suc. bro. 21 Apr. 1691 as 5th earl of SUFFOLK
First sat 26 May 1691; last sat 7 Nov. 1705
bap. 18 July 1627, 4th s. of Theophilus Howard†, 2nd earl of Suffolk, and Elizabeth, da. of George Home, earl of Dunbar [S]; bro. of James Howard, 3rd earl of Suffolk and Henry Howard, 4th earl of Suffolk. educ. unknown. m. (1) between 30 Nov. 1660 and 1670, Mary (c.1648–82), da. and h. of Andrew Stewart, 3rd Bar. Castle Stuart [I], at least 1s. and 1 da.; (2) 22 Nov. 1691, Mary (c.1650–1721), da. of Rev. Ambrose Upton, canon of Christ Church, Oxf., wid. of (1) Charles Vermuyden, MD, (2) Sir John Maynard‡, sjt.-at-law, s.p. d. 9 Dec. 1709; admon. 6 Feb. 1710 to wid.1
Commissary general of musters, 1667–697.2
Associated with: Audley End and Acton, Suff.
As the fourth son of the 2nd earl, Henry Howard could have had little expectation of succeeding to his father’s earldom. He was as impoverished as his two immediate predecessors in the earldom and in December 1690 was committed to the Fleet Prison as a result of an ongoing dispute with Edward Villiers, Viscount Villiers (later earl of Jersey), about arrangements to raise portions for Villiers’ sisters. Much about his early life and allegiances remains determinedly obscure, although it seems likely that, like his older, brothers he was in the political orbit of James, duke of York. He was probably also close to his brother-in-law, Roger Boyle‡, earl of Orrery [I] as his first wife, Mary Stewart, was Orrery’s ward. It may have been Orrery’s influence that gained him an appointment as commissary general of musters in 1667, a post that he was to hold for almost 30 years. Presumably he was also something of a scientist, for shortly after his succession to the earldom he petitioned the crown for a patent to protect his invention of latten (copper alloy) plates made from ‘material native to the kingdom’.3
Like his nephew-in-law Percy Kirke‡, and other military men associated with him, Suffolk seems to have had little difficulty in transferring his allegiance from James II to William and Mary. The new earl’s first opportunity to attend Parliament would have been on 28 Apr. 1691, an adjournment day. He took his seat instead on 26 May when Parliament was formally prorogued. He seems to have been keen to play a part in parliamentary life as he also attended the non-sessional day on 30 May. During the 1691–2 session he was present on just under 50 per cent of sitting days. He was named to the committees for privileges, the Journal, and petitions, and to 11 select committees, mainly for estates and naturalization bills. He may well have had a personal interest in the deliberations of some of these committees. His love of country sports may have influenced his appointment to the committee to consider the bill to punish deer stealers, and his military background and allegiance to William III was almost certainly a factor in his nomination to the committee to consider the naturalization of the Dutch army officer Meinhard Schomberg, duke of Leinster [I] (later 3rd duke of Schomberg), but it is perhaps a step too far to suggest that his chronic indebtedness may have influenced his appointment to the committee for the bill to lessen interest on money.
Suffolk also became involved in three cases of privilege. One, on 7 Dec., involved a dispute between his countess (formerly Lady Maynard) and Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, although (probably as a result of a clerical error) the actual entry in the Lords Journal refers to the previous earl of Suffolk, George Howard. The second, on 11 Dec., involved the widow of Joseph Maynard‡. Both appear to have resulted from chancery actions relating to the claims of Joseph Maynard’s daughters to the estate of their grandfather Sir John Maynard‡. The third case related to the revival of his dispute with Villiers.
On 15 Dec. Suffolk was present for the first reading of the bill for the sale of some of the estates of his older brother James Howard, 3rd earl of Suffolk. He was also present on 17 Dec. for the second reading of the bill, and the same day was named as one of the managers of the conference on trials for treason. On 29 Dec. yet another issue of personal interest was raised when his great-niece Elizabeth Felton laid claim to the barony of Walden. This peerage had been held by his older brother James, but as a barony by writ the rules for its descent were unclear. Elizabeth Felton and her aunt Lady Essex Griffin both laid claim to the peerage, claiming that it had fallen into abeyance at the death of the 3rd earl and that the crown had the right to determine the abeyance by choosing between the female heirs. The 5th earl, emphasizing that he had no peerage other than his earldom, insisted that it should descend with the earldom. Indeed, the title continued to be used by his son as a courtesy one. On 12 Jan. 1692 the committee for privileges, undoubtedly embarrassed by the various competing claims, reported that the case was one ‘of great intricacy’ and threw the decision back to the House, which failed to make a decision.
In the summer of 1692 Suffolk was granted a pass to travel to Holland, where he probably remained for some time. 4 He did not attend the 1692–3 parliamentary session at all and in July 1693 was reported to have drowned when an English packet boat sank after being attacked by French privateers.5 He was back in London for the opening of the 1693–4, session when all but 2 of his 21 attendances were concentrated in the period before 9 Jan. 1694. He was again named to the committees for privileges and the Journal but otherwise appears to have taken little part in parliamentary life.
