MONTAGU (MOUNTAGU), Edward II (1625-72), of Hinchingbrooke, Hunts.

In November 1660 Edward Montagu confessed to Samuel Pepys† that, as gratitude was ‘the greatest thing in the world’, he had often worried during the interregnum how he could repay the royal patronage which had advanced his father’s career.79Pepys’s Diary, i. 285. He had perhaps always seen himself as a courtier by birth. Indeed, had the civil war not intervened, the chances are that he would have embarked on an official career similar to that of his father. Sir Sidney clearly assumed so. He enrolled his son at the Middle Temple in 1635 when Edward was still aged just ten and two years later he obtained for him the reversions to the positions of clerk of the privy seal and register of the court of requests.80MT Admiss. i. 131; Coventry Docquets, 200.

However, it was Sir Sidney’s reluctance to involve himself in the civil war, resulting in his expulsion from the Commons in December 1642, which propelled his son, then still only in his late teens, into public life. As early as 1643 Sir Sidney transferred the management of Hinchingbrooke (his ‘house-keeping’) to the newly married Edward and he probably also placed most of his estates into his son’s hands.81NMM, SAN/A/3, f. 120. At the same time, Parliament began appointing Edward to some of the local offices to which it might, in other circumstances, have preferred to name the more experienced Sir Sidney. The crucial difference was that, unlike his father, Edward strongly supported the parliamentarian cause. From February and March 1643 he was included on the Huntingdonshire commissions for assessments and for sequestrations, and in June of that year he became one of the Huntingdonshire deputy lieutenants.82A. and O.; CJ iii. 131b. Once he turned 18 in July 1643, he was able to sign up to serve as an officer in the army of the Eastern Association under his cousin, the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†).

Soldier, 1643-5

He did so as a colonel with a commission to raise his own regiment of foot.83Spring, Regts. of the Eastern Assoc. 68; BHO, Cromwell Assoc. database. His men were mostly recruited from Cambridgeshire and it is known that in early November 1643 he raised four companies from the villages of Chesterton, Fen Ditton, Barnwell and Waterbeach, all immediately to the north of Cambridge.84Bodl. Carte 74, f. 159. Later members of the regiment included Thomas Kelsey*, Wroth Rogers* and John Biscoe*. Montagu soon saw action. On 6 May 1644 during the capture of Lincoln, he and Francis Russell* led the assault on the cathedral close. One of the pro-parliamentarian newsbooks noted of them that their ‘affection to the cause, freeness from self ends [and] hatred of covetousness’ were all points for which ‘we have had sufficient testimony’, while William Goode spoke of them as ‘two valiant and religious colonels’.85The Parliament Scout, no. 47 (9-16 May 1644), 390 (E.47.26); W. Goode, A Particular Relation of the Severall Removes (1644), 5 (E.47.8). Montagu’s regiment was then among those of the Eastern Association sent north to assist in the siege of York and they took part in the battle of Marston Moor (2 July).86Bodl. Carte 74, f. 159; A True Relation of the Late Fight (1644), 7-8 (E.54.7); The Parliament Scout, no. 55 (4-11 July 1644), 440 (E.54.20); SP28/18, f. 305. The following month they helped seize Sheffield Castle.87CSP Dom. 1644, p. 519; CSP Dom. Add. 1625-49, pp. 665-6. In September one of Manchester’s subordinates, Major-general Lawrence Crawfurd, accused Oliver Cromwell* of fomenting a mutiny against him. In Crawfurd’s mind, the regiments most prominent in the ‘juncto’ being encouraged by Cromwell to disobey him were those of Montagu and John Pickering.88Manchester Quarrel, 61. Having marched south again with Manchester, Montagu and his men then fought in the second battle of Newbury (27 Oct.).89Bodl. Carte 74, f. 160. By the following month he was with some of men stationed in Huntingdonshire.90Luke Letter Bks. 61.

