Chapter 15

(A. Sl.)

HOUSMAN, LAURENCE(1867- ), English writer and artist, was born on the 18th of June 1867. Having studied at South Kensington, he first made a reputation as a book-illustrator. Some of his best pictorial work may be seen in the editions of Meredith’sJump to Glory Jane(1892), theWeird Tales of Jonas Lie(1892), Jane Barlow’sLand of Elfintoun(1894), Christina Rossetti’sGoblin Market(1893),Werewolf(1896), by his sister, Miss Clemence Housman, Shelley’sSensitive Plant(1898), and his ownFarm in Fairyland(1894). His designs were engraved on wood by Miss Housman. His volumes of verse includeGreen Arras(1896),Rue(1899),Spikenard(1898) andMendicant Rhymes(1906); and the mysticism which characterizes the devotional poems inSpikenardrecurs in his half-allegorical tales,All Fellows(1896),The Blue Moon(1904) andThe Cloak of Friendship(1906). His nativity play,Bethlehem, was presented in the Great Hall of London University at South Kensington for a week in December 1902. In 1900 he published anonymouslyAn Englishwoman’s Love Letters, which created a temporary sensation; and he followed this essay in popular fiction by the novelsA Modem Antaeus(1901) andSabrina Warham(1904). On the 23rd of December 1904 his fantastic playPrunella, written in collaboration with Mr Granville Barker, was produced at the Court Theatre.

His brother, Alfred Edward Housman (b. 1859), an accomplished scholar, professor of Latin at University College, London, is known as a poet by his striking lyrical series,A Shropshire Lad(1896).

HOUSSAYE, ARSÈNE(1815-1896), French novelist, poet and man of letters, was born at Bruyères (Aisne), near Laon, on the 28th of March 1815. His real surname was Housset. In 1832 he found his way to Paris, and in 1836 he published two novels,La Couronne de bluetsandLa Pécheresse. He had many friends in Paris, among them Jules Janin and Théophile Gautier, and he wrote in collaboration with Jules Sandeau. He produced art criticism inL’Histoire de la peinture flamande et hollandaise(1846); semi-historical sketches InMlle de la Vallière et Mme de Montespan(1860) andGalerie de portraits du XVIIesiècle(1844); literary criticism inLe Roi Voltaire(1858) and his famous satiricalHistoire du quarante et unième fauteuil de l’académie française(1855); drama in hisComédiennes(1857); poetry in hisSymphonie des vingt ans(1867),Cent et un sonnets(1873), &c.; and novels,Les Filles d’Ève(1852) and many others. In 1849, through the influence of Rachel, he was entrusted with the administration of the Théâtre Français, a position he filled with unfailing tact and success until 1859, when he was made inspector-general of works of art. He died on the 26th of February 1896.

HisConfessions, souvenir; d’un démi-siècleappeared in 1885-1891. See also J. Lemaître,Arsène Houssaye(1897), with a bibliography.

His son,Henry Houssaye(1848- ), the historian, was born in Paris. His early writings were devoted to classical antiquity, studied not only in books but on the actual Greek sites which he visited in 1868. He published successivelyHistoire d’Apelles(1867), a study on Greek art;L’Armée dans la Grèce antique(1867);Histoire d’Alcibiade et de la république athénienne depuis la mort de Périclès jusqu’à l’avènement des trente tyrans(1873); Papers onLe Nombre des citoyens d’Athènes au Vèmesiècle avant l’ère chrétienne(1882);La Loi agraire à Sparte(1884);Le Premier Siège de Paris en 52 av. J.-C.(1876); and two volumes of miscellanies,Athènes, Rome, Paris, l’histoire et les mœurs(1879), andAspasie, Cléopatre, Théodora(6th ed. 1889). The military history of Napoleon I. then attracted him. His first volume on this subject, called1814(1888), went through no fewer than forty-six editions. It was followed by1815, the first part of which comprises the first Restoration, the return from Elba and the Hundred Days (1893); the second part, Waterloo (1899); and the third part, the second abdication and the White Terror (1905). He was elected a member of the French Academy in 1895.

