HOWARD, Theophilus (1584-1640)

As the eldest son of James I’s lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, Howard enjoyed a favoured position at the early Jacobean court. Appointed lieutenant of the band of gentlemen pensioners in 1606, at the age of 22, he was shortly thereafter betrothed to the six-year-old daughter and coheir of the king’s principal Scottish adviser, George Home, earl of Dunbar [S]. Much was expected of him during these early years – he aroused ‘mighty hopes, many ways’, Tobie Mathew^‡ later recalled - but though he excelled as a courtier he had no particular gifts for the business of government.45 A True Historical Relation of the Conversion of Sir Tobie Matthew ed. A.H. Mathew, 10. See also the verdict of J.W. Stoye in English Travellers Abroad, 43. It was much the same story in the parliamentary arena: despite sitting in seven assemblies, he seldom spoke and never chaired a committee or delivered a report. His intellectual abilities were not all that was wanting, though. Quarrelsome, resentful and a spendthrift, Howard was damned by the Venetian ambassador in 1626 as ‘a mean-spirited man’.46 CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 213.

The parliamentary sessions of 1610 and 1614

For the first seven years of James’s reign, Howard was known by his courtesy title of Lord Howard de Walden. Although it was customary to omit the territorial suffix when referring to barons, Howard’s contemporaries often abbreviated this title to ‘Lord Walden’ rather than ‘Lord Howard’, to avoid confusion with Howard’s distant cousin, Lord Howard of Effingham (William Howard^*). The latter received a writ of acceleration in March 1604, thereby enabling him to sit in the House of Lords in his own right. The same privilege might have been extended to Howard de Walden in November 1605, when Parliament met for a second session, as Howard had recently returned from the Continent and had now attained the age of 21. However, for reasons that are unknown, James waited until February 1610 before summoning Howard to the upper House. In the interim, Howard cut his parliamentary teeth in the Commons, where he served for the Essex borough of Maldon.

Howard was formally introduced to the Lords on 9 Feb. 1610, the day after he was summoned.47 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 3; Egerton Pprs. ed. J.P. Collier (Cam. Soc. xii), 441-2. His attendance thereafter was somewhat patchy, as he was absent on three distinct sets of occasions before the prorogation in July. The first period of absence occurred in March, when he missed three days in a row (the 12th, 13th and the 15th) and another two consecutive days shortly thereafter (the 22nd and the 23rd). The most likely explanation for these absences is that Howard was practising for the accession day tilt, which was postponed to the 27th due to bad weather.48 On the postponement of the tilt, see Procs. 1610, i. 54. Although it is not certain that he took part in this event, he participated in the tilt held three months later to celebrate the investiture of Prince Henry as prince of Wales.49 Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, iii. 181. The second and third sets of absences are harder to explain. The first, in mid June, saw Howard miss five days; the second covered the period 3 and 14 July, and involved nine consecutive sittings.

Howard made no recorded speeches during this session, but was appointed to 18 committees, just under a third of the total number established by the House. These included two conferences with the Commons, one on supply, the other on Dr Cowell’s controversial legal dictionary, The Interpreter. A further two appointments concerned bills to erect a hospital and school at Thetford, in Norfolk, which subject interested Howard’s great uncle, the lord privy seal, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton.50 LJ, ii. 550b, 557b, 569b, 600a. Northampton’s concerns seem to have influenced several of Howard’s other legislative appointments, including bills to allow Charles Waldegrave to sell land, to revoke certain conveyances made by Sir Robert Drury, and to enable Edward Neville^*, 8th (or 1st) Lord Abergavenny, to sell land.51 Ibid. 553b, 595b, 623a, 631b; HENRY HOWARD.

Howard missed the final few days of the session in July. He was eager to observe at first hand the fighting between the forces of the Protestant Union on the one hand and the armies of the Catholic League on the other over the Rhineland principality of Jülich-Cleves. Landing at Flushing (Vlissingen) on 11 Aug., he arrived at Jülich just in time to see the Protestant forces in action.52 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 217, 219, 224. However, on 22 Aug. he argued while drunk with one of the English volunteers, Sir Edward Herbert^* (later 1st Lord Herbert of Chirbury), whom he struck. Herbert initially overlooked this affront, but when various French generals heard that he had been assaulted he felt compelled to demand satisfaction. Howard subsequently agreed to meet Herbert in a wood near Düsseldorf, but it proved impossible to keep the intended duel a secret and he was prevented by the military authorities from honouring his promise.53 Life of Lord Herbert of Cherbury ed. S. Lee, 117-18, 121-2, 327-8. News of the quarrel soon reached England, and on their return in mid October both Howard and Herbert were brought before the Privy Council, which, under the direction of Howard’s great uncle Northampton, was trying to stamp out private duels. As neither man was prepared to bury the hatchet, both were confined to their lodgings.54 HMC Downshire, ii. 376.

It was perhaps because he was under house arrest that Howard did not resume his seat in the Lords when Parliament reconvened on 16 October. This might have led to a privilege dispute with the king, but the upper House turned a blind eye to Howard’s detention, presumably because it had not been occasioned by anything that had occurred in Parliament. Howard made his first recorded appearance in the House on 6 November. During the remainder of the session, he made no recorded speeches and was appointed to just two committees. The first, on 8 Nov., was for a bill to avoid lawsuits over wills. The second, two days later, concerned a measure to enable Prince Henry to make leases.55 LJ, ii. 675a, 677a. Howard was subsequently included on the commission to adjourn Parliament on 29 Nov., but failed to attend the House on that day, or indeed on the preceding two business days. He was, however, present, on 6 Dec., when he served as a commissioner for the prorogation.

