HOWARD, Thomas (1587-1669)

As a younger son Howard could not expect to succeed to his father’s titles, but the family settlement ensured that at his mother’s death in 1638 he inherited her considerable estates centring on Charlton, Wiltshire. His creation as a peer reflected the size of his inheritance, but since he held only minor office it seems likely that he was not highly regarded at court. Although Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, listed him in 1660 as one of the lords with the king, it seems likely that he was something of a lukewarm royalist, and many of his relatives including his younger brother Howard of Escrick and his cousin James Howard, 3rd earl of Suffolk, were associated with the parliamentary cause. Although Berkshire fled to Holland in 1646, on 18 Aug. 1646 the Lords granted him permission to return to England and compound for his estates, a decision that produced a flurry of activity by his brother, Lord Howard of Escrick. Claiming to be one of his brother’s major creditors, Escrick on 28 Aug. successfully opposed the sequestration of Berkshire’s personal estate, consisting of a house at Ewelme, Oxfordshire and another in St James, Middlesex. According to Escrick the remainder of Berkshire’s property was so tied up by entail and mortgages that it was unable to bear any further claims. His arguments were supported by Berkshire’s wife and their eldest son, Charles Howard, the future 2nd earl of Berkshire, but whether they were genuine or the product of collusion is unclear. Henceforth, Berkshire’s life was marred by chronic indebtedness, although he exercised influence as a member of a formidable parliamentary family. Apart from his brothers and his eldest son, his younger sons, Sir Robert Howard^‡ and Philip Howard^‡ both sat in the Restoration House of Commons during their father’s lifetime. Through Philip Howard, Berkshire was connected with the household of James Stuart, duke of York.

Berkshire resumed his seat in the Lords on 2 May 1660. According to Francis Newport, writing on 5 May 1660, he was the only representative of ‘the king’s party’ to have taken his seat by that date, although his motive for so doing was not to serve the king but to secure himself from his creditors. HMC 5th Rep. 149. Berkshire had written to Charles II before taking his seat to ask for instructions on how the Lords should be ‘filled up’, and his attendance was encouraging for, as Henry Coventry^‡ pointed out, ‘as Lord Berkshire sits in the House many will speedily follow.’ CCSP, iv. 687; v. 11. He attended on 140 days of the Convention, 86 per cent of the total and was named to 27 committees, including the committee to consider the king’s goods, to which he was added on 9 May, the minutes indicating that he was present at the meeting of the committee held on 19 May. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/RO/1/1, p. 12. On 31 May Berkshire informed the House that the king had decided that the lords created by patent by Charles I at Oxford should be permitted to take their seats. On 3 July he reported from the committee for petitions on the case of Mrs. Burleigh, and on 12 July, on the orders of the king, he delivered the letter that led the House to send for Daniel Axtell^‡ from Ireland in order that he might be tried for regicide. On the same day Berkshire obtained an order from the House facilitating the recovery of goods taken from his house at Ewelme during the Interregnum. From 23 July to the prorogation on 29 Dec. 1660 he held the proxy of his daughter’s father-in-law, Conyers Darcy, 5th Baron Darcy.

On 6 Aug., it was reported from the committee on the Indemnity bill that all provisos relating to private matters should be left out of the bill and that no new bills would be allowed that removed its protection, except for those bills currently before the House, and for a short list of peers, including Berkshire, who would be permitted to bring in bills for their own benefit. On 8 Sept. Berkshire reported from the committee on the Newport school bill. On 8 Sept. Berkshire reported from the committee on the Newport school bill. Probably at around this time he was seeking payment of his pension of £1,000 a year out of exchequer arrears, claiming to have found debts that would cover it. CCSP, v. 68. Throughout 1660 Berkshire would petition the crown for financial reward in the form of leases, grants or patents. CSP Dom. 1660-1, pp. 152, 188, 243, 385. On 13 Dec. 1660 he signed the protest against the resolution to vacate the fines of Sir Edward Powell.

Despite his somewhat ambivalent past Berkshire soon seems to have put himself if not at the centre of affairs then in a reasonably important position on their fringes. Early in 1660 he was restored to the Privy Council as well as to the high stewardship of Oxford from which Parliament had removed him in 1649, though in practice he seems to have had little influence over the corporation and parliamentary elections. Berkshire was also appointed joint lord lieutenant of Middlesex, a crucial post given the volatility of the London crowds.

