition, Montagu was disappointed in his pretensions, and resumed his seat in the new session on 12 Nov. 1694 without the additional dignity. On that day he was named to the committee for privileges, and was thereafter present on 63 per cent of all sittings. Four days after resuming his place, the next round of his case with the earl of Bath commenced in king’s bench. It resulted in further judgments in Bath’s favour. Add. 17677 OO, ff. 388-9, 393; CSP Dom. 1695, p. 288; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 401; Verney ms mic. M636/48, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 21 Nov. 1694. Montagu received the proxy of John West, 6th Baron De la Warr on 12 Dec., which was vacated by De la Warr’s return to the House on 9 Feb. 1695. On the queen’s death on 28 Dec. 1694 it fell to Montagu as master of the wardrobe to prepare much of the material necessary for the royal funeral. On 4 Feb. 1695 he received the proxy of Thomas Parker, 15th Baron Morley, which was vacated by the close of the session, and on 9 Feb. he was named to the committee for the bill for settling the estate of John Wilmot, 2nd earl of Rochester. Named to two further committees in February, that month it was reported that ‘the vogue of the town’ expected that Montagu and Wharton would be made secretaries of state, but once again, Montagu was passed over for executive office. Lexington Pprs. 61. On 6 Feb. Pride’s case was heard in king’s bench. A verdict was brought in for Bath and Montagu on the 7th. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 437; Lexington Pprs. 56-57. On 9 Mar. Montagu petitioned the House once more over his case, complaining that Bath had failed to produce necessary evidence at their recent trials and requesting that he be ordered to do so in any future actions. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/461/776f. The House ordered that Bath and Montagu’s counsel should be heard on 15 Mar, when, following further consideration, the matter was referred to the lord keeper for his opinion. On 18 Mar. the House rejected Montagu’s petition, concluding that it had not been brought in properly. Although Montagu was named to just one committee in April 1695, he continued to sit until the close of the session at the beginning of May. On 24 Apr. another hearing on the case Thomas Pride’s case against Montagu and Bath found in favour of the latter, and at the end of the month Montagu also gained a verdict against Bath over the validity of the 1681 deed. CSP Dom. 1695, p. 324; Add. 46527, f. 85; Lexington Pprs. 86-87. However, he was given little respite as the two earls faced a further action in the court of exchequer in June on behalf of Pride’s daughters. CSP Dom. 1695, p. 342.

Montagu attended the House for the prorogations on 18 June and again on 17 Sept. 1695. In October, he played host to the king at Boughton during his tour of Northamptonshire and he then resumed his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 22 November. Lexington Pprs. 139. The same month he was appointed one of the commissioners of appeal for prizes. CSP Dom. 1695, p. 112. Present for approximately 61 per cent of all sittings, during the course of the session Montagu was named to a dozen committees. Further hearings of his case with Bath came before common pleas in May 1696, which resulted in a verdict in his favour the following month. By then it was estimated that the case had cost Montagu £20,000, while Bath’s reputation had been damaged by accusations that he had been guilty of forgery in connection with the drawing up of the will and the deed on which he staked his claim. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 73; Portledge Pprs. 233; Evelyn Diary, v. 246. Bath himself made accusations of perjury against several of Montagu’s witnesses and Bath obstructed progress in the cause by reassuming his parliamentary privilege. Portledge Pprs. 233; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 78; HMC Hastings, ii. 262. Resuming his seat in the House for the second session of the 1695 Parliament on 20 Oct. 1696, on 30 Oct. Montagu submitted a petition to the House complaining of Bath’s behaviour and appealed for his rival to be ordered to give up his privilege again. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/485/1066. The matter was heard before the committee for privileges the following day, at which it was ordered that Bath’s reply be reported. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/3, p. 135. Bath argued that Montagu had also caused delays by resuming privilege in the course of the action and claimed that he had done so only to protect himself from cases being brought on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses whom Bath considered to be perjured. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/485/1066a. On 7 Nov. it was reported that the House had granted Bath privilege for six months to pursue the perjury cases, but following further debate in the House on the matter, Bath, still unsatisfied, petitioned once more on 19 November. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 136; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/485/1066b. Four days later Montagu entered his rejoinder to Bath’s latest complaint, remarking that he could not:

but wonder much at the petitioner’s (Bath’s) troubling your lordships with a petition of this nature … And seeing your petitioner is so unstable in his own thoughts as not to be at certainty with himself in relation to the waiving and reassuming of his privilege … this respondent hopes this House will not order something to be entered in the books of this house that his officers and agents at law may not for the future be deterred from doing this respondent justice in going on at law to recover his right. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/485/1066d.