Early in the New Year preparations were made for Howard to marry the earl of Dunbar’s younger daughter Elizabeth, who was now aged 11 or 12. The ceremony was scheduled for 2 Feb., but on 20 Jan. 1611, with less than two weeks to go, the bride’s father died suddenly, throwing the wedding into doubt.56 HMC Downshire, iii. 16. However, the intended alliance was too valuable to abandon, as Elizabeth was a rich heiress, and sometime over the next few weeks the marriage took place. Nevertheless, Howard did not bed his young bride until October 1612, when he was commanded to do so by the king.57 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 385. Over the next decade or so his wife bore him no less than nine children, four of them sons. During this time, however, Howard also took a mistress, a certain Mrs Clare.58 Ibid. ii. 203.

Marriage to Elizabeth Home was not the only event which gave rise to a marked improvement in Howard’s finances. On 1 Mar. 1611 his childless kinsman, Thomas Howard^*, 3rd Viscount Bindon, died leaving him an estate in Dorset worth more than £3,000 per annum. One incredulous commentator observed that ‘daily, fortune doth strive to overwhelm him with wealth’. Howard immediately journeyed to Lulworth Castle to take possession, and also to make funeral arrangements for Bindon.59 HMC Rutland, i. 429; HMC Downshire, iii. 56.

Like his father, the earl of Suffolk, Howard was one of the few peers to attend the funeral of the late lord treasurer, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, in June 1612. Salisbury and Suffolk had long been allies, and in 1608 Salisbury’s eldest son Viscount Cranborne (William Cecil^*, later 2nd earl of Salisbury) had married Howard’s sister Katharine. Salisbury’s death had the effect of elevating Howard’s father to the status of the king’s chief minister, alongside Northampton (who died himself two years later).

At the beginning of 1614 Suffolk helped to persuade James, who was desperately in need of money, to summon another Parliament as an alternative to a French marriage for Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales). Howard naturally played a part in this assembly, but his role was, as always, marginal. He attended the opening of Parliament on 5 Apr., but thereafter he attended only sporadically, missing 11 of the session’s 29 sittings. There is no record that he contributed to debate, but he was appointed to four of the nine committees established by the House. One of these appointments concerned a bill that he had been asked to consider in 1610, on lawsuits over wills. The remaining three concerned the wasteful consumption of gold and silver, a conference with the Commons to discuss a bill affirming the right of succession of the Elector Palatine’s children, and the preservation of timber.60 LJ, ii. 691a, 692b, 694a, 697b.

Court career, 1614-20

Following the dissolution, Suffolk became lord treasurer. Not surprisingly, Howard benefited from his father’s elevation, for at around the same time he was appointed captain of the gentlemen pensioners. In December 1614, while other crown servants were denied their salaries, Howard procured for the men under his command a double allowance.61 Chamberlain Letters, i. 566. Such a close identification with the interests of his father meant that Howard was necessarily caught up in the faction fighting which dominated the mid Jacobean period. This factionalism revolved around the royal favourite, Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset, who had married, in December 1613, Howard’s sister, Frances. In 1614 Somerset came under attack from a rising new favourite, George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham). By April 1615 the rivalry between the two men was intense. The queen, Anne of Denmark, arranged for Villiers to be knighted and appointed a gentleman of the bedchamber, but was opposed by Suffolk, who also begged James, without success, to admit Howard to the order of the Garter.62 Stowe 175, f. 310.

Following the fall of Somerset in October 1615, Howard reconsidered his position. He no longer put himself in opposition to Villiers, but instead sought to cultivate the new favourite. He evidently succeeded, for in August 1617 John Holles^* (later 1st earl of Clare) alluded to ‘the interest he hath with the favourite’.63 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 191. However, he seems to have grown jealous when a rival to Villiers’ affections materialized. During the king’s visit to Scotland in 1617, Villiers, now earl of Buckingham, met James Hamilton^*, 2nd marquess of Hamilton (later 1st earl of Cambridge), who was only a few years older than himself. The two young men immediately struck up a friendship, to the annoyance of Howard, who had also travelled to Scotland as part of the royal entourage. Howard tried to sow dissension between them, but this merely antagonized Hamilton, who challenged him to a duel. To make matters worse, Howard also quarrelled with Buckingham’s friend, the 1st earl of Montgomery (Philip Herbert^*) and with the earl’s kinsman by marriage, Lord Compton (Spencer Compton*, later 2nd earl of Northampton). By the time he returned to England, Howard was in thoroughly bad odour.64 HMC Downshire, vi. 262; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 85, 98.

Howard’s foolish behaviour helps to explain why, in September 1617, it was reported that the earl of Suffolk was no longer ‘in such friendship with our great man as he was, nor so much caressed by his Majesty as I think he could wish’.65 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 80. To Buckingham, and to James, it looked as though Suffolk had attempted to use Howard to undermine the favourite’s position. Before long, Buckingham and Suffolk were locked in a bitter battle for survival. Suffolk tried to topple Buckingham by introducing James to the young William Monson^‡, whereupon Buckingham uncovered evidence that Suffolk was corrupt, which led to the latter’s dismissal in July 1618. During this conflict Howard sided with his father, for shortly after Suffolk was stripped of office it was rumoured that he would be replaced by Montgomery as captain of the band of gentlemen pensioners.66 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 163.

