suc. bro. 7 Jan. 1689 as 4th earl of SUFFOLK
First sat 23 Jan. 1689; last sat 22 Oct. 1690
bap. 21 May 1625, 3rd s. of Theophilus Howard†, 2nd earl of Suffolk, and Elizabeth, da. of George Home, earl of Dunbar [S]; bro. of James Howard, 3rd earl of Suffolk and Henry Howard, 5th earl of Suffolk. educ. travelled abroad (tutor Francis Tallents) 1642–4. m. (1) (date unknown) Catherine, da. of John Alleyne of Moggerhanger, Blunham, Beds. s.p.m.; (2) in or bef. 1686, Anne (d.1710), da. of John Wroth of Loughton, Essex, wid. of James Cowper‡ of Westminster, s.p. d. 21 Apr. 1691.
Master of the horse (parliamentary) to James, duke of York, 1647; gent. of bedchamber to James, duke of York, in exile.
Capt. Dutch service, 1646.
Associated with: Audley End, Suff.
George Howard emerged as the heir to the earldom of Suffolk after the death of his older brother Thomas Howard, which occurred sometime between July 1685 and January 1689. Given the turmoil of the times it is perhaps not surprising that he took his seat at almost the first available opportunity: the second day of the Convention. He was promptly appointed to all three sessional committees, as he would be in each succeeding session. Despite his early association with James, duke of York, his sympathies were decidedly anti-Catholic and on 31 Jan. he voted to declare William and Mary king and queen. His son-in-law Percy Kirke‡ similarly deserted James II in favour of William III. Suffolk was present on some 63 per cent of sitting days and was named to three committees. On 4 Feb. he voted in favour of agreeing with the Commons that the king had abdicated and left the throne vacant; he entered his dissent when these questions failed, and had no difficulty in taking the oaths to the new regime on 2 March.
Although he was not named to the committee, he and his younger brother Henry Howard, later 5th earl of Suffolk, appear to have been active behind the scenes attempting, unsuccessfully, to amend the bill to abolish the hearth tax. This was a matter of considerable interest to them as it effectively removed their security for the unpaid balance (£20,000) for the crown’s purchase of Audley End.1 Suffolk’s finances were precarious. In response to the self-assessment taxation exercise carried out in the autumn of 1689 he replied that he was
as ready as any subject whatsoever to assist their majesties to the utmost of my estate, but their lordships cannot but know that I was a younger brother and under many misfortunes &c. The earldom is very lately descended and the estate annexed to it hath not yet defrayed the charges that the honour hath required me to expend to pay my duty to their majesties at their coronation and since in Parliament. By this means it hath not been possible for me to acquire any personal estate but have been constrained to incur debt for the ordinary support of my honour though without furnishing or keeping any house suitable to my quality.2
During April 1689 Suffolk also became involved in supporting the complaint of Charles Gerard, earl of Macclesfield, about the right of peers to wear hats in the king’s presence in his chapel and in the playhouse.3 On 17 May he was named to the committee considering the bill for the development of Arundel House sponsored by his cousin Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk.
Suffolk was away from the House for the whole of June, when the first suspicions that he might have been selling protections began to surface. On 18 June Oliver Clobery, who had fought and won a long battle through chancery and the House of Lords against Ezekiel Lampen, protested to the House that Suffolk had issued a protection to Lampen as one of his menial servants, even though Lampen was a merchant living in London. Suffolk returned to the House early in July 1689 and was named to six committees. On 10 and 12 July he entered protests against amendments to the bill to reverse the judgment of perjury against Titus Oates, arguing, inter alia, that they impugned the reality of the Popish Plot and left Oates with no more than the illusion of a remedy. In August he was named to two further committees.
Suffolk was present on approximately 56 per cent of sitting days during the second (1689–90) session of the Convention, and he attended 77 per cent of the sitting days of the first session of the 1690 Parliament. In March 1690 he was again in trouble with the House concerning protections and on 28 Mar. agreed to withdraw two of the three that he had issued.4 During both sessions he was again named to several committees but there is no evidence to suggest that he had a personal interest in any of them or that his appointment was anything other than a formality.
Suffolk was present on the prorogation days between the adjournment of 23 May 1690 and the opening of the new session on 2 October. He was then present every day until his final attendance on 22 October. On 6 Oct. he voted against the discharge fo James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough from their imprisonment in the Tower. On his last day of attendance he raised an issue of privilege in which he alleged that Simon and Edward Price (also Prise or Pryse) were disturbing his ‘quiet possession’ of a silver mine in Cardiganshire. In reality, Suffolk was acting on behalf of the Society of Mines Royal. His opponent was Sir Carbery Pryse‡, who mounted his own complaint of privilege in the Commons.5 The arguments about privilege dragged on until 20 Dec. when a compromise was announced, though the issues at stake were not finally settled until 1693. Suffolk himself was not in the House to lead the arguments, nor did he obey an order of the House made on 26 Dec. to attend for questioning concerning irregularities in the use of protections. Presumably he was ill, but on 27 Dec. the Journal merely recorded that he was not in town. He died on 21 Apr. 1691 when his honours passed to his next brother, Henry Howard.
R.P.