At the election of 1661 Berkshire and his countess canvassed vigorously for the adoption of one of their sons to represent the nearby constituency of Malmesbury. Although they were unsuccessful, they received an assurance that their wishes would be gratified at the next opportunity. Verney ms mic. M636/18, J. Cary to Verney, 5 Feb. 1662. Before the opening of the next Parliament, Berkshire had been given, jointly with his son Sir Robert, a 48 year lease of post fines in the court of common pleas. CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 577; 1666-7, 412-13. Berkshire still had an interest in the fines of the green wax which had been awarded to him in 1625, and then confirmed to his son Sir Robert by the protectorate in 1657. HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 595; CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 577, 1661-2, p. 72, 1663-4, p. 670.

Berkshire was present on the opening day of the 1661-2 session, and attended on 112 days of the session, almost 60 per cent the total. He was named to 16 committees. From 10 or 11 June 1661 he again held the proxy of Darcy. In July he was thought to be in favour of the claims of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, to the lord great chamberlaincy. On 29 July he sought privilege to ensure the release of his servant and solicitor Benjamin Bungey from imprisonment in the Poultry Compter. It is possible that he opposed the restitution bill of Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, on 6 Feb. 1662, for although absent and not listed as a protester in the Journal, his name appeared on a later unofficial list of protesters against the bill. Lancs. RO, Stanley mss DDK 1615/9. On 13 Feb. 1662 the electors of Malmesbury fulfilled their promise and returned Berkshire’s son, Philip, at a by-election caused by the death of Lawrence Washington^‡. Perhaps the distractions of the election explain why Berkshire did not attend the House between 4 Feb. and 26 Mar. 1662. When he did attend on the latter day, he was granted leave of absence for his ‘urgent occasions’, which he put into effect after attending on 30 Mar., returning to the House on 21 Apr., shortly after he had been awarded a grant of £8,000 to be paid by yearly instalments of £1,000 from the revenues of the county of Yorkshire. CSP Dom. 1665-6, p. 459. The grant may have softened the blow of losing his post as joint lord lieutenant of Middlesex. Problems with the militia there were attributed to Berkshire’s laxity and in the summer of 1662 Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, and the king discussed which of them was best placed to suggest that Berkshire resign the post on grounds of age and infirmity. Notes which passed, 70.

Berkshire was present at the opening of the session of 1663, attending on 77 days, almost 90 per cent of the total, and was named to ten committees. His loyalty and attendance were probably linked to a grant of £15,000 connected with his activities as a commissioner of the Savoy. CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 158. On 6 July 1663 he again claimed privilege, this time concerning the service of ejectments on his tenants in Charlton, but although the perpetrators of this alleged breach of privilege were ordered to attend on the 8th, the matter remained unresolved by the House. In Wharton’s forecast of voting intentions, Berkshire was listed as opposed to the motion to impeach Clarendon. On 25 July along with other high Anglicans he signed the protest against the clause in the bill to amend the Act of Uniformity stating that the declaration and subscription were to be understood only as to the practice and obedience to the Act on the grounds that it was ‘destructive to the Church of England as now established’. Berkshire was absent when the March-May 1664 session began on 16 Mar. 1664, first attending on 2 April. He was present on 22 days of the session, 61 per cent of the total. During the summer recess a group of prominent Jewish merchants secured the king’s intervention in order to prevent Berkshire from using the edict of expulsion to extort money from them. A further allegation of malpractice, concerning the confiscation of a merchant’s goods, made the following December, is also suggestive of extortion. Ibid. 1664-5, p. 106.

