styled Ld.Walden, 1626-40; suc. fa. 3 June 1640 (a minor) as 3rd earl of SUFFOLK
First sat before 1660, 11 Jan. 1641; first sat after 1660, 25 Apr. 1660; last sat 10 Jan. 1681
bap. 10 Feb. 1620, 1st s. of Theophilus Howard†, 2nd earl of Suffolk, and Elizabeth, da. of George Home, earl of Dunbar [S]; bro. of George Howard, 4th earl of Suffolk, and Henry Howard, 5th earl of Suffolk. educ. Oxf. MA 1663; incorp. Camb. 1664. m. (1) 1 Dec. 1640, Susanna (c.1637–49), 3rd da. of Henry Rich†, earl of Holland, and Isabel, da. and h. of Sir Walter Cope‡ of Kensington, 2s. d.v.p., 1da.; (2) aft. 19 Feb. 1651, Barbara (1622–81), da. of Sir Edward Villiers, pres. of Munster, and Barbara, da. of Sir John St John‡, wid. of Richard Wenman, 2da. (1 d.v.p.); (3), settlement 10 June 1682, Anne (c.1660–1720), 1st da. of Robert Montagu, 3rd earl of Manchester, and Anne, da. of Sir Christopher Yelverton‡, bt.; d. 7 Jan. 1689; will 10 July 1688, pr. 11 Feb. 1689.1
Jt. commr. to the king (parl.), 1646, earl marshal 1673–84; gent. of the bedchamber, 1665–81.
Jt. ld. lt. Suffolk 1640–2; ld. lt. Suffolk (parl.) 1642, 1660–81, Cambs. 1660–81; custos rot. Cambs 1646, Suffolk 1660–d.; high steward, Ipswich 1653; gov. Landguard Fort, Essex 1666.
Associated with: Audley End, Suff.
The heir to substantial estates in East Anglia, Suffolk’s civil war career was full of contradictions. He was one of a handful of peers who continued sitting in the House of Lords after Charles I had raised his standard at Nottingham. Suffolk was first recorded as present in the House on 11 Jan. 1641 but the attendance lists for this period are somewhat erratic and it is possible that he had taken his seat earlier. Appointed lord lieutenant of Suffolk by Parliament on 16 Feb. 1642, he went on to serve as one of the parliamentary commissioners to the king at Newcastle in 1648 and as high steward of Ipswich in 1653. Yet he was impeached by the Commons for high treason in December 1647, was associated with plans for a royalist uprising in 1659, and received a certificate of loyalty and a pardon from Charles II in 1660.2 Financial difficulties may well have lain at the root of his equivocation, for his involvement in a number of legal actions suggests that his estates were already deeply encumbered with debt and that he could not afford to risk his remaining estates for either cause.3 Personal loyalties probably also played a part. The allegiances of Suffolk’s immediate family were complex. His sister Margaret married Roger Boyle‡, Baron Broghill [I] (later earl of Orrery [I]), who fought for Parliament before joining the royalists and playing a leading role in persuading the Irish army to accept the Restoration. Another sister, Elizabeth, also married a parliamentarian-turned-royalist, Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland. Yet another, Catherine, married the royalist James Livingston‡, earl of Newburgh [S]. Suffolk’s younger brother George Howard, later 4th earl of Suffolk, was also a royalist and came to be closely associated with James, duke of York. The loyalties of Suffolk’s wider family were equally confused. The senior line of Howards, direct descendants of the dukes of Norfolk and earls of Arundel, were Catholic royalists but the Howard earls of Carlisle were Protestant parliamentarians. By 1658 Suffolk was clearly in the royalist camp and, according to Roger Morrice, he was one of the cavaliers who spied on meetings of the presbyterians in the early months of 1660.4
At the Restoration the ambiguities of Suffolk’s civil war allegiance were promptly forgotten. He was appointed to the prestigious and politically influential lord lieutenancies of Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, and in 1665 was granted the profits of sealing writs in the king’s bench and common pleas for a term of 21 years.5 He was also on sociable terms with James, duke of York, and the two men were expected to hunt often together.6 His ties to the royal family were strengthened still further by the marriage of his nephew James Howard to Charlotte Fitzroy, one of Charles II’s illegitimate daughters. He took his seat on the first day of the Convention and was almost immediately engaged in trying to persuade the ‘young lords’ to take their seats against the known wishes of George Monck, later duke of Albemarle.7 He was present on over 90 per cent of sitting days and held the proxy of Robert Rich, 2nd earl of Holland, throughout. On 1 May 1660 he was appointed to the committee to consider an answer to the king’s letter. On 9 May he was appointed to the committee for settling the militia; on the same day the House granted him possession of Greenwich Park until further order. On 19 May he obtained a further order of the House favouring his possession of Somersham in Cambridgeshire and on 22 May the House ordered his restoration as custos rotulorum of Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.