The military quarrel between Cromwell and Manchester may have owed something to the long-standing local and personal tensions between the two families, dating back to Sir Sidney Montagu’s purchase of Hinchingbrooke in 1627. But Edward Montagu now unambiguously sided with Cromwell. In his evidence to the investigation into Cromwell’s accusations in January 1645, Montagu claimed that his cousin had never wanted a war in the first place. He also alleged that Manchester had resisted suggestions in the autumn of 1644 that renewed efforts should be made to take the royalist stronghold at Newark.91CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 160-1. Yet just four days later Manchester added to Montagu’s responsibilities by appointing him as governor of Henley, a key parliamentarian stronghold on the front line between London and the king’s headquarters at Oxford.92Bodl. Carte 74, f. 151. One of his first tasks, ordered by the Committee of Both Kingdoms, was to fortify Phyllis Court, the house of Bulstrode Whitelocke*, which had been requisitioned for the use of the Henley garrison.93CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 300, 305. However the troops there were restless. Complaints over lack of pay turned into mutiny on 20 February 1645, when, on being mustered, several of the companies marched out of the town in protest.94CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 314-15 On hearing of this, Montagu travelled to Henley from London and had the ringleaders arrested, only for them then to be released by Manchester.95CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 318-19. Two days later, at Montagu’s instigation, this matter was raised in the Commons by John Lisle*. The Commons responded by ordering George Montagu*, the MP for Huntingdon and Manchester’s half-brother, to ask the earl to question the ringleaders.96CJ iv. 60a. This was doubtless intended by his enemies as a further means to disparage Manchester. The trouble was resolved by sending new troops to replace those causing the problems.97CSP Dom. 1644-5, p. 323. But this incident also weakened Montagu and within weeks he had been replaced as governor by Whitelocke.98Whitelocke, Diary, 166. Moreover, Manchester now almost certainly tried to block Montagu’s reappointment as a regimental colonel under the New Model. On considering the new officer list, an attempt was made by the Lords to substitute William Herbert for Montagu as the proposed colonel for the tenth regiment of foot.99Harl. 166, ff. 183, 183v; R.K.G. Temple, ‘The original officer list of the New Model Army’, BIHR lix. 71. Montagu was nevertheless confirmed. On 8 June he joined with Sir Thomas Fairfax* and the other colonels in signing the letter to the Lords calling for Cromwell to be given the command of the cavalry forces raised in East Anglia, although Montagu himself may have advised against sending it.100LJ vii. 421a-b; Luke Letter Bks. 317, 619.

Montagu’s new regiment fought at Naseby on 14 June 1645. Two months later, on passing through Huntingdon on 24 August, the king dined at Hinchingbrooke.101Add. 11315, f. 1. Needless to say, Montagu was not present. He was detained elsewhere anyway, as by then he and his men were among the forces which, under the command of Fairfax, were laying siege to Bristol. During the climatic attack on 10 September, Montagu and Pickering stormed Lawford’s Gate leading to the castle. Once Prince Rupert had indicated that he wished to surrender, Montagu and Pickering, along with Thomas Rainborowe*, were sent to negotiate the terms.102Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 374-6; Moderate Intelligencer, no. 26 (21-28 Aug. 1645, E.298.17); Mercurius Veridicus, no. 22 (13-20 Sept. 1645), 151-2 (E.302.10). The next day Cromwell, Montagu and Rainborowe escorted Rupert to his meeting with Fairfax for the formal surrender of the city.103An Exact Relation of Prince Rupert His marching out of Bristoll (1645), 2 (E.302.3). Fairfax then sent Montagu and Robert Hammond* to report this news to Parliament.104LJ vii. 583b; CJ iv. 277a-b. The following month, on 14 October, Montagu’s regiment took part in the storming of Basing House.105Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 386; The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer no. 121 (7-14 Oct. 1645), 971 (E.304.24). But Montagu was not with them and his time as their commander was drawing to a close. Having recently been elected to Parliament, he would soon resign his commission. Still aged only 20, he left the army with what was already a distinguished military record. He was also widely respected. The royalist Edward Hyde* would later claim that, during this phase of his career, Montagu had acquired a reputation as ‘a very stout and sober young man’.106Clarendon, Hist. vi. 187.

Montagu’s exact religious views at this time are uncertain. The most famous comments on the subject date from much later; when he and Pepys discussed religion in May 1660, Pepys found him ‘wholly sceptical’, thinking that Protestants were just as much as ‘wholly fanatics’ as Roman Catholics, although he did approve of ‘uniformity and form of prayer’.107Pepys’s Diary, i. 141. His views in the mid-1640s may have been rather different. In June 1645 Sir Samuel Luke* included Montagu’s among those he considered to be the ‘chiefest praying and preaching regiments in the army’.108Luke Letter Bks. 324. But all that underlines is that in this period, as a soldier in the New Model army, Montagu was moving within a particularly godly and radical milieu. His own opinions may have been rather more conservative and his personal contacts with some of the army radicals could just as easily explain any later cynicism.

Long Parliament, 1645-53

By 1645 two vacancies existed among the Huntingdonshire MPs, as Sir Sidney Montagu had been disabled and had since died, while Edward Montagu I, MP for Huntingdon, had succeeded as 2nd Baron Montagu. As early as February 1645 Montagu and Robert Bernard* had been laying plans for prospective by-elections.109Bodl. Carte 74, f. 197. New writs were finally issued, as part of the string of ‘recruiter’ elections, in September 1645. Once again the Hinchingbrooke interest proved dominant and, in an election probably held some time in early October, Edward was elected as his father’s successor as MP for the county. He took his seat in the Commons on 13 October.110The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer no. 121 (7-14 Oct. 1645), 971. The next day moves began to appoint him to the vacancy on the Committee for the Army which had been created by the death of William Strode I*.111CJ iv. 307a, 311b, 315b; A. and O. He took the Solemn League and Covenant on 29 October.112CJ iv. 326a That his cousin, George Montagu*, was also an MP causes less confusion than it might have done as the Journal usually refers to Edward using his military rank. He retained that title even although he resigned his military commission on 27 October 1645. John Lambert* subsequently took over the command of that regiment.113Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, i. 59n, 70n.