The House ordered that the matter be considered again on 25 Nov., when it was ordered that, ‘the judgment and verdict against the earl of Bath to be entered up, and that the earl of Montagu take no benefit of it till after the two next terms.’ Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 145. A rumour that the ‘controversy’ between the two peers was likely to be ‘accommodated’ at this time appears to have been without foundation. Portledge Pprs. 245.

Montagu voted in favour of the passage of the bill of attainder against Sir John Fenwick^‡, bt. on 23 Dec. 1696. At the Buckinghamshire by-election, held at the close of December 1696, he found his interest in the county sought by several of the candidates opposed to the Wharton interest. Although it was rumoured early on that he might be expected to back John Hampden^‡, whom he had supported previously, another pretender for the seat, the Tory Sir John Verney^‡, bt., the future Viscount Fermanagh [I], also approached Montagu, ‘though unknown to your lordship’, seeking support for his candidacy. Verney ms mic. M636/49, C. Stewkeley to Sir J. Verney, 6 Dec. 1696, Verney to Montagu, 12 Dec. 1696. Following Hampden’s suicide, Montagu appears to have resolved to back Verney, but the election was carried by Wharton’s candidate, Henry Neale^‡. Verney ms mic. M636/49, E. Adams to Sir J. Verney, 24 Dec. 1696. Montagu’s decision to back Verney was presumably a result of tensions either at court or within the ranks of the Buckinghamshire Whigs and perhaps by a desire to challenge Wharton’s dominance in the county. Resuming his seat in the House following the Christmas recess on 8 Jan. 1697, on 25 Jan. Montagu was again entrusted with Ward’s proxy, which was vacated by the close of the session. He continued to sit for much of the remainder of the session, despite complaining of ill health in March when he expressed the hope that he would be able to co-operate with Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, in bringing the ‘governors of the New River to reason’. HMC Portland, iii. 581. Narcissus Luttrell^‡ mistakenly reported that Montagu had been appointed lord lieutenant of Northamptonshire in April. Over the ensuing two months Montagu suffered further reversals in his ongoing case with Bath when a number of his witnesses were found guilty of perjury in king’s bench. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 205, 223; Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, i. 238, 240-1, 243-4; CSP Dom. 1697, p. 189. In June Bath capitalized on these successful prosecutions by bringing actions of subornation and perjury against Montagu’s chaplain, Lambert, and one of his lawyers. Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, i. 287, 302-3; CSP Dom. 1697, p. 211; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 242-3. As the case rumbled on into the autumn, Bath continued to frustrate progress by insisting on his privilege. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 296. Not content with prosecuting his case with Bath, Montagu also appears to have been involved in an argument with Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, at this time over the state of the New Forest. Bolton Hall, Bolton mss ZBO VIII, Bolton to Winchester, 29 Oct. 1697. A rumour in October 1697 that Montagu and Devonshire were to be appointed joint ambassadors to France failed to be realized, but Montagu’s fortunes improved in November when king’s bench reversed the perjury judgments against his witnesses. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 289, 302, 311. In December he was appointed a commissioner of appeal in admiralty cases. CSP Dom. 1697, pp. 510-11.

