HOWARD, Thomas (1587-1669)

Howard was the second son of Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, who served as lord chamberlain of the household between 1603 and 1614 and then as lord treasurer before his fall from grace in 1618 for corruption. Suffolk’s prominence ensured that Howard entered public life at the very heart of the court, as master of the horse to Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) in 1614. In the same year he married the granddaughter of Thomas Cecil^*, 1st earl of Exeter, and was given ‘a fair house’ at Charlton and substantial Wiltshire estates, estimated to be worth about £3,000 a year, which had formerly belonged to his maternal grandfather, Sir Henry Knyvet^‡.47 L. Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 272, 276, 283-4; SP23/215, p. 577; Chamberlain Letters, i. 516.

Despite his advantages Howard was regarded with contempt by a number of his contemporaries. Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon, acknowledged his loyalty to the crown but observed that he was ‘most unfit’ for anything ‘that required any proportion of wisdom and understanding’.48 Clarendon, ii. 533; iii. 259. William Laud^*, archbishop of Canterbury, described him as ‘a very thin tree in a storm’, for ‘he will soon be wet that takes shelter there’.49 Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, vii. 568. Nevertheless, he won and retained the affections of Prince Charles, who reportedly intervened to ensure that he remained as his master of the horse after Suffolk’s fall.50 Add. 72253, f. 91v.

Viscount Andover, 1622-6

On 23 Jan. 1622, shortly after sitting in the Commons for the third time, Howard was raised to the peerage.51 47th DKR, 107. It was rumoured that he would be created either Viscount Bindon, a title formerly held by another branch of his family, which had become extinct in 1611, or Viscount Braydon, the name of a Wiltshire forest of which he was lieutenant. In the event, however, he became Viscount Andover, despite having no known connection to that town. The peerage was given as part payment for Wallingford House, which the favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, purchased from Andover’s brother-in-law, William Knollys^*, Viscount Wallingford (later earl of Banbury), at this time.52 Add. 72254, f. 78; Add. 72360, f. 24v ; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 421.

When Prince Charles left suddenly for Madrid in mid February 1623 in an attempt to conclude the Spanish Match, Andover was among the members of the royal household instructed to follow him. He left in late February, and took ship from Dover in early March, from where asked Secretary of State Conway (Edward Conway^*, later 1st Viscount Conway) to convey his services to his ‘noble friends’, including the lord steward, Ludovic Stuart^*, earl (later duke) of Richmond.53 Letters of King Jas. VI and I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 389; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 503; SP14/139/22. On 13 June Andover informed Conway from Madrid that ‘news here is little stirring’, but less than a month later, on 8 July, he was dispatched to England with the message that the Match had been agreed.54 SP94/27, f. 18; Add. 72245, f. 121. He arrived ‘unheard of till he presented himself’ to the king on 20 July, just after the James and the Privy Council had sworn, before the Spanish ambassadors, to suspend the laws against Catholics. He informed James and the courtiers that Charles was as good as married.55 Misc. State Pprs. 1501-1726 (1778) ed. Hardwicke, i. 429; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 175.

Andover seems subsequently to have sought permission to return to Spain with the fleet sent out to bring home Charles and his prospective bride, but was evidently refused.56 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 509, (document misdated to March 1623). In September he reportedly ‘took the alarm’ at news that Charles was returning to England and hastened to Portsmouth to meet the prince, suggesting that after two months’ separation he was anxious to reassure himself of his master’s continued affection.57 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 282. His fears were needless, however, as he was employed in November to conduct the Spanish ambassador to Charles.58 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 128.

Andover is recorded as attending 72 of the 93 sittings of the Lords in the 1624 Parliament, 77 per cent of the total. He took the oath of allegiance on 23 Feb., and was introduced two days later by Viscount Wallingford and Wallingford’s great-nephew, Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, whose marriage to Andover’s sister had been annulled in 1613.59 LJ, iii. 215b, 217b. As a new member he was named to only five of the 105 committees established by the upper House that session. Three concerned legislation, one being a private measure about a manor in Gloucestershire and the others bills concerning the restitution of possession and the cloth industry.60 Ibid. 257b, 296a, 393a. His remaining two committees were to examine complaints against the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, including one by Sir Thomas Monson^‡.61 Ibid. 317b, 320b, 327b. He appears to have been nominated to the committee sent to confer with the Commons on 11 Mar. about reports recently made to both Houses about the king’s finances, but was not actually appointed.62 Add. 40087, f. 73. He made no recorded speeches. Notes by one of the under clerks also indicate that Andover paid his fees and obtained a copy of one of the king’s speeches during the Parliament.63 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, ff. 54v, 60v.