Even so, Edward Montagu’s exact role during the crisis of the summer of 1647 is difficult to discern. As he had been granted leave of absence on 1 May, it is possible that he was not at Westminster for much of the time.114CJ v. 159b. In the first week of June the king and his military escort stayed at Hinchingbrooke on their way from Holdenby to Newmarket following his abduction by George Joyce, a move which only increased tensions between Parliament and the army.115Mems. of the Two last Years of the Reign of...King Charles I (1702), 24. Montagu may have been back at Westminster by 24 June, when he was included on the committee to consider the bill establishing holidays for apprentices.116CJ v. 222a. As that bill was a concession to the London apprentices, Montagu probably either sympathised with their criticisms of the Independents and the army or feared further disruption by them in the streets of the capital. Many MPs, taking the latter view, now sought instead to appease the army, only to provoke the London crowds into their attacks on the Palace of Westminster on 26 July. However, it is more likely to have been George Montagu, not Edward, who was the ‘Mr Mountague’ named to the Presbyterian-dominated ‘committee of safety’ on 2 August after some of the Independent MPs fled to join the army.117CJ v. 265a. Thereafter Edward continued to keep a low profile in Parliament and on 8 December he obtained permission to spend some time in the country.118CJ v. 377a. Apart from being confirmed as one of the Huntingdonshire assessment commissioners (23 Dec. 1647), he left no trace in the parliamentary records during this period.119CJ v. 400b. In early January 1648 he was certainly back at Hinchingbrooke, as he wrote to the Speaker, William Lenthall*, from there to confirm that he had received the latest order for the collection of the county’s assessment arrears.120Add. 19399, f. 16.

His activities during the second civil war in 1648 are also uncertain. It was more probably George Montagu who was sent in June 1648 to encourage the 8th earl of Rutland (John Manners*) to maintain the garrison at Belvoir Castle.121CJ v. 590a. There is also the questionable testimony of Lady Fanshawe that Edward assisted Adrian Scrope* in the defeat of the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich†) and George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, at St Neots on 9 July.122The Mems. of Anne, Lady Halkett and Ann, Lady Fanshawe ed. J. Loftis (Oxford, 1979), 121. Later that year, with the royalist uprising defeated but with Parliament’s own army increasingly restless, he and Abraham Burrell* were appointed to urge the assessment collectors in Huntingdon to speed up so that the soldiers could be paid sooner (25 Nov).123CJ vi. 87b. That failed to prevent the purge of the Commons by Thomas Pride* on 6 December. Montagu was not excluded by Pride, but he nevertheless refused to accept the legitimacy of the reduced House.124Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 380. He made no attempt to take up his seat again at any point before the Rump was dismissed by Cromwell in April 1653.

Return to politics, 1653

The decision to resume his involvement in national politics was one that was taken for him. In 1653 Montagu was commanded to attend the Nominated Parliament as one of its representatives for Huntingdonshire. He was not an obvious ‘saint’ and a later Fifth Monarchist claim that he was among those summoned to sit in order to balance some of the more radical nominees is not in itself implausible.125A Faithfull Searching Home Word (1659), 16 (E.774.1); Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 121. Moreover, almost as soon as he had taken his seat, his new colleagues propelled to him even greater prominence. Ten days into the session, Parliament included him among its additions to the existing council of state.126CJ vii. 284b, 285a; CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 25. Some of his most significant contributions to the proceedings of this Parliament were therefore as a spokesman for the council. On 3 August he reported to the House on the latest letter from George Monck*.127CJ vii. 294b. It was also on the council’s behalf that on 9 September he raised the issue of a pension for Robert Hammond.128CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 117; CJ vii. 316b. Ten days later he briefed them on the case of James Freeze, which had likewise been referred to them at the council’s instigation.129CJ vii. 320b; CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 155, 161. Other contributions by him may have been less official. He and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper* were the tellers who on 27 July helped block further discussion on whether there should be a general right to preach in public.130CJ vii. 290b. As a teller, he also acted on behalf of two prominent royalists, Charlotte de Trémoille, countess of Derby, and Charles Cavendish*, Viscount Mansfield.131CJ vii. 325a, 334a. In the same capacity, he found himself opposing Cromwell in the division on 1 November on the size of the salaries to be paid to the trustees for the sale of the royal forests.132CJ vii. 352b. His assorted committee appointments included those on Scottish affairs (9 July), public debts (20 July) and the advancement of learning (21 July).133CJ vii. 283b, 287a, 287b, 323b, 339b.

On 1 November 1653 this Parliament re-elected Montagu to the council of state, after he received 59 votes in the first round of voting.134CJ vii. 344a. He was sworn in two days later.135CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 230. Moreover, possibly immediately and certainly by 16 November, he was chairing the council as its lord president.136CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 254, 277. This placed him in a key position now that many on the council and in the House itself were becoming dissatisfied with the direction being taken by the majority in Parliament. In the fateful vote on 10 December, Montagu almost certainly sided with the minority which would have preferred to maintain the existing structures of church finance.137Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 424. He was then widely reported to be one of the leading figures in the group of MPs who two days later persuaded most of their colleagues to resign this Parliament’s powers into Cromwell’s hands, thus bringing this constitutional experiment to an end.138Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 343.

