styled Ld. Walden 1691-1706; cr. 1706 earl of BINDON; suc. fa. 10 Dec. 1709 as 6th earl of SUFFOLK
First sat 30 Dec. 1706; last sat 19 Dec. 1717
MP Arundel 20 Jan.-22 Feb. 1694, 1695-1698; Essex 1705-30 Dec. 1706
b. 1670, 1st s. of Henry Howard, 5th earl of Suffolk, and Mary, da. and h. of Andrew Stewart, 3rd Bar. Castle Stuart [I]. educ. Mr Froholk’s sch. Panton Street, London; Magdalene, Camb. 1685. m. (1) 6 Aug. 1691, Aubery Anne Penelope (d.1703), da. of Henry O’Brien, 7th earl of Thomond [I], 4s. (3 d.v.p.), 1da.; (2) Apr. 1705, Henrietta (d.1715), da. of Henry Somerset, duke of Beaufort, sis. of Charles Somerset‡, mq. of Worcester, and wid. of 1st wife’s bro. Henry Horatio O’Brien (styled Ld. O’Brien or Ld. Ibrackan), s.p.1 d. 19 Sept. 1718; admon. 16 Oct. 1718 to Charles William Howard, 7th earl of Suffolk.2
Commissary gen. of musters 1697–1707; dep. earl marshal 1706–d.; PC 26 June 1708–d.; commr. claims for coronation 1714; first ld. of trade 1715–18.
Ld. lt. Essex 1715–d.
Associated with: Audley End, Essex and Gunnersbury, Mdx.
Although the Walden peerage was in dispute between Henry Howard, 5th earl of Suffolk, and the female descendants of his older brother James Howard, 3rd earl of Suffolk, the title was nevertheless used by the future 6th earl of Suffolk as a courtesy title in the period between his father’s accession to the earldom of Suffolk and his own creation as earl of Bindon. Walden’s own son also used the title after his father’s accession to the earldom of Suffolk. Walden had served a long apprenticeship in the Commons before his elevation to the Lords in 1706. Early signs of country loyalties were dissipated after his appointment (in succession to his father) as commissary general of musters and by 1698 he was regarded as a court placeman. By 1705 he had thrown his lot in with the Whigs but was nevertheless listed as a ‘churchman’.3
As an undistinguished parliamentarian it seems unlikely that Walden’s elevation to the earldom of Bindon was closely related to a desire to strengthen the Whig presence in the upper House. Rather more prosaically, it probably stemmed from the need to appoint someone of appropriate rank to stand in for Thomas Howard, 8th duke of Norfolk and hereditary earl marshal of England. Norfolk had come of age in December 1705 and, despite early predictions that he would conform to the Church of England, had remained a Catholic. The post of deputy earl marshal had been held by Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Carlisle, during Norfolk’s minority and Norfolk now petitioned for it to be handed to Walden.4
Walden was duly appointed deputy earl marshal in August 1706; he sold his post of commissary general shortly afterwards.5 Letters patent creating him earl of Bindon were issued on 30 Dec. 1706 as was his writ of summons and he took his seat the same day, being introduced between Charles Montagu, 4th earl (later duke) of Manchester, and Charles Bodvile Robartes, 2nd earl of Radnor. He was also given a lesser peerage as Baron Chesterford, which may have been meant as a solution to his father’s complaint that if deprived of the Walden peerage the earls of Suffolk would be bereft of a junior title. Despite his eagerness to take his seat, Bindon showed little interest in attending Parliament regularly. His attendance over the remainder of the session averaged at just under 30 per cent of sitting days and for part of the session (14–23 Mar.) he covered his absence by registering his proxy in favour of Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset. During the short April 1707 session Bindon was present on six of the ten sitting days and was named to the committee for the Journal. In the same year his personal finances were much improved by the resolution of the long-running dispute about the crown’s non-payment of the purchase money for Audley End.
Bindon was present for some 45 per cent of the sitting days during the first Parliament of Great Britain. A printed list of the members of the House marked him as a Whig. On 21 Nov. 1707 he brought an appeal against a decree in chancery concerning the distribution of the estate of his uncle, the 3rd earl of Suffolk; the case was briefly considered at various stages through the session but was not heard until 3 Feb. 1708 when Bindon secured the reversal of the decree in question. His last attendance for this Parliament was just a week later, on 10 Feb. 1708.
Despite his lack of performance in the House, Bindon was appointed to the Privy Council in June 1708. His attendance continued low: during the first session of the 1708 Parliament he was present on only a third of the sitting days. He was absent from the House for most of November and throughout December 1708 but returned on 17 Jan. 1709 when the House heard the report on the elections for Scots representative peers. He was again present on 21 Jan. when he voted against allowing Scots peer with British titles to vote in the election of Scots representative peers. The issue of the Scots representative peers and their election also dominated the business of the House on 26 and 28 Jan. when he next attended. Although the rumours of an invasion of Scotland were not considered by the House until 25 Feb. Bindon’s earlier attendances that month were probably linked to an awareness of the continuing importance of Scots issues. Most of his attendances in March can again be directly linked to debates over Scotland, including the address to the crown for papers relating to the defence of Scotland and the bill to improve the Union. His last attendance of the session was on 25 March.
