HERBERT, Philip (1584-1650)

The younger of the ‘incomparable pair of brethren’ to whom Shakespeare’s First Folio was dedicated, Herbert was one of the most striking personalities at the early Stuart court, though in political terms he played second fiddle to his elder brother, William (Herbert^*), 3rd earl of Pembroke, until the latter’s death in 1630. Described by his second wife, Anne Clifford, as being ‘of a very quick apprehension, a sharp understanding, very crafty withall, … but extremely choleric by nature’, he made his first appearance at Whitehall in 1600 at the age of 15, being assessed almost immediately by a member of the Herbert circle as ‘one of the forwardest courtiers that ever I saw in my time’.100 Aubrey’s Brief Lives ed. O.L. Dick, 144; Clifford Diaries, 105; Letters and Memorials of State ed. A. Collins, ii. 190. However, it was with the accession of James I three years later that Herbert came into his own. As Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon later observed, he ‘had the good fortune, by the comeliness of his person, his skill, and indefatigable industry in hunting, to be the first who drew the king’s eyes towards him with affection’. Quickly acquiring ‘the reputation of a favourite’, he was created a knight of the Bath at James’s coronation, and soon received other marks of royal favour, notably a lucrative grant to export undressed cloth, and an estate on the Isle of Sheppey, off the north Kent coast.101 Clarendon, i. 74; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 44-5; CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 88, 102, 180.

James I’s first English favourite, 1603-14

Unusually for a man in his position, Montgomery remained popular at court, and on friendly terms with the queen, Anne of Denmark. Much admired for his prowess in the tiltyard, he was generally affable, notwithstanding occasional angry outbursts, and quick to make amends for any offence caused. Moreover, he was almost devoid of political ambition, content merely to keep the king amused, and, when required, to transmit messages between James and his ministers.102 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. iii. 125, 139; Clarendon, ii. 539; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 371; xvii. 70, 77-8, 80, 287; Chamberlain Letters, i. 218, 293; W.H., True Picture and Relation of Prince Henry (Leiden, 1634), 29. Elected in March 1604 to represent Glamorgan in Parliament, he left barely any trace on the Commons’ records. In the following December he enhanced his position at court by marrying a niece of the king’s leading minister, Robert Cecil^*, Viscount Cranborne. The latter was created earl of Salisbury in May 1605, and on the same day Herbert, still five months short of his twenty-first birthday, was made earl of Montgomery. This striking affirmation of royal favour came with additional property grants, including Montgomery Castle.103 HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 649; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 332; CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 240; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 287.

Now ineligible to sit in the Commons, the new earl transferred to the upper House when Parliament met that autumn, just weeks after coming of age. However, the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot threw the opening of the 1605-6 session into chaos, and Montgomery missed the first two sittings, not taking his place in the Lords until the afternoon of 9 November. When the session resumed in the New Year, he continued to absent himself at regular intervals, the principal reason being the king’s continuing attachment to him. Formally excused on 10 Mar. 1606, on the grounds that he was attending James, he also missed 23 consecutive sittings between late April and late May because he was away on one of the king’s interminable hunting trips. In total, Montgomery was present for just one third of the session.104 LJ, ii. 392a; HMC Hatfield, xviii. 125. Unsurprisingly, given this record, his youth, and his status as a newcomer to the Lords, he received just seven appointments, mainly to committees to which his brother Pembroke was also nominated. The six bills he was required to help scrutinize covered primarily Welsh or legal issues: amendments to the Henrician statute for the government of Wales, Welsh cottons, the confirmation of a theology chair at Oxford by the king, the relief of prisoners, the avoidance of unnecessary litigation, and the problem of weirs on navigable rivers. He was also appointed to a conference with the Commons about ecclesiastical grievances.105 LJ, ii. 364b, 382a, 386b, 406b, 408b, 410a, 411a.

In April 1606 Montgomery attempted to secure the governorship of Portsmouth, in Hampshire, in succession to Charles Blount^*, earl of Devonshire, but with no military background he was soon persuaded to drop his suit.106 Chamberlain Letters, i. 226; Carleton to Chamberlain, 77. Later that month a proposal for Montgomery to become a knight of the Garter was also abandoned, reportedly because the kings of France and Denmark, themselves recipients of the Order, objected to it being bestowed on someone so young. Perhaps by way of compensation, James shortly afterwards presented Montgomery with crown lands worth £2,000 a year, and a £200 pension.107 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 344; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 481.

Montgomery attended just a quarter of the 1606-7 parliamentary session. Although present for nine out of 23 sittings prior to the Christmas recess, he appeared in the Lords only 17 times thereafter. Surprisingly, given this poor record, Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby (later 1st earl of Lindsey), gave him his proxy.108 LJ, ii. 449b. The earl attracted just five nominations, all to legislative committees. Twice named to scrutinize bills about compounding for defective titles, he was also nominated to committees concerned with the property of John Evelyn of Surrey, the London livery companies, and a distant relative, the late Ferdinando Stanley^†, 5th earl of Derby.109 Ibid. 463b, 471b, 479a, 480a, 494a.