Serving the protector, 1653-8

Under its replacement, the protectorate, Montagu became one of the Cromwells’ most loyal supporters. Cromwell immediately re-appointed him to the council of state and so he joined the lord protector’s inner circle of advisers. The wide range of issues he now handled as a councillor included the alterations to the commissions of the peace, the conditions in prisons, the sales of the royal forests, Ireland and the organisation of the lord protector’s household.139CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 344, 356, 363, 369, 381; 1654, pp. 46, 98, 258, 284, 341-2. One recurring theme was his interest in army pay.140CSP Dom. 1653-4, pp. 348, 353, 363; 1654, pp. 124, 341-2. That, however, reflected more than just his own status as an ex-army officer. From late December 1653 he had served as a commissioner to inspect the treasuries. Henceforth he had a major say in protectoral financial policy. That was confirmed in August 1654 when he was appointed as one of the new treasury commissioners, which Edmund Ludlowe II* saw simply as an example of Cromwell rewarding ‘his creatures’.141CSP Dom. 1654, p. 215; Bodl. Carte 74, ff. 416, 436; Ludlow, Mems. i. 372.

Montagu was re-elected as MP for Huntingdonshire on 12 July 1654, probably without too much difficulty, although the two other candidates he favoured, Griffith Lloyde* and Stephen Phesant*, lost out to Henry Cromwell I*. Most of the committees to which Montagu was appointed during this Parliament’s first session were either routine, such as that to declare a fast day (15 Sept.), or predictable, such as those on the army and the navy (26 Sept.) or on Irish affairs (29 Sept.).142CJ vii. 368b, 370b, 371b. The civil lawyers saw him as a potential supporter for their petition for the encouragement of civil law.143Tanner 51, f. 10. Having confirmed his appointment as a treasury commissioner on 24 October, it was unsurprising that Parliament then also named Montagu to its committee for public accounts on 22 November.144CJ vii. 378a, 387b. However, a brief period of ill health interrupted his attendance in late October 1654.145CJ vii. 377a.

More significant was the part he played on his return, when Parliament concentrated on its attempts to revise the constitutional settlement laid down by the 1653 Instrument of Government. Montagu’s immediate concern was to forestall any moves to weaken the lord protector’s military prerogatives. The proposed clause concerning the financial subvention for the army specified that those revenues were to continue only until 40 days after the meeting of the next Parliament. On 16 December Montagu and Lord Broghill* were the tellers for those who wanted that particular restriction to be deleted. They failed to secure its removal, however.146CJ vii. 403a. A month later, on 16 January 1655, Parliament considered a clause which would have confirmed the lord protector’s authority over the militia. Montagu and John Maidstone* were then the tellers for the minority who wanted that clause to be included.147CJ vii. 418b. He had in the meantime also served on the committee which deliberated on how generous a custom grant should be included in that bill (13 Jan.).148CJ vii. 415b. His third tellership on this bill perhaps reflected less his official role and more his own personal views. On 11 December 1654 the House had debated whether the clause against ‘damnable heresies’ should detail exactly which heresies they had in mind. Montagu, who probably had few sympathies which some of the more heterodox forms of religious opinion, was one of the tellers for those who wanted any ambiguities removed by naming specific heresies.149CJ vii. 399b.

Notes made by Montagu during the meetings of the council of state on 20 April and 20 July 1654 provide unique insights into the debates at the highest levels of government on the proposals to send a military expedition to attack Spanish colonial possessions in the Caribbean. Unfortunately, they are less revealing about Montagu’s own views on what became the ‘Western Design’.150Clarke Pprs. iii. 203-8. What can be said is that the outbreak of direct hostilities with Spain would open a new chapter in Montagu’s career. His interest in naval affairs was formalised in October 1655 when he was named to the council’s admiralty committee; the following month he was included on a new commission for the admiralty and navy.151CSP Dom. 1655, p. 394; 1655-6, p. 10. Even more significantly, in January 1656 he was appointed by the council to serve with Robert Blake* as one of the two generals-at-sea.152CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 92; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 93, 100. Ludlowe cynically assumed that the real reason for this appointment was that Cromwell wished to undermine Blake.153Ludlow, Mems. ii. 37. In fact, the more pertinent reason was that the more obvious candidates, like William Penn†, Richard Badiley, Sir John Lawson and Monck, were all, for various reasons, unavailable. In any case, Montagu was just the latest army officer to be given a command at sea without any previous naval experience. It helped that he had Blake with him on his first voyage. In March 1656 the two of them sailed to Cadiz and, having failed to intercept the Spanish silver fleet, they sailed on to the Mediterranean, where Montagu reconnoitred the Spanish defences at Gibraltar. A visit to Lisbon to threaten a blockade of the Tagus then quickly secured the payment owed by the Portuguese under the treaty Blake had concluded with them in 1654. This was followed by a brief excursion to North Africa in a half-hearted attempt to menace the Barbary corsairs. But their greatest triumph was left to last. In September a group of ships which they had detached from their main fleet and which was under the command of their subordinate officer, Richard Stayner, successfully intercepted the Spanish silver fleet off Cadiz. Stayner’s sensational achievement enabled Blake and Montagu to be hailed as national heroes.

