HOWARD, Henry Bowes (1687-1757)

Howard succeeded to the earldom of Berkshire at the death of his octogenarian great uncle, Thomas Howard, the 3rd earl. Orphaned by the age of 13, before inheriting the peerage Howard had already succeeded to property in Staffordshire and Lincolnshire, the former based on his maternal family’s manor of Elford, which had been in the family since the mid-sixteenth century. Birmingham Archives ms 3878/89. His inheritance was considerably encumbered thanks to his father’s ill-advised litigiousness and equally ill-considered first marriage, but the interposition of Howard’s kinsman Sir Robert Burdett^‡, who took on the guardianship of both Howard and his sisters following the deaths in rapid succession of their father, mother and grandmother, ensured that such problems had been largely eradicated by the time he arrived at his majority. Some records of the Ashtead estate, 117–18, 136–7; E.M. Richardson, The Lion and the Rose, ii. 416–19.

Although still underage, and thus before he had made his first appearance in the Lords, Berkshire was included in a list of Tories of the first Parliament of Great Britain in May 1708. He celebrated his 21st birthday shortly before the opening of the 1708 Parliament in mid-November but it was not until January 1709, nearly two months after he was qualified to sit, that he took his place in the House for the first time. He proceeded to attend on a further 26 days in the session (approximately 29 per cent of the whole) and on 21 Jan. he voted against permitting Scots lords with British titles to vote in the elections for the Scottish representative peers.

Shortly before the close of the session, Berkshire married his cousin Catharine, daughter of the Jacobite colonel James Grahme. The alliance brought with it the expectation of additional interest in the north-west of England. HP Commons, 1715–54, i. 342. Berkshire had previously been party to a legal action along with Grahme (who had married Berkshire’s aunt Dorothy Howard) and was ultimately to inherit Grahme’s estate at Levens. Bagot mss at Levens Hall, [?] to James Grahme, 11 Oct. 1707. Although the match could be taken as an indication that Berkshire was inclined to the cause of the Pretender, his political inclinations seem to have tended more towards independent Toryism than to the Jacobite Toryism of his father-in-law. Pols. In Age of Anne, 252. He took his seat at the opening of the second session on 15 Nov. 1709, after which he was present on 76 per cent of all sitting days. On 16 Feb. 1710 he entered his dissent at the resolution not to require Greenshields and the Edinburgh magistrates to attend the Lords. He then entered two more dissents on the same day, first at the resolution to agree with the Commons’ address to request the queen to order the immediate departure of John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, to Holland and second at the resolution not to adjourn the House. Following on from these points of conflict, the session came to be dominated for Berkshire, as it was for so many others, by the Sacheverell trial. Between 14 and 18 Mar. he subscribed six protests to the proceedings, all indicating his support for the embattled clergyman. On 20 Mar., having found Sacheverell not guilty, he protested again against the guilty verdict. He then subscribed a further protest in response to the vote of censure against Sacheverell the following day.

In advance of the new Parliament, Berkshire was reckoned a likely supporter of the administration by Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford. Add. 70333, analysis by Oxford, 3 Oct. 1710. He took his seat on 25 Nov., after which he was present on 62 per cent of all sitting days. On 22 Jan. 1711 he petitioned the House for leave to bring in a bill for the sale of some of his Wiltshire manors as well as that of Reavesby in Lincolnshire, in order to discharge a £10,000 debt and to enable him to settle his Staffordshire estate. Motivation for the new settlement may have been the birth of his heir, Henry Howard, styled Lord Andover, the previous December (Andover died underage in 1717). On 5 Feb. Berkshire registered his dissent at the resolution to reject the bill for repealing the General Naturalization Act. Three days later, the judges presented the House with their report on Berkshire’s projected bill, which was committed on 10 February. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/6/206/2745. On 26 Feb. the measure (the committee for which had been chaired by Evelyn Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester) was recommended as being fit to pass with amendments. The Commons made some further minor alterations, after which the bill was enacted on 26 March.