On 2 July he was added to the committee to consider the bill of Thomas Wentworth, earl of Cleveland, and was involved in seeking the House’s protection against Richard Baxter, who was accused of speaking contemptuous words against him. He was thought to be opposed to the claim of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford to the office of great chamberlain. On 11 Aug. he obtained an order empowering him and his agents to search for arms taken from his house at Audley End. On 13 Dec. he entered a dissent to the resolution to vacate the fines of Sir Edward Powell and two days later he was named to the committee for the Hatfield Level bill. For much of this month both he and the House were preoccupied with his attempts to invoke privilege against Alexander Peper, who was alleged to have called Suffolk ‘a fool and a knave’ and ‘a base stinking fellow’. The House accepted the advice of the judges that the criminal or public wrong element of Peper’s offences, having been committed before 24 June 1660, was excused by the Act of Oblivion; Suffolk was left to take his own remedy for the private wrong that he had suffered.
Suffolk’s attendance fell markedly in the first session of the Cavalier Parliament, when he was present on just over 53 per cent of sitting days. In April 1661 he was appointed earl marshal for the purposes of the coronation. On 11 May he acted as supporter at the introductions of Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, and of his cousin Charles Howard, earl of Carlisle, and (as would become usual practice) was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. At a call of the House on 25 Nov. 1661 he was excused as sick. The reduction in his attendance seems to have little effect on his access to royal patronage, possibly because his wife was one of the king’s favourites.8 In February 1662 she was appointed first lady of the bedchamber, groom of the stole, and keeper of the privy purse to the new queen, although the appointments were not officially confirmed until the following year.9 On 16 Feb. 1662 he entered a protest at the passage of the bill to restore the earl of Derby’s estates. On 3 May he appeared as a petitioner at a meeting of the committee to consider Sir Robert Hitcham’s bill: Suffolk had been involved in a dispute about the title of the lands concerned for nearly 20 years.10 It was a sign of continuing royal favour that in July 1662 Lady Suffolk acted a witness at the christening of Lady Castlemaine’s child.11 In November 1662 Suffolk was granted the farm of licensing the sale of ale and beer in Ireland for a term of 21 years.12
He was present on just over 60 per cent of sitting days in the 1663 session, and continued to receive indications of royal favour, including a licence to build in Suffolk Stable Yard.13 Nevertheless, Wharton listed him as a probable supporter of the attempt of George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, to impeach Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon.
Suffolk attended the brief session of spring 1664 almost every day but his attendance fell back to 76 per cent of sitting days during the 1664–5 session. On 22 Feb. 1665 he invoked privilege of Parliament to secure the release of his servant John Loanes. The improvement in his attendance may have been a factor in winning further royal favour. Early in March 1665 he learned that he had been appointed as a gentleman of the bedchamber and in July he was given a grant of Irish lands forfeit to the crown through intestacy.14 He was present on only four days at the end of the October 1665 session, possibly because he had been deeply involved in preparations to resist the threat of a Dutch assault on the coast of East Anglia. On 26 Oct. he was named to the committee to consider the Irish Cattle Bill.