They reached England, with their booty, on 28 October. In Montagu’s absence, new parliamentary elections had been held and the new Parliament was already under way. The voters of Huntingdonshire had again returned Montagu as one of their MPs. When he took his seat in the House on 4 November, a vote of thanks was made to him for the capture of the treasure fleet.154CJ vii. 450a. However, he did not remain long at Westminster. Understandably anxious to spend time with his family, he soon withdrew to Hinchingbrooke for the winter.155Burton’s Diary, i. 284. He remained there until early February 1657.156The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell ed. R. Vaughan (1839), ii. 102, 105.

During those months, Samuel Pepys, now in his service as one of his men of business, kept Montagu informed of the speculation that Cromwell would be offered the title of king.157Letters of Samuel Pepys 1656-1703 ed. G. de la Bédoyère (Woodbridge, 2006), 18-19. When on 23 February 1657 Christopher Packe* proposed what would become the Humble Petition and Advice, it was recognised almost immediately that Montagu supported its offer of the crown to the lord protector.158Henry Cromwell Corresp. 205. Support for a Cromwellian kingship remained Montagu’s unwavering position over the next three months. He voted for the retention of the offer of the crown to Cromwell in the first article of the Humble Petition on 25 March.159Narrative of the Late Parliament (1657), 22 (E.935.5). He also sat on two of the committees (5 and 26 Mar. 1657) to redraft specific passages of the text, including the preamble and the conclusion, and once it had been completed, he was included on the delegation sent to inform Cromwell that it was ready to be presented to him.160CJ vii. 499b, 511b, 514a. That presentation took place in the Banqueting House at Whitehall on 31 March. With John Lambert boycotting the ceremony, Montagu carried the sword of state before Cromwell.161Henry Cromwell Corresp. 243. Cromwell’s announcement three days later that he was unwilling to become king was therefore a huge disappointment for Montagu. Not that he and his allies were about to give up. By its vote on 4 April, in a division in which Montagu and Sir John Hobart* were the tellers for the yeas, Parliament restated its support for the Humble Petition in the form in which it had already been presented.162CJ vii. 520b; Burton’s Diary, i. 421. Over the following days Montagu took part in the further efforts by Parliament to persuade Cromwell to accept the unamended Petition.163CJ vii. 520b, 521a, 521b. On some lesser details he was prepared to compromise, however. Speaking in the debate on 24 April concerning the clause about the revenue grants, he was willing to concede that their duration should be shortened from four to three years.164Burton’s Diary, ii. 31. But even Montagu had eventually to accept that the offer of the crown would have to be dropped. On 19 May he was therefore included on the committee to consider how the Humble Petition could be reworded to limit Cromwell’s existing title as lord protector and on 23 May he was part of the delegation sent to Cromwell to arrange a time for them to present that revised version. Montagu then went on to serve on the committee to settle the legislative loose ends after Cromwell’s acceptance of the amended Humble Petition on 25 May. Later he was appointed to the committees which prepared the details of the ceremony on 26 June by which Cromwell was re-invested as lord protector.165CJ vii. 540b, 570b, 575a. During that ceremony he carried one of the swords.166Whitelocke, Diary, 471-2; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 20. But he must have viewed this event with mixed feelings. Following Cromwell’s decision to accept the Humble Petition without the kingship clause, Sir Francis Russell, his old colleague from the Eastern Association army, had told Henry Cromwell II* that he thought that Montagu, deeply disappointed with this outcome, would ‘never trust to politics any more’.167Henry Cromwell Corresp. 273.

Montagu had combined this determined promotion of the Humble Petition and Advice with more obvious activity in the Commons on a range of issues than at any point previously. Thus, he headed the list of MPs added to the committee on recusants on 24 March and, as a teller on 28 April, he supported the bill to dismiss scandalous clergymen and schoolmasters.168CJ vii. 510b, 524b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 59. The bill for the sale of former royal forests to help pay the army arrears also had his backing, as did the bill to discourage the further development of the London suburbs.169CJ vii. 528a, 531b, 555a. On the other hand, he opposed the bill on the export of fish and tried to present a petition against it on 9 June.170Burton’s Diary, ii. 204. He assisted in the award of Irish lands to the lord deputy, Henry Cromwell*, joining with Lambert to act as teller for the yeas in the key division on the subject on 8 June.171CJ vii. 550b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 200. Five days after that he and Henry Cromwell made sure that the House devoted time to debating the subject of the Irish assessments.172Burton’s Diary, ii. 245; CJ vii. 557a.