Despite being a significant beneficiary of the king’s largesse, Montgomery constantly lived beyond his means at court. In late 1606 James indicated his intention to clear the earl’s debts, but any steps taken at this juncture proved inadequate, and in September 1607 Montgomery obtained a grant of £10,000, in the form of arrears owed to the crown by recusants, which he undertook to recover himself.110 Chamberlain Letters, i. 238, 241; HMC Hatfield, xix. 221, 257-8; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 372; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 440. While this was a less generous gift than some which he had already received, the earl was doubtless grateful to get anything at all, for he had recently been supplanted in James’s affections by a new favourite, Robert Carr^* (later earl of Somerset). Remarkably, far from resenting or obstructing this development, Montgomery accepted Carr’s rise ‘without the least murmur or indisposition, … which the king received as so great an obligation that he always afterwards loved him in the second place’. Indeed, as the earl lost his good looks to smallpox in 1611, this new relationship with the monarch almost certainly protected his court career in the longer term.111 Clarendon, i. 74; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 319. Still on comparatively intimate terms with James, and also very close to his kinsman Salisbury, who became lord treasurer in May 1608, Montgomery was created a knight of the Garter later that same month. In the following November he procured a further grant of £6,000 by relinquishing to the crown some of the lands he had previously received from the king. The £60 which he contributed towards Prince Henry’s feudal aid in 1609 was, in effect, another tiny reimbursement of the riches he had accumulated at James’s expense.112 Chamberlain Letters, i. 253; HMC Hatfield, xx. 133, 252; xxi. 125; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 465; SP14/47/37.

When Parliament resumed in February 1610, Montgomery attended much more frequently than on previous occasions, missing barely two-fifths of this session. He was formally excused just once, on 6 July, on the grounds that he was waiting on the king.113 LJ, ii. 637a. Despite this improved performance, he received only three nominations, though his appointment to the preliminary conference on supply meant he was entitled to attend the succession of conferences which followed on the subject of the Great Contract. That business aside, he was named to confer with the Commons about Dr Cowell’s controversial publication, The Interpreter, while on 26 May he was selected to help present the petition to the king in which Parliament recommended tougher anti-Catholic measures following the assassination of Henri IV. Montgomery took the newly required oath of allegiance on 8 June. Four days earlier he was present when Prince Henry was created prince of Wales in Parliament, serving as cupbearer to Henry at the subsequent Whitehall banquet.114 Ibid. 550b, 557b, 603a, 609b; HMC Downshire, ii. 316-17.

During the spring and summer of 1610, Montgomery twice got into fights at court. In April an argument with Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, over a tennis match nearly led to a duel, while a rumour circulated in August that he had killed Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, after another minor dispute got out of hand.115 HMC Downshire, ii. 279-80, 353; Chamberlain Letters, i. 297-8; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 226. These episodes may have temporarily damaged his standing with the peace-loving king, for Montgomery proved unable that autumn to procure a minor favour for his kinsman Robert Sidney^*, 1st Viscount Lisle (later 1st earl of Leicester).116 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 228, 230, 240.

The brief parliamentary session in late 1610 saw Montgomery revert to his customary poor attendance. Absent for the first nine sittings, probably because he was not back in time from the king’s latest hunting trip, he appeared in the Lords only six times. He was named to just two committees, for bills to avoid lawsuits over bequests of land and to enable Prince Henry to make valid leases while still a minor. Although appointed a commissioner to prorogue and then dissolve Parliament, the earl turned up on neither occasion.117 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 254; LJ, ii. 675a, 677a, 683b, 684b.

In February 1611 Montgomery’s place in the king’s affections was reaffirmed by a grant of £8,000. Having survived smallpox that autumn, he displayed greater maturity in March 1612 when, during a horse race at Croydon, Surrey, he was attacked with a riding crop by Patrick Ramsay, brother of a prominent Scottish courtier, John Ramsay^*, Viscount Haddington [S] (later earl of Holdernesse). For once, Montgomery refused to retaliate. Indeed, he may even have secured the dismissal from Prince Henry’s household of John Pinchbeck, an English hothead who did react violently to the incident. Typically for the period, the earl’s restraint was widely interpreted as cowardice, and caused him some loss of face, but James strongly approved of his ‘temper and forbearance’, and it was Ramsay who found himself clapped up in the Tower.118 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 5; Chamberlain Letters, i. 340, 342; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 90; HMC 10th Rep. VI, 84; HMC Rutland, i. 434; HMC Downshire, iii. 269; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 439; Cases in the High Ct. of Chivalry ed. R.P. Cust and A.J. Hopper (Harl. Soc. n.s. xviii), 79.

The death of Lord Treasurer Salisbury in May 1612 was a significant personal loss, and Montgomery was one of the few peers to attend his funeral. However, on the face of things Salisbury’s demise made little difference to his position at court, and over the next 18 months he remained a conspicuous figure at all the major ceremonial events, from Prince Henry’s funeral and Princess Elizabeth’s wedding, to his rival Carr’s creation as earl of Somerset, and subsequent marriage to Frances Howard.119 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 374; Harl. 5176, f. 208v; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 167; Chamberlain Letters, i. 485, 495-6.

Montgomery’s property on the Isle of Sheppey afforded him influence over the local borough of Queenborough. Accordingly, when the 1614 Parliament was summoned, he successfully nominated his client Roger Palmer^‡ for a seat, and probably also arranged the election of Robert Hatton^‡, a servant of Pembroke’s political ally George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury. In addition, the earl made a nomination at New Woodstock, Oxfordshire, where he was now steward of the local manor, only to be outflanked by the borough’s recorder, James Whitelocke^‡, who took the seat himself. However, the latter was also returned at Corfe Castle, and when he resigned the New Woodstock seat it passed to Montgomery’s client Sir Thomas Tracy^‡, who may have been the earl’s original nominee.120 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 110, 201, 321. In marked contrast to his previous performances in the Lords, Montgomery attended all but one or two sittings of this Parliament, yet he left barely any mark on its proceedings. On 9 May he confirmed that the courtier William Ramsay (probably one of Haddington’s kinsmen), a Scot seeking naturalization, had recently received the Anglican sacraments. His only nomination was to the committee for the bill to confirm the foundation of a school and almshouses at Monmouth.121 LJ, ii. 700b, 711b; HMC Hastings, iv. 247 (misdated as 7 May); Lansd. 273, f. 27v; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 462.

