suc. bro. by 16 Apr. 1679 as 3rd earl of BERKSHIRE
First sat 17 Apr. 1679; last sat 6 Mar. 1689
MP Wallingford 1641-44
bap. 14 Nov. 1619, 2nd s. of Thomas Howard, earl of Berkshire, and Elizabeth, da. and coh. of William Cecil†, 2nd earl of Exeter; bro. of Charles Howard, 2nd earl of Berkshire, Sir Robert Howard‡ and Philip Howard‡. educ. travelled abroad 1638.1 m. (1) by June 1641,2 Frances (d. 8 May 1658), da. of Sir Richard Harrison‡ of Hurst, Berks. 2da. (?1 d.v.p.);3 (2) Mary (1637-bef. 1706), da. of Sir Thomas Parker‡ of Ratton, Suss. ?1da. d. 12 Apr. 1706; will 24 Sept 1705, pr. 21 June 1706.4
Col. regt. of horse (roy.) 1643.
Associated with: Charlton, Wilts.
Much of Howard’s early life is difficult to disentangle from that of his cousin and namesake, Thomas Howard‡, the son of Theophilus Howard†, 2nd earl of Suffolk. Like his brothers Howard had been a royalist during the Civil War. He may have been the father of Moll Davies, a mistress of Charles II, with whom she had a daughter, Lady Mary Tudor.5 Soldiering may have been his lot before he succeeded to the peerage, given the reference of John Verney‡ (later Viscount Fermanagh [I]) in 1679 to Thomas Howard ‘of the guards’ (see below), although references to Thomas Howard in army lists have generally been taken to refer to Thomas Howard, 2nd Baron Howard of Escrick.6
The exact date of Thomas Howard’s succession to the earldom of Berkshire is unknown. His writ of summons was issued on 16 Apr. 1679, so his brother’s death must have taken place before that date. The peerage seems to have been something of an empty honour, as John Verney wrote on 17 Apr. that the death of Berkshire ‘prefers his brother Thomas Howard (of the Guards) to the title, though very little income accompanies it to support the grandeur.’7 Berkshire took his seat on 17 Apr. and unlike his brother clearly had no qualms about taking the requisite oaths. He was present on 23 days of the session, nearly 70 per cent of the remaining sitting days of the session (but 38 per cent of the whole), and was named to two committees.
As his brother had been abroad and disabled from sitting as a Catholic, it seems plausible that the forecasts made by Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), about the likely voting in the proceedings against him refer to the 3rd earl of Berkshire, rather than the 2nd. Berkshire was listed as a potential supporter, with Peregrine Osborne, Viscount Dunblane [S], the future 2nd duke of Leeds, given the task of canvassing his support. He appeared on two more lists as a probable supporter, and finally his name was added to a list which may indicate that the 3rd earl voted against Danby but that Danby had not given up hope of securing his support. On 10 May 1679 Berkshire voted in favour of appointing a joint committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached peers and entered his dissent to the resolution not to do so. On 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases.
In August 1680 Berkshire wrote to Danby, referring to his obligations to that peer and assuring him that ‘it was never a principle of mine to run down any man of honour and quality upon a vulgar report without a legal trial to direct my judgment’.8 He was not present at the opening of the 1680-1 session, excusing his absence at a call of the House on 30 Oct. by assuring the House that he was on his way. He arrived on 9 Nov. and attended on 33 days of the remainder of the session, 75 per cent of the total, although he did not sit after the Christmas adjournment on 23 December. On 15 Nov. he voted to reject the exclusion bill and on 23 Nov. he voted against appointing a joint committee with the Commons to consider the state of the kingdom. On 7 Dec. he found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason.
In anticipation of his attendance at the 1681 Oxford Parliament Danby included Berkshire’s name in his pre-sessional forecast of peers who might vote in favour of bailing him, but on 23 Mar. Edward Osborne‡, styled Viscount Latimer, noted that Berkshire was one of Danby’s absent friends and the attendance lists confirm that Berkshire did not attend the House at all during this brief session.9 Berkshire blamed his absence on the gout and assured Danby that, ‘I did intend to have been there if they had sat three days longer’.10
Berkshire was present on the first day of the 1685 session and attended on 17 days until 18 June (being excused at the call of the House on 26 May and missing on 23 May and 4 June), 53 per cent of the total before the adjournment in July, being named to six committees. According to the attendance lists, when the House resumed, he was only present on 12 Nov. 1685, but he was named to a select committee on 18 Nov. as well which suggests that he was in the chamber. He was by now in receipt of a government pension of £300.11 On four lists of the peerage drawn up over the autumn and winter of 1687-8 he was thought likely to oppose the repeal of the Test Acts.
There is no evidence to suggest that Berkshire was involved in the events of the Revolution of 1688. He attended the Convention for the first time on 15 Feb. 1689. He was again present on 18 Feb. and on 6 Mar. when he confirmed his allegiance to the new regime by taking the oaths before being allowed leave of absence on grounds of ill health. He never attended the House again. On 21 Sept. 1689 he replied to the request of George Savile, marquess of Halifax, for an assessment of his personal estate for the 12d. in the pound levy, charging himself on £400.12 On 28 Oct. he was excused attendance, and later he sent a letter to Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington), asking him to acquaint the House that he was suffering from gout.13 From then on it seems that illness prevented his attendance. On 31 Mar. 1690 he was excused as sick; on 2 Nov. 1691 and 21 Nov. 1692 he was merely recorded as absent, and on 14 Nov. 1693 he was noted as sick. In November 1696 he wrote from Charlton to explain to the Lords that ‘besides being near fourscore years of age, he has the gout to that extremity that he has lost the use of his limbs for some years past’ and there seems little reason to doubt that he was genuinely incapacitated.14 He was excused again on 12 Nov. 1705. Berkshire died on 12 Apr. 1706 and was buried at Charlton. He was succeeded by his cousin Henry Bowes Howard, as 4th earl of Berkshire (later 11th earl of Suffolk). Berkshire settled most of his personal estate, including his household goods on his unmarried daughter, Lady Mary Howard. His other daughter, Lady Frances Winchcombe was made executor, with John Hearne, clerk, of St James’s, Westminster, as the overseer.
R.P./S.N.H.- 1 CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 454.
- 2 Ibid. 1641-3, p.27.
- 3 Collins, Peerage (1812), iii. 162.
- 4 TNA, PROB 11/488.
- 5 Pepys Diary, ix. 24; ODNB, Davies, Mary.
- 6 Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. to E. Verney, 17 Apr. 1679.
- 7 Ibid.
- 8 Add. 28053, f. 184.
- 9 HMC 14th Rep. IX, 425.
- 10 Eg. 3332, f. 7.
- 11 Clarendon Corresp. i. 657.
- 12 Chatsworth, Halifax Collection B.58.
- 13 HMC Lords, ii. 279.
- 14 Ibid. n.s. ii. 263.