Montagu suffered the loss of his lodgings in the palace of Whitehall during the fire of January 1698. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 328. The same month Montagu v. Bath was again before the House, with the Lords considering the perjury cases brought against Montagu’s witnesses. Montagu submitted a petition to the House on 3 Jan. complaining that Bath had once more reassumed his privilege, and that by so delaying the trial he had already damaged Montagu’s case as at least one of his witnesses had died in the interim. In response, Bath submitted his own petition on 10 Jan., claiming that Montagu too had obstructed matters by resuming privilege during the perjury trials. Montagu replied four days later, the tenor of his response betraying his clear frustration with Bath’s tactics:

The respondent [Bath] in his answer to this repliant’s [Montagu’s] petition having suggested and insisted upon many matters to which this repliant could give a very full clear and particular answer and could justly set forth the respondent’s agents’ evil practices and contrivances, yet forasmuch as this repliant humbly conceives that many of the said matters are industriously inserted only to perplex and obscure the case and to draw your lordships into debates of matters of facts not properly before you, and which are no ways material to the point in question, which is solely whether the repliant ought to reassume his privilege after waiver of the same, this repliant therefore humbly conceives that he ought not to trouble this honourable House with any further reply to the said foreign matters.

Montagu’s robust reply was met by a further rejoinder by Bath on 18 Jan. 1698. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/485/1066e-1066h. Only when Montagu agreed to lay aside all the tainted witnesses did Bath agree finally to waive his privilege once more so that the case could continue in earnest. Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 9, ff. 20-21; Thynne pprs. 44, ff. 23-24. As a corollary, the day before (17 Jan.) the House debated the ‘exorbitant fees’ being charged by lawyers, ‘occasioned by the late very expensive trials between the earls of Bath and Montagu’. CSP Dom. 1698, p. 37; Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 9, ff. 9-10.

Montagu was named a manager of the conferences considering the bill for punishing Charles Duncombe^‡ on 7 and 11 Mar. 1698. On 15 Mar. Montagu voted in favour of committing the bill, entering his dissent the same day when the resolution was not carried. In the midst of its consideration of the Duncombe affair, the House again turned its attention to Montagu’s case with Bath on 12 Mar. and again concluded in the latter’s favour, voting by 35 to 21 to reverse the judgment of king’s bench, which had previously reversed the perjury judgments brought against three of Montagu’s witnesses. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 44, ff. 61-62; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 354-5. On 11 May Montagu was named a manager of the conference for amendments to a bill for erecting hospitals and workhouses in Colchester. His case against Bath suffered a further reversal when it was reported that month that Christopher Monck, one of Albemarle’s kinsmen who, like Montagu, expected to benefit from the later will, had deserted Montagu and settled with Bath in return for £10,000 and an annuity of £1,000. HMC Downshire, i. 776; Add. 72538, ff. 209-10. In spite of this, Montagu persevered and on 27 May, following another hearing that lasted into the next morning, he was successful in carrying an action in common pleas against Bath, who was found to have forged at least some of the documents on which he had based his case. CSP Dom. 1698, pp. 273-4; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 385-6; Evelyn Diary, 288. Shortly after, Montagu was also successful in king’s bench when Bath failed to appear, having been unable to convince the court to put the matter off to a later date. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 386; Beinecke Lib., Osborn coll. Biscoe-Maunsell newsletters, 4 June 1698. In October, it was rumoured that Monck had sold his pretensions to the Albemarle estate to Bath for £40,000. CSP Dom. 1697, p. 451. Other reports of the same month indicated that Bath and Montagu were also on the verge of concluding a settlement, to end an action that had almost certainly ruined Bath and must also have severely damaged Montagu financially. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 443; Surr. Hist. Cent. 371/14/A/9. Nevertheless, the two families continued legal action for the following ten years. TNA, E 133/88/58, C 10/305/47.

The Pursuit of Honour, 1698-1709

Freed for the time being from his dispute with Bath, Montagu resumed his seat in the House on 6 Dec. 1698, after which he was present for approximately 60 per cent of all sittings. On 20 Apr. 1699 he chaired the committee considering Augustine Cloribus’s naturalization bill, reporting the committee’s amendment to the House the same day, and he was also named one of the managers of a conference on bill about Blackwell Hall market. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/6, p. 92. The following day he was named a manager of a conference concerning a bill establishing Billingsgate as a free market. He was named manager of a second conference on the same subject on 27 April.