Howard probably continued to regard himself as Buckingham’s enemy until mid November 1619, when his father was convicted of corruption, fined £30,000 and imprisoned in the Tower. The court’s verdict made him realize that Buckingham’s help would be needed to secure his father’s release and a reduction in the fine imposed by Star Chamber. The same conclusion was reached by Suffolk, and on 16 Nov., two days after the court passed sentence, he and Howard offered Buckingham, through Sir George Goring^* (later 1st Lord Goring), their friendship and service.67 Harl. 1580, f. 411. This overture was well received, and on 30 Nov., following Buckingham’s intervention, Suffolk was released and his fine reduced to £10,000. However, the king’s clemency came at a heavy price, as James insisted that Howard resign his captaincy of the gentlemen pensioners. Suffolk was mortified, and pleaded with Buckingham to persuade the king to relent.68 Cabala Sive Scrinia Sacra (1691), 333-4. Howard was no less horrified, and though he apparently agreed to resign his post as a condition of his father’s release he subsequently refused to do so, as did his younger brother, Sir Thomas (Howard^*, later 1st earl of Berkshire), master of the horse to Prince Charles. This show of defiance incurred the displeasure of the king, who retaliated by reinstating the original fine of £30,000.69 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 277; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 94; Add. 72253, f. 81v. Moreover, when, over Christmas, Howard tried to exercise his duties as captain he was told to desist.70 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 278.

Howard was finally forced from office early in the New Year. However, it was not long before he was reinstated. In part this was because Hamilton declined to step into his shoes for fear of being accused of conducting a vendetta.71 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 113. The main reason, though, was that Buckingham, who had begun courting the countess of Suffolk’s niece, intervened on his behalf. The first sign that the king had been persuaded to look more kindly on Howard was on 22 Jan. 1620, when James agreed to stand as godfather at the forthcoming christening of Howard’s son (James Howard^*, later 3rd earl of Suffolk).72 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 284, 288. By 11 Feb. at the latest Howard had been restored.73 Add. 72253, f. 93v. The following month he participated in the accession day tilt as usual.74 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 298.

Howard pleaded poverty in November 1620, when the king demanded a benevolence to help pay for the defence of the Rhenish Palatinate. He had not yet entered into his inheritance, he said, and ‘have not in my own possession more than my wife’s poor estate’. This statement was untrue, of course, as Howard also owned the lands of the late Viscount Bindon. He nevertheless agreed to contribute ‘when I shall see those that are better able than I, and in place afore me, what they will and shall give’.75 SP14/117/104. Eighteen months later, the supposedly cash-strapped Howard lost more than £1,500 in a single day on a game of bowls.76 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 500.

The parliaments of 1621 and 1624

Howard attended Parliament when it opened on 30 Jan. 1621. Shortly thereafter, he signed the Humble Petition of the Nobility, which was drawn up outside the House in early February.77 A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 187. This is surprising, as the petition, which protested against the precedence enjoyed on local commissions by the purchasers of Scottish and Irish viscountcies, was interpreted by Buckingham as veiled criticism of his role in the sale of honours. Howard subsequently attended most of the summer sitting. Indeed, for the first three months, he is recorded as having been absent only twice. However, he missed five days in a row in May, as the sitting drew to a close, for which he obtained leave of absence.78 LJ, iii. 130a.

As in the former assemblies in which he had sat, Howard played little recorded part in the meeting. However, he addressed the House at least seven times. His first two interventions, on 12 Mar. and 20 Mar., were minor, and provided no more than information. His third, on 26 Mar., expressed the view that the notorious monopolist Sir Giles Mompesson^‡ be degraded.79 LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 8, 28, 45. He next spoke on 27 Apr., when he argued that the House should consider fresh testimony in the case of Mompesson’s fellow monopolist, Sir Francis Michell, namely that offered by the gaoler of Finsbury, who revealed that Michell had encroached upon his authority by keeping prisoners in his own house. However, Howard’s father, Suffolk, dismissed this misdemeanour as ‘no great offence’.80 LD 1621, p. 36. On 3 May, during the debate on the punishment to be inflicted on the corrupt lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^* (1st Viscount St Alban), Howard asked a question so unimportant that the clerk recorded only part of it, and then crossed out what he had written.81 Add. 40085, f. 103v. The following day Howard was among those who expressed the view that Bacon should be degraded. On 7 May he seconded the 1st Lord North (Dudley North^*) after Hamilton remarked that the Lords should not ‘beg’ the Commons to appoint a committee to resolve a dispute between the two Houses over judicature. Like North, Howard thought there was a considerable difference between begging and propounding.82 LD 1621, pp. 65, 71.

Howard was appointed to 21 of the more than 70 committees established during the course of the summer sitting, two of them on 24 May, while he was absent. Several of these appointments concerned matters of central importance, such as the apprehension of Mompesson, the Commons’ grievances in respect of monopolies, the preparation of charges against Bacon, and the dispute over judicature occasioned by the lower House’s punishment of the Catholic barrister, Edward Floyd. Only three of Howard’s legislative appointments concerned matters of purely local interest. The first was on Welsh cottons, which measure his father chaired in committee. The second concerned a bill to confirm the sale of Dorking rectory by his distant kinsman, Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham, while the third was to consider a bill to protect the interests of the copyholders of the manors of Stepney and Hackney. Howard had no known interest in this latter measure, but its sponsor, Thomas Wentworth^*, 4th Lord Wentworth, may, like him, have been one of Buckingham’s clients. Howard’s remaining appointments included a committee to consider Buckingham’s proposal to establish an academy for the sons of the gentry and nobility, and a committee on a bill to confirm hospitals and almshouses.83 LJ, iii. 34a, 37a, 42b, 80a, 110b, 130a, 130b, 140a, 176a. His interest in this last-named measure was probably due to the fact that his father had founded a hospital at Audley End, Suffolk’s magnificent newly built seat in north-west Essex.84 Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 165.