Accommodation with Buckingham, 1614-25

While Montgomery focussed his attention on life at court, his brother Pembroke had been seeking advancement. In the aftermath of the 1614 Parliament, Somerset’s father-in-law, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, became lord treasurer. Pembroke expected to succeed him as lord chamberlain, but instead the post went to Somerset himself. This snub opened up a major rift between the Herberts and the Howard faction. Ostensibly Montgomery played little part in this quarrel, but in November that year he quarrelled with Suffolk’s son Theophilus Howard^*, Lord Howard de Walden (later 2nd earl of Suffolk), and relations between the two men remained poor thereafter.122 Chamberlain Letters, i. 559; ii. 98; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 470. In the spring of 1615 there was talk of Montgomery becoming lord warden of the Cinque Ports, which had been vacant since the previous year, but he lost out to a rival courtier, Edward La Zouche^*, 11th Lord Zouche. Around the same time the earl procured a share in the potentially lucrative patent for glass manufacture, but the returns were initially poor, and he sold his interest to Sir Robert Mansell^‡ within three years.123 Chamberlain Letters, i. 597; S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. 1603-42, iv. 9-10; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 288; APC, 1618-19, pp. 329-30.

Pembroke responded to his own setbacks at court by promoting a rival favourite, George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham), and it is probable that Montgomery, with his ready access to the king, assisted. He was certainly a beneficiary of Somerset’s dramatic fall from grace in October 1615, following the Overbury murder scandal. Twelve months later he was appointed keeper of Whitehall Palace in succession to Somerset, while in the course of 1616 he also procured a new £3,000 pension, and won the contest for the highly lucrative wardship of Robert Dormer^†, 2nd Lord Dormer (later 1st earl of Carnarvon), who subsequently became his son-in-law. Such was Montgomery’s confidence, that when Villiers began to assert his independence from his Herbert patrons at the end of that year, he sought to undermine him, introducing his sometime servant Adam Hill at court as an alternative favourite. However, James proved to be too enamoured of Villiers for these tactics to succeed.124 N. Cuddy, ‘Revival of the Entourage’, Eng. Court ed. D. Starkey, 214; HMC Downshire, vi. 26; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 299; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 41; SP14/89/68.

In the spring of 1617 Montgomery was one of the handful of English peers to accompany the king to Scotland. Shortly beforehand, James made him a gift of £4,000, and these marks of favour prompted rumours of fresh promotions, including admission to the Privy Council. Nothing came of them, but the concept emerged at court that if Pembroke, who had replaced Somerset as lord chamberlain, achieved a more senior office, then his brother could expect to benefit. In March 1617 it was suggested that Pembroke might become lord admiral, surrendering the chamberlainship to Villiers (now earl of Buckingham), who would in turn hand over the mastership of the horse to Montgomery. Seven months later, it was again proposed that he succeed the favourite in that office should Buckingham become lord admiral instead.125 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 476; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 443; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 156; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 58, 66; Trevelyan Pprs. III ed. W.C. and C.E. Trevelyan (Cam. Soc. cv), 140-1. In the summer of 1618, following the fall of the earl of Suffolk, Pembroke was touted as the new lord treasurer, the assumption being that Montgomery would replace him as lord chamberlain. These predictions persisted into the following year, without bearing fruit, but it became the accepted wisdom that Pembroke would not part with the chamberlainship to anyone but his brother. Montgomery certainly hoped to achieve high office, a distinction which had thus far eluded him. However, he had by now realized that he could not rely purely on his sibling’s patronage. Accordingly, while Pembroke intermittently clashed with Buckingham, Montgomery began to ingratiate himself with the favourite, acting as a supporter when the latter was created a marquess in January 1618, and inviting him to become godfather to his son two months later. The boy died shortly afterwards, but Montgomery repeated his invitation the following year after his wife bore him a new heir.126 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 163, 168, 204, 281; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 230; Harl. 5176, f. 227v; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 66; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 81. The earl also remained an intimate of the king, and was one of the inner circle of courtiers who attended James during his serious illness in March 1619. He additionally cultivated the young Prince Charles, though this had unfortunate consequences in April 1620, when Montgomery was injured by the prince during training for the annual accession day tilt.127 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 225, 298; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 133.

The elections to the 1621 Parliament saw Montgomery tighten his grip over the voters at Queenborough, who returned his servants James Palmer^‡ and William Frowde^‡, and rejected a nomination from a rival patron, Ludovic Stuart^*, earl (later duke) of Richmond and duke of Lennox [S]. Montgomery also arranged the election of his client Sir Thomas Tracy at the Herbert family’s pocket borough of Wilton, Wiltshire.128 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 201, 453. The earl attended almost three-quarters of this session, with no extended absences, and held the proxy of his distant relative Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon.129 LJ, iii. 4b.