Andover signed the proclamation acknowledging Charles I’s accession in March 1625.64 APC, 1625-6, p. 5. A month later he quarrelled with Buckingham over the mastership of the horse. Having been master to Charles while the latter was prince of Wales, Andover, evidently with the new king’s encouragement, hoped to fill the corresponding office in the newly constituted king’s household. However, Buckingham had been master under James I.65 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 21; NLW, 906E/1336. On 6 May John Chamberlain reported that Andover had been offered £20,000, promotion to an earldom and a seat on the Privy Council if he would relinquish his claims. However, not until October was an arrangement reached.66 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 615; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 57. Andover was granted £20,000, ostensibly in compensation for his services to Charles when the latter had been prince (although the first instalment was not paid for over a year).67 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 366. Moreover, although a seat on the Council was not forthcoming, and his elevation to an earldom was delayed, he was admitted to the order of the Garter, despite complaints that this brought the order into disrepute.68 CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 63.

Andover reaped other benefits from the accession of Charles apparently unconnected to his deal with Buckingham. In May 1625 he received a share in the farm of the post fines (fees payable for fines for conveyance of property) which he subsequently described as ‘of a very considerable value to him’.69 SP23/215, p. 591. The following month he was granted an annuity of £1,000 out of the revenues from the Cornish tin industry.70 SO3/8, unfol. (June 1625); CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 57. This gave him a personal interest in the duchy of Cornwall, which he helped administer as a member of the duchy council.

Andover held the proxy of his brother-in-law, Wallingford, during the 1625 Parliament, which he initially attended reasonably regularly.71 Procs. 1625, p. 590. However, he was absent from the afternoon sitting of 28 June and thereafter until 5 Aug., during which time he was twice excused, first on 30 June, and then on 5 July by his wife’s cousin, Henry Danvers^*, Lord Danvers (later earl of Danby).72 Ibid. 71, 89. In total he attended 11 of the 31 sittings. His sole appointment was to the committee on a bill against counterfeiting seals of courts, in which measure he may have had an interest arising from the farm of the post fines.73 Ibid. 179.

Earl of Berkshire, 1626-69

On 3 Feb. 1626 Sir Benjamin Rudyard^‡ reported that Andover would be made an earl, hinting that this was part of a move to pack the Lords with supporters of Buckingham.74 Procs. 1626, iv. 307. In fact the elevation is more likely to have been part of Andover’s compensation for his loss of the mastership of the horse. The second of eight earls created on 7 Feb. to mark Charles’s coronation at a ‘very majestic ceremonial’ in the Banqueting House, Andover took the title of Berkshire, in which county he held the reversion to the constableship of Wallingford Castle.75 Ibid. i. 25; HMC Skrine, 45.

Berkshire attended 67 of the 81 sittings of the 1626 Parliament, 83 per cent of the total. He was excused twice, on 7 Mar. and 2 June, but on both occasions returned to the chamber the following day. He may have been absent on the latter date because of the death of his father on 28 May.76 Procs. 1626, i. 110, 558; Bigland, 19. On 18 Feb. he was introduced to the Lords as an earl by his kinsman, Charles Howard^*, 2nd earl of Nottingham, and Francis Fane^*, 1st earl of Westmorland.77 Procs. 1626, i. 49, 57.

Berkshire made his first recorded speech in the Lords on 18 Mar., during the debate on a petition by Sir Thomas Monson, who, thanks to the recommendation of a committee that had included Berkshire, had been awarded compensation by the 1624 Parliament against the earl of Middlesex. Monson now complained that he had received nothing, whereupon Berkshire moved that the case be referred to committee. Either he or William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, also suggested that this body be empowered to give Monson satisfaction.78 Ibid. 180. However, Berkshire himself was not named to the resulting committee. Indeed, he received no committee appointments in 1626, although it was suggested that he be included on a committee for a private bill concerning property in Norfolk on 28 February. He was also put forward on 10 June, again without success, as an addition to the committee to consider the charges brought by the king against John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol.79 Ibid. 80, 558.