Once this Parliament had been adjourned following the investiture of the lord protector, Montagu turned his attention once again to the task of fighting the Spanish. On 7 July he set out from London.173Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell ed. Vaughan, ii. 208. Ten days later he put to sea with ships and troops in preparation for the planned joint attack with the French on Mardyck. With Montagu providing assistance from off the coast, Henri de la Tour d’Auverne, vicomte de Turenne, was able to capture the town on 22 September. That task completed, Montagu returned to London.174Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell ed. Vaughan, ii. 271. He took the oaths as a privy councillor on 24 October.175CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 136. Then, in mid-November, he withdrew to Hinchingbrooke to be with his ‘sickly family’.176Henry Cromwell Corresp. 356; Bodl. Carte 73, ff. 18v, 167v.

In early December 1657, while expecting news of who was to be summoned to the new Upper House, Montagu told Henry Cromwell that he was not optimistic about its likely success.

Truly, the consequence of that affair is very great and what the constitution will prove I cannot imagine, unless my melancholy fears should make me suspect the worst, because I doubt divers whom I could (and I believe your lordship also) wish were of it will not meddle, and no doubt divers others will readily supply their places. I heartily wish it otherwise.177Henry Cromwell Corresp. 356.

He cannot have been too surprised, however, when he discovered that he was to be one of these new lords elevated from the Commons to sit in this second chamber. He was then appointed as one of the commissioners to swear in those peers.178HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 504, 505. He attended this Other House when it met for the first time on 20 January 1658 and over the next two weeks was present almost every day.179HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 506-23. As not all those summoned were willing to recognise the legitimacy of this House, non-attendance could be a political statement, which in turn made significant the moves to note who was present. Montagu probably wanted the absent to be compelled to attend. On 26 January when the House voted on whether to fix a day for a formal roll call of attendance, Montagu and John Disbrowe* counted the votes and then, when that roll call was taken on 2 February, he and William Lenthall counted the votes in the division on whether those who were missing should be ordered to appear.180HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 516, 523. Montagu was also named to two committees – those for petitions (21 Jan.) and on the profanation of the sabbath (26 Jan.).181HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 509, 516.

His military objective during the summer of 1658 was much the same as it had been the previous year, except that this time the town to be captured was Dunkirk. In June he crossed the Channel with a fleet of ships to provide naval support to Turenne’s landward assault. The town fell to the French on 24 June. During the subsequent celebrations, Montagu met Louis XIV and Cardinal Mazarin.

A new lord protector, 1658-9

This mission completed, he returned to England and so was in London when Cromwell died on 3 September. As a loyal Cromwellian, he had no hesitation at all in supporting the succession of Richard Cromwell*. Writing to the commander of the fleet in the Mediterranean on 15 September forwarding an address of loyalty to be signed by his officers, he dutifully declared

The Lord has established the protector in the government of these nations, and disposed all to dutiful compliance, whereby the peace and liberty enjoyed under his father are continued to us, notwithstanding our fears, and the threats of the common enemy on the late sad occasion.182CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 139.

Such staunch fidelity was soon rewarded; the next day the council of state approved his commission as colonel of a regiment of horse.183CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 140; Henry Cromwell Corresp. 407. Several weeks later Richard even seemed secure enough for Montagu to be spared to undertake a short expedition to harry the Dutch-backed privateers operating in the Channel. Tensions between those councillors willing to back the new protector and those who were not allegedly came to a head at a council meeting in early December when Charles Fleetwood* and Disbrowe accused Montagu, Viscount Fauconberg (Thomas Belasyse*), and Richard Ingoldsby* of plotting to kill them.184CCSP iv. 118. But for the time being, Richard’s supporters still had the upper hand.

Montagu attended the early weeks of the 1659 Parliament once again as a lord of the Other House. On the opening day (27 Jan.) he and Disbrowe administered to their colleagues the oath of loyalty to the protector.185HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 524-5, 534, 543. The following day he was included on the committees for privileges and for petitions.186HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 527. Over the next six weeks his attendance, while far from negligent, was rather more intermittent than it had been a year earlier.187HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 524-46. His contribution to its proceedings was certainly not considered indispensable, for the lord protector now decided to send him back to sea.188CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 287. His mission would be to mediate in the Baltic war between Sweden and Denmark. The Other House therefore granted him leave of absence from 11 March.189HMC Lords, n.s. iv. 547.