Howard was absent when the Lords reconvened after the summer recess on 20 November. He subsequently attended most of the sitting, missing only 10 and 14 December. On the latter occasion, his father was also absent. He made no recorded speeches and was nominated to six out of a total of 11 committees, all of them legislative. Their subjects included the sale of Kenilworth Castle to Prince Charles and the granting of free trade to the Merchants of the Staple, measures in which his father also took an interest. The remaining bills concerned female felons, the debts of attainted persons, licences of alienation and tobacco.85 LJ, iii. 173b, 174b, 182b, 184a, 194a.

Following the departure of Charles and Buckingham for Spain in February 1623, Howard escorted the Spanish and Flemish ambassadors to Newmarket for an audience with the king. He subsequently entertained them, in his father’s absence, at Audley End.86 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 119-20. When Parliament met again in 1624, he proved assiduous in his attendance. Indeed, prior to the Easter recess he seems to have been absent only from Saturday 13 Mar. until Wednesday 17 Mar. inclusive. Although he was not marked as present in the Journal on 23 Feb., this is evidently an error, as he is recorded as having attended in the clerk’s (generally more reliable) manuscript minutes. When the session resumed after Easter, Howard continued to be present on most days. Not until the latter end of May did his attendance begin to tail off, and even then most of his absences related to afternoon rather than morning sittings of the House.

It seems likely that Howard supported the campaign, led by Charles and Buckingham, to end the negotiations for a Spanish Match and prepare for war with Spain. Not only was he appointed to the committee for munitions, which body was charged with taking stock of the kingdom’s supply of weaponry and ammunition, he was also named to the subcommittee instructed to prepare charges against the lord treasurer, the 1st earl of Middlesex (Lionel Cranfield^*), one of the leading opponents of conflict with Spain.87 LJ, iii. 237b, 286a. During the course of the Lords’ investigation of Middlesex, the embattled lord treasurer may have tried to win over Howard by surrendering to him, for a fee, the keepership of Greenwich Park.88 AO15/2, ff. 319-20v. Howard had acquired the reversion to this property in 1611,89 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 52; C66/1921/1. but for reasons that are unclear he had not gained possession on the death of his great uncle, the earl of Northampton, in 1614. However, if Middlesex did try to influence Howard by means of this transaction, there is no evidence that he succeeded.

Howard was appointed to 37 committees during the session, just over a third of all those established. Several concerned the impeachment of Middlesex, while two related to matters that he had been required to consider in previous parliaments, namely Welsh cloth and hospitals and free schools.90 LJ, iii. 219a, 303b, 317b, 320b, 323b, 325b, 327a, 327b, 329a, 384b. Howard was twice appointed to deputations sent to advise the king to break off the Spanish marriage treaty and wage war with Spain. The remainder of his nominations included subjects as varied as the abolition of trial by battle, the abolition of monopolies, the relief of crown tenants, usury, and the estate of Sir Toby Palavicino.91 Ibid. 246a, 248b, 267b, 275a, 284b, 293a, 325a, 342a. Interestingly, the clerk’s scribbled books reveal that Howard was initially appointed to several other committees from which he was subsequently removed. For example, on 2 Mar. his name was struck from the list of those appointed to help representatives from the Commons draw up reasons for breaking off the treaty negotiations with Spain. The most puzzling case concerns his removal from the committee for the bill to confirm the sale of Kenilworth Castle to Prince Charles. This measure had originally been laid before the House in 1621, when Howard had been a member of the committee. Why his name should have been removed from the committee list in 1624 is something of a mystery.92 Add. 40087, ff. 46, 66v.

Buckingham’s servant, 1625-28

During the dying days of James’s reign, the king ordered that Howard receive a free gift of £5,000, payable within two years. This grant, which was confirmed by the new king, Charles I, was more symbolic than real, as the crown was so short of money that Howard was still trying to obtain full payment as late as 1638. Its true importance was that it reflected Howard’s status as a partisan of Buckingham, now a duke. Howard’s enthusiasm for Buckingham was no longer shared by his father, however, who had only cultivated the favourite in order to secure his release and preserve his sons.93 CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 439, 447; 1625-6, p. 11; 1637-8, p. 281; HMC Cowper, ii. 123-4. Accordingly, following the death of James in March 1625, Suffolk was removed from the Privy Council.

Howard was among those peers who signed the proclamation announcing Charles’s accession.94 Stuart Royal Proclamations II: Chas. I ed. J.F. Larkin, 2. When a fresh Parliament met in June 1625, Howard initially attended, taking the oath of allegiance on 22 June, when he also helped to introduce formally a new member, the 1st Lord Ley (James Ley^*, later 1st earl of Marlborough). However, fear of the plague probably explains why he absented himself only a few days into the session. Excused attendance on 23 June, he briefly reappeared on 30 June, when he was appointed to the committee for the bill to make the arms of the kingdom more serviceable. His only other recorded attendance, before Parliament adjourned on 11 July, occurred four days later. On 6 July he observed the necessary formalities by obtaining a further leave of absence. When the session resumed at Oxford on 1 Aug., Howard was again missing. Indeed, he did not appear until the 8th, when he was appointed to help confer with the Commons on matters of religion. He continued to sit for the remainder of the session, which ended on the 12th, during which time he attracted three further committee nominations. The first, on 10 Aug., was to consider a bill to explain a clause in the 1606 Recusancy Act. The others concerned bills to allow free fishing off the north American coast and prevent the forging of the seals used by the royal courts. Neither of these committees had time to meet before the dissolution.95 Procs. 1625, pp. 40, 47, 72, 96, 146, 174, 179.