During the 1694–5 session Suffolk’s attendance rose to some 65 per cent of sitting days. He was named to the committee for privileges and to 17 other committees, including that to consider the arrangements for the procession of peers at Queen Mary’s funeral and the committee to consider in what manner a loose sheet should be entered in the Journal. Most of the committees, however, in this session as in others, were concerned with estate and naturalization bills. On 13 Apr. he was named as one of the managers of the conference concerning the bill to oblige Sir Thomas Cooke‡ to account for monies from the East India Company and on 3 May he was named to the conference about the impeachment of Thomas Osborne, duke of Leeds. During the course of the session he was named as the first recorder of the newly incorporated borough of Saffron Walden, an appointment that probably reflected his interest in the borough through his ownership of the manor of Chipping Walden.6
Suffolk failed to attend the opening months of the 1695 parliament, making his first appearance on 11 Jan. 1696. He was then present for some 30 per cent of the remaining sitting days during which he was named to two committees. It is difficult to identify which of the many political issues of this fraught session attracted his attention but one that may have engaged his personal interest was the attempt of Sir Richard Verney, later 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke, to revive his claim to a writ of summons as Baron Brooke. Verney’s claim, which was heard in January and February 1696, was to an abeyant barony by writ and potentially bore uncomfortable similarities to the Felton claim to the barony of Walden. On 17 Jan. Suffolk entered a formal protest at the passage of the resolution that Verney’s counsel be heard at the bar on the subject, but he did not join the protest on 13 Feb. when the House resolved that Verney could be summoned as Lord Willoughby de Broke. On 27 Feb. he signed the Association. He then absented himself from the House until 7 Mar. 1696, which proved to be his final attendance before prorogation in April.
Suffolk was absent at the opening of the 1696–7 session and was thus one of those peers who, in anticipation of the forthcoming attainder of Sir John Fenwick‡, was subjected to the order of the House on 14 Nov. that those peers who neglected the service of the House be sent for in custody. He appeared in the House pursuant to the order on 24 Nov. 1696. He was then present for nearly 70 per cent of sitting days until his last attendance of the session on 18 Feb. 1697. In December 1696 he voted in favour of Fenwick’s attainder. He was named to nine committees, including the committee to consider the answers of the commissioners of the Admiralty and the committee to consider the state of trade. On 16 Mar. 1697 his proxy was registered in favour of his kinsman and namesake, Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, who held it for the remainder of the session. During the course of the session he relinquished his post as commissary of musters in favour of his son, Henry Howard, later earl of Bindon and 6th earl of Suffolk.
Suffolk was present at the opening of the 1697–8 session on 3 Dec. 1697 and then attended on some 57 per cent of sitting days until 20 Apr., after which he absented himself from the House. On 3 Dec. he, together with George Compton, earl of Northampton, acted as supporters at the introduction of his old opponent Edward Villiers, now created earl of Jersey. He was named to 20 committees, including that to consider the indictment of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun. On 7 Mar. 1698 he was named as a manager of the conference to discuss amendments to the bill on poor relief. Six days later he voted for the committal of the bill to punish Charles Duncombe‡ and entered a protest against the failure to do so. On 29 June, after an absence of over two months, his proxy was registered in favour of Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, perhaps for use in votes over the Goudet case.
The first session of the 1698 Parliament opened and then promptly adjourned on 24 Aug. 1698 without Suffolk in attendance but he took his place on 6 Dec., which was effectively the first full day of the new session. He was present once more for the next day's sitting (9 Dec.) when he was named to the committees for privileges and the Journal but then absented himself until 14 Feb. 1699; thereafter he was present on approximately 35 per cent of sitting days, attracted perhaps by an interest in the proceedings against Mohun and Edward Rich 6th earl of Warwick. He was named to 16 committees, including the committee to consider the expense of repairing forts and batteries on the River Medway and the committee to inspect precedents for the trial of Warwick. On 27 Apr. he and eight other peers, both Whig and Tory, entered a protest against the inclusion of a clause appointing commissioners for the forfeited estates in Ireland in the supply bill, on the grounds that it was effectively a tack and thus prejudicial to the privileges of the peerage.
Suffolk was present for a mere 14 days during the 1699–1700 session. He attended the opening of the session on 16 Nov. 1699 when he was named to the committee for privileges, but did not return to Parliament until 4 Mar. 1700, when the controversial Norfolk divorce bill was under discussion. He was named to two committees. During the first 1701 Parliament, he was present on less than 30 per cent of sitting days; however, as he attended on the first day of the session he was named to the committee of privileges and to three select committees. He was in the House on 17 June to vote in favour of the acquittal of John Somers, Baron Somers, but ceased to attend on 20 June and so was unable to vote in the case of Edward Russell, earl of Orford, on 23 June.
During the second Parliament of 1701, Suffolk attended the House just five times, of which two were for the second and third readings of the succession of the crown bill on 23 and 24 Feb. 1702. He was present on just one day, 4 Dec. 1702, of the first session of the 1702 Parliament. In January 1703 Daniel Finch, earl of Nottingham, estimated that his position on the issue of the occasional conformity bill was doubtful and on 16 Jan. he is recorded as having voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the penalty clause. If this record is accurate he must have voted by proxy, for he was not in the House that day; unfortunately the relevant proxy book does not survive. Suffolk did not attend the House at all during the 1703–4 session but in November 1703 Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, nevertheless included him as an opponent of occasional conformity in his two forecasts of supporters and opponents of the bill, and he was recorded as having voted against the bill in November by proxy and again (presumably also by proxy since he was not present) in December 1703.
Once again, Suffolk attended none of the 1704–5 session and in November 1704 he registered his proxy in favour of Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset. In April 1705 he was listed as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession. His final appearance in the House was on 7 Nov. 1705. Thereafter he appears to have retired to his country estate at Acton, Suffolk, where he died on 9 Dec. 1709.7 He was succeeded by his son, also named Henry Howard, who had been created earl of Bindon three years earlier.
R.P.