Appointed by the crown to the prestigious role of a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland at the start of this session, Montgomery received five other nominations prior to the long summer recess. Named to the committee for the bill to punish Sabbath abuses, he was also selected to confer with the Commons about this measure. His other two legislative committees concerned Welsh cloth, and abuses in procuring writs of certiorari. Finally, he was appointed to help consider a petition against Christopher Roper^*, 2nd Lord Teynham, submitted by fishermen from north Kent.130 Ibid. 7a, 39b, 101b-2a, 130b. On 23 Mar., the earl sided with Buckingham, and against his brother Pembroke, in opposing a proposal for Sir Ralph Hansby to be examined about a bribe he had given to the embattled lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, 1st Viscount St Alban. Three days later, Montgomery attended the king when James came to the upper House to discuss monopolies, and also accompanied the monarch on a visit to St Paul’s Cathedral.131 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 39; C. Russell, PEP, 113; LJ, iii. 68b; Harl. 5176, f. 241. In April, Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, claimed privilege for one of Montgomery’s servants, Clement Reymes, who had been arrested by a Middlesex bailiff. The offending officer was duly consigned to the Fleet prison for over a month, before being released upon condition that he publicly apologised to the earl.132 LJ, iii. 101b, 113b, 124a, 155a.

During the summer, there was again talk of Pembroke becoming lord treasurer. His brother-in-law, Thomas Howard^*, 14th or 21st earl of Arundel was now tipped for the chamberlainship, Montgomery instead being compensated with a place on the Privy Council. In fact, none of these predictions were fulfilled, although it was noted that Buckingham was particularly friendly towards Montgomery at this juncture. The earl also received a useful financial fillip when his mother died intestate in September, and Pembroke bestowed on him all of her personal estate.133 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 381, 384, 400; Add. 72299, f. 50.

When Parliament reconvened in November 1621, Montgomery continued to attend quite regularly, but attracted only two bill committee appointments, the matters under discussion being navigation on the Thames upstream from Oxford, and the Henrician statute on the government of Wales and the Marches. It was probably at this time that he also held the proxy of the earl of Holdernesse.134 LJ, iii. 4b, 171a, 172b.

In March 1622, the earl was caught up in a minor court scandal. Elizabeth Norris, heiress to the late Francis Norris^*, 1st earl of Berkshire, was expected to marry Buckingham’s younger brother Christopher Villiers^* (later 1st earl of Anglesey), and to all intents and purposes had been placed in Montgomery’s custody. However, she managed to slip away from his house, and eloped with a groom of the bedchamber, Edward Wray^‡, despite the earl’s efforts to get her back.135 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 366; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 429. Evidently, Buckingham did not blame Montgomery for this episode, since in May the two men jointly received a grant of the revenues collected from foreigners in return for English work permits. Indeed, during the following months, the earl spent enough time in the favourite’s company that he began transmitting letters on his behalf, much as he had once done for the king.136 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 392, 481. When Buckingham, soon to be a duke, accompanied Prince Charles to Spain in 1623, Montgomery was careful to maintain a show of loyalty to him in his absence. However, he also used these months to recover something of his former intimacy with James.137 Harl. 1580, f. 293v; 1581, f. 360v; Add. 72276, ff. 35v, 39. For as long as the Spanish Match looked set to proceed, the earl gave this project his backing, helping with preparations for the infanta’s arrival in England, and standing in for his brother when Pembroke fell ill shortly before the ceremonial endorsement of the marriage articles.138 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 403; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 510; T. Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 103. Nevertheless, once the Match began to collapse, and an alternative proposal emerged for Charles to marry a French princess, Montgomery effortlessly fell in with this new policy, which Pembroke himself much preferred. Indeed, in October 1623 he hosted the visiting French ambassador at Whitehall.139 Add. 72255, ff. 82v, 84.

Montgomery faced an unexpected challenge in the elections to the 1624 Parliament. Although Queenborough ultimately accepted his two nominees, Roger Palmer and the latter’s kinsman Robert Poley^‡, a Suffolk resident, the borough initially expressed a preference for another of the earl’s servants, John Basset, a local man.140 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 201. As in 1621, the earl attended nearly three-quarters of this session but contributed relatively little to proceedings, remaining silent during the debates about war with Spain and the impeachment of the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex. Appointed for the second time a trier of petitions from England, Scotland and Ireland, he received 11 other nominations, and made three or four speeches, all in relation to comparatively routine business. Named on 20 Apr. to the committee for the bill to void a fish-packing patent held by Henry Heron on behalf of a Scottish courtier, the 2nd earl of Tullibardine [S], he reported the measure as fit to pass nine days later. On 1 May he brought in the offending patent to be cancelled, and was ordered to inform the king that the Lords wished Tullibardine to be compensated for any loss of revenues.141 LJ, iii. 208a, 313a, 327b, 329a. Montgomery also chaired legislative committees concerned with woollen cloth manufacture, and the estates of Sir Edward Heron and Sir Francis Clerke, reporting the first of these bills on 21 May, and the other two the next day. In addition, he probably chaired a committee appointed to arbitrate in a debt dispute between William and George Mathew, as he was the first man nominated for this task. The committee shortly recommended that the case be settled by a panel of Chancery judges and peers, to which Montgomery was promptly nominated.142 Ibid. 393a, 397b, 399b, 400b, 420a, 421b. The earl’s other principal business during this session concerned the latest bill to amend the Tudor ordinances for Welsh government. Appointed to help scrutinize this measure, he was also selected for a conference on the same topic, and subsequently named to a joint subcommittee to consider a proviso to this legislation.143 Ibid. 273a, 304b, 314b.

