Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 1.djvu/308

 258 COMPLETE PEERAGE arundel [Sir James Howard, styhd LORD MALTRAVERS, s. and h. ap., bap. 17 July 1607, at the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, the King, James I, being his Godfather. On 4 Nov. 161 6 he was cr. K.B. at the creation of the Prince of Wales. He d. (of the small pox), aged 17, and unm., July 1624, at Ghent in Flanders, and was bur. at Arundel.] XXVII. 1646. 22 or 15. Henry Frederick (Howard), Earl of Arundel, ^'c, 2nd, but ist surv. s. and h., b. 15 Aug. 1608. He, together with his eldest br., was cr. K.B. 4 Nov. 161 6. M.P. for Arundel 1628-29, for Callan [I.] 1634, for Arundel again, 1640. P.C. [I.] 10 Aug. 1634. On 21 Mar. 1639/40 he was sum. to Pari, (in his father's Barony) as LORD MOWBRAY, (") and placed at the upper end of the Barons' Bench on 1 6 Apr. following. He was a zealous Royalist, was present at the battle of Edgehill, and was with the Court at Oxford, by which University, on i Nov. 1642, he was made M.A. In 1648 he was fined by Pari. ;^6,ooo, but allowed to compound for his estates. He appears to have contested his father's will, and to have behaved very undutifuUy to his mother, who had brought an annual revenue of more than ^^30,000 to the family, and to whom he allowed but a paltry sum. She, however, outlived him. He m.^ 7 Mar. 1625/6, (a marriage for which his father suffered fine and imprisonment) Elizabeth, da. of Esme (Stuart), 3rd Duke of Lennox [S.], by Katharine, only da. and h. of Gervase (Clifton), Lord Clifton de Layton Bromswold. He d. 17 Apr. 1652, at Arundel House, Strand, in his 44th year, and was bur. at Arundel. His widow d. 23 Jan. 1673/4. Will (in which she directs to be bur. by her husband) dat. 3 Nov. 1612,, pr. 30 Mar. 1674. XXVin. 1652. 23 or 16. Thomas (Howard), Earl of Arundel, Earl of Surrey, Earl of Norfolk, fife, s. and h., b. 9 Mar. 1627/8, at Arundel House, Strand. Ed. at Utrecht. While with his grandfather in 1645, at Padua, he had a fever, from which his mental faculties never recovered. On 29 Dec. 1660 he was restored (together with the heirs male of the body of the ist Duke of Norfolk) to the Dukedom of Norfolk. He d. unm. 13 Dec. 1677, at Padua, and was bur. at Arundel. See fuller account under " Norfolk," Dukedom of. (') The entirety of the Barony of Mowbray (and not a moiety only, as till recently has been generally supposed) was vested in his father, the abeyance of it (as well as that of the Barony of Segrave) having (doubtless) been terminated by Richard III in favour of the Howard family (who, with the Berkeley family, were coheirs to a moiety of it), inasmuch as it is certain that that King addressed the Duke of Norfolk (John Howard) as " Lord Mowbray and Segrave. " The House of Lords, (when the Barony of Mowbray was assigned, on 27 July 1877, to Lord Stourton (the senior coh. of the Barony thus [by Richard III] terminated), though they did not expressly state that the abeyance had been terminated by Richard III, came to the resolution that at some period subsequent to 1481 but before the time of Elizabeth, it was terminated in favour of the Howard family, a resolution which (coupled with the recognition of the Barony above quoted and the fact that no other such recognition took place in the 1 6th century) amounts (practically) to the same thing.