Bindon was not present during the first two months of the 1709–10 session. Overall his attendance averaged 25 per cent of sitting days but, as in the previous session, the pattern of his attendance was dictated by the business before the House. By the time he took his seat on 9 Jan. 1710 he had succeeded to his father’s earldom of Suffolk. His attendance on that date appears to have been firmly focussed on the expectation that John Thompson, Baron Haversham, would be delivering one of his great set speeches on the state of the nation. Haversham’s failure to appear (he was ill) was clearly a great disappointment.6 Suffolk was then absent until 23 Feb. when the attraction was very different – the forthcoming trial of Dr Sacheverell; thereafter he attended the House regularly until 24 March. Together with all the lords spiritual and temporal then present, he was named to the committees to investigate the disorders associated with the trial and to inspect precedents of impeachments. On 14 Mar. (in company with a number of high church Tories) he entered a protest at the failure of the House to adjourn after receiving the committee’s report on precedents. Two days later he entered a protest against the resolution to put the question as to whether the Commons had made good the first article against Sacheverell but did not follow it through with a protest against the resolution that the Commons had made good the first article. Strangely, Suffolk was not present to vote for or against Sacheverell on 20 Mar., although he was certainly present when the House passed censure the following day. His support for Sacheverell amazed John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, and is probably indicative of a flirtation with Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford.7 Suffolk was also present on 22 Mar. when his stepmother, the dowager countess of Suffolk and former Lady Maynard, entered an appeal against a decree in favour of Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford. His last appearance of the session was on 24 March.
By the time the new parliamentary session had opened in November 1710, Suffolk was listed by Harley as a possible supporter. His usefulness to Harley was limited because his overall attendance dropped still further, averaging less than 25 per cent of sitting days. He was present on 18 Dec. when his mother-in-law, the dowager duchess of Beaufort, successfully appealed against a chancery decree concerning the distribution of her late husband’s estate, but then absented himself until mid-January when the House considered the progress of the war in Spain in the wake of the battle of Almanza. Although he was present throughout many of the debates on this contentious subject, he absented himself on 3 Feb. when the House voted on resolutions concerning the ministry’s neglect of the service. Attempts to link his subsequent attendances to the business of the day remain conjectural but some at least seem to reflect personal or family interests. He was present, for example, on days on which the order paper included discussion of private bills for his kinsman Henry Bowes Howard, 4th earl of Berkshire (future 11th earl of Suffolk), and his first wife’s brother, Henry O’Brien, 8th earl of Thomond [I]. His last attendance of the session was on 16 May 1711.
Suffolk did not attend the second session of the 1710 Parliament until 20 Mar. 1712. He had registered a proxy in favour of the dissident Whig Somerset on 6 Dec. 1711 but this was vacated when Somerset covered his own absence from Parliament by a proxy to John Manners, 2nd duke of Rutland, on 15 December. The following day Suffolk registered a second proxy, this time in favour of Edward Russell, earl of Orford. The issue for which such careful arrangements had to be made was the right of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to sit in the House as duke of Brandon in the British peerage. A forecast of voting intentions suggests that Suffolk intended to vote in favour of Hamilton but this is almost certainly wrong since Somerset, Orford, and Rutland were expected to vote against him and the two who were actually present at the division on 20 Dec. (Rutland and Orford) did indeed vote against Hamilton.
Suffolk was present for four days in March 1712 and was then absent until 4 June. Part of his absence was covered by a proxy to Somerset registered on 14 May. It is tempting to speculate that the proxy may have been required in connection with the bill to examine grants since the revolution, but there is no evidence for this. On 7 June Suffolk joined with a mixture of Whig and Tory peers and bishops to protest at the rejection of an amendment to the address to the crown on the peace. The other major national issue under discussion during his June attendance was the bill to enlarge the time within which ministers in Scotland could take the oath of abjuration.
Suffolk was not present when the third session of the 1710 Parliament opened in April 1713. His first appearance on 18 May seems to have been prompted by debates over Anglo-French trade, and Oxford listed him as likely to vote against the French commercial treaty. His attendances for the session totalled a mere 18 days. His record for the first session of the 1713 Parliament was little better: he arrived on 2 Apr. 1714, some six weeks after the commencement of the session, and was then present for 21 of the remaining sitting days. Initially his attendance seems to have been impelled by questions relating to the imminent peace, uncertainties about the Protestant succession, and fears of invasion by the Pretender. In May Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, expected him to vote against the bill to prevent growth of schism but if he did do so he did not follow it up by protesting against the passage of the act. His last attendance of the session was on 18 June; the following day his proxy was registered in favour of Somerset.
Suffolk attended the House twice in August 1714, but was not present thereafter until his final appearance on 19 Dec. 1717. Despite his failure to play even a passive part in the life of the House he received significant rewards from the new dynasty. He was appointed lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of Essex, and first lord of trade at a salary of £1,000 a year. He also hoped to settle his family’s claim to the barony of Walden. In a petition to the crown, which can be dated by internal evidence to a period after 18 Oct. 1714, he asked the king to use his royal prerogative to end the abeyance by summoning Suffolk’s son and heir, Charles William Howard, the future 7th earl of Suffolk, to Parliament as Baron Howard de Walden. Bolstering his claim by citing a number of precedents concerning the claims of earls to abeyant baronies, Suffolk also argued that his son was a better choice for a peerage than the rival claimant, Elizabeth Hervey (née Felton), countess of Bristol. Unlike the countess, Charles William Howard could serve the crown in Parliament which ‘was the original foundation of summoning peers by writ’. Suffolk’s arguments failed to convince and the barony was left in abeyance. He died, after a long illness, at his house in Gunnersbury on 19 Sept. 1718 and was succeeded by his son, Charles William Howard, as 7th earl of Suffolk.
R.P.