Berkshire made two further speeches in 1626. On 1 Apr. he moved that the House’s resolution in favour of the claim of Robert de Vere^*, 19th earl of Oxford, to his earldom should be immediately certified to the king so that a writ of summons could be issued.80 Ibid. 241. In addition, on 15 May, during the debate over whether the words spoken by Sir Dudley Digges^‡ at the presentation of articles of impeachment against Buckingham impugned the king’s honour, Berkshire agreed ‘at large’ that they did not. However, he declined to take the protestation to that effect, perhaps suggesting that he was trying to steer a middle course between the supporters and opponents of the impeachment.81 Ibid. 483.

Berkshire had come close to being named in the impeachment articles himself. On 2 May John Glanville^‡ reported to the Commons the allegation of Berkshire’s brother, Sir Robert Howard^‡, that Buckingham had purchased the office of master of the horse from the earl. The parliamentary diarists differ as to how much money Sir Robert claimed had been offered but it seems likely that it was £5,000 in cash and £15,000 out of the proceeds arising from the sale of Braydon forest, in Wiltshire. This would certainly be consistent with Chamberlain’s report the previous year.82 Ibid. iii. 123, 128, 133. However, the allegation was not included in the Commons’ articles of impeachment, probably because the alleged offence could not legally be construed as a sale of office, Berkshire never having held the mastership of the horse to the king, only to the prince. Berkshire himself is not known to have commented on this uncomfortable allegation.

In early May Berkshire was marked as one of the duke’s enemies in the list of the members of the upper House annotated by William Laud^*, bishop of St Davids (later archbishop of Canterbury).83 E. Cope, ‘Groups in the House of Lords, May 1626’, PH, xii. 169. On the 26th Joseph Mead, a Cambridge fellow, was informed that Berkshire’s father, the earl of Suffolk, intended to transfer his proxy from his eldest son, Theophilus Howard^* (subsequently 2nd earl of Suffolk), then sitting in the Lords as Lord Howard de Walden, to Berkshire because the latter was ‘the duke’s professed opposite’.84 Birch, i. 106. However, Suffolk’s death two days later makes it impossible to assess the accuracy of this report.

Suffolk’s demise created a vacancy at Cambridge University, where the earl had been chancellor. The king almost immediately moved to nominate Buckingham, but the duke’s candidacy aroused considerable opposition in the university. Berkshire’s reputation as one of the duke’s opponents, although possibly unfounded, may explain why the anti-Buckingham movement in Cambridge coalesced around the earl. On the morning of the election, 1 June, the duke’s opponents, including Mead, met and agreed to support Berkshire, who had not put himself forward as a candidate. They also chose not to inform the earl of their intention to vote for him, probably to forestall accusations that they had conspired with Berkshire to thwart the king’s wishes. In the ensuing contest Buckingham won, but only by 108 votes to 102, Berkshire’s defeat being widely attributed to a mixture of electoral malpractice and the royal will. Thomas Fuller, for instance, thought that Berkshire lost ‘not for lack of voices, but fair counting of them’, while Samuel Ward reported that Buckingham would not have won ‘but that the king’s pleasure was signified for the duke’. Ward himself, one of the few heads of houses to oppose Buckingham, informed Archbishop Ussher that he had stayed away from the election because he had suddenly become ‘very ill’.85 Ibid. 108-9; Rushworth, Historical Collections, i. 372-3; C.H. Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, iii. 186; T. Fuller, Worthies of Eng. i. 511; Add. 44848, f. 206v; Works of Ussher ed. C.R. Elrington and J.M. Todd, xv. 336.

Among those who voted for Berkshire were the Cambridge puritan Andrew Perne and the future Independent leader, Thomas Goodwin. However, they also included more moderate Calvinists, such as Nicholas Felton (presumably the son of the bishop of Ely rather than the bishop himself), and Robert Austin, chaplain to George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury. This suggests that Berkshire’s candidacy had the covert backing of Calvinist members of the episcopal bench. Berkshire also received the votes of some anti-Calvinists, including Edward Martin who later became chaplain to Laud. Clearly, Berkshire’s supporters were drawn from across the religious spectrum, and because of this Berkshire’s own religious views cannot be discerned by examining those of his backers.86 Cooper, iii. 187. See Oxford DNB for biographical information on Berkshire’s supporters. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that those who voted for Berkshire did so because they hated Buckingham rather than because they supported the earl.