In March 1624 Montgomery finally received a tangible reward for his loyalty to Buckingham, being appointed lord lieutenant of Kent in place of the duke of Richmond, who had died shortly before the Parliament opened. During the summer there was once again gossip that Pembroke would become lord treasurer, with Montgomery receiving the chamberlainship, but as usual this came to nothing.144 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 193; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 327. When relations between Buckingham and Pembroke deteriorated during the autumn, Montgomery responded by proposing a marriage between his infant son Charles, and the duke’s daughter, as a way of binding the two families together. In the short term this idea was not pursued, but Buckingham evidently appreciated the gesture. During October the two men played cards together for money, while in December the earl was finally appointed a privy councillor.145 Harl. 1580, f. 445; R. Ruigh, Parl. of 1624, p. 315; Add. 12528, f. 16v. As James lay dying in March 1625, he commended Montgomery to Prince Charles as a man he could trust, and the new king responded by retaining him on the Privy Council, and selecting him to help plan James’s funeral.146 Clarendon, i. 74-5; APC, 1625-6, pp. 3, 7. The earl’s request to remain a gentleman of the bedchamber was rejected, but Charles expressed the intention of making him lord chamberlain, upon Pembroke’s promotion as lord steward. Still nothing came of this, but, significantly, Montgomery was one of the very few courtiers selected to accompany Buckingham to France in May 1625, when the duke went to collect Charles’s bride, Henrietta Maria.147 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 227; Add. 72255, f. 176v; NLW, 9060E/1336; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 22; Chamberlain Letters, 623.

Ahead of the first Caroline Parliament, Montgomery was more active than usual as an electoral patron, though with mixed results. At Queenborough, he again provided a seat for Roger Palmer, but the town this time refused to accept Robert Poley, preferring a local baronet, Sir Edward Hales^‡. At Canterbury one place went to John Fisher^‡, presumably with the support of the earl, who had recently appointed him the city’s muster-master. As Kent’s lord lieutenant, Montgomery certainly gave his backing to the victorious candidates in the shire’s contested election, secretary of state Sir Albertus Morton^‡, and Mildmay Fane^*, Lord Burghersh (later 2nd earl of Westmorland). Sir Francis Seymour, returned as a Wiltshire knight, also claimed to have enjoyed Montgomery’s support.148 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 189, 194, 201-2, 430.

The earl attended both the Westminster and Oxford sittings of the 1625 Parliament, though he missed almost half of each phase, and was noted as absent at a call of the Lords on 23 June. Four days later, he stood in for the earl marshal, the earl of Arundel, during the formal introduction to the House of another conspicuous Buckingham client, Edward Conway^*, 1st Lord (later 1st Viscount) Conway.149 Procs. 1625, pp. 48, 59. Appointed a trier of petitions from Gascony and other overseas territories at the start of this session, Montgomery received just four other nominations. Named during the Westminster sitting to the committee for the bill to make the kingdom’s arms more serviceable, a reflection of his role as a lord lieutenant, he was also selected for a conference about the proposed joint petition of both Houses against recusancy. After the adjournment to Oxford, he was nominated to legislative committees concerned with other anti-Catholic safeguards, and the American fisheries.150 Ibid. 31, 72, 78, 174, 179.

Conflict at court, 1625-6

In the aftermath of the first Caroline Parliament, relations between Pembroke and Buckingham once more deteriorated. With the country now at war with Spain, the lord chamberlain was deeply concerned at England’s worsening relations with France, which he blamed on the duke, while the latter suspected Pembroke of seeking his downfall. As these tensions came to a head, Montgomery decisively sided with his brother. In September 1625, the two men paid a highly provocative visit to John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, a former ambassador to Spain and sworn enemy of Buckingham, who was under house arrest for refusing to endorse the government’s official line on the collapse of the Spanish Match. Such a gesture could not be ignored, and Montgomery ‘received a check’ from the king over this incident. Buckingham also treated him coolly for some weeks afterwards.151 Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 360, 364. In November the veteran Scottish courtier and groom of the stole, the 1st earl of Kellie [S], observed: ‘although that honest Montgomery, who has well deserved of Buckingham, keeps fair fashions with the great man, yet I see but little appearance of preferment to him, because of some quarrel that the duke has to his brother the [lord] chamberlain’. Behind the scenes, there were in fact moves to heal the rift by promoting Pembroke to lord steward, but surprisingly his insistence that Montgomery replace him as chamberlain was at this point viewed as unacceptable. In February 1626 Montgomery received a token of royal favour, being chosen to carry the spurs at Charles’s coronation, but the stakes were now too high for this gesture to mollify him.152 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 237; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 57; HMC Rutland, i. 476.

When elections were held for the 1626 Parliament, the earl took a more cautious line at Queenborough, initially nominating only Robert Poley, though in the event the borough agreed to take Roger Palmer as well. Montgomery also secured seats at Canterbury for James Palmer, and at New Woodstock for his secretary Edmund Taverner^‡.153 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 195, 202, 321. During this session the earl held the proxies of Philip Stanhope^*, Lord Stanhope of Shelford (later 1st earl of Chesterfield), and Charles Stanhope^*, 2nd Lord Stanhope of Harrington.154 Procs. 1626, iv. 11.

Montgomery attended this session assiduously, missing just seven sittings. However, with a mere four speeches to his credit, he as usual did little to advertise his presence. Once again named as a trier of petitions from Gascony and other overseas territories, he received only seven other appointments. His standing in the Lords was nevertheless on the rise, for he was named to the standing committee for petitions, an important executive body. Of his six legislative committees, one concerned the suppression of recusancy, another the upgrading of the kingdom’s arms, while the remainder were for private bills, including those to confirm the New River Company’s privileges and the foundation of Sutton’s Hospital, at the Charterhouse, London. On 9 Feb. Montgomery was sent by the House to establish whether Edward Vaux^*, 4th Lord Vaux, was prepared to take the oath of allegiance in order to qualify for parliamentary privilege, reporting back in the affirmative. He also twice acted as a supporter, when Edmund Sheffield^* and James Ley^* were introduced to the Lords as 1st earl of Mulgrave and 1st earl of Marlborough respectively.155 Ibid. i. 22, 40, 48, 53, 65, 79, 127-8.