Montagu set out from Sole Bay on 27 March and reached Helsingør (Elsinore) on 6 April 1659.190Jnl. of Edward Montagu, First Earl of Sandwich ed. R.C. Anderson (Navy Recs. Soc. lxiv), 3-4; E. Barlow, Barlow’s Jnl. of his Life at Sea ed. B. Lubbock (1934), i. 34; Clarke Pprs. iii. 195. He then spent the next six weeks in largely futile efforts to encourage Frederick III of Denmark and Charles X Gustav of Sweden to settle their differences through peace negotiations, all the while trying to dissuade the Dutch from entering the conflict on the side of the Danes.191NMM, SAN/A/1, ff. 16-20. Then, on 17 May, while off Kronborg, he received news from England of the coup against the lord protector. Uncertain as to where this left him, he withdrew from the Sound to open waters to await further news.192Jnl. of Edward Montagu, 30-2. Some in England had hitherto assumed that Montagu would remain loyal to Richard, whose fall he had few reasons to welcome.193Mordaunt Lttr.-Bk. 10. Writing in hindsight, Montagu judged that those who brought down Richard Cromwell had ‘proved perfidious’ and that Richard’s decision to dissolve rather than prorogue the 1659 Parliament had been ‘the great and fundamental error of that alteration of government.’194Jnl. of Edward Montagu, 70. Indeed, in a letter written on 27 May, he told William Lenthall, now again Speaker of the restored Rump, that recent events had ‘filled my spirit with fears and sorrow’.195Clarke Pprs. iv. 280. That same day the Rump gave the council of state permission to send commissioners to join Montagu. So, on 9 June, immediately after Montagu’s letter to Lenthall had been read, Parliament approved the appointments of Algernon Sydney*, Sir Robert Honywood* and Thomas Boone* as those commissioners, ostensibly to assist Montagu in his negotiations with the Swedes and the Danes.196CJ vii. 667b, 677a-b, 695b, 700a. The Rump did not trust Montagu and really wanted the commissioners to ensure that he and the fleet remained loyal to their interests. The commissioners met up with him in the Sound on 22 July.197Jnl. of Edward Montagu, 47; Barlow’s Jnl. i. 36. These were not the only moves made by the Rump against him. His regiment of horse was given to Matthew Alured*, while his patent for ballastage in the Thames, which he and Disbrowe had held since late 1657, was cancelled.198CJ vii. 740a, 749b; Wanklyn, Reconstructing the New Model Army, ii. 111; Clarke Pprs. iv. 38, v. 300; CSP Dom. 1657-8, p. 234.

Changing sides, 1659-60

The suspicions about Montagu’s loyalties were actually justified. It was not just that Montagu remained on very friendly terms with Richard Cromwell.199Clarke Pprs. iv. 296-8. Earlier that year overtures to him from royalist agents had received no response.200Mordaunt Lttr.-Bk. 6. That had now changed. In late June 1659 Charles Stuart wrote to Montagu via his second cousin, Edward Montagu† (son of Edward Montagu I*), asking him to secure the support of the navy for the royal cause. In return Charles promised him an earldom.201CCSP iv. 246, 255. Montagu’s reply was reassuring enough to convince the royalist court that he could be relied on in due course to assist a restoration of the Stuart monarchy.202Clarendon, Hist. vi. 188-9. Moreover, he did not wait long before matching those promises with action. Plans for royalist risings across England were well advanced. Hoping to support them, Montagu sailed for home on 24 August on the pretext that he needed to re-provision his ships.203Clarke Pprs. iv. 291-3; Jnl. of Edward Mountagu, 45; Barlow’s Jnl. i. 36. The only problem was that by the time he reached Southwold Bay on 6 September, the rebellions in the king’s name had all been crushed.204Jnl. of Edward Mountagu, 46; Clarendon, Hist. vi. 190. Understandably suspicious about the timing of his return, the council of state despatched Valentine Wauton*, George Thomson* and his old colleague, Thomas Kelsey, to question him about his intentions.205CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 164, 167-8, 184-5, 195; Jnl. of Edward Mountagu, 46; Clarke Pprs. iv. 50. He defended his decision to return at a meeting of the council on 10 September and this was reported to Parliament six days later.206CSP Dom. 1659-60, pp. 184, 195; Jnl. of Edward Mountagu, 46-70; CJ vii. 779b. There was apparently some talk of further investigations of Montagu’s conduct, but nothing came of this before the Rump was dismissed once more in mid-October.207Jnl. of Edward Mountagu, 47. Out of office and with no remaining military commands, he withdrew to Huntingdonshire.

The re-admission of the secluded Members on 21 February 1660 allowed Montagu to resume his place as an MP in the Long Parliament. Even before his return to London, he had been included on the committees to prepare the bill for the creation of a new council of state (21 Feb.), to review which MPs should be deemed qualified to sit in Parliament (22 Feb.) and to bring in a bill to settle the militia (23 Feb.).208CJ vii. 847b, 848b, 849a. When the council ballot took place on 23 February, he was elected to the council with 73 votes.209CJ vii. 849b; Pepys’s Diary, i. 65. That same day he arrived in London from Hinchingbrooke.210Pepys’s Diary, i. 68. Then, on 2 March, on the council’s recommendation, Parliament named Montagu and Monck as the generals-at-sea.211CJ vii. 858a, 860a; Bodl. Carte 73, ff. 223, 229; Pepys’s Diary, i. 71, 75; Whitelocke, Diary, 574. The next day he was included on the reconstituted admiralty commission.212CJ vii. 861a. These were key appointments. The loyalties of the fleet could not be taken for granted, so the role of these generals-at-sea might yet prove decisive. But as Monck was to remain in London, command of the fleet at sea would be entirely in Montagu’s hands.