With his own business settled, Berkshire seems to have been readying himself to head out of London towards the end of May 1711. Although James Grahme noted in a letter of 27 May to Oxford (as Harley had recently become) that Berkshire had ‘gone this day’ and was thus unable to wait on him, the attendance list recorded that Berkshire was present once more on 28 May before quitting the session approximately a fortnight before the close. Add. 70229, James Grahme to Oxford, 27 May 1711. On 1 June he was included in a list of the Tory Patriots of the 1710 Parliament and towards the end of the year he was again noted as a supporter of Oxford’s administration. On 2 Dec. 1711 he was listed as one of those to be canvassed in advance of the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion. He took his seat in the new session on 7 Dec. and the following day he subscribed the protest at the resolution to present the address to the queen containing the ‘No Peace without Spain’ clause. On 19 Dec. he was reckoned to be a likely supporter of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], in his efforts to be permitted to sit as duke of Brandon and the following day Berkshire voted as expected against barring Scots members from sitting in the House by virtue of their British titles. On 22 Dec. he registered his proxy with his kinsman, Charles Howard, 4th Baron Howard of Escrick, after which he was absent for the remainder of the session, having attended on only six days (just over 5 per cent of the whole).

The reason for Berkshire’s sudden disappearance from the session and his failure to return to his seat until February 1713 is unclear. Oxford noted that he ought to be contacted during the 1711 Christmas recess so presumably expected him to resume his place in the new year. Oxford also included Berkshire in one of his memoranda of 29 Dec., which perhaps indicates that he was considering finding him a place within the administration. Add. 70332, memorandum, 29 Dec. 1711. A letter of February 1712 from Berkshire’s college friend Thomas Hare might indicate that spleen was one of the reasons for Berkshire’s early retreat from the session:

why should the vigour which has been exerted lately in making alterations in the highest sphere droop and languish when it comes to the lower? In short the ministers have a hard game to play: if no removes are made it is a general disgust; and since the number of places is not equal to that of petitioners for them, when they do change hands, a great part of the members of both houses must be necessarily disappointed. WSHC, 88/10/93, Hare to Berkshire, 4 Feb. 1712.

By June 1712, when a new list of the ministry’s supporters was collated, Berkshire, perhaps prey to the disgust that Hare mentioned, had been relegated to one of those thought to be doubtful. Even so, on 27 July his father-in-law, Grahme, assured Oxford that Berkshire remained ‘most sensible of your kind expressions to him’ and also took the opportunity to recommend Berkshire as a potential lord lieutenant of Westmorland, should Thomas Tufton, 6th earl of Thanet, decline the post. Grahme did his best to emphasize his son-in-law’s qualification for the place being ‘well beloved and known there and likely to succeed to the little I shall leave’. Add. 70229, J. Grahme to Oxford, 27 July 1712. This recommendation was echoed by a similar suggestion made by Hugh Todd the following year. HMC Portland, v. 305. Despite this, Berkshire remained without office, which no doubt prompted Grahme to trouble Oxford again in December, hoping that the ‘young man, because he neither asks or craves anything, will not be forgotten’. Add. 70229, J. Grahme to Oxford, 22 Dec. 1712. Although he remained overlooked for office, late in the summer of 1712 Berkshire attempted to use his own interest on behalf of a kinsman, one Dyott of Lichfield, for whom he sought a place in the duke of Hamilton’s gift. NLS, MS 8262, Berkshire to Hamilton, 14 Sept. 1712. Writing to Grahme, Hamilton regretted being unable to oblige his ‘noble and worthy friends’ as he would like, as the places on offer in the ordnance were ‘so very mean’ that they were barely worth having. Bagot mss at Levens Hall, Hamilton to Grahme, 18 Sept. 1712.

Berkshire returned to the House to attend a series of prorogation days in February and March 1713. On 26 Feb. he was listed by Oxford as someone to be contacted in advance of the session and on 15 Mar. Jonathan Swift included him in a list of likely ministry supporters. Berkshire took his seat in the new session on 9 Apr., after which he was present on just under 35 per cent of all sitting days, and on 31 May he was listed among those to be contacted concerning the commercial treaty. He failed to attend after 1 June but on 13 June he was listed among those now thought doubtful on the question of the bill of commerce. In his absence Hare kept him abreast of affairs, complaining of the weight of business even though peace had been signed and wishing that ‘the sword of attendance’ might be ‘removed from over my head’. WSHC, 88/10/93, Hare to Berkshire, June [1713].