Howard was more diligent in attending the 1626 Parliament. This assembly was dominated by the attempted impeachment of Buckingham, and Howard, now one of the duke’s most ardent supporters, realized that his presence was needed. Apart from taking an additional day’s leave either side of the official Easter break, he was absent only seven times before mid May. However, the regularity of his attendance was interrupted by the death of his father on 28 May. Although Parliament then stood adjourned for Whitsun, Howard failed to resume his seat when the Lords reconvened on 2 June, as the funeral did not take place for another two days.96 W.E. Laughton, ‘Extracts from the Regs. of Saffron Walden relating to the Howard Fam.’, Misc. Gen. et Her. 2nd ser. v. 143. Howard, now earl of Suffolk himself, felt bad that his father’s death obliged him to be absent, not least because the impeachment proceedings were nearing their climax. Writing to Buckingham, he explained that he was ‘tied by duty and nature to perform the rites and ceremonies of a son to dear father’. Were it not for this, he added, ‘I would have waited on you and thanked you for your favours, you being the person now living to whom I owe most love and respect’. Understanding how important it was for Buckingham’s friends and servants to rally round their patron at this time, he ended his letter by offering to come up, ‘notwithstanding my mournful occasion’.97 CSP Addenda 1625-49, p. 131. Buckingham, however, had no need to take up this offer, having already taken sufficient steps to strengthen his position in the Lords by persuading the king to confer English peerages on three of his closest allies.98 Dudley Carleton, created Lord Carleton; Edward Montagu, summoned as Lord Kimbolton in right of his father’s barony; and Oliver St. John, Viscount Grandison [I], created Lord Tregoz.

At around this time, the new earl of Suffolk was invited by the University of Cambridge to stand for election as its chancellor, in succession to his father. Suffolk was appalled, as the king wished the chancellorship to be bestowed upon Buckingham. He therefore wrote to Buckingham stating that he considered him the fittest man for the post. Buckingham replied by assuring Howard that he would not take it amiss if he were elected, as he did not wish to deprive him of anything that had belonged to his father. However, Suffolk had no intention of crossing the king, and wrote to his old tutor John Smith, now master of Magdalene College, disclaiming any intention to stand and seeking to prevent a ‘third person’ from doing so instead.99 CUL, Add.23, no.60. This was almost certainly a reference to Suffolk’s younger brother Thomas Howard^*, now earl of Berkshire who, unlike Suffolk himself, hated Buckingham. (It was rumoured that their late father, unable to sit in Parliament through illness, had transferred his proxy to Berkshire after discovering that his eldest son would be supporting Buckingham during the latter’s impeachment.)100 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 106. However, Suffolk proved unable to prevent his brother from standing.

It seems likely that Suffolk provided Buckingham with loyal support throughout the 1626 Parliament. However, aside from the evidence already cited, only one instance can now be documented. On 2 May Suffolk, at that time still Lord Howard de Walden, urged the House not to be distracted by the charges presented the previous day against Buckingham by the 1st earl of Bristol (John Digby^*), but to consider instead the charges previously brought against Bristol by the king. His enthusiasm for prosecuting Bristol perhaps explains why, on 22 May, he was named in his absence to the committee for examining the witnesses in the case.101 Procs. 1626, i. 346, 540.

Suffolk was appointed to 16 of the 49 committees appointed by the upper House in 1626. One of the most important bodies to which he was named was the standing committee for petitions, of which he had not previously been a member. He was also required to help consider measures that had come before him in previous parliaments, among them the bill for the better maintenance of almshouses and hospitals, the bill to make the arms of the kingdom more serviceable, and the bill to explain a clause in the 1606 Recusancy Act. Among his remaining appointments were committees for bills to preserve the king’s revenue; increase trade and keep gold and silver within the kingdom; prevent the export of wool and fuller’s earth; and reverse a decree in the Court of Wards concerning his kinsman, Charles Howard^*, 2nd earl of Nottingham.102 Ibid. 43, 48, 104, 120, 127, 231.

Aside from his intervention on 2 May regarding Bristol’s charges against Buckingham, Suffolk made only two recorded speeches, both of them before his elevation to his father’s earldom. The first was on 31 Mar., during the debate on the rightful holder of the hereditary office of lord great chamberlain. Suffolk announced that his father, whose proxy he then held, supported the claim of William Stanley^*, 6th earl of Derby. In the ensuing vote, he therefore cast both his vote and that of his father in Derby’s favour. However, the rest of the House supported the claim of Robert Bertie^*, 14th Lord Willoughby de Eresby.103 Ibid. 234; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 278. Suffolk’s final recorded speech of the session was on 15 June, when both he and the 2nd earl of Hertford (William Seymour^*) moved the House to pay the customary fees to the gentleman usher.104 Procs. 1626, i. 636.

Shortly after the dissolution, the king evidently promised to admit Suffolk to the order of the Garter as a reward for the loyalty he had shown Buckingham in Parliament. However, although a vacancy had arisen on 13 July with the death of Robert Sidney^*, 1st earl of Leicester, it was not until April 1627 that Suffolk was elected, and not until September 1628 that he was finally installed. At around the same time it was also rumoured that Suffolk would be chosen to lead the fleet that was being assembled to attack Spain.105 Birch, i. 131. In the event, this command was given to another, equally unqualified peer, William Feilding^*, 1st earl of Denbigh.

Over the summer of 1626, the crown tried to raise a privy seal loan to help pay for the war with Spain. However, the inhabitants of the county of Suffolk were unwilling to contribute, particularly those on the coast, who claimed that many of their ships had been captured or fired by the enemy in their own harbours, and that the rest were unable to put to sea. Ten of the leading gentry of the shire therefore petitioned the earl of Suffolk, who had succeeded his father as the county’s lord lieutenant. Suffolk forwarded their complaint to Buckingham, with the suggestion that the duke write a suitably emollient reply.106 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 408-9. However, Buckingham rejected this advice, and told the earl to inform the county that their complaints were exaggerated, that measures were being taken for their better defence, and that they were too apt to find excuses to deny the king aid.107 Add. 37816, f. 157v.