As yet, Montagu’s intentions in public were almost as murky as Monck’s. His main fear at this point was in fact that Monck would take the throne for himself, although within days he was telling Pepys that he expected the king to be recalled.213Pepys’s Diary, i. 75, 77, 79. Indeed, he had already taken the precaution of making contact with Charles Stuart to seek his permission to accept his new military command.214Clarendon, Hist. vi. 186. Edward Hyde, in exile with the king, meanwhile worried that he was instead plotting to restore Richard Cromwell.215Clarendon SP iii. 701-2. Montagu, however, was able to view all these upheavals with a certain detachment. Walking with Pepys in St James’s Park on 7 March, he spoke ‘of the times and of the change of things since the last year and wondering how he could bear with so great disappointments as he did.’216Pepys’s Diary, i. 80.

On 23 March he sailed from Tower Wharf to join the Swiftsure in the Thames estuary. Ten days later he transferred to the Naseby.217Jnl. of Edward Mountagu, 73; Pepys’s Diary, i. 95-6, 101. At about this time the king wrote to him (again via Edward Montagu†) seeking confirmation of his previous promises.218Clarendon SP iii. 719. Montagu wrote back on 10 April asserting that, as a result of ‘such impressions your unparalleled grace hath made in the deepest of my heart’, he would be ‘unalterably a most dutiful subject and faithful servant of yours to the uttermost of my power.’219Clarendon SP iii. 724-5. This was one reason why a week later he could tell Pepys that he was confident that the king would be restored.220Pepys’s Diary, i. 110. Furthermore, by 29 April, four days after the Convention had assembled, he suspected – or quite possibly knew – that the king would be restored without conditions.221Pepys’s Diary, i. 118-19. On 1 May Sir John Grenville was permitted to present the king’s Declaration of Breda to the Convention. The following morning Monck forwarded to Montagu the copy of the Declaration addressed from the king to him and the fleet.222NMM, SAN/A/3, ff. 203-204. The next day Montagu held a council of war of senior naval officers, which duly resolved to accept the Declaration. This was then announced to the fleet.223Jnl. of Edward Mountagu, 75; Pepys’s Diary, i. 123-4. The navy had thus given their consent to the Restoration. After Montagu’s letter reporting this had been read to the Commons on 7 May, he was granted permission to reply to the king.224CJ viii. 14b-15a; NMM, SAN/A/3, ff. 209, 211, 212. A similar message was conveyed verbally by Grenville, who on 10 May wrote to assure Montagu that, on joining the king at Breda, he would inform Charles of Montagu’s ‘readiness and zeal towards his service’ and that he was confident that Montagu would ‘proceed with the same prudence and good conduct in contributing your endeavours towards this happy settlement wherein you have been already so great an instrument’.225Bodl. Carte 73, f. 441. All that remained was for Montagu to oversee the logistics of the king’s return journey. He received Charles on board the Royal Charles (formerly the Naseby) off Schevengen on 23 May.226Jnl. of Edward Mountagu, 76-7. Pepys thought Montagu ‘transported with joy’ when he delivered the king to Dover two days later.227Pepys’s Diary, i. 159.

Montagu was rightly regarded as one of the crucial figures in the king’s return. Everyone, not least Charles himself, knew that Montagu had ensured that the navy had gone along with an unconditional Restoration. He was the naval counterpart to Monck and only Monck was more lavishly rewarded. The bounties he received would include the Garter, the mastership of the great wardrobe and the promised earldom. That he benefitted so much from the king’s bounty, despite his earlier record of conspicuous support for the Cromwells, made him especially keen to proclaim his repentant royalism. In 1667, writing to the earl of Arlington (Sir Henry Bennet†), he felt it necessary to assert his continuing loyalty to the restored monarchy.

And for my own interest, I shall make no new declaration unto your lordship but revive the remembrance of my master’s first reception of me into his Majesty’s grace and favour, which was placed upon a person already struck with the ingratitude of my youthful follies had drawn me into, towards the king my master, the son of whose servant I was, and of a family obliged unto the crown for many generations; and being in this condition (God knows) from no other principle of interest (let malicious enemies foam what malice they please) my heart entertained his Majesty’s kindness with inexpressible joy and resolutions ever to serve him with unstained fidelity, and from that hour I have with a constant current of affection performed the same, and am incapable of alteration by any human accidents.228NMM, SAN/A/5, f. 44.

Montagu’s comments to Pepys about his sense of indebtedness for the royal patronage granted to his father are an echo of similar sentiments. Some of this was a re-invention of his own personal history. But his pose of loyalty after 1660 was not a sham. Over the next 12 years he continued to serve Charles II and his country with distinction and, in the end, he would die for them in battle at sea.