On 2 June Berkshire wrote to Grenado Chester, a fellow of Trinity and apparently the only member of the university ‘known to have any reference to him’, thanking his supporters but emphasizing that his candidacy had been ‘without any suit or means of mine’ and that their votes had been ‘unsought for’.87 Rushworth, i. 372. Copies of this letter were widely dispersed, which usefully distanced Berkshire from those opposing Buckingham.88 For copies see Add. 29549, f. 49; Add. 44848, ff. 208v-9; Harl. 160, f. 96v. He was evidently successful in convincing Charles that he was not an opponent of the duke, for on 2 July 1626 a warrant was issued to pay him £5,000 out of Henrietta Maria’s dowry as the first instalment of the £20,000 he had been promised for abandoning his claim to the mastership of the horse.89 CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 366. In addition, he was promised £15,000 out of the profits of the disafforestation of Braydon, indicating that Sir Robert Howard’s information about the deal struck between Buckingham and Berkshire had been accurate.90 R. Hoyle, ‘Disafforestation and Drainage’, Estates of the Eng. Crown, 385.

Although not a member of the Privy Council, Berkshire, along with three councillors, was sent to Wiltshire in November 1626 to initiate the collection of the Forced Loan.91 Procs. 1628, p. 32. Later that month he paid £100 towards the levy.92 E401/1386, rot. 32. In February 1628, shortly before the third Caroline Parliament commenced, he was made joint lord lieutenant of Oxfordshire, being paired with the ageing Wallingford, now earl of Banbury. Although he had no property in that county, Berkshire held the reversion of the stewardship of the honour of Ewelme in Oxfordshire after Banbury, who had no surviving offspring. During the elections which preceded the 1628 session, Berkshire may have been responsible for securing the return for the Wiltshire constituency of Malmesbury of Sir William Croft^‡, who had represented the borough in 1626. Berkshire owned a nearby estate, but before the death of his father in 1626 he seems not to have exercised electoral patronage there.93 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 445-6.

Berkshire is recorded as having attended 79 of the 94 sittings in 1628. In addition, he must have been present on 26 Mar. and 22 Apr., for though not recorded as being present he addressed the House on both occasions.94 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 115, 325. He spoke at least ten times but was appointed to just two out of 52 committees, concerning bills for preserving the king’s revenue and entailing property on the earldom of Arundel, held by his kinsman, Thomas Howard^*, the 21st (or 14th) earl.95 Ibid. 73, 103, 582.

Berkshire made his first recorded speech of the Parliament on 26 Mar., in the debate on a petition from the town of Banbury against the soldiers billeted on the borough. He moved to allow a collection to be made for the relief of the inhabitants of the town, which had recently suffered a major fire, but was ignored.96 Ibid. 108. He seems to have been more successful two days later, when he suggested that some of the bishops should be named to the committee for distributing the money collected for the poor at the recent fast, as Samuel Harsnett^*, bishop of Norwich (later archbishop of York), was among those appointed.97 Ibid. 117.

In August 1626 Berkshire’s precedence as an earl had been challenged by the patent of creation granted to his brother-in-law, Banbury, which had ranked the latter above the earls created at the coronation. Berkshire does not seem to have been particularly aggrieved by this clause, and sought to avoid discussion of the issue when it arose in Parliament in 1628. On 28 Mar. he opposed moves to refer a message from the king about the patent to the committee for privileges, arguing that two of the earls affected could not attend. He also moved the House to proceed immediately towards ‘accommodating the king’s motion’ to allow Banbury the precedence he had been granted.98 Ibid. 115. On 31 Mar. he again tried (but without success) to defer consideration of the issue. Two days later Arundel reported that Berkshire was willing to concede precedence to Banbury.99 Ibid. 128, 137.