The request for privy seal loans was eventually abandoned in favour of demands for a Forced Loan. It was clear that Suffolk’s assistance would be needed, as the earl was a major landowner in no less than five counties (Cambridgeshire, Dorset, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk). It was equally clear that his position would be enhanced if he were appointed to the Privy Council, whose members were expected to take a lead in raising the money required in the counties where they owned their estates. For this reason, he was admitted to the Council on 12 Nov. 1626. His services were soon employed, for in January 1627 he and his fellow councillor, Sir Robert Naunton^‡, toured Dorset, where most of the local gentry were persuaded to subscribe to the Loan.108 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 16; William Whiteway of Dorchester: His Diary 1618-35 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 87. The following month he was in Suffolk, where he and fellow commissioners tried, without success, to stamp out all opposition to payment.109 CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 66, 124.

Suffolk did not accompany Buckingham to the Île de Ré in the summer of 1627, perhaps because he had a heavy workload, being lord lieutenant of six counties and vice admiral in three. However, he wished to make some contribution to the war effort himself, and in July he obtained letters of marque for a 50-ton captured French ship, the Jean of Garonne, which he persuaded Buckingham to lend to him. However, although he later claimed to have spent £600 in fitting her out, the Jean was so lacking in tackle and munitions that he was unable to put her to sea.110 Ibid. 236; 1628-9, p. 299; APC, 1628-9, p. 362. On the ship’s size, see SP16/159/37.

Suffolk’s status as one of Buckingham’s principal supporters was confirmed on 14 Feb. 1628, when he stood as one of the godfather’s at the christening of the duke’s son and heir, George Villiers^† (later 2nd duke of Buckingham).111 Birch, i. 324; Works of Abp. Laud ed. J. Bliss, iii. 207. One month later a fresh Parliament assembled. Suffolk, who, unlike his late father seems not to have exercised any electoral influence, rarely missed a sitting in the first session. However, his presence was not recorded on seven occasions when Buckingham was also absent (24, 28, 29 and 31 Mar.; 3 and 5 May; and 19 June). He was also absent on 25 Apr. and 7 May, and on the afternoons of 18 Apr.,112 He was recorded as present in the Journal but not in the clerk’s ms minutes. 20 May and 23 June.

The session was dominated by complaints that the financial demands created by war with France and Spain had led the king to infringe the liberties of the subject. As a lord lieutenant and privy councillor, Suffolk was necessarily deeply involved in two of the chief sources of grievance, the levying of the Forced Loan and the billeting of troops.113 On his role in the billeting of troops in Suffolk, see Add. 39245, f. 135; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 2. However, he made only one recorded contribution to debate on the subject, on 15 Apr., when the House discussed the imprisonment without trial of those who had refused to contribute to the Loan. He spoke in answer to Buckingham, who angrily complained that further debate was pointless, as the king would refuse to surrender his right to imprison men without showing cause. He urged the Lords to find some way of accommodating the wishes of the king with those of his people. At the same time, he ‘protested the duke’s affection’.114 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 233. This attempt to please both sides at once echoed his earlier effort, in August 1626, to steer a middle course between Buckingham on the one hand and the gentry of Suffolk on the other.

Suffolk made only six further recorded speeches. The first, on 1 Apr., was by way of interjection. The lord keeper, Sir Thomas Coventry^* (later 1st Lord Coventry), reported the king’s favourable response to Parliament’s petition against recusants, but Suffolk, considering this summary unsatisfactory, observed that Charles had also said that ‘he would live and die’ in the Protestant religion. Suffolk also addressed the House on 21 May, when he proposed that a message be sent to the Commons requiring them to sit a little longer, and on 14 June, when he was one of several peers to claim that he had heard the bishop of St Davids, William Laud^* (later archbishop of Canterbury), advise the king not to publish the sermons of Roger Manwaring^* (later bishop of Chichester). His remaining three speeches were delivered in mid April. All related to a Commons’ complaint regarding comments made by him on the afternoon of 12 Apr. in the Commons’ committee chamber.115 Ibid. 133, 134, 491, 642.

That morning the attorney general, Sir Robert Heath^‡, had attempted to refute the Commons’ claim that those imprisoned for refusing to contribute to the Forced Loan were legally entitled to writs of habeas corpus. During the course of Heath’s speech, Suffolk gained the impression that the Commons’ chief spokesman, the lawyer John Selden^‡, had tried to strengthen his case by erasing an original record. Suffolk was astonished, and that afternoon he told the Dorset knight Sir John Strangways^‡ in the Commons’ committee chamber that Selden deserved to be hanged for his offence. This was unwise, to say the least, as Strangways, who had been called to account by Suffolk a year earlier for refusing to pay the Forced Loan in Dorset, conveyed Suffolk’s words to Edward Kirton^‡, one of the Members for Great Bedwyn. Suffolk must have realized almost immediately that he had landed himself in hot water, as he was apparently heard by the upper House that same afternoon. In the event, however, it was not until the 14th that the Commons lodged a formal complaint.116 Ibid. 212, 217, 221; CD 1628, ii. 447.