Following the close of the session, Berkshire again attempted to exert his interest, recommending Hugh Todd to Oxford as dean of Carlisle and a Laurence Crofts to be a land- or tide-waiter. Add. 70243, Berkshire to Oxford, 3 Sept. 1713. In this last he was successful to the extent of securing the offer of a post at Aylmouth (Alnmouth) for Crofts, though it was pointed out that the salary would fall short of the £50 a year for which he had asked. Add. 70322, memorial, n.d. Besides this, Berkshire seems to have remained semi-detached from affairs in London, perhaps caught up with domestic troubles. Towards the close of the summer his heir, Andover, was taken ill, and in December his countess miscarried. Add. 70201, R. Lowry to J. Grahme, 2 Oct. 1713; Bagot mss at Levens Hall, Weymouth to J. Grahme, 24 Dec. 1713. On 16 Jan. 1714 Hare wrote to remind him of the date of the new Parliament, emphasizing the tense situation and how ‘it follows that a sure majority of steady heads is of the greatest importance’. This being the case he urged Berkshire to ‘turn this in your thoughts and set your face towards Westminster’. WSHC, 88/10/93. Almost a month later (on 13 Feb.) Hare was still hopeful that he would see his friend at the opening of Parliament, emphasizing that

I dare say nothing will be attempted by the ministry in which you would not conscientiously join; and in that case, I am sure, you would be sorry that any scheme advantageous to the country should fall to the ground for want of your being present to give a helping hand. WSHC, 88/10/93.

Hare’s blandishments failed to have the desired effect and it was almost a month into the session that Berkshire finally took his place. He was then present on just over 35 per cent of all sitting days. By the time of his return to the House, he appears to have thrown in his lot with Oxford’s ministerial opponents. On 14 Apr. he registered his proxy with Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke, which was vacated two days later, and on 27 May he was reckoned a likely supporter of the Schism bill. On 8 June he was entrusted with Howard of Escrick’s proxy.

Berkshire quit the session on 21 June; following the death of Queen Anne, he rallied to attend just two days of the brief August session. His Tory proclivities may have been out of step with the tone of the new regime but, as a Protestant member of the Howard clan, he was nominated deputy earl marshal by the debarred Catholic Thomas Howard, 8th duke of Norfolk, in November 1718 in succession to Henry Howard, 6th earl of Suffolk. Verney ms mic. M636/56, R. Dale to Fermanagh, 4 Oct. 1718; Evening Post, 4–6 Nov. 1718; Weekly Journal or British Gazetteer, 8 Nov. 1718. He was also awarded an annual pension out of the civil list of £1,000. Add. 61604, ff. 1–2, 5–10. It is perhaps indicative of the fact that Berkshire’s nomination as deputy earl marshal was unsatisfactory to some that at least one newspaper reported inaccurately that his appointment had been put aside in favour of Lord Frederick Henry Howard. Weekly Journal or Saturday’s Post, 8 Nov. 1718. In spite of such opposition, he retained the post until 1725 when he was replaced by the more suitably Whig Talbot Yelverton, earl of Sussex.

Berkshire appears to have taken a more prominent role in the House in the early years of the new reign, acting as teller in a number of divisions. Over the ensuing years he benefited in terms of land and interest from the deaths of his father-in-law, Grahme, and his kinswoman Lady Diana Feilding. From the former he inherited Levens Hall and from the latter property at Castle Rising, which had been in Lady Diana’s possession since the death of her first husband, Thomas Howard^‡ of Ashtead. HMC Portland, vi. 156, 163; NLW, Otley corresp. A. Ottley to Mrs Ottley, 22 Jan. 1732; HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 414; HP Commons, 1715–54, i. 289. Berkshire was also ultimately to benefit from the demise of his cousin Suffolk, thus enabling him to unite the estates and titles of the Berkshire and Suffolk Howards. His Jacobite connections appear to have resulted in him receiving a protection confirming him in possession of his estates from the Young Pretender in November 1745. HMC 10th Rep. iv. 346. It is not clear whether Suffolk (as he had since become) had actively sought such assurances from the invading prince but he does not appear to have suffered any repercussions following the rebellion’s suppression the following year. Full details of his career post-1715 will be considered in the next part of this work.

Suffolk died in March 1757 at Bath and was buried at Charlton as he had requested in his will, it being where ‘several of my deceased children lie’. He bequeathed sums amounting to 800 guineas to provide his immediate family with mourning but otherwise gave directions for a simple funeral ceremony without escutcheons. He was succeeded by his grandson (and sole executor) Henry Howard^†, as 12th earl of Suffolk and 5th earl of Berkshire.