HOUSTON, SAM,orSamuel(1793-1863), American general and statesman, of Scotch-Irish descent, was born near Lexington, Virginia, on the 2nd of March 1793. His father, who had fought in the War of Independence, died in 1806, and soon afterward Samuel removed with his mother to the frontier in Blount county, Tennessee. When he was about fifteen his elder brothers obtained for him a place as clerk in a trader’s store, but he ran away and lived with the Cherokee Indians of East Tennessee for nearly three years. On his return he opened a country school, and later attended a session or two of the Academy at Maryville. During the War of 1812 he served under Andrew Jackson against the Creek Indians, and his bravery at the battle of Tohopeka, in which he was disabled by several wounds, won promotion to a lieutenancy. In 1817 he was appointed sub-agent in managing the business relating to the removal of the Cherokees from East Tennessee to a reservation in what is now Arkansas, but he was offended at a rebuke from John C. Calhoun, then secretary of war, for appearing before him in Indian garments, as well as at an inquiry into charges affecting his official integrity, and he resigned in 1818. He entered a law office in Nashville, and was admitted to the bar, and was soon elected a district attorney. From 1823 to 1827 Houston represented the ninth district of Tennessee in Congress, and in 1827 was elected governor of the state by the Jackson Democrats. He married Eliza Allen in January 1829; his wife left him three months later, and he resigned his office of governor, again took up his residence among the Cherokees, who were at this time about to remove to Indian Territory, and was formally adopted a member of their nation.

In 1830 and again in 1832 he visited Washington to expose the frauds practised upon the Cherokees by government agents, and attracted national attention by an encounter on the 13th of April 1832 with William Stanberry, a Congressman from Ohio, who intimated that Houston himself was seeking to defraud them. Commissioned by President Jackson, Houston went to Texas in December 1832 to negotiate treaties with the Indian tribes there for the protection of American traders on the border. He decided to remain in Texas, and was elected a delegate to the constitutional convention which met at San Felipe on the 1st of April 1833 to draw up a memorial to the Mexican Congress asking for the separation of Texas from Coahuila, in which the anti-American party was in control, as well as to frame a constitution for the commonwealth as a new member of the Mexican Republic, and he served as chairman of the drafting committee, and took a prominent part in the preparations for war when next year the petition was refused. In October 1835, soon after the outbreak of the War for Texan Independence, the committees of the township of Nacogdoches chose Houston as commander-in-chief of the forces in eastern Texas, and after the San Felipe convention in November he was chosen commander-in-chief of the Texan army. On the 21st of April 1836, while in command of 743 raw troops, he met on the bank of the San Jacinto about 1600 Mexican veterans led by Santa Anna and completely routed them; on the next day Santa Anna was taken prisoner.

Texan independence was won by this victory (although the Mexican government repudiated the treaty negotiated by Santa Anna), and Houston was elected president of Texas (1st of September) and was inaugurated on the 22nd of October. His term expired in December 1838; he was elected again in 1841 and served until 1844. During his first term a newly founded city was named in his honour and this was the seat of government in 1837-39 and in 1842-45. Texas having been admitted as a state of the American Union in 1845, Houston was elected one of its first two United States senators. He served as a stalwart Union Democrat from March 1846 until 1859; he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska bill in an able speech (3rd March 1854), and spoke frequently in defence of the rights of the Indians. In 1859 he was elected governor of Texas and tried to prevent the secession of his state; upon his refusal, in March 1861, to swear allegiance to the Confederacy he was declared deposed. He died at Huntsville, Texas, on the 26th of July 1863. Houston was an able soldier, wary, intrepid and resolute; and was a legislator of rare foresight, cool discrimination and fearless candour.

See A. M. Williams,Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas(Boston, 1893); Henry Bruce,Life of General Houston(New York, 1891); and W. C. Crane,Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston(Philadelphia, 1884).