In the spring of 1666, during the prorogation of Parliament, Suffolk was one of the king’s companions at Newmarket and used the opportunity both to entertain him and to showcase his magnificent house at Audley End. The ploy was successful; although negotiations dragged on for several years, the king agreed to buy Audley End for £50,000 but left Suffolk in possession of house and lands as keeper, with a salary of £500 a year.15 In the summer of 1666 he was appointed governor of the strategically important Landguard Fort and ensured that it was put in good order in case of Dutch attack.16 A letter to Secretary Joseph Williamson‡ conveys a hint of discontent, suggesting as it does that Suffolk was responsible for spreading the rumour that ‘all business of concern is entrusted to Secretary Morrice‡, that the generals send their dispatches to him, and that he burns them, after communicating to the king only’; but the accuracy of the information is at best doubtful and the idea that the king was over-reliant on favourites was scarcely a novel one.17
Suffolk was present on some 80 per cent of sitting days during the 1666–7 session, and was named to a number of committees to consider bills. On 24 Jan. 1667 he was also named as one of the three peers to be commissioners for accounts. During this year he became involved in a quarrel with Lord Chief Justice Kelyng‡ about the rights associated with the grant for the office of sealer of writs in the king’s bench and common pleas.18
His attitude to the marriage of his daughter Essex Howard to Edward Griffin, later Baron Griffin, remains puzzling. The marriage was being discussed as early as April 1666 and seems to underline Suffolk’s close relationship with York, as Griffin was one of York’s most trusted companions. Nevertheless the actual marriage, in March 1667, seems to have taken place without his knowledge and was said to have left him so angry that he refused to see his daughter.19 Whatever the truth of this matter, it is clear that Suffolk was still a trusted ally of the court. In the summer of 1667 he took personal charge of the militia who fought the Dutch after their landing near Harwich and in September his wife stood godmother to York’s baby son, Prince Edgar, duke of Cambridge.20
When Parliament reconvened in October 1667 Suffolk’s attendance level dropped to just over 56 per cent of sitting days. His only recorded parliamentary activity was that, as was usual, he was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. In May 1668 it was rumoured that his countess was to lose her position as groom of the stole to the queen to the duchess of Richmond, but the size of compensation suggested, £10,000, is not suggestive of a fall from favour and the rumour soon proved to be unfounded.21 That the countess was still close to the court was amply demonstrated in February 1669 when she, together with Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, was granted up to £5,000 from the proceeds of the prize goods of the captured ship Sancta Maria.22
Suffolk was present on 30 of the 36 sitting days of the brief autumn 1669 session, when he was named to the committee to consider the reports of the commissioners of accounts and to the committee to consider the bill for preventing fraud in the exportation of wool. He attended some 61 per cent of the sitting days in the 1670–1 session and held the proxy of John Granville, earl of Bath, from 15 Mar. to 31 Oct. 1670. He was named to nine select committees to consider bills on subjects ranging from the estates of Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle, to the enrolment of deeds and the prevention of popery. Two of the bills concerned members of his wider family: that for Sir Philip Howard and Francis Watson, and the Arundel House bill, which related to the administration of the estates of the brain-damaged Thomas Howard, 5th duke of Norfolk. On 14 Jan. 1671 Suffolk was named to the committee to investigate the assault on James Butler, duke of Ormond. On 15 Mar. he entered a dissent to the decision of the House of Lords to suspend judgment against John Cusack in a cause that had been heard first in the Irish court of claims and that appears to have raised constitutional issues about the right of appeal from that court.
That Suffolk was still on good terms with the duke of York is suggested by the involvement of his daughter Elizabeth in the baptism ceremony for York’s infant daughter in February 1671.23 It was at about this time that the king ceased to make payments for the purchase of Audley End.24 In the short term this had little effect on Suffolk’s loyalties, and he was certainly still hoping for favour. The death of Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, saw him throwing his hat into the ring as one of the competitors for the office of chancellor of Cambridge University. He was unsuccessful.25
Suffolk was present on nearly 80 per cent of sitting days during the first session of 1673. On 28 Mar. he and his cousin Carlisle were instrumental in having the claim of the trunk-maker James Percy to the earldom of Northumberland referred to the consideration of the House. As the brother of the dowager countess, Suffolk was unlikely to have been advocating James Percy’s claim; he was probably trying to ensure that it was quashed in an authoritative manner. In the summer of 1673 he was appointed one of the deputy earl marshals to officiate on behalf of his Catholic cousin Henry Howard, earl of Norwich (later 6th duke of Norfolk), and thereafter regularly played a role in the ceremonial life of the House.26
He was present on three of the five sitting days of the brief second session of 1673 and on just over 85 per cent of the sitting days of the spring 1674 session. He was named to several committees and on 17 Feb. 1674 was also nominated as one of the mediators between the Hamburg Company and its creditors. He was again present for 85 per cent of the first session of 1675. It is tempting to wonder whether his high attendance in 1673–5 was in any way related to his polite but nevertheless relentless pursuit of Essex (then lord lieutenant of Ireland) for payment of monies owed to him from the Irish revenues.27 Meanwhile, during 1674 he and his wife had been estranged from their daughter Elizabeth, a noted court beauty, because of her marriage to Thomas Felton‡. They were reconciled by September 1675, when the king made Elizabeth a lady of the bedchamber and settled £1,000 a year on her husband.28
Two days before the opening of the autumn 1675 session Williamson wrote to Suffolk explaining that, since the king suspected him to be ‘too keen a jockey to leave Newmarket for the Parliament’, a proxy was required.29 Clearly, as far as the court was concerned, Suffolk still seemed to be a reliable ally. Sure enough, William Maynard, 2nd Baron Maynard, held Suffolk’s proxy until 25 Oct. 1675, the day that Suffolk made his first appearance in the House that session. He attended for just three days.