On 17 Apr. Berkshire spoke in defence of his brother Theophilus, now 2nd earl of Suffolk, who had said that John Selden^‡ deserved to be hanged for erasing a legal record, observing that it was human to make mistakes.100 Ibid. 260. He also seems to have been keen to conciliate the Commons in the debates on the rights of the subject. On 22 Apr. he moved to end the debate on the Commons’ resolutions on that matter and to seek a new conference with the lower House ‘for an accommodation’.101 Ibid. 328. On 14 May he supported Saye and Sele, who said that Sir Edward Coke^‡ had denied that the Commons had already formally voted for the Petition of Right, and six days later he moved to confer with the Commons about the Petition.102 Ibid. 427, 481. He evidently welcomed the Lords’ final agreement to the Petition on 26 May, news of which he ‘instantly carried unto his majesty, being then at dinner’.103 Birch, i. 358. On 5 June Berkshire spoke in favour of the earl of Bristol, who had long been in disfavour with Charles and Buckingham, affirming his ‘duty and loyalty to the king’ and ‘good service to his country’.104 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 588. His final speech of the session was in the debate on the bill for confirmation of Henrietta Maria’s jointure on 23 June, when he moved for the king’s counsel to ‘acquaint the queen with what respect we proceeded’.105 Ibid. 691-2.

In September 1628, in the aftermath of Buckingham’s assassination, it was reported that Berkshire was seeking the two offices he had lost to the duke, namely the mastership of the horse and the chancellorship of Cambridge University, but he secured neither.106 CSP Dom. Addenda 1625-49, p. 293; NLW, 9062E/1533. He attended 15 of the 23 sittings of the 1629 session but left no other trace on the parliamentary records. On the death of Banbury in 1632, Berkshire succeeded to the honour of Ewelme, where he subsequently took up residence, and became sole lord lieutenant of Oxfordshire. Two years later it was rumoured that he would succeed Philip Herbert^*, 4th earl of Pembroke, as lord chamberlain on the latter’s promotion to the lord stewardship, but neither appointment transpired.107 HMC Portland, ii. 125.

During the 1630s Berkshire was involved in a number of projects of doubtful profitability. In 1631 he sponsored a proposed colony in Guiana. A prospectus for a joint stock company to fund the project was issued the following year but, in July, the settlement was overrun by the Portuguese, whereupon Berkshire sold his interest to George Goring^*, Lord Goring (later 1st earl of Norwich).108 English and Irish Settlement on River Amazon, 103-8. In 1637 Berkshire became involved in promoting a proposed shipboard furnace invented by Sir Francis Kynaston^‡ and, at about the same time, in Sir Nicholas Halse’s invention of a kiln for drying malt and hops.109 CSP Dom. 1636-7, pp. 458-9; LCC Survey of London, xxxvi. 257; Patent of Sir Nicholas Halse (1857). It was presumably the latter which formed the basis of the patent issued to Berkshire the following year granting him the monopoly for drying malt and hops in a kiln for 14 years.110 CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 236; C115/108/8622.

When the king summoned the English nobility to attend him at York in April 1639 to oppose the Scottish Covenanters, Berkshire promised to ‘wait on his majesty with such equipage for himself and his company as he shall be able to provide’, but did not specify how many men he would bring with him. Appointment to the Privy Council at the end of March initially kept Berkshire in London, but he joined the king in the north by the middle of May, when he evidently provided a number of men for the royal army.111 SP16/413/117; PC2/50, pp. 197, 204, 238; Epistolary Curiosities ed. R. Warner, 199.

Berkshire attended the Great Council at York in 1640, where he was one of the peers appointed to negotiate with the Scots.112 SP16/466/42, p. 38. His eldest son, Charles^† (later 2nd earl of Berkshire), was summoned to the Long Parliament by a writ of acceleration. Both men advocated conciliation and were critical of Laud but were nevertheless royalists in the Civil War.113 J.B. Crummett, ‘Lay Peers in Parl., 1640-4’ (Manchester Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1972), 38. Captured in August 1642, while he was trying to execute the commission of array in Oxfordshire, Berkshire was confined to his house until March 1643, when he obtained permission to visit his estates in Wiltshire. He was thereby enabled to join the king at Oxford, where he became governor to the prince of Wales.114 LJ, v. 294, 353, 681. In 1646 he followed the future Charles II to the Channel Islands but, failing to dissuade the prince from going to France, he went to Holland before returning to England the following October. In 1649 he compounded for his estate for about £1,300.115 Clarendon, iv. 201; LJ, viii. 465, 549; CCC, 1967-8. He died, reportedly ‘of a lingering distemper, occasioned some months ago by an accidental fall’, on 16 July 1669, and was buried in St John the Baptist’s chapel, Westminster Abbey. No will or grant of administration has been found.116 W. Kennett, Complete Hist. of Eng. (1719), iii. 297; Regs. Westminster Abbey, 170.