HOUSTON,a city and the county-seat of Harris county, Texas, U.S.A., at the head of deep-sea navigation on Buffalo Bayou, a tributary of Galveston Bay, 50 m. N.W. of Galveston, and about 325 m. W. of New Orleans. Pop. (1880) 16,513; (1890) 27,557; (1900) 44,633, of whom 4415 were foreign-born and 14,608 were negroes; (1910 census) 78,800. The land area in 1906 was 16.02 sq. m.; in 1908, about 20 sq. m. It is served by the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio (Southern Pacific), the Galveston, Houston & Henderson, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe, the Houston & Texas Central (Southern Pacific), the Houston, East & West Texas, the International & Great Northern, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, the San Antonio & Aransas Pass, the Trinity & Brazos Valley, the St Louis, Brownsville & Mexico, the Texas & New Orleans, and the Houston Belt & Terminal railways, several of which have their headquarters at Houston. The Federal government has greatly improved the natural channel from the city to the Gulf of Mexico, straightening, widening and deepening it to a depth of 25 ft. for the entire distance from the Galveston jetties to the Houston turning basin—where the municipality has constructed free municipal wharves. The city occupies an unusually fine site on both sides of the Buffalo Bayou. Among the principal buildings are a Carnegie library, the Houston Lyceum, the Federal building, the Masonic temple, the city high school, the city hall and market house, the Harris County Court House, the Cotton Exchange, and the First and Commercial National banks. Houston is the seat of the Texas Dental College, of St Thomas College (1903), and of the Houston, Annunciation and St Agnes academies; and the will (1901) of William Marsh Rice provided an endowment (valued in 1908 at about $7,000,000) for the William M. Rice Institute for the Advancement of Literature, Science and Art, of which Dr Edgar Odell Lovett, formerly professor of mathematics (1900-1905) and of astronomy (1905-1908) in Princeton University, was made president in 1908. The city is the most important railway and shipping centre of South Texas, and has a large trade in cotton (the receipts for the year ending Aug. 31, 1907 being 2,967,535 bales), cotton-seedoil, sugar, rice,1lumber and citrus fruits. Houston is important also as a manufacturing centre, its factory product being valued at $13,564,019 in 1905, an increase of 81% over the factory product in 1900. There are extensive railway car-shops, cotton-seed oil, petroleum and sugar refineries, cotton gins and compresses, steel rolling mills, car-wheel factories, boiler, pump and engine works, flour mills, rice mills and a rice elevator, breweries, planing and saw-mills, pencil factories, and brick and tile factories. Its proximity to the Texas oil fields gives the city a cheap factory fuel. The assessed valuation of taxable property in the city increased from $27,480,898 in 1900 to $51,513,615 in 1908. The No-Tsu Oh Carnival week each November is a distinctive feature of the city. Houston, like Galveston, adopted in 1905 a very successful system of municipal government by commission, a commission of five (one of whom acts as mayor) being elected biennially and having both executive and legislative powers. The waterworks are owned and operated by the municipality, which greatly improved them from the city’s surplus under the first two years of government by commission. In 1908 extensive improvements in paving, drainage and sewerage were undertaken by the city. The payment of an annual poll-tax of $2.50 is a prerequisite to voting. Houston was settled and laid out in 1836, and was named in honour of General Sam Houston, whose home in Caroline Street was standing in 1908. In 1837-1839 and in 1842-1845 Houston was the capital of the Republic of Texas. About 15 m. E.S.E. of the city is the battleground of San Jacinto, which was bought by the state in 1906 for a public memorial park.

1Much rice is cultivated in the vicinity of Houston by Japanese farmers.

HOUWALD, CHRISTOPH ERNST,Freiherr von(1778-1845), German dramatist and author, was born at Straupitz in Lower Lusatia, a son of the president of the district court of justice, on the 28th of November 1778. He studied law at the university of Halle, and on completion of his academic studies returned home, married, and managed the family estates. In 1816 he afforded a home to his friend K. W. S. Contessa (1777-1825), himself a poet, who had met with serious reverses of fortune; Contessa lived with Houwald, assisting and stimulating him in his literary work, for eight years. In 1821 Houwald was unanimously elected syndic for Lower Lusatia, an office which placed him at the head of the administration of the province. He died at Neuhaus, near Lübben, on the 28th of January 1845.

Houwald is remembered as the author of several so-called “Fate tragedies” (seeGerman Literature), of which the best known areDas Bild,Der Leuchtturm,Die Heimkehr,Fluch und Segen(all published in 1821). They have, however, small literary value, and Houwald is seen to better advantage in his narratives and books for juvenile readers, such asRomantische Akkorde(publ. by W. Contessa, Berlin, 1817);Buch für Kinder gebildeter Stände(1819-1824); andJakob Thau, der Hofnarr(1821). Houwald’s collected works,Sämtliche Werke, were published in five volumes (Leipzig, 1851; 2nd ed., 1858-1859). See J. Minor,Die Schicksalstragödie in ihren Hauptvertretern(Frankfurt, 1883), andDas Schicksalsdramain Kürschner’sDeutsche Nationalliteratur; vol. cli. (Stuttgart, 1884); O. Schmidtborn,C. E. von Houwald als Dramatiker(1909).

