BLOUNT, Mountjoy (c.1596-1666)

Blount was the illegitimate son of the last Elizabethan lord deputy of Ireland, Charles Blount^*, 8th Lord Mountjoy (later earl of Devonshire), hence his unusual first name. At the time of his birth, his mother Penelope was still married to her first husband, Robert Rich^*, 3rd Lord Rich (later 1st earl of Warwick), and Blount was initially raised with his half-siblings, including Robert^* and Henry Rich^*, later 2nd earl of Warwick and 1st earl of Holland respectively.39 Collins, Peerage, ix. 458; Varlow, 187; CP, vi. 538; xii. pt. 2, p. 407. He was probably aged five or six by the time his parents began openly cohabiting, the family home being at Wanstead in Essex. Their relationship was tacitly accepted at court until 1605, when Penelope formally separated from Lord Rich and married Devonshire, technically committing bigamy.40 Varlow, 222; F.M. Jones, Mountjoy, 180; C. Falls, Mountjoy: Elizabethan General, 226. The ensuing scandal had not yet died down when the earl died in April 1606, bequeathing the bulk of his property to Penelope for life, and then to Blount. A complex legal battle followed with two of Devonshire’s cousins, his legitimate male heirs, but by the time Penelope died in July 1607, Blount’s title to his father’s property was secure, even if his claim to the earl’s peerages had been rejected.41 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 222; PROB 11/108, ff. 1v-3; 11/109, ff. 322-3; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1603-25, p. 567; WARD 7/42/66; Varlow, 260, 262.

Fortunately for him, Blount’s new guardian was the influential Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, who went to law or lobbied the government as required to protect his ward’s interests.42 HMC Hatfield, xix. 298; C2/Jas. I/B38/24. In 1615 Blount obtained a licence to travel abroad for three years, ‘to attain the languages’, but it is not known what use he made of it. He must have been back in England by December 1617, when the newsletter-writer John Chamberlain noted that ‘young Blount, Rich or Mountjoy’ was about to sell the Wanstead estate to the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, earl (later 1st duke) of Buckingham. Blount later complained that he had been pushed into this deal, and received less than the property’s market value. However, by way of compensation, he was created Lord Mountjoy of Mountjoy Fort in Ireland a month later, and also granted the castle in question, which had been constructed originally by his father.43 APC, 1615-16, p. 168; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 122; VCH Essex, vi. 324; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 459; CPR Ire. Jas. I, 344; CP, ix. 348. In June 1618 Mountjoy was again licensed for foreign travel, visiting northern Italy later that year. He was later considered very knowledgeable about European affairs.44 APC, 1618-19, p. 156; CSP Ven. 1617-19, pp. 355, 357-8; D. Lloyd, Memoires of the Lives (1668), 651.

During his minority, Mountjoy’s electoral patronage at Bere Alston in Devon was exercised by Southampton who, in 1614, arranged the return of at least one of his own clients. The earl was evidently still on close terms with his former ward when the third Jacobean Parliament was summoned in 1620, and Mountjoy nominated Thomas Keightley^‡, one of Southampton’s colleagues on the Virginia Company board.45 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 92. By now the baron was establishing himself at court, participating in a masque in January 1621, and displaying his prowess at the tilt during a visit by the imperial ambassador in April 1622.46 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 72, 100; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 305. However, Mountjoy evidently craved the excitement of actual war, and later that year he toured the Low Countries, reportedly in the company of Edward Cecil^*, the future Viscount Wimbledon. A rumour in August that both men had been killed proved to be false, and by January 1623 Mountjoy was back at court, where James I recommended him as a suitable husband for a visiting French noblewoman, Mademoiselle St Luc.47 APC, 1621-3, p. 287; Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 64; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 477. Clearly now enjoying the king’s favour, he was dispatched to Paris the following month with James Hay^*, 1st earl of Carlisle, to explain why Prince Charles and Buckingham had just passed through the French capital without waiting on Louis XIII. Mountjoy then joined the prince in Madrid for two months. During his return journey to England, around late April, he contracted a ‘tertian fever’, but by the autumn he was back at court, helping to escort one of the Spanish ambassadors.48 H. Ellis, Orig. Letters, 1st ser. iii. 124, 131; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 167; Finetti Philoxenis, 129.