When Parliament reconvened in February 1677, Suffolk was absent; his proxy was held by Maynard until his arrival on 9 April. Three days later he was named to the committee on the Yarmouth Pier Bill. He was present almost every day until 16 July 1677 but was then absent for the remainder of the session. He was also absent for the whole of the following session and did not resume his seat until the opening of the final session of the Cavalier Parliament on 21 Oct. 1678, after which he was present on some 82 per cent of sitting days. There is no information available with which to track his political activities during this period, although Shaftesbury’s willingness to list him as worthy suggests a breach with York and the court. The decline in his wife’s health may have been a contributory factor. In or about the autumn of 1677 she became so ill that her duties at court had to be supplied by Lady Arlington, wife of Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington.30 By the end of 1678 Suffolk was clearly aligned with the attack on Catholicism in government: on 15 Nov. he voted against watering down the provisions of the Test Act by leaving out the declaration against transubstantiation.
Early in March 1679, at the start of the first Exclusion Parliament, Suffolk was listed by Danby as a possible supporter, to be spoken to by the king. Two further lists (probably compiled just a few weeks later) indicate that Suffolk had joined Danby’s opponents. Lists of those who actually voted in the early stages of the bill of attainder also include Suffolk as one of Danby’s opponents. These cannot be accurate: Suffolk attended the House on 19 Mar. 1679, early in the Parliament’s second session, but then absented himself until 7 April, his absence ensuring that he missed all the vital votes on the subject. He may well have joined Danby’s opponents but he seems to have had no intention of upsetting the court. He registered his proxy in favour of Maynard, a known supporter of Danby, so may well have voted in absentia in Danby’s favour. Yet if his absence was strategic it is difficult to explain why he attended the House when it considered the Commons bill of attainder passed on 14 Apr. 1679. On this occasion he was again listed as having voted for the bill. Since the bill passed by a very narrow majority, Suffolk’s vote was crucial to its success. During May 1679 he was named to two select committees; he was also one of the three peers who on 20 May were ordered by the House to attend the king to ask that the gates of the Tower of London be closed at 10 pm each night. On 27 May he dissented to the resolution to insist on the right of bishops to sit in blood cases – another indication of hostility to Danby. Overall, he was present on 56 per cent of sitting days in the second session.