Suffolk naturally denied having uttered the words alleged against him, and was supported by both Buckingham and the 5th earl of Sussex (Robert Radcliffe^*), who was hoping to curry favour with the duke. However, he was contradicted by the earl of Bristol. The Commons subsequently mounted an investigation, during the course of which they learned that Suffolk had also accused Selden of attempting to sow sedition between the king and his people. They concluded that his words ‘had not only reference to the rasure, but [also] to the whole narrative of the Commons at the late conference, in which the Commons had directed Mr Selden’. On 17 Apr. they demanded that Suffolk be punished, as they themselves ‘are wounded hereby through Mr Selden’s sides’.117 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 256-7; Procs. 1628, p. 209. See also C.R. Manning, ‘News-letters of Sir Edmund Moundeford’, Norf. Arch. v. 64.

Few in the Lords can have been in much doubt that the Commons’ fury largely stemmed from the fact that the crown had declined to concede that arbitrary imprisonment was illegal. They were certainly not going to be browbeaten into punishing a peer for expressing a view that many of them must have privately shared. Consequently, their only response to the demand that Suffolk be punished was to promise to look into the matter ‘in convenient time’. Nevertheless, they did carry out their own investigation of Suffolk’s words. This time, Suffolk did not make the mistake of issuing a bare denial. Instead, he claimed to have been misrepresented. He had merely observed that if Selden had razed a record he deserved to be hanged. He also pleaded a layman’s ignorance. Hearing the attorney general say ‘that a record or some paper was razed – I am not so skilful as to know one thing from another, but I conceived it to be a record and razed – I said that, conceiving that, Selden deserved to be hanged’. Suffolk’s claim to have spoken in a conditional rather than absolute sense sufficed to satisfy the upper House.118 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 259-60. However, no formal resolution was ever communicated to the Commons. Instead, the matter was quietly dropped.

Suffolk was named to only a handful of committees in 1628. As in 1626, he was named to both the committee for petitions and the committee for the bill to make the arms of the kingdom more serviceable. His remaining appointments were to consider bills to increase trade, to grant lifetime possession of Denmark House, Oatlands and Nonsuch to the queen, Henrietta Maria, and to settle the estates of Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset. On 4 June his name was placed on the committee list for the bill to create an entail for his distant kinsman, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel, but it was subsequently crossed out, possibly to avoid over-representation of the Howard interest.119 Ibid. 79, 88, 584n, 641, 700.

Final years, 1628-40

Following the prorogation in June 1628, Suffolk’s aid was enlisted by Buckingham, who wished to become reconciled with many of his enemies. One of the main complaints against Buckingham was that he held too many senior offices. This charge was not entirely fair, but in mid July the duke decided to divest himself of one of his key positions, that of lord warden of the Cinque Ports. He offered it to Suffolk, safe in the knowledge that the latter, being his creature, would accommodate his wishes whenever conflict over jurisdiction arose between himself as lord high admiral and the lord warden.120 HMC Skrine, 158; Birch, i. 378; CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 213. There is no evidence that he required payment.

Suffolk was appointed lord warden on 24 July, two days after Buckingham stepped down.121 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 224, 228. Shortly thereafter he retired for the summer to his Dorset seat, where he subsequently heard the news that Buckingham had been murdered. The loss of his patron undoubtedly came as a bitter blow to Suffolk, whose prospects for further advancement were now negligible. However, over the next few years he was probably more preoccupied with his own growing ill health.

Suffolk was sick when Parliament reassembled on 20 Jan. 1629. He subsequently obtained formal leave of absence, and did not sit until 16 February. He attended the next four sittings, but on the 25th he was again absent. During the course of the short session, he made no recorded speeches, and was appointed to just two committees. The first was the committee for petitions, to which he was named in his absence, while the second was a committee to survey munitions.122 LJ, iv. 6b, 7b, 27b, 37b. He attended the final two sittings of the House on 2 and 10 March.

Suffolk was again unwell in April 1631. Indeed, he was so lame that, on being summoned to take his place on the jury in the trial of Mervyn Tuchet^*, 12th Lord Audley, he was unable to do so.123 CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 19; State Trials ed. T.B. Howell, iii. 404-5. Seven months later it was rumoured that he had died, and in December his fellow courtiers, thinking his illness to be terminal, began seeking the right to succeed him in his offices.124 Birch, ii. 145; HMC Denbigh, v. 8; CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 205. In the event, Suffolk survived. Nevertheless, he remained so infirm that in December 1633 the king requested that he surrender the captaincy of the band of gentlemen pensioners, which office (since it involved the personal safety of the monarch) required the holder to be fit and well. In return, Charles promised to find Suffolk some form of ‘satisfaction’ in due course. An enraged Suffolk subsequently remonstrated that, were he to resign, it would look as though he had been turned out in disgrace. He also complained that the rumour that he was about to lose office had caused his many creditors to call in his debts, which were considerable. However, far from eliciting any sympathy, his unwillingness to cooperate provoked a ferocious response. Shaking with anger, Charles reportedly replied, ‘what care I for your debts? You must look to them. If you will surrender up your place, I shall reward you to your content. If otherwise, I will have the place and be disengaged of my promise. And where is your obedience?’125 Strafforde Letters, i. 167, 175; Birch, ii. 228.

Despite this display of ill temper, Charles agreed to let Suffolk remain in post until such times as the rumour that he was being forced out of office had died down. Perhaps not surprisingly, Suffolk took advantage of this stay of execution, and of the fact that the king was soon diverted by other business, to prevaricate.126 C115/106/8433. However, his continued ill health meant that he could not delay indefinitely. In the spring of 1635 he again came close to death, being unable to pass water for eight days. On returning from Bath, where he had retired to take the waters, he was persuaded ‘with much ado’, and after ‘message upon message from the king’, to relinquish his post. He subsequently approached Charles for another office by way of compensation, such as the presidency of the Privy Council or the lord keepership of the Privy Seal.127 Strafforde Letters, i. 412, 427. However, his requests were ignored.128 Aylmer claimed that Charles promised to make him governor of Berwick, but Suffolk seems to have held the governorship of Berwick from at least 1616. G. Aylmer, King’s Servants, 115.