In the elections for the 1624 Parliament, Mountjoy initially handed a Bere Alston seat to his brother-in-law Sir Thomas Cheke^‡. When the latter opted to represent Essex instead, his place in the Devon borough was taken by Thomas Jermyn^‡, a kinsman of Sir Humphrey May^‡, who had served as a trustee of Mountjoy’s estates during his minority.49 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 92. Still in search of martial glory, the baron served under Southampton in the Netherlands later that year, while in early 1625 he obtained James I’s permission to raise a troop of volunteer cavalry to fight for the States.50 SP84/121, ff. 266-7; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 477; APC, 1623-5, pp. 474-5; 1625-6, p. 20. Before his return to the Continent, he successfully nominated Cheke as a Bere Alston burgess in the first Caroline Parliament. How long Mountjoy remained abroad is unclear, but his absence in the Low Countries presumably explains his failure to participate in the 1625 Cadiz expedition, and the lapsing of his electoral influence in 1626.51 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 92.

In February 1627 Mountjoy’s court career took another significant step forward, when he married one of Buckingham’s nieces, Anne Boteler. He probably only ever received half of her promised £2,000 dowry, but his new status as a member of the royal favourite’s affinity brought other benefits. Within weeks, he was dispatched to the Low Countries again to raise a regiment of horse for the forthcoming expedition to the Île de Ré, a commission which sparked rumours that he would actually be employed at home to enforce collection of the Forced Loan. In the event, his efforts at recruitment were comparatively unsuccessful.52 CSP Dom. 1637, p. 556; Birch, Chas. I, i. 192, 209. Nevertheless, upon his return, in June, he was created Lord Mountjoy of Thurveston, a revival of the barony once held by his father, and he was also permitted to adopt the arms of his paternal family, notwithstanding his illegitimacy.53 C231/4, f. 226; SO3/8, unfol. (May 1627). During the Ré campaign, Mountjoy initially impressed observers with his energy as a cavalry commander, but was criticized for his conduct during the English retreat in October, when he was taken prisoner.54 CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 272, 275, 293, 423. Fortunately, his reputation at court was protected by his half-brother, the earl of Holland, a favourite of Queen Henrietta Maria. This connection also helps to explain why Louis XIII, Henrietta Maria’s brother, decided to release Mountjoy in November without demanding a ransom.55 P. Warwick, Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles the First (1813 edn.), 27; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 497; Birch, Chas. I, i. 304. The baron, having been ‘treated … with great distinction and kindness’ in France, made sure that the French diplomat who escorted him back to England was similarly ‘boarded and lodged grandly’.56 HMC Skrine, 136; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 544; Birch, Chas. I, i. 308.

Mountjoy is not known to have exercised electoral patronage when the 1628-9 Parliament was summoned. He took his seat in the House of Lords on 17 Mar. 1628, and was formally introduced three days later, with Algernon Percy^*, 4th Lord Percy (later 4th earl of Northumberland) and Edward Montagu^*, Lord Kimbolton (later 2nd earl of Manchester) as his supporters. Due to a special precedence clause in his patent of creation, he was seated above Thomas Belasyse^*, Lord (later 1st Viscount) Fauconberg and Richard Lovelace^*, 1st Lord Lovelace, whose baronies pre-dated his own.57 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 72, 74; CP, ix. 549. Mountjoy attended just over three-fifths of this session, but was formally excused only twice, on 28 Mar. and 3 April. He was never absent for more than six consecutive sittings.58 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 112, 146. On 21 Mar. he was appointed to confer with the Commons about the proposed joint petition to the king for a general fast. He also received three nominations to bill committees, the subject matter including the queen’s jointure estate, and the need to improve the kingdom’s capacity for waging war.59 Ibid. 78, 92, 641. On 24 Mar. Mountjoy in turn acted as a supporter during the formal introduction of another of Buckingham’s kinsmen, Basil Feilding^*, Lord Newnham Paddockes (later 2nd earl of Denbigh). The two men were evidently on good terms, for Newnham Paddockes awarded Mountjoy his proxy during an extended absence later in the session.60 Ibid. 27, 98. In early April, the Lords ruled in the case of William Knollys^*, earl of Banbury, that peers should be seated according to their precise date of creation, regardless of whether their patents awarded them a superior position of precedence. On 26 Apr., in the light of this verdict, Lord Fauconberg challenged the decision to place Mountjoy above him. Three days later, on the recommendation of the committee for privileges, the House demoted Mountjoy to the seat below those occupied by Fauconberg and Lovelace.61 Ibid. 190, 349-51, 358.