HÒVA,the name originally applied to the middle-class Malayo-Indonesian natives of Madagascar (q.v.), as distinct from the noble classAndrìanaand the slave classAndèvo. Hòva has now come to mean the most numerous and powerful of the tribes which form the native population of Madagascar. The Hòva, who occupy the province of Imérina, the central plateau of the island, are of Malayo-Indonesian origin. The period at which the Hòva arrived in Madagascar is still a subject of dispute. Some think that the immigration took place in very early times, before Hinduism reached the Malay Archipelago, since no trace of Sanskrit is found in Malagasy. Others believe that the Hòva did not reach the island until the 12th or 13th century. At the French conquest of Madagascar (1895), the Hòva were the most powerful and, politically, the dominant people; but were far from having subjected the whole of the island to their rule. The Hòva are short and slim, with a complexion of a yellowish olive, many being fairer than the average of southern Europeans. Their hair is long, black and smooth but coarse. Their heads are round, with flat straight foreheads, flat faces, prominent cheekbones, small straight noses, fairly wide nostrils, and small black and slightly oblique eyes. The physical contrast to the negro is usually very obvious, but, especially among the lower classes, there is a tendency to thick lips, kinky hair and dark skin. In many of their customs, such as taboo, infanticide, marriage and funeral rites, they show their Indonesian origin. Most of them now profess Christianity.

HOVE,a municipal borough of Sussex, England, adjoining the watering-place of Brighton on the west, on the London, Brighton, & South Coast railway. Pop. (1901) 36,535. The great seawall of Brighton continues along the front at Hove, forming a pleasant promenade. Here is the Sussex county cricket ground. The municipal borough, incorporated in 1898, includes the parishes of Hove and Aldrington, of which the first is within the parliamentary borough of Brighton, but the second is in the Lewes division of the county. The corporation consists of a mayor, 10 aldermen and 30 councillors. Area, 1521 acres.

HOVENDEN, THOMAS(1840-1895), American artist, was born in Dunmanway, Co. Cork, Ireland, on the 28th of December 1840. He was a pupil of the South Kensington Art Schools and those of the National Academy of Design, New York, whither he had removed in 1863. Subsequently he went to Paris and studied in the École des Beaux Arts under Cabanel, but passed most of his time with the American colony in Brittany, at Pont-Aven, where he painted many pictures of the peasantry. Returning to America in 1880, he became an academician in 1882, and attracted attention by an important canvas of “The Last Moments of John Brown” (now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art). His “Breaking Home Ties,” a picture of American farm life, was engraved with considerable popular success. Hovenden was mortally injured in a heroic effort to save a child from a railroad train in the station at Germantown, near Philadelphia, and died at Norristown, Pennsylvania, on the 14th of August 1895. Among his principal works are:—“News from the Conscript” (1877), “Loyalist Peasant Soldier of La Vendée” (1879). “A Breton Interior,” “Image Seller” and “Jerusalem the Golden” (in the Metropolitan Museum of Art).

HOW, WILLIAM WALSHAM(1823-1897), English divine, son of a Shrewsbury solicitor, was born on the 13th of December 1823, and was educated at Shrewsbury school and Wadham College, Oxford. He was ordained in 1846, and for upwards of thirty years was actively engaged in parish work at Whittington in Shropshire and Oswestry (rural dean, 1860). He refused preferment on several occasions, but his energy and success made him well known, and in 1879 he became a suffragan bishop in London, under the title of bishop of Bedford, his province being the East End. There he became the inspiring influence of a revival of church work. He founded the East London Church Fund, and enlisted a large band of enthusiastic helpers, his popularity among all classes being immense. He was particularly fond of children, and was commonly called “the children’s bishop.” In 1888 he was made bishop of Wakefield, and in the north of England he continued to do valuable work. His sermons were straightforward, earnest and attractive; and besides publishing several volumes of these, he wrote a good deal of verse, including such well-known hymns as “Who is this so weak and helpless,” “Lord, Thy children guide and keep.” In 1863-1868 he brought out aCommentary on the Four Gospels; and he also wrote aManual for the Holy Communion. In the movement for infusing new spiritual life into the church services, especially among the poor, How was a great force. He died on the 10th of August 1897. He was much helped in his earlier work by his wife. Frances A. Douglas (d. 1887).

See hisLifeby his son, F. D. How (1898).

HOWARD(Family). Among English families, the house of Howard has long held the first place. Its head, the duke of Norfolk, is the first of the dukes and the hereditary earl marshal of England, while the earls of Suffolk, Carlisle and Effingham and the Lord Howard of Glossop represent in the peerage its younger lines.

Its founder was a Norfolk lawyer, William Howard or Haward,who was summoned to parliament as a justice in 1295, being appointed a justice of the common pleas in 1297. Over the parentage of this man genealogists have disputed for centuries. The pedigree-makers have hailed him in turn as the descendant of a Norman “Auber, earl of Passy” and as the heir of Hereward, “the last of the English.” But out of the copies of Norfolk deeds and records collected for Thomas, earl of Arundel, in the early part of the 17th century, it seems clear enough that he sprang from a Norfolk family, several of whose members held lands at Wiggenