HOWARD, Henry (1628-84)

Henry Howard, often styled Lord Howard of Norfolk, was described by Comminges as ‘a man of great quality but of mediocre talent’. TNA, PRO 31/3/111, p. 141. He became the effective head of his family at the death of his father in 1652 because his older brother Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel (later 5th duke of Norfolk), had suffered catastrophic brain damage that left him functioning at the level of toddler. The family had been exceptionally wealthy. According to Sir Edward Walker, Howard’s grandparents had taken some £100,000 worth of goods out of the country when they left England in 1641. They also owned substantial estates in Norfolk, Suffolk, Sussex, Nottinghamshire, Cumberland, and Westmorland. By 1652 a variety of factors had combined to reduce the value of Henry Howard’s inheritance. His grandfather had left massive debts, much of the estate was vested in his older brother as the beneficiary under various entails, and his grandfather’s will had been challenged in a series of costly legal actions. The extravagances of his uncle, Stafford, had also contributed to the depletion of the family coffers. At the death of Howard’s grandmother in 1654, only £30,000 of the original £100,000 remained. TNA, DEL 1/7, f. 881.

Having managed to arrange an amicable settlement to the disputes over his grandfather’s will, Howard then found himself in dispute with Stafford over his grandmother’s estate. Stafford claimed that his mother had made a nuncupative will in which he was named as residuary legatee. Henry and his brother Charles Howard successfully counter-claimed that their grandmother was too ill in mind and body to make any such disposition of her estate. Stafford took his revenge in 1659 by convincing the House of Commons that the Catholic Henry Howard was conspiring to keep Thomas Howard out of the country ‘solely because he is a Protestant … [in order to] enjoy his goods’ with the result that the Commons ordered that he be sent for and that his estate be secured. CSP Dom. 1659–60, pp. 201, 219, 228; CJ, vii. 779, 788. Since Stafford did not seriously doubt Arundel’s incapacity and shared the family shame at his condition, the request was almost certainly meant to embarrass Howard rather than to extricate Arundel from Padua. WDA, B29, Stafford, 3 July 1654.

Henry Howard seems to have spent much of his early life abroad, but he was back in England by the mid-1650s and, despite his supposedly straitened circumstances, had already started on one of the many building projects that would occupy much of his time (and money) for the rest of his life. Evelyn Diary, iii. 154–5. As a committed royalist, albeit a Catholic one, and despite his ‘mediocre talent’, the Restoration brought hopes of reward. TNA, PRO 31/3/111, p. 141. In the late summer of 1660 he was undoubtedly behind the petition to the crown ‘subscribed by most of the lords’ for the restoration of the dukedom of Norfolk, which had been forfeited in 1572. The act passed in Dec. 1660 and was confirmed by the Cavalier Parliament a year later, though not apparently without difficulty or without still more enquiries into his brother’s mental incapacity. Evelyn Diary, iii. 306; HMC 7th Rep. 137. In theory, the restoration of the dukedom benefited Howard’s older brother; in reality, since his brother’s condition precluded him from marrying, the dukedom would inevitably pass either to Howard or to his eldest son. Howard also petitioned for a grant of the right to make farthing tokens and in 1661 was he was granted the right to hold a weekly market and three yearly fairs at Worksop in Nottinghamshire. CSP Dom. 1660–1, p. 386.

Howard was technically a commoner but his reversionary interest in the dukedom meant that he was treated with the deference due to the rank that he was expected to attain, and in 1668 he was given the formal status of the son of a duke, as if his father rather than his brother had been restored. Arundel, G 1/92. Furthermore, his control of the family estates gave him considerable electoral influence. He had charge of the appointment of burgesses in the borough of Castle Rising, and had interests in Aldeburgh, Thetford, and Arundel. The extent to which he was either able or willing to use his influence varied over time. At the elections for the Convention in 1660, Howard appears to have been content to nominate only one candidate for Castle Rising, the former parliamentarian Sir John Holland^‡. The following year he nominated both candidates, Sir Robert Paston^‡ and Robert Steward^‡. He seems to have been unable to exercise his influence in Aldeburgh in 1660, though those returned (Robert Brook^‡ and Thomas Bacon^‡) were both presbyterian royalists of a mould similar to Holland, who took one of the seats on Howard’s nomination in 1661. He appears to have nominated one of the members for Thetford in 1660 and 1661. He also intervened, unsuccessfully, in the Northamptonshire election of 1661. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 323, 332, 335, 394–5.

In 1663 Howard’s electoral interests were extended to include Guildford. His appointment as high steward was undoubtedly connected to the remodelling of the corporation the previous year. As high steward, he helped elect the court candidate, Thomas Dalmahoy^‡, when the seat fell vacant in 1664, which suggests a comparatively early alliance with the interests of James, duke of York. Ibid. 410. Another link to the court was provided by his steward, a Mr Marriott, who was also clerk to the queen’s council. CSP Dom. 1668–9, p. 488. His interests in Norfolk assured the election of his candidate as town clerk of Norwich, even though the corporation would have preferred to appoint another. CSP Dom. 1663–4, p. 512.

Quite apart from the influence that he was able to exert as an individual, Howard headed an extended family with a significant parliamentary presence. Several members of the Howard family sat in the House of Lords as peers in their own right: his uncle Stafford and his cousins, the Barons Howard of Charlton, the Barons Howard of Escrick, the earls of Berkshire, Carlisle, Nottingham, and Suffolk. Further members of the family sat in the Commons during Howard’s lifetime: Charles Howard^‡ of Naworth, Philip Howard^‡ of Westminster and Kent, Philip Howard^‡ of Westminster and Wiltshire, Sir Robert Howard^‡, Thomas Howard^‡, and William Howard^‡. The Howards did not form a homogenous political grouping but they could and did act together very effectively in order to push through private bills on matters of common interest.

The death of his wife in 1661 was said to have left Howard deeply depressed, while his Catholicism prevented him from playing as full a part in public life as he would have liked and left him feeling like ‘a useless drone’ and ‘a cypher’. HMC Finch, i. 367. He was also at odds with Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon. In January 1664, in the aftermath of the attempt of George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, to impeach Clarendon, the court tried to tempt Howard back to court and to engineer a reconciliation between him and Clarendon. Even though Howard was a member of neither House, he was a desirable political ally – his ‘mediocre intellect’ was more than offset by his wealth, the strength of his Howard connections, and the reputation he enjoyed for ‘magnificence and liberality’ – but he continued to show his disgust with the ministry by refusing to go to court or to form political alliances. TNA, PRO, 31/3/113, 3ff, 46.

Early in 1665 Howard left England in order to travel through Europe and the Near East; he returned towards the end of 1666, having formed a close friendship with Heneage Finch, 4th earl of Winchilsea. In England he became involved in the affairs of the Royal Society, though more as patron than as practitioner. Pepys Diary, vii. 389, viii. 6; Evelyn Diary, iii. 472–3. He also struck up an alliance with Prince Rupert, duke of Cumberland, joining with him in an application for the right to make farthings. CSP Dom. 1667–8, p. 278. In the course of a correspondence with Father Lesley on the subject of reviving Catholicism in England he made it clear that in his opinion ‘the poor Catholics of England are not really under such a heavy persecution as may be supposed’ and that the greatest threat to Catholicism in England came from the thoughtlessness of Catholic extremists. Arundel, Autograph letters 1632–1723, f. 399.