Montagu’s interest in closer relations with France was recalled in June when he was named one of the executors to the duchess of Mazarin, whom he had attempted to introduce at court as a counterbalance to the duchess of Portsmouth in the late 1670s. CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 231; Browning, Danby, i. 223. Writing to Arnold Joost van Keppel, earl of Albemarle, Montagu appealed for his aid in taking care of the duchess’s family and concerns ‘till we receive his majesty’s orders and directions’. Add. 63630, ff. 160-1. Montagu’s continuing importance in Whig politics was also indicated by the choice of Boughton as the venue for a meeting between Shrewsbury, Wharton and other members of the Junto in August. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 544; UNL, Portland mss, PwA 1498. The same month it was reported that the dispute over the Albemarle estate was to be renewed by members of the Pride family, which may have been the occasion of Montagu’s hasty departure from Northamptonshire at the beginning of September, preventing him from making an intended visit to his neighbour Christopher Hatton, Viscount Hatton. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 549; Add. 29549, f. 93.

Montagu’s attendance in the House declined markedly from this point on, possibly on account of poor health. He sat for just one day in November 1699, and did not resume his seat until 16 Feb. 1700, attending in all just 13 days of the 91-day session. Presumably unaware of Montagu’s ill-attendance, Charles Berkeley, 2nd earl of Berkeley, asked him at the close of December 1699 to inform him of ‘any particulars of court or Parliament that you think I may not easily come to know by other hands’ while he was absent in Ireland. Berkeley Castle Muns. select bks. 35 (J), pp. 65-66. On 23 Feb. 1700 Montagu voted against the House adjourning to discuss the bill for continuing the East India Company as a corporation in a committee of the whole and on 8 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to read the Norfolk divorce bill a second time. Probably marked as a supporter of the Junto in a list of about July 1700, his continuing significance as a political broker was underlined in a letter of the following month which noted that, ‘my Lord Montagu’s is still the seat of politics and this night a consult is to be held there, which is to model a new settlement to break country parties and to do other wonders.’ Add. 72498, ff. 20-21.

Montagu was absent from the opening of the new Parliament in February 1701 and, having taken his seat on 13 May, three months after the opening of the first session, he was present for just 17 per cent of all sittings. Once in attendance, he rallied to the support of his Junto colleagues. On 17 June he voted to acquit John Somers, Baron Somers, of the charges of impeachment against him and on 23 June he also supported the motion to acquit Orford.

Montagu took his seat in the new Parliament on 2 Jan. 1702, after which he was present on 10 per cent of all sitting days. In April he sought Harley’s backing for a bill in the Commons sponsored by some of his friends concerning the development of Albemarle Ground. HMC Portland, iv. 38; Add. 70020, f. 171. The following month he suffered the loss of his heir, Winwood Montagu, styled Viscount Monthermer, while abroad in Hanover. In September of the same year it was reported that Montagu himself was also seriously ill. HMC Buccleuch, i. 351; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 170, 218; Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 5 May 1702. Although still complaining of giddiness that autumn, Montagu again hosted a conclave of Junto grandees including Somers and Wharton towards the end of September. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 136; Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 1 Oct. 1702. Despite his poor health, Montagu rallied to resume his seat in the House on 16 Nov., after which he was present on almost 30 per cent of all sittings. Nottingham estimated Montagu to be opposed to the bill for preventing occasional conformity in January 1703, and on 16 Jan. he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. The same month he undertook to use his interest on behalf of John Bridges, one of the commissioners for accounts, who was examined by the Commons on 25 January. Add. 72490, f. 38. He was present for a handful of days in February, last attending on the 24th. Montagu was thereafter absent for the remaining two sessions of the Parliament. Again estimated to be an opponent of the occasional conformity bill in an assessment of November 1703, in December it was noted that he had voted against the bill by proxy, though no record of the proxy has survived. The deaths of two earls of Bath in quick succession served to reignite the dispute over the Albemarle inheritance. In Montagu’s absence, the House heard his counsel contesting the bill for settling the earl of Bath’s estate brought in by John Granville, Baron Granville, on 11 Feb. 1704. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 390. Once again, the suit took on a momentum of its own and rumbled on for the remainder of Montagu’s life. TNA, C 10/305/47; C 9/193/45; C 10/307/52. He was excused at a call of the House on 23 Nov. 1704 and on 5 Dec. he registered his proxy with his cousin, Charles Montagu, Baron (later earl of) Halifax. In about April 1705 he was noted as being a supporter of the Hanoverian succession.

From the summer of 1703 Montagu had been working on the question of the marriage of his youngest son, now his heir. Negotiations with Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, for the hand of her youngest daughter, Lady Mary Churchill, were not without difficulties. John Montagu, styled Viscount Monthermer, later 2nd duke of Montagu, born in 1690, was notoriously immature and although the duke of Marlborough eventually acquiesced in Monthermer and Lady Mary cohabiting once they were both 16, concluding that it would be ‘impossible to refuse it’, he was far from enthusiastic, complaining that ‘I could wish with all my heart they were older’. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 336. Montagu was worried about the delay, and although he had no choice but to agree to the Marlboroughs’ terms, he wrote to the duchess representing, ‘how uneasy it must be to a man of my age and infirmities to see the settling of my son deferred.’ Add. 61450, f. 193. Following a series of delays, the negotiations for the match were finally concluded in March 1705. Queen Anne provided Lady Mary with her dowry, while the reversion of Montagu’s office of the great wardrobe was settled on Monthermer for life. Northants. RO, Montagu letterbk. 2, ff. 32, 35. In acknowledgement of the alliance, Montagu at last achieved his promotion in the peerage: on 12 Apr. he was created duke of Montagu.

Montagu was introduced to the House in his new style on 15 Nov. 1705 between James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, and Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, but he was then absent from the House until 13 Feb. 1706, after which he was again absent for the remainder of the session. Absence from Parliament did not prevent Montagu from continuing to badger the Marlboroughs for further favours. In August 1706 he recommended one Colonel Wightman to Marlborough and in January 1707 pressed the claims of his cousin, Mrs Dutton, on the duchess. Add. 61297, f. 136; 61450, ff. 201-2. The following month he appears to have begun to lobby for his own nomination as a knight of the garter. Northants. RO, Montagu letterbk. 2, f. 26. By the summer of 1707 the duchess had grown weary of his apparently insatiable acquisitiveness and in response to his latest request that his son might be appointed to the captaincy of the yeomen of the guard, she was forced to inform him that, ‘there is so few employments, and so many to be gratified for the queen’s service, that I can’t think of asking the captain of the yeomen of the guard for my son-in-law, who has (in reversion) one of the best things the queen has to give, and for his life.’ Add. 61450, f. 195; HMC Buccleuch, i. 356. Not to be denied, Montagu set out to justify his ambitions for Monthermer, arguing that:

The queen’s mind is much altered in not allowing of two great offices in one family. My Lord Treasurer [Godolphin] his son and daughter-in-law have three, my Lord Devonshire and his son had two, my Lord [Sunderland Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland] and my lady have two, the duke and duchess of Ormond the same, also the duke and duchess of [Somerset Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset]. The duke of Bolton is warden of the New Forest, vice-admiral in those seas and governor of the Isle of Wight: all places of great honour and profit. These examples will I hope in some measure make my excuse with your grace and show you madam that I am not unreasonable in my pretensions for my son as you may perhaps judge me to be.

Montagu’s continuing poor health denied him the opportunity of making his ‘court as I ought to do’ and was presumably the reason for his absence from the House from the winter of 1706 until early 1708. Add. 61450, ff. 199-200. He resumed his place eventually on 4 Feb. 1708, but having attended just one day he was again absent for the remainder of the session. The same month he drew up a codicil to his will, composed the previous year, revoking a former codicil, which had been ‘by some accident lost or mislaid’. TNA, PROB 11/508. In May 1708 he was, unsurprisingly, classified as a Whig in a list of the Parliament of Great Britain. The following month he attempted to employ his patronage on behalf of one Colthurst for the office of chief justice of New York. Writing on Colthurst’s behalf to Thomas Hopkins^‡, under-secretary of state, Montagu explained how he had been ‘a great solicitor for my Lord Sunderland on his election in Northamptonshire’, and stressed that the lord chancellor, William Cowper, Baron (later Earl) Cowper, had ‘promised me his friendship in the matter’. Hopkins mss (Hist. of Parl. trans.), Montagu to T. Hopkins, 5 June, 1708; Add. 64928, f. 49. The following year, he attempted to employ his interest with Godolphin, on behalf of Matthew Prior^‡, one of the pretenders for a place in the commission of trade. Add. 61155, ff. 188-9.