It was widely recognized at the time that Montgomery and Pembroke encouraged the Commons’ attacks on Buckingham during this Parliament. Such involvement would certainly help to explain his regular attendance. However, just like his brother, Montgomery tried to disguise his true intentions, and for the most part avoided participating in the more contentious debates. On 25 Feb., when the Lords voted to ban peers from holding more than two proxies in future (an indirect assault on the duke, who routinely collected a much larger number), Montgomery actually sided with Buckingham over the issue. He again backed Buckingham on 29 Apr., agreeing that the earl of Bristol, who was planning his own attack on the duke, could not claim privilege in order to resume his seat in the Lords, because he had been a prisoner long before the session opened. However, when the Lords pondered on 5 Apr. whether or not to reopen their inquiry into the contentious detention of the earl of Arundel, both a prominent opponent of the duke and Pembroke’s kinsman by marriage, Montgomery concurred with his brother that the committee for privileges did not need permission from the full House in order to continue its investigation. Moreover, after Buckingham accused Sir Dudley Digges^‡ of making treasonable remarks during his presentation of the Commons’ impeachment articles against the favourite, Montgomery lined up on 15 May with numerous other peers who dismissed this claim as unfounded. Exactly a month later the earl acted as a commissioner for the session’s premature dissolution.156 Ibid. 260, 323, 483-4, 634; iv. 341; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 630.

A court grandee, 1626-30

The 1626 Parliament ended with Buckingham’s position at court intact, and Pembroke and Montgomery needing to come to terms with him. The deal struck was not ungenerous. Pembroke’s clients, his proxies in the recent struggles at Westminster, bore the brunt of the duke’s wrath. In return for accepting this curtailment of his local patronage, the earl himself finally became lord steward, with Montgomery succeeding him as chamberlain, as he had long wished. To cement this settlement, the marriage proposal first put forward in 1624 was revived, with Buckingham’s daughter being betrothed to Montgomery’s son Charles. The duke promised a £20,000 dowry, but the Herberts were forced to agree to a compensation payment of £30,000 if the union was not consummated.157 Letters and Memorials of State, ii. 369; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 396; HMC Skrine, 82; CSP Ven. 1625-6, pp. 512, 517; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 123; Russell, 326-7.

Now bound more firmly than ever to Buckingham, Montgomery settled back into his comfortable existence at court, albeit with rather heavier duties as lord chamberlain.158 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 426, 582; 1627-8, p. 79; Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 193, 204-5. At local level he oversaw the billeting in Kent of soldiers required for Buckingham’s foreign adventures, while he and Pembroke visited Wiltshire and Somerset at the end of the year to promote the Forced Loan. It was presumably Montgomery who negotiated the government’s concession that Loan money collected in Kent could be used to offset billeting expenses in the county.159 APC, 1626, pp. 344, 383; 1627, p. 179; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 477; SP16/39/55; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 186. That being said, the earl retained a measure of independence, at least where religion was concerned. In August 1627, with Buckingham absent on the Île de Ré expedition, and the emergent Arminian faction at court in a weaker position than for several years, Montgomery apparently encouraged one of the royal chaplains, Henry Leslie, to preach a full-blooded Calvinist sermon, which was soon after published with a dedication to the earl. Montgomery was probably also one of the moderate privy councillors who secured the appointment of the Calvinist Joseph Hall^* as bishop of Exeter, despite Buckingham’s opposition.160 R. Cust, Forced Loan, 74; K. Fincham and P. Lake, ‘Ecclesiastical Policies of Jas. I and Chas. I’, Early Stuart Church ed. K. Fincham, 39. Nevertheless, when the duke returned from the Île de Ré in November 1627, the lord chamberlain was dispatched to meet him, taking a rich jewel as a gift from the king.161 Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 284, 286; In the following February, in a move which suggests a shift of attention towards opportunities beyond the court, Montgomery procured a grant of the islands of Trinidad, Tobago and Barbados. As only the last of these was actually in English hands, this proposed plantation was a highly speculative venture, but one which evidently appealed to a man who was a well-known gambler.162 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 265; K.R. Andrews, Trade, Plunder and Settlement, 301-2; Chamberlain Letters, i. 253; ii. 500.

Montgomery enjoyed only moderate success as an electoral patron in 1628. Edmund Taverner was again returned at New Woodstock, while at Queenborough the earl’s decision to make a single nomination helped secure a seat for the now knighted Roger Palmer. However, the latter’s brother James was defeated in the Canterbury contest.163 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 197, 202, 321. During the 1628 session the earl held the proxies of Thomas Darcy^*, Earl Rivers (whose licence of absence he also procured), and Henry Somerset^*, 5th earl of Worcester.164 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 26; SO3/9, unfol. (22 Mar. 1628).

Once again a very regular presence in the Lords, Montgomery attended nearly 90 per cent of the sittings, being excused just once, on 21 June, for reasons unknown. While he still attracted only 11 nominations, not including his now customary appointment as a trier of petitions from overseas, he was markedly more vocal than usual, making ten speeches. Named this time to both the standing committee for petitions, and the even more prestigious committee for privileges, the topics of his six bill committee appointments included Queen Henrietta Maria’s jointure, the estates of the late Richard Sackville, 3rd earl of Dorset, the continuing need to render the kingdom’s arms more serviceable, and navigation on the River Medway, in Kent.165 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 62, 73, 79, 88, 264, 641, 686, 700. Nominated to help present to the king the joint petition of both Houses requesting a general fast, the lord chamberlain was also dispatched to Charles to establish when the petition against recusancy might be delivered. On 14 June he defended the bishop of Bath and Wells, William Laud^* (later archbishop of Canterbury), confirming that the latter had advised the king against the publication of two controversial sermons by Roger Manwaring^* (later bishop of St Davids) in support of the Forced Loan.166 Ibid. 86, 121, 642.