In the event, this snub worked to Mountjoy’s advantage. Charles I had already been humiliated by the Lords over the earl of Banbury’s precedence, and was not prepared to ignore this second challenge to his prerogative. Accordingly, on 3 Aug. 1628 Mountjoy was created earl of Newport, thereby achieving unchallengeable precedence over the entire barons’ bench.62 Ibid. 113-15, 117. From choice he would have become earl of Portsmouth, of which town his father had once been governor, but he was reportedly put off by the presence there of a ‘crippled fool’ who had ‘in derision’ assumed that title himself.63 Oglander Memoirs ed. W.H. Long, 14. The assassination of his kinsman Buckingham later that month must have constituted a personal blow, but within a few days Newport was appointed rear admiral of the fleet which attempted unsuccessfully to relieve La Rochelle. Caught in a storm on the return voyage, his ship limped back into Portsmouth in mid November, missing several of its masts.64 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 278, 379; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 245; Birch, Chas. I, i. 434. When Parliament resumed in the New Year, Newport was reintroduced to the Lords on 20 January. He attended roughly two-fifths of the 1629 session, but attracted only one nomination, to a committee to review the kingdom’s munition stores and coastal defences.65 LJ, iv. 6a, 37b.

For the next five years, Newport suffered a hiatus in his career. Without Buckingham easing the purse strings on his account, he struggled to obtain the pay he was owed for his military service.66 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 259, 444-5; 1629-31, pp. 459, 535; APC, 1629-30, p. 16; HMC Cowper, i. 413. He continued to hang around court, occasionally escorting ambassadors, but significant office eluded him, and he merely secured the reversion of the keepership of Hyde Park, Middlesex (then held by his half-brother Holland), and the keepership of royal game near his country seat in Worcestershire.67 Finet Notebks. ed. A.J. Loomie, 77, 114, 136; CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 263; Rymer, viii. pt. 3, p. 164. In 1633 he was caught up in a court scandal, when his former mistress, Eleanor Villiers, one of the queen’s maids of honour, fell pregnant, and the resultant inquiry exposed their affair.68 HMC Cowper, ii. 40-1; CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 50; C115/105/8151, 8159. He quarrelled with John Mohun^*, 1st Lord Mohun in December that year, but in May 1634 helped to avert a duel near Whitehall palace involving George Digby^†, later 2nd earl of Bristol.69 Strafforde Letters, i. 166;

Not until September 1634 did Newport obtain major office, that of master of the Ordnance, a position once held by his father. However, he achieved this feat only after buying out the interest of the previous holder, Horace Vere^*, Lord Vere for £2,000.70 CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 197; C115/106/8434. Prior to his appointment, efforts were underway to reform the Ordnance Office, which had been found wanting during the wars of the 1620s. Newport initially made a show of continuing to improve standards and modernizing the equipment distributed to the county militias, and in 1636 he conducted a thorough survey of all coastal forts, assessing their state of repair and their stores of munitions.71 G. Aylmer, ‘Attempts at Administrative Reform’, EHR, lxxii. 244; CSP Dom. 1634-5, pp. 385-6; 1636-7, pp. 89-90; PC2/46, f. 126r-v; 2/47, f. 53v; HMC 10th Rep. VI, 110. However, his efforts to overhaul the system of gunpowder production, which included a proposal in April 1635 to undertake manufacture himself, came to nothing.72 CSP Dom. 1634-5, pp. 517, 578; 1635, pp. 29, 422. The Office struggled to keep both the forts and the Ship Money fleets supplied with ordnance, and his complaints about the perennial shortage of funds fell on deaf ears.73 Ibid. 1634-5, p. 569; 1635-6, pp. 325, 545; PC2/44, ff. 127r-v, 222v. That said, Newport was not averse to profiting personally from his position. In 1637 he persuaded the king that all retailers of gunpowder should be licensed. Having taken on this new responsibility, the earl promptly inflated the price at which powder was issued from the stores at the Tower of London, and demanded a cut himself.74 CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 500; 1637, pp. 23, 456.

Newport’s office gave him a certain status within the government, but it did not protect him from setbacks on other fronts. In October 1637 he was fined £3,000 for breaching forest laws in Northamptonshire, even though the justice in eyre who imposed this penalty was his own half-brother, Holland. Only a few weeks later, he suffered a major personal blow when his wife very publicly converted to the Catholic Church, through the influence of members of Henrietta Maria’s circle. In response to Newport’s furious protests, Charles introduced new restrictions on the activities of Catholics in London, but the earl evidently retained a grudge against the queen thereafter.75 Strafforde Letters, ii. 117, 125, 128; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 129; CSP Ven. 1636-9, p. 319, 324.