Montagu resumed his seat in the House on 10 Jan. 1709. On 21 Jan. he voted against permitting Scots peers with British titles from voting in the election of the Scots representative peers, but on 28 Jan., having sat for just four days of the session, he retired from the House for final time. On 30 Jan. Marlborough complained that Montagu was still plaguing him for preferment for his son. In response to his latest request that Monthermer might be given the command of the troop belonging to Albemarle, Marlborough ‘made him a civil answer’ but informed him that ‘the troop was not to be sold.’ Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1214. Six weeks later, on 9 Mar., Montagu died of pleurisy at the rebuilt Montagu House in Bloomsbury, a few hours after his daughter-in-law had given birth. Post Boy, 8 Mar. 1709. His death seems to have been unexpected and left several would-be office-holders mourning the loss of an assiduous intercessor. Add. 72494, ff. 104-5; Add. 61546, ff. 124-5. He was buried at Warkton, and succeeded by his son, Monthermer, as 2nd duke of Montagu. In his will, Montagu named his cousin Halifax, Somers, Edmund Dummer and Thomas Dummer, his deputy at the great wardrobe, as his executors and Mark Antony and John Warner as trustees. In stark contrast to his life of ostentatious display, he requested that his funeral should be ‘very private’, that only two coaches should attend and that it should cost ‘as little as conveniently.’ An annuity of £50 was left to one of his servants, George Keene, annuities of £100 apiece to Edmund and Thomas Dummer and a further annuity of £1,000 to his grandson, John Montagu, styled Lord Montagu (d. 1711). The remainder passed to his heir, who inherited what was reckoned to be one of the largest estates in the country, comprising lands in Middlesex, Northamptonshire, Huntingdon, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Kent, Surrey, Warwickshire and Staffordshire. In the event of the direct line failing, Montagu detailed the succession through the various cadet branches of his family, requiring that (should they not already do so) the holder should assume the surname of Montagu. TNA, PROB 10/7370; PROB 11/508. Although the new duke’s inheritance was estimated at an annual income of £30,000 and a personal estate valued at £200,000, it was rumoured that Montagu had died £40,000 in debt and that Montagu House was encumbered with a £20,000 mortgage. The Court in Mourning. Being the Life and Worthy Actions of Ralph, Duke of Montagu ... (1709); Verney ms mic. M636/54, M. Adams to Visct. Fermanagh, 26 Mar. 1709.

Few appear to have mourned Montagu’s demise, but his death did finally lay to rest the rumour that he had made away with his wife. Anne Hadley described to Abigail Harley how:

Here is no lamentation for the duke of Montagu, but he by departing has given the inquisitive world the long desired satisfaction of knowing his mad duchess to be alive. They say she will be given to the duke of Newcastle when a commission of lunacy is taken out, and what’s more will come in for her thirds of her (or her pretended husband’s) estate. For my part I’m apt to think could he have foreseen, or rather believed, at what a distance this present world and he so soon would have been, he for the wealth and honour’s sake of his family would discreetly have knocked her ladyship in the head in good time, being I suppose not troubled with a scrupulous conscience. Add. 70144, A. Hadley to A. Harley, 16 Mar. 1709.

The duchess, who had lived for so long in seclusion, survived her husband for more than 20 years. Montagu’s death provoked ‘great contending’ within the family over who was to have her keeping and she proved to be a continuing embarrassment to her relations for the remainder of her life. Add. 31143, f. 311; HMC Dartmouth, iii. 147; Wentworth Pprs. 79.