During the lengthy debates on the liberties of the subject, Montgomery was broadly supportive of the royal prerogative. Apparently keen to see the disputed questions settled quickly, he argued on 12 Apr. against the attorney general, Sir Robert Heath^‡, preparing a written critique of the Commons’ complaints, on the grounds that this would take too long. Similarly, it was the earl who on 21 Apr. initiated discussion of arbitrary imprisonment, when some peers were hesitating to address the issue. A week later, he attended the king when Charles visited the Lords to reassure them that he would uphold the rule of law.167 Ibid. 205, 312, 354. This statement having failed to achieve the desired effect, the king wrote to the upper House, offering further concessions over the exercise of arbitrary detention. On 12 May Buckingham’s opponents in the Lords attempted to forestall a debate on this letter by forcing an adjournment, but Montgomery helped to block this move, allowing the duke to win the day. However, the Commons then refused to pay any attention to the missive, which they dismissed as unparliamentary. This obstructiveness temporarily drove a wedge between the earl and his brother, with Pembroke pushing for an accommodation with the lower House, while Montgomery insisted that the royal prerogative must be respected. Nevertheless, on 17 May the two men presented a united front once more, jointly asserting that it had never been the case that men could be committed indefinitely without some reason being supplied by the crown, effectively a declaration that the prerogative was already in some senses constrained.168 Ibid. 415, 417, 429, 452. With Buckingham now pushing for the Commons’ Petition of Right to be modified with a clause to protect the prerogative, Montgomery threw his support behind this strategy on 20 May. In the event, the Petition was presented to the king unaltered, prompting him to give an initial reply so guarded that it proved unacceptable to both Houses. Accordingly, on 7 June the earl was appointed to attend Charles, to request an audience at which a more satisfactory answer was demanded. However, by now relations between the king and the Commons had deteriorated too far for that second reply to mend them entirely, and on 17 June Montgomery was in attendance when Charles was presented with a remonstrance attacking Buckingham.169 Ibid. 487, 596; CD 1628, iv. 351.

In July 1628 Montgomery was granted a lump sum of more than £13,000, representing arrears due on his £3,000 pension, plus compensation for previous defaults in its payment.170 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 193; E403/2983, pp. 20-1. Shortly afterwards, it was widely rumoured that Pembroke was about to retire from court with a dukedom, leaving Montgomery to replace him as lord steward. However, all such calculations were rendered obsolete by Buckingham’s assassination in August. In the general redistribution of offices which followed, Montgomery became high steward of Westminster and lord lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, though he held the latter post only until his ward, the earl of Carnarvon, was old enough to exercise it. Montgomery’s bid to succeed the duke as chancellor of Cambridge University was unsuccessful. It was reported in December that Pembroke, now back in favour, would become the new lord admiral, with Montgomery stepping up to the role of lord steward, but this talk proved to be idle as the admiralty was placed in commission.171 HMC Cowper, i. 359; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 378-9; CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 311, 330-1, 337; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 293.

Montgomery was twice excused attendance in the Lords during the short 1629 parliamentary session, but actually only missed five sittings in total. As in 1628, he held the proxies of Earl Rivers and the earl of Worcester.172 LJ, iv. 3a, 19a, 25b. Once again named to the committees for privileges and petitions, he was also appointed to help survey the kingdom’s munition stores, and required to consider the earl of Arundel’s proposal for an academy to educate aristocratic children, a project originally devised by Buckingham.173 Ibid. 6a-b, 37b, 39b. On 14 Feb. Montgomery was sent to the king to request an audience for the presentation of the Lords’ petition of complaint against the precedence enjoyed by the English holders of Scottish and Irish peerages. He reported on 16 Feb. that Charles would receive the document on the following afternoon. The earl was again dispatched to court on 19 Feb., this time to help deliver another petition requesting the king to bestow lands on the impoverished Robert de Vere^*, 19th earl of Oxford. In the event, no audience was given until two days later, Montgomery again notifying the Lords of the royal summons. The earl absented himself on 10 Mar., and therefore missed the abrupt dissolution of this tempestuous session.174 Ibid. 31a, 32b, 34b, 37a; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 339, 340.

Earl of Pembroke, 1630-50

With the sudden death in April 1630 of his childless elder brother, Montgomery became 4th earl of Pembroke. He narrowly failed in his bid to succeed his brother as chancellor of Oxford University, but inherited the vast bulk of the 3rd earl’s local offices, not least the wardenship of the Devon and Cornwall stannaries, a role which he took very seriously, strenuously resisting all attempts by the Westminster courts to limit the stannaries’ privileges.175 Add. 35331, f. 37; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 74, 219-20; CSP Dom. 1637, p. 244; 1637-8, p. 173. Henceforth, the combined revenues of his offices and estates gave him an annual income of perhaps £30,000, although he was also saddled with the 3rd earl’s debts, which reputedly stood at £80,000.176 Aubrey’s Brief Lives, 144; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 73. Now unquestionably one of the grandees at court, Pembroke (or Pembroke and Montgomery as he was properly known) was also widely recognized as being a royal confidant. As his kinsman William Herbert^†, 1st Lord Powis observed in November 1630, ‘the lord chamberlain hath as great a portion and share of the king’s favour as any of them who make the greatest show’. Notwithstanding his intermittent outbursts of rage at court, Pembroke retained Charles’s affection well into the late 1630s.177 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, pp. 381-2; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 177-8, 207, 511; CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 527.