Meanwhile, the drift towards conflict with Scotland exposed the weaknesses in Newport’s management of the Ordnance Office. Now a member of the council of war, the earl proved to be unfamiliar with the current state of the stores, having always delegated routine business to his deputy, Sir John Heydon. On being required to provide an account in August 1638, the picture which he presented was alarming. Not only were most of the junior officers sick or absent, but also the stores were seriously depleted, and there was no prospect of equipping an army at short notice. Despite this, in September Newport was instructed to furnish arms for 12,000 foot soldiers, and 400 horsemen.76 M.C. Fissel, Bishops’ Wars, 93; CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 594; HMC Cowper, ii. 194. Over the next few months, emergency measures were introduced to speed up production of weaponry and armour, and supplies were brought in from the Low Countries. Remarkably, given all these difficulties, transporting of arms and munitions to Hull and York was underway by the end of the year, and the earl was closely involved in the planning of the northern expedition.77 CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 108, 122, 166, 170-1, 315, 324, 340; Fissel, 94; A. Thrush, ‘Ordnance Office and the Navy, 1625-40’, Mariner’s Mirror, lxxvii. 341-2, 346.

Clearly excited by the prospect of war, Newport commissioned two portraits of himself in military mode from the court painter, Van Dyck. In March 1639 he was placed in command of the royal artillery train, but there were soon tensions between him and the northern army’s general, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel.78 R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 186; CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 581; HMC Rutland, 507. By now the ordnance stores in London were all but exhausted, which meant that supplementary supplies of equipment and gunpowder were slow to reach the army. The situation was saved by the eventual avoidance of all-out conflict, but it was clear that Newport was culpable, both for his failure to keep the Ordnance Office in a suitable state of readiness, and for a lack of realism about how quickly the shortcomings could be corrected. Nevertheless, even though he was excluded from an inquiry that autumn into the office’s performance, he successfully shifted the blame onto his subordinates, and retained his place on the council of war.79 HMC Cowper, ii. 221-2; CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 121, 137, 173; 1639-40, p. 188; Fissel, 94-6, 141. Meanwhile, in September 1639, he made a handy profit of £1,000 for himself by supplying gunpowder at an extortionate rate to the Spanish fleet trapped off the Downs by a Dutch naval force.80 CSP Dom. 1639, p. 512; S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. 1603-42, ix. 58-61.

From 1640, Newport began to display doubts about the king’s policies. In the Short Parliament, for instance, he voted against supply taking precedence over redress of grievances. During the second Bishops’ War, the Ordnance Office failed to deliver its heavy guns to the front in time, thus contributing to the English defeat. Once again, this was a case of administrative incompetence rather than sabotage, but in April 1641 Newport deliberately damaged Charles’s cause by revealing the First Army Plot to the opposition leadership in the Lords.81 Gardiner, ix. 111, 317; Fissel, 94, 110; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 358. In the following month he was appointed constable of the Tower, but the king summarily sacked him in December, following reports that the earl had discussed taking the queen and royal children hostage as a means of forcing concessions from Charles.82 CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 215-16, 571; LJ, iv. 490b.

On the outbreak of the Civil War, Newport rallied to the king. However, he was relieved of the mastership of Ordnance within a year, probably due to doubts over his loyalty, and indeed he changed sides several times before his final capture by parliamentarian forces in 1646.83 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, ii. 186; iii. 288; Roy. Ordnance Pprs. 16, 20; CSP Ven. 1642-3, pp. 236, 261; LJ, v. 649b; B. Whitelocke, Memorials of the Eng. Affairs, i. 271, 561. He compounded for his estates in November of that year, but in the following decade was again imprisoned by the government, which was probably aware of his secret correspondence with the exiled Charles II.84 CCC, 1244; Whitelocke, iv. 207; CCSP, iii. 14. At the Restoration, Newport was rewarded with a pension, and reappointed a gentleman of the bedchamber, whereupon he formally resigned as master of the Ordnance. He resumed his seat in the Lords, but otherwise played little part in public life. The earl died in February 1666, his peerages descending to his son George^†, 2nd earl of Newport. His widow married Thomas Weston^†, 4th earl of Portland in the following year, and died in 1669.85 CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 72; 1663-4, p. 78; LJ, xi. 699a; HMC 6th Rep. 337; CP, ix. 552.