Berkshire attended the prorogation of 20 Aug. 1664 and was present when the next session began on 24 November. He attended on 38 days, 76 per cent of the total and was named to three committees. He held Darcy’s proxy for the whole of the session. On 12 Jan. 1665 he again sought to invoke privilege, this time against the London merchant Godfrey Depremont for speaking ‘scandalous words’, in accusing Berkshire of receiving goods stolen from him. Berkshire’s complaint was heard by the committee of privileges on 16 Jan. and 6 February. Philip Herbert, 5th earl of Pembroke, reported on the 7th that it was ‘a matter of conspiracy and a matter of scandal’, with two witnesses having proved that Depremont had said that Berkshire ‘had received stolen goods of his’. Depremont was ordered to attend the House along with the two witnesses. Further evidence was taken by the committee on 13 Feb. (chaired by Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset), and on 16 Feb. the witnesses were ordered to appear before the House. Nothing further happened. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/RO/1/2, pp. 8-9. Berkshire again invoked privilege on 28 Feb. when he informed the House that two of his servants had been arrested, the culprits being ordered to attend the House. His financial situation was still precarious and he hoped to sell Berkshire House to the king for £8,000, plus recompense for a grant of £8,000 in April 1662 for his losses in the late king’s cause, which had yielded nothing, with the whole sum of £16,000 to be paid in cash as he was ‘very anxious to pay his creditors’. CSP Dom. 1665-6, p. 138; 1666-7, p. 58.

During the short session in October 1665, Berkshire attended just three times, almost 19 per cent of the total, and was named to a single committee. In November 1665 allegations of his extortion again surfaced, this time in the form of complaints to the king from the judges. Berkshire it seems interpreted his right to fines and forfeitures levied in courts of law to mean that he could take money to waive or compound fines before conviction. Those who were subjected to his attentions saw this as extortion, while the judges interpreted it as an ‘obstruction of public justice’. The king ordered Clarendon and the lord treasurer, Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton, to investigate the matter and to stay all relevant proceedings and announced his intention of cancelling the patent under which Berkshire claimed to act, subject to ‘a reasonable compensation.’ Ibid. p. 71. By his own account Berkshire was certainly extremely hard up, and by June 1666 he claimed to be so embarrassed, financially, that he was in danger of losing his house. Ibid. p. 459. Just a few months earlier (on 28 Mar. 1666) he had indeed been driven out of his house when Ralph Marshall together with John and James Tisser assaulted him so severely that he was forced to seek shelter in his coach which was then standing in the courtyard. His assailants promptly drove coach and earl out into the street and left him there. He found a bed for the night only through the charity of a woman who had once been his mother-in-law’s servant. HMC 8th Rep. i. 118. Although the full story is impossible to piece together, the likelihood is that these were creditors. Despite his poverty, he was still hanging on at court, Pepys recording his surprise at seeing Berkshire waiting at table and serving the king at a royal public dinner in July 1666. Pepys Diary, vii. 218.

Berkshire was present when the 1666-7 session convened on 18 Sept. 1666, attending on 68 days, 76 per cent of the total. He was named to four committees. He again held Darcy’s proxy for all but the first few days of the session. On 10 Nov. 1666 Anglesey reported that Berkshire was one of those in favour of the Irish cattle bill during its passage through the Lords. Bodl. Carte 217, f. 353. He attended Parliament on 29 July 1667, when Charles II informed Parliament of the conclusion of a peace. Berkshire was present on the second day of the next session, 11 Oct. 1667, and attended on 101 days, 86 per cent of the total, before the adjournment on 9 May 1668 (84 per cent in all). He was named to seven committees. He held Darcy’s proxy for the whole of the session. On 20 Nov. 1667 he joined in the protest at the resolution not to commit Clarendon without a specific charge. On 24 Feb. 1668, together with his brother-in-law, Henry Grey, earl of Stamford, and Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey, he petitioned the House for possession of the manor of Hedingham, Essex but the petition was dismissed on 30 March. In the meantime, Berkshire had complained to the House on 7 Mar. about the way he had been assaulted two years earlier by Marshall and the Tissers and had them brought to the bar. It is unclear why he had waited so long to complain, perhaps because he was facing further claims for debt. In the event, after hearing one of the alleged assailants on 9 Mar., the House ‘appointed to consider of this business some other time’, in effect declining to take cognizance of the matter, it having taken place outside the sitting of Parliament. HMC 8th Rep. i. 118. On 16 Mar. Berkshire was given leave to go into the country ‘about his occasions’, returning 9 Apr. having missed 11 days. He then sat every day until the prorogation of 9 May 1668.

Although Berkshire was well enough to dine on 4 June 1669 at the home of Henry Bennet, Baron (later earl of) Arlington, with John Evelyn and others, he died on 16 July and was buried in Westminster Abbey four days later . Evelyn Diary, iii. 529; Collins, Peerage (1812), iii. 161. He was succeeded by his eldest son as 2nd earl of Berkshire.