In 1669 Howard was created Baron Howard of Castle Rising, almost certainly to give him additional status for his embassy to Morocco – one in which it was predicted that his equipage would ‘be the most magnificent that has been seen in Europe these many ages’. HMC Le Fleming, 65. He left Plymouth on 23 July 1669 and returned to England almost exactly a year later, his journey having been so interrupted that he never got any further than Tangier. E.M.G. Routh, Tangier: England’s Lost Colonial Outpost, 99–111. During his absence he supported the unsuccessful candidacy of Samuel Pepys^‡ (York’s nominee) at the 1669 by-election for Aldeburgh. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 394. Joseph Williamson^‡ counted on support from Howard and Henry Bennet, Baron Arlington, at the Thetford by-election of the same year. Although he was returned he was warned that Howard’s absence had permitted a local faction to emerge which ‘endeavours to play a game destructive to his lordship and Lord Arlington’s interests’. CSP Dom. 1668–9, pp. 490, 607.

Howard attended Parliament at the first opportunity after his return to England, and was present on almost 73 per cent of sitting days in the 1670–1 session. He was nominated to several select committees on bills. Occasionally it is possible to discern a personal interest, for example in the bill for Sir Phillip Howard and Francis Watson (4 Jan. 1671) and that for Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury, for whom Howard was a trustee (14 Jan. 1671), and perhaps also for the bill to explain the duke of York’s bill (29 Mar. 1671). It is unclear whether he was personally implicated in an assault, in January 1671, on James Butler, duke of Ormond [I] (later also duke of Ormond in the English peerage), by one of his servants. HMC 8th Rep. i. 55. If so it did not cloud his prospects for at this point in his life Howard was full of optimism about his own future.

In February 1671 he was appointed to the committees for the Journal and petitions. From March 1671 he held the proxy of Marmaduke Langdale, 2nd Baron Langdale, which was vacated at the end of the session. On 9 Mar. he entered two dissents concerning the failure to commit or engross a bill to reduce parliamentary privilege. In April he attended, as a witness as well as a member, the committee (chaired by his kinsman Charles Howard, 2nd earl of Berkshire) considering a bill to settle the estates of yet another kinsman (possibly his brother), also named Charles Howard. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 455; LJ, xii. 493–9. On the last day of the session (22 Apr.) he was also named as one of the members of the House to present thanks to the king for his encouragement of the wearing of English manufactures.

In the autumn of 1671 Howard entertained king and court magnificently in his as yet unfinished palace at Norwich. Corresp. of Thomas Corie, Town Clerk of Norwich, 1664–1687, ed. R.H Hill, 32–36. His close relationship to his brother Philip, Catholic chaplain to Catherine of Braganza, meant that he was able to influence the royal couple’s itinerary in order to gratify his neighbours, as well as becoming the recipient of otherwise confidential court information. Arundel, Autograph letters 1632–1723, f. 409. He later confided to Evelyn his belief that a projected marriage between his heir, also named Henry Howard, later 7th duke of Norfolk, and one of the king’s daughters by the duchess of Cleveland meant that he was about to come into ‘might[y] favour’. A rumour to the same effect even reached Archbishop Michael Boyle in Dublin. HMC Finch, ii. 4; Evelyn Diary, iii. 592–5; CSP Dom. 1672–3, p. 29.

At or about this time he spoke of converting to the Church of England, or of persuading his son to do so ‘for he thought most religions alike’. Quite how serious he was about changing religion remains a moot point. According to Evelyn, Howard had taken to ‘base and vicious courses’ and had become ‘very inconstant, for he has fits of good resolutions … and then of things quite contrary’. Evelyn Diary, iii. 592–6. During the interregnum he had assured his grandmother that he would rather die than take the oath of abjuration but since he was desperately trying to engage her interest (and money) for himself he may well have exaggerated the depth of his commitment to Catholicism. WDA, B29, Henry Howard, 23 Apr. 1652. Even so, Howard’s continued closeness to his brother Philip and Evelyn’s decision to remove his son from Howard’s custody in the early 1660s ‘for fear he might be perverted with their religion’ suggests that Howard’s religious attitudes were not quite as flexible as he liked his Protestant friends to believe. Evelyn Diary, iii. 354–5. His hints about a change of religion nevertheless seem to have done the trick for in 1672 he was appointed earl marshal, a post that had been held by his ancestors and which he had long desired. The grant even turned the office into a hereditary one, probably in the mistaken belief that it had been held on those terms in the past. In recognition of his new status Howard was promoted to the earldom of Norwich.