There seems little doubt that the earl’s bond with his monarch was founded on a shared love of hunting, art and architecture. The king normally visited Pembroke’s ancestral seat of Wilton every summer while on progress, and reputedly prompted the earl to undertake the partial reconstruction of the house on ultra-fashionable Italianate lines, in addition to transforming the gardens on an even grander scale.178 Aubrey’s Brief Lives, 145-6; R. Strong, Renaissance Garden in Eng. 148, 156, 160. Pembroke had inherited his brother’s fine art collection, and himself became a major patron of van Dyck, for whom he sat at least five times. When, in January 1637, Charles received a consignment of artworks from the Pope, the earl was one of the handful of courtiers initially summoned to help the king examine it.179 Stone, 720; K. Sharpe, Personal Rule of Chas. I, 162-3; C. Carleton, Chas. I, 145.

Nevertheless, such intimacy did not translate into significant political influence. Pembroke knew how to make his way at court, and understood the ceremonial to which Charles attached such importance. Indeed, his active participation in Garter feasts and meetings probably helped to cement his place in the king’s favour. He was trusted to fulfil any number of minor government commissions. In late 1632, he also took on the management of the king’s new Fisheries Society, a task which he shouldered with energy and determination, though the enterprise struggled in its early years, leaving him burdened with additional heavy and intractable debts.180 Sharpe, 162-3; Cust, ‘Order of the Garter’, 348; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 510; 1633-4, p. 179; 1635-6, pp. 330, 338; 1638-9, p. 79; 1639, p. 533; 1639-40, p. 440. However, he could not rely on his royal master to defend him when other courtiers challenged his authority as lord chamberlain. In 1637 Henry Rich^*, 1st earl of Holland even snatched from him the right to swear in most household servants. Moreover, on major questions of government policy, his views counted for little. In the mid 1630s he was one of the few senior courtiers still advocating military action to recover the Palatinate. On the domestic front, he generally went along with whatever the king wanted, while continuing quietly to patronize puritan clergy.181 Strafforde Letters, i. 56, 130, 489; CSP Ven. 1632-6, p. 565; J. Davies, Caroline Captivity of the Church, 168. Not until 1635 did he openly question the Irish policies of Thomas Wentworth^*, 1st Viscount Wentworth (later earl of Strafford), a man he regarded as a ‘northern clown’, and then only because the lord deputy attacked one of Pembroke’s distant relatives, the 1st earl of Cork [I]. In the aftermath of this uncharacteristic episode, from which Wentworth emerged the victor, the earl briefly lobbied at court to prevent the viscount from becoming lord treasurer, but soon reverted to his more typically supine behaviour.182 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 281; H.F. Kearney, Strafford in Ireland, 70; CP, iii. 295, 421, 568-70; Strafforde Letters, i. 449, 480; Lismore Pprs. (ser. 1) ed. A.B. Grosart, iv. 125, 130; Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP15/241; StrP8, pp. 294-6; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, vii. 210; J.F. Merritt, ‘Power and Communication’, Political World of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford ed. J.F. Merritt, 129.

It was not until the Scottish crisis at the end of the decade that Pembroke’s loyalty was called seriously into doubt. One of the key figures on the council of war which planned the northern expedition of 1639, and commander of the king’s life guard during the First Bishops’ War, Pembroke was nevertheless sympathetic towards the Scots, presumably on grounds of religion, and keen to see a peaceful accommodation. Clarendon, who knew the earl, later observed that he ‘abhorred the war as obstinately as he loved hunting and hawking’. This stance gradually got him into trouble.183 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 340, 378; HMC Cowper, ii. 210; Clarendon, i. 161-2; Coventry Docquets, 190. Having helped in May 1639 to deliver a Covenanter petition to the king, calling for an end to hostilities, he found himself presented in July with a pamphlet which misrepresented the terms of the Pacification of Berwick in order to justify non-compliance by the Scots. Realizing that this document would be regarded in England as seditious, Pembroke initially denied all knowledge of it. However, finding himself accused of aiding its circulation, he handed his copy over to the Privy Council in August, whereupon it was publicly burnt.184 CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 158, 248, 360, 398, 401, 433. Thereafter, the earl carefully distanced himself from his Scottish acquaintances. By September, though, rumours were circulating that he would be sacked as lord chamberlain, in a purge of ‘old but puritan ministers’, Wentworth lobbying the king to take this drastic step.185 CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 397, 528, 609;

Now widely viewed as one of the more ‘popular’ peers, Pembroke was selected to negotiate with the Scots during the treaty of Ripon in September 1640, and then deputed by the Great Council of Peers to request a loan from the city of London. In the following year he voted for the attainder of Wentworth (now 1st earl of Strafford), despite assuring the king that he would not do so. In July 1641, Charles responded by dismissing Pembroke from the chamberlainship.186 Clarendon, i. 203, 207-8, 345; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 405. A moderate parliamentarian during the Civil War, he was employed on several occasions during and after the conflict to discuss peace terms with the king. One of several peers who declined to sit in judgment on Charles, he regretted the monarch’s execution, but accepted the change of regime. Following the abolition of the House of Lords in February 1649, he stood for election to the Commons, being returned as a Member for Berkshire. Pembroke died in London in February 1650, his titles descending to his son Philip.187 HMC Ormonde, n.s. ii. 381; HMC 5th Rep. 56; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 472, 576-8, 597.