Open main menu

Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/87

This page has been validated.

[The life of Howard has been carefully told by Ornsby in the Introduction to the Household Books of Lord William Howard (Surtees Society), and the Appendix contains a number of illustrative documents; Howard's Memorials of the Howards; Duke of Norfolk's edition of the Lives of Philip Howard, earl of Arundel, and Anne Dacres, his wife; Hutchinson's History of Cumberland, p.133, &c.; Scott's Lay of the Last Minstrel, notes; Dugdale's Baronage, ii. 281; Lonsdale's Worthies of Cumberland; Lysons's Magna Britannia, 'Cumberland,' pp. 32 and clxxix-xxxi; Gillow's Dictionary of the English Catholics, iii. 455-8.]

M. C.

HOWARD, WILLIAM, Viscount Stafford (1614–1680), was fifth son of Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey [q.v.], by his wife Lady Alathea Talbot, third daughter, and eventually sole heiress, of Gilbert, seventh earl of Shrewsbury. He was born on 30 Nov. 1614, and was brought up as a Roman catholic. He was made a knight of the Bath at the coronation of Charles I in February 1626, and married (mar.lic. Bishop of London, 11 Oct. 1637) Mary, the daughter of the Hon. Edward Stafford, and sister of Henry, fifth and last baron Stafford, who died in 1637. Roger Stafford, the last male heir of the Staffords, having been compelled to surrender to the king the barony of Stafford by an enrolled deed dated 7 Dec. 1639, Howard and his wife were created by letters patent of 12 Sept. 1640 Baron and Baroness Stafford, with remainder, in default of male issue, to their heirs female. A grant was also made to them of the same precedence as had been enjoyed by the fifth Baron Stafford; but as this was subsequently considered illegal, Stafford was further created Viscount Stafford on 11 Nov. 1640, and took his seat for the first time in the House of Lords on the following day {Journals of the House of Lords, iv. 90). Upon the outbreak of the civil war Stafford retired with his wife to Antwerp, but subsequently returned to this country (State Trials, vii. 1359). The statement in Doyle's ‘Official Baronage’ that Stafford served as a volunteer in the royal army (1642-6) is inaccurate, as it is clear that he was beyond the seas in 1643 (Clarendon, Hist. of Rebellion, 1826, iv. 630). In June 1646 a pass was granted him to return to England, and in July 1647 he obtained leave to go to Flanders to fetch his wife and family (Journals of the House of Lords, viii. 384, ix. 327). In a letter to the Protector, dated Amsterdam, 1 Jan. 1656, Stafford, after mentioning his former petition on behalf of his nephew Thomas, earl of Arundel, ‘kept in cruell slavery in Padua,’ asks for permission to repair to England to communicate personally to Cromwell ‘a business of far greater importance wholy concerning your owne person and affayres … not fitt to communicate to paper’ (Thurloe State Papers, 1742, iv. 335). Though Stafford was allowed to return, no interview between him and Cromwell appears to have taken place (ib. vi. 436). On 30 June 1660 an order was made by the House of Lords for the restitution of Stafford's goods (Journals of the House of Lords, xi. 79). According to Burnet, Stafford considered that he had not been rewarded by Charles II as he deserved, and so ‘often voted against the court and made great applications always to the Earl of Shaftsbury’ (Hist, of his own Time, ii. 262). In 1664 Stafford petitioned the king, without success, to restore his wife to the earldom of Stafford and barony of Newnham and Tunbridge as fully as though her ancestor, Edward, duke of Buckingham, had never been attainted (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1663-4, p. 446). On 18 Jan. 1665 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1672 served as member of the council of that society. On 3 July 1678 he had an altercation with the Earl of Peterborough in the House of Lords, and was enjoined by the lord chancellor ‘not to resent anything as passed between them this day’ (Journals of the House of Lords, xiii. 270).

In consequence of the false information of Titus Oates a warrant was issued by the lord chief justice, at the instance of the speaker, for the apprehension of Stafford and four other catholic lords, namely, the Earl of Powis and Lords Arundell of Wardour, Belasyse, and Petre. On the following day Stafford, having first informed the House of Lords of the issue of the warrant, surrendered himself, and was committed to the King's Bench prison, whence he was subsequently removed to the Tower. [For the preliminary proceedings against ‘the five popish lords’ see art. Arundell, Henry.] On 21 May 1680 Stafford, who was still confined to the Tower, was refused bail by the court of king's bench (Luttrell, i. 45), and on 10 Nov. following the House of Commons resolved unanimously to proceed with the prosecution and to place Stafford on his trial first (Journals of the House of Commons, ix. 650). According to Reresby, the reason of the selection was that Stafford was ‘deemed weaker than the other lords in the Tower for the same crime, and less able to labour his defence’ (p. 236). On 30 Nov. 1680 the trial of Stafford for high treason was commenced in Westminster Hall. It lasted seven days (see Evelyn, Diary, ii. 150-4). Heneage, lord Finch, the lord chancellor, presided as lord high steward. The managers for the commons included Sergeant