Norwich was present on the first day of the new session in February 1673. He attended every sitting day, so was somewhat neglectful of the need to marshal the Howard interest at the Norfolk by-election of 1673. Perhaps his withdrawal from direct involvement was strategic, for it seems that even a rumour of a Howard candidate was sufficient to spur the nonconformists into focussing their efforts in support of Sir John Hobart^‡. CSP Dom. 1672–3, p. 572. In Parliament Howard was nominated to the committees for privileges and for petitions. On 21 Mar. he informed the House that, following information from John Belasyse, Baron Belasyse, he had taken John Wilmot, 2nd earl of Rochester, into custody along with Belasyse’s son-in-law, Robert constable, Viscount Dunbar [S], and their seconds, in order to prevent a duel between them. When the two men appeared in the House the following day Rochester refused to incriminate himself and Dunbar insisted that he had sent no challenge and that ‘he was very good friends with his lordship’ but the House clearly did not believe him and they were forced to promise to take the matter no further.

Although there is no record of Norwich’s activities or voting intentions, it seems reasonable to suppose that he opposed the passing of the Test Act that year. Had he been serious about conforming to the Anglican Church the Test Act would have forced his hand, since it prevented him from exercising the coveted office of earl marshal. Instead he remained a Catholic and in June 1673 delegated the duties of the office to his kinsman Charles Howard, earl of Carlisle. When Parliament reconvened briefly in October he was again nominated to the committees for privileges and petitions. In November 1673 he used his patronage at Castle Rising to ensure the return of Samuel Pepys, at the request of James, duke of York.

Norwich was present on less than 30 per cent of the sitting days in the short session of 1674. On 12 Jan. he obtained a pass to travel abroad and requested leave from the House, explaining that his health required him to travel overseas. He promised to leave a proxy. No such proxy was registered and it is not clear whether Norwich did go abroad. His illness may have been a political one: with heightened fears of popery, both he and his sons were under threat of prosecution for recusancy. On 27 Jan. his attempt to claim privilege of Parliament in order to protect his sons Henry and Thomas from prosecution was referred to the committee for privileges, although his own claim was allowed. On 6 Feb. he was instructed, in his capacity as earl marshal, to ensure that some enquiry be instigated into the burial of the infant child of Lady Shrewsbury by her lover George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham. Six days later the committee for privileges agreed that privilege of Parliament did extend to Norwich’s sons and ordered an end to prosecutions for recusancy against them. Meanwhile Norwich was under attack from the House of Commons, who were incensed at his intervention in the Castle Rising election; during their scrutiny of the return they revived the old demand that his brother Norfolk should be returned to England. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 323; CJ ix. 304.

Norwich obtained another pass to travel abroad in February 1675 but during the difficult first session of the year he was present on all but two of the sitting days. CSP Dom. 1673–5, p. 599. Although there is no evidence of his attitude to the attempted impeachment of Danby or the dispute over Sherley v Fagg, his previous record suggests that he would have supported the court. At the Norfolk by-election of May 1675 his interest was managed by Sir John Holland in favour of Sir Robert Kemp^‡, who commanded substantial nonconformist support. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 320, ii. 671. In the increasingly polarized political and religious atmosphere of the day, Norwich’s ability to command support cannot have been helped by the widespread publicity given to the announcement in the summer of 1675 that his brother Philip (recently expelled from England along with other Catholic priests) had been appointed a cardinal by Rome. His private correspondence confirms that he and his brother remained on very close terms. Arundel, Autograph letters 1632–1723, f. 410.