During the second Exclusion Parliament Suffolk attended the prorogation day on 26 Jan. 1680 and some 33 per cent of sitting days once the session had opened on 21 Oct. 1680. He was by now solidly aligned with the exclusionists. He was present on 15 Nov. for the first reading of the exclusion bill and not only voted in its favour but entered his dissent to the decision to reject it. On 7 Jan. 1681 he entered two dissents concerning the failure to commit Sir William Scroggs or to address the king for his suspension. In the ensuing months he paid the price for his opposition. By mid-February it was clear that he would lose his lord lieutenancies and this was soon common knowledge.31 He was also suspended from his post as one of the gentlemen of the bedchamber.32 In March Lady Suffolk’s continuing ill health provided an excuse to remove her from court in favour of Lady Arlington (whose husband had replaced Suffolk as lord lieutenant of Suffolk). The queen ‘did put her out with many kind expressions, but ’tis said the king would have her out’.33
Suffolk did not attend the 1681 Parliament but he was clearly still politically active for he was one of the spectators at Fitzharris’ trial in June.34 He also still had hopes of reward and petitioned Ormond for renewal of the grant of licensing ale and beer in Ireland.35 Despite his own ill health, within five months of his wife’s death he created a minor society sensation by marrying the 22-year-old daughter of Robert Montagu, 3rd earl of Manchester, thus, it seems, acquiring a portion of £6,000 and a nurse in one go.36 He was reconciled to the court by the summer of 1683.37 Crippled by gout, he seems to have found the political events of the following reign passing him by. He died early in January 1689. At his death he was still owed £20,000 as the unpaid balance of the purchase price of Audley End and a further £2,000 for tapestries and other furnishings there.38
Suffolk had no sons and his next brother predeceased him. The earldom therefore passed to his next surviving brother, George Howard. Suffolk’s junior peerage, the barony of Walden, fell into abeyance at the death of the 3rd earl but successive earls of Suffolk nevertheless continued to use it as a courtesy title for their eldest sons. The 3rd earl’s granddaughter, Elizabeth Felton, made an unsuccessful attempt to claim the barony for herself in 1691.39
R.P.- 1 TNA, PROB 11/394.
- 2 CJ, v. 296; Eg. 2542, f. 263; Eg. 2551, f. 165; CCSP, iv. 209, 227.
- 3 HMC 6th Rep. 58b, 69b, 76b.
- 4 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 156–7.
- 5 Eg. 2551, f. 71.
- 6 HMC 5th Rep. 154.
- 7 CCSP, iv. 674–5.
- 8 Bodl. Carte 32, ff. 10–11.
- 9 Collins, Letters and Memorials , ii. 724; CSP Dom. 1663–4, pp. 160, 163.
- 10 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2; HMC 6th Rep. 58b; LJ, xi. 437–8; HMC 7th Rep. 166a.
- 11 Pepys Diary, iii. 146.
- 12 Bodl. Carte 43, f. 33.
- 13 CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 114.
- 14 HMC 6th rep., 364b; CSP Dom. 1664-5, pp. 237, 240, 263; Bodl. Carte 43, f. 432.
- 15 HMC 6th Rep. 338a; Verney ms mic. M636/20, G. Gaell to E. Verney, 13 Mar. 1666; M636/21, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, n.d.; CSP Dom. 1665–6, p. 334.
- 16 CSP Dom. 1665–6, pp. 505, 520, 596.
- 17 CSP Dom. 1666–7, p. 85.
- 18 Ibid. p. 412; CSP Dom. 1671, p. 246; Add. 33589, ff. 64–69.
- 19 HMC 6th Rep. 339a; Verney ms mic. M636/20, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 14 Mar. 1666.
- 20 CSP Dom. 1667, pp. 227, 258, 263; Eg. 2539, f. 112.
- 21 Add. 36916, ff. 101, 103.
- 22 CSP Dom. 1668–9, p. 196.
- 23 CSP Dom. 1671, p. 78.
- 24 HMC Lords, ii. 93–94.
- 25 Add. 36916, f. 222.
- 26 CSP Dom. 1673, pp. 413–14.
- 27 Stowe 203, ff. 103, 182, 231; Stowe 204, f. 226; Stowe 205, ff. 13, 61, 69; Stowe 206, f. 325; Stowe 207, f. 32.
- 28 Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. Verney, 10 Dec. 1674, Dr W. Denton, 23 Sept. 1675.
- 29 CSP Dom. 1675-6, pp. 343, 347.
- 30 Verney ms mic. M636/35, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 14 Mar. 1681.
- 31 CSP Dom. 1680–1, pp. 173, 185; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, ii. 271.
- 32 Eg. 3350, ff. 7–8.
- 33 Verney ms mic. M636/35, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 14 Mar. 1681.
- 34 Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 95–96.
- 35 Bodl. Carte 32, f. 11.
- 36 HMC Astley, 51; Verney ms mic. M636/36, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 4 May 1682, Sir R. to J. Verney, 8 May 1682; HMC Portland, iii. 374.
- 37 HMC Buccleuch, ii. 24.
- 38 HMC Lords, ii. 93–94; CSP Dom. 1690–1, p. 438.
- 39 HMC Lords, ii. 479–81.