It was not merely his duties as captain of the band of gentlemen pensioners that Suffolk neglected due to illness. He rarely attended Council meetings, and paid insufficient attention to his responsibilities as lord warden. In quieter times this latter oversight might not have mattered, but over the summer of 1635 there was rising tension with France over English claims to sovereignty of the Narrow Seas. In August Suffolk was advised either to repair to Dover in person or to appoint a lieutenant of Dover Castle in place of Sir Edward Dering^‡, who had resigned and not been replaced. He responded by appointing Sir Thomas Culpeper, and in late October he himself went to Dover for a short period.129 CSP Dom. 1635, pp. 327, 347, 429, 447, 463, 466.

It may have been because his duties had become more burdensome that, in January 1636, Suffolk contemplating quitting his post of lord warden altogether and retiring to Dorset with his family.130 Strafforde Letters, i. 506. However, he thought better of it, perhaps because this office gave him some protection from his mounting financial difficulties, which were truly immense. Despite selling off a large part of his property,131 CSP Dom. 1639-40, p. 501; HP Commons, 1604-29, iv. 710. he owed more than £132,000 when he died in 1640, including £1,700 due to the king in fee farm rents and parliamentary taxes. Among his creditors were the 1st Lord Craven (William Craven^*), who was owed £18,000, and Culpeper’s successor as lieutenant of Dover Castle, Sir John Manwood^‡, to whom he was indebted £1,000.132 Essex RO, D/DBy A5, unfol. (final page); CSP Dom. 1635, p. 37; HMC Cowper, ii. 123-4. By the summer of 1636, so much of his property had been extended for debt that Suffolk was forced to borrow to survive.133 See for instance CUL, Add. 7094, f. 18. In April 1637 Suffolk failed to appear in court to answer the complaint of one of his creditors, who subsequently obtained an order for his arrest.134 Coventry Docquets, 429. However, this order was never executed, presumably because Suffolk, being lord warden, was a royal servant and therefore under the king’s protection.

These financial difficulties explain why, during the later 1630s, Suffolk failed to observe legal rulings in respect of his former mistress, Mrs Clare, who had remarried and was now known as Mrs Harding. During the late 1610s Suffolk had fathered a son by this woman, who persuaded the 1st earl of Suffolk to assign her an annuity of £200, payable from the rents arising from the Essex manor of Saffron Walden.135 CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 417. However, on the death of the 1st earl in 1626, his widow refused to pay this pension as it ate into her jointure, thereby bringing her into contempt of court and forcing her into hiding. In February 1635 Suffolk’s Westminster residence, Suffolk House, was searched by a particularly zealous serjeant-at-arms, who insisted on examining the earl’s own bed while he lay in it.136 Strafforde Letters, i. 166; C115/106/8449.

Suffolk himself behaved no better than his mother. Despite having independently promised Mrs Harding an annuity of £300, he told the king in June 1638 that, ‘being disappointed in his own receipts’, he had been compelled to default on his payments, ‘contrary to his intention’. Charles, however, had nothing but contempt for Suffolk, who had not only failed to meet his financial obligations as a father, but had also neglected to support his own mother. In July 1638 he threatened to punish both mother and son for disregarding the rulings of Chancery.137 PC2/49, f. 128; CSP Dom. 1637-8, pp. 559-60. Only the outbreak of the Covenanter rebellion in Scotland seems to have saved Suffolk from royal retribution.

Early in 1639 Suffolk was summoned to attend the king at York, where Charles was gathering an army. However, he proposed to send in his stead his eldest son James Howard^*, Lord Howard de Walden (later 3rd earl of Suffolk), and to keep watch at Dover, presumably for signs of movement of arms to Scotland from the Low Countries.138 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 428. This offer was evidently accepted, but in the event Suffolk did not arrive in Dover until late September, just in time to witness a major confrontation between the Spanish and Dutch fleets, which he helped to document.139 Ibid. 1639, p. 537; 1639-40, pp. 24-5, 31, 33. By this time the king, who had reached a temporary agreement with the Covenanters, was contemplating summoning a Parliament in order to renew the war with the Scots. Suffolk, who had not attended a meeting of the Privy Council in more than four years, returned to Whitehall, where he and his fellow councillors decided that December not only to summon a Parliament but also to assist the king ‘in extraordinary ways’ if the assembly proved uncooperative.140 For his attendance of the Council between 12 Nov. and 4 Dec. 1639, see PC2/51, ff. 9, 17v, 32v, 51v. For the Council decision in respect of a Parliament, see K. Sharpe, Personal Rule of Chas. I, 852.

Suffolk himself played no part in the ensuing Short Parliament, but instead went to Dorset to quell signs of disquiet among the troops raised there for the royal army. He returned to the capital in May 1640, from where he continued to oversee the levying of soldiers in the lieutenancies under his control.141 CSP Dom. 1640, p. 204; HMC 13th Rep. IV, 459. However, on the night of 3 June he died suddenly at Suffolk House.142 CSP Dom. 1640, p. 266; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 279. He was buried seven days later at Saffron Walden. Suffolk left no will, and was succeeded by his eldest son James Howard^†, who inherited a mountain of debt, and was forced to adopt drastic measures to rescue his finances. These included selling not only Suffolk House but also many of the family’s lands.143 CUL, Ee.III.25, f. 8; Essex RO, D/DBy A5.