Norwich was present when Parliament reconvened on 13 Oct. 1675 and with the exception of the day of prorogation was present on each day of the session, but there is no evidence to indicate whether he supported the court or preferred to join York’s uneasy alliance with the opposition. During the 1677–8 parliamentary session he was present on some 72 per cent of sitting days. By now he was facing a variety of difficulties. In March 1677 a local dispute between the gentlemen of Norwich and Yarmouth prompted the former parliamentarian sympathizer and court opponent Sir John Hobart to bemoan the failure of the earl of Norwich and ‘the great and numerous families of the Howards and alliances [to] find out some way of accommodation to prevent this public and desperate way of their proceeding’. Bodl. Tanner 40, f. 79.

As if this were not enough, Norwich’s younger siblings were challenging his administration of the family estates, claiming that he had defrauded them of the portions due to them under their father’s will. As in previous family disputes they petitioned for the duke of Norfolk to be brought back to England. LJ, xiii. 79–80; HMC Rutland, ii. 36, 40. Early in March the House set up its own informal committee of Howard peers and their allies, including Ormond, to mediate. A report of ‘some rough words’ between Norwich and his brother Bernard also led to an order ‘that there be no resentment of what passed between them’. These orders were to be omitted from the Journal. HMC 9th Rep. 86; HMC 7th Rep. 469. Despite the intervention of the House, relationships between the earl and his brothers continued to deteriorate. Later that month Norwich’s younger brothers Edward and Bernard embarrassed him still further by petitioning the House about his relationship with Jane Bickerton. According to Reresby, before becoming Norfolk’s mistress Jane Bickerton had been ‘common about the town’. Reresby Mems. 392. The couple had been co-habiting for several years and had a number of children. Edward and Bernard Howard now claimed that their own reversionary rights in the dukedom of Norfolk were endangered because Norwich was encouraging a belief that these children were legitimate. HMC 9th Rep. 88.

Norwich was also embroiled in something of a battle over his claim to be able to appoint the next Garter King of Arms. CSP Dom. 1677–8, p. 44. In addition to these personal issues, his Catholicism drew him into national controversies. In March 1677, he entered his dissent to the bill to secure the Protestant religion. Not surprisingly, in May Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, categorized him as an opponent – although a manuscript alteration leaves it difficult to be sure whether he counted Norwich as triply or merely singly vile.

In August 1677 Norwich’s eldest son and heir, Henry Howard married Lady Mary Mordaunt. Although Norwich was keen on the marriage, it seems that his son was somewhat reluctant and was persuaded by his father’s threats to leave his property elsewhere if Howard refused to comply with his wishes. Arundel, Autograph letters 1632–1723, f. 430; G 1/96, 97. The marriage underlined still further Norwich’s connection to the court and the duke of York, for the bride’s father, Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, was one of York’s oldest and closest associates. A number of references to Norwich and his son during the summer and autumn of 1677 describe them incorrectly as duke of Norfolk and earl of Arundel, titles which the two men could assume only on the death of Norwich’s elder brother. Evelyn Diary, iv. 111. It was not until late in December 1677 that Norwich finally succeeded his brother as duke of Norfolk. Within a month he had declared his marriage to Jane Bickerton, much to the disgust of Evelyn. Ibid. iv. 128.

Norfolk’s allies greeted his long-awaited promotion with undisguised pleasure. Despite the increasing antagonism towards Catholics and the campaign against York, at the Norwich by-election in February 1678 Norfolk confidently declared his intention to ‘undo’ the ‘fanatic’ mayor of Norwich and was able to use his influence to help secure the election of the court candidate, William Paston^‡. HMC 6th Rep. 385. He was also involved in negotiations over the surrender and reissue of the town charter, exerting his influence in order to secure the reappointment of William Long as town clerk. CSP Dom. 1677–8, p. 132. The distractions of the by-election were presumably responsible for Norfolk’s absence from Parliament for most of February 1678, even though he was once again under attack from his siblings. He was back in London by 25 Feb. when he testified to the committee considering Lord Audley’s bill. His testimony, like that of his fellow Catholic, Robert Brudenell, 2nd earl of Cardigan, confirmed that the Benedictine monk George Tuchet, second son of Mervyn Tuchet^†, 12th Baron Audley and 2nd earl of Castlehaven [I], wished to be omitted from the bill.

Norfolk’s relationship with his siblings continued to be confrontational and in March 1678 they petitioned the House again, alleging that Norfolk’s unreasonable behaviour was preventing a settlement, thus leaving them ‘as far as ever from receiving one farthing of what is due to them’. The publicity forced Norfolk’s hand. He declared himself willing to end all differences and the lord chancellor, Heneage Finch, Baron Finch (later earl of Nottingham), announced that he would hear all the parties and settle the matter within a week. HMC 9th Rep. 101. On 4 Apr. he voted Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, guilty of manslaughter.

Norfolk was present on just under a quarter of the sitting days in the short session of May–July 1678. When Parliament resumed in October 1678 he attended on almost every sitting day until 30 November. Throughout November he consistently voted against the Test. He also acted as one of the managers of the two conferences for the preservation of the king. Although he was not arrested during the Popish Plot, his close association with York meant that he had much to fear. That same month Bedloe was thought to have named him, along with York, as one of the two ‘persons of quality’ who had been involved, along with the queen, in discussions about killing the king in May 1677. Bedloe later claimed that he not named them at all but that, when asked if the two persons were York and Norfolk, he had replied that ‘for anything he knew they might be’. HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 484; CSP Dom. 1678, p. 550.

It was widely rumoured that Norfolk was somehow implicated in the death of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey: Norfolk’s house in the Strand was the last place at which Godfrey was seen alive and some claimed to have seen Norfolk’s coach returning from Primrose Hill, the site at which the body had been dumped. CSP Dom. 1683, Jan.–June 1683, p. 125; Burnet, History, ii. 429. In November the attention of the House and Council was drawn to a letter allegedly found in the street. Addressed to Norfolk it advised him to leave town immediately ‘for there should be such a stroke to the enemies of the Church as never any the like since the creation’. Two of Norfolk’s servants who intervened to protect their master were reprimanded by the House and warned to be more cautious for the future. LJ, xiii. 372, 375-6. Unwilling to take the oaths under the new Test Act, Norfolk sat for the last time on Saturday, 30 Nov. 1678. His last act as a member of the House was to inform those present of the lord chancellor’s opinion that unless some of them took the new oaths at once, it would be questionable whether the House would be able to reassemble on the following Monday. Members of the House insisted that this could not be so but nevertheless took the oaths ‘for avoiding all scruples and objections’ and also took pains to record their thanks to Norfolk for his ‘good service’.

Norfolk may have feared becoming the target of Titus Oates’s allegations: he had once employed (and rapidly dismissed) Oates as a chaplain in his household. In obedience to the king’s proclamation he left London, only to petition the House on 16 Dec. 1678 for permission to return for medical treatment. So fragile had Norfolk’s influence become that he refused his interest to any of the parliamentary candidates at the February 1679 election in Norfolk on the grounds that his support was more likely to damage than to assist them. At the same election Castle Rising returned Sir Robert Howard on the instructions, not of Norfolk, but of his son Henry, now styled earl of Arundel. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 324. Perhaps wisely, Norfolk sought leave to go abroad with his family. It was granted on condition that none of the children were ‘to be bred up or left abroad in any popish seminaries’, that he take no priests with him and that he should not visit Rome’. He left the country early in March. HMC Le Fleming, 155; CSP Dom. 1679–80, pp. 50, 92. His absence abroad created a new and interesting problem for Parliament, for on 26 Mar. Norfolk’s agent attempted to invoke privilege on behalf of a tenant who had become involved in a dispute over the duke’s fishing rights. The question of whether a peer could claim privilege from beyond the sea was recognized as a novel one, but although it was referred to the committee for privileges it appears never to have been discussed. HMC Lords, i. 102.

In April 1679 Arundel (who had been summoned to the House under a writ in acceleration in January 1678 as Lord Mowbray) conformed to the Church of England. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. i. 160. Already in litigation with his father, he took advantage of his father’s absence the following month when he introduced a bill, supported by fellow members of the Howard clan – including James Howard, 3rd earl of Suffolk, Thomas Howard, 3rd earl of Berkshire, and William Howard, 3rd Baron Howard of Escrick – to settle the family estates. Norfolk’s debts were estimated at some £52,000, another £5,000 was required to finish the building works on Norwich Palace and Arundel House, and provision needed to be made for Arundel and his siblings. Apart from generalized allegations of mismanagement, the clear subtext to the bill was Arundel’s determination to inhibit his father’s ability to provide for his children by his second wife. It specified that whereas Arundel’s full sister Lady Frances Howard was to receive a portion of £8,000, the duchess and her many children were to receive only about £4,000 a year. Arundel’s counsel assured the committee dealing with the bill that Norfolk knew and approved of it. Norfolk not only denied approving the bill but claimed he had no idea of its contents. It was designed, he said, ‘to gratify an insatiable son’ who was impatient for his father’s death. Add. 27447, ff. 408–9. Not surprisingly the bill failed.

Norfolk seems to have returned to England early in 1679 but by June he was once again applying for a pass to travel abroad. It was a short trip: he left in August but was back in England by the end of the month to face recusancy charges and in September was recorded as being at Greystoke Castle. CSP Dom. 1679–80, pp. 624, 632; HMC Le Fleming, 395. Problems caused by the Popish Plot still haunted him, for it was somewhat cryptically reported that one of his servants had been seized along with several letters, ‘but of what moment is uncertain’. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 21. He was in London during the trial of his uncle Stafford, but seems to have been unconcerned about his fate. Evelyn Diary, iv. 235–6. He soon left the country yet again but returned in April 1681. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 79; CSP Dom. 1680–1, p. 263. In January 1682 a long-running dispute with his brother Charles Howard over their father’s complex arrangements to ensure that ownership of Greystoke would pass from Henry to Charles Howard, if and when Henry Howard succeeded to the dukedom, resulted in a ruling in which Lord Chancellor Finch overruled all three of his fellow judges. 22 ER 931; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 303–4; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 160. The case later went to appeal and resulted in the landmark legal ruling against perpetuities.

Norfolk was facing an increasingly hostile world. In January while in Flanders he was reported to have killed the brother of the Prince of Ligny (Ligne) in a duel over ‘some abusive words’ uttered in contempt of the duchess. HMC Rutland, ii. 71; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 156–7. He returned to England in February, where he found himself sued for a debt of £20,000 for money borrowed from Sir Edmund Pye^‡, but which Norfolk claimed had been repaid some 30 years previously. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 164; TNA, C 6/247/41. He was also pursued by the seneschal of Hainault, who arrived in England towards the end of April 1682 determined to seek revenge for the incident in Flanders. Charles II ordered both men to be apprehended in order to prevent a duel but although Norfolk was imprisoned it appears that, despite their earlier differences, Arundel fought the seneschal on his father’s behalf. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 180, 181; HMC Rutland, ii. 71; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 180.

Nothing is known of Norfolk’s activities over the next 20 months. He died in January 1684, possibly of ‘a thrush in his throat’. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 439. He left substantial properties to his widow for her life, including the estate at Rotherham, where she died in August 1693. Her second husband, Thomas Maxwell, was killed at the battle of Marsaglia two months later. Norfolk was succeeded by his eldest son, Henry Howard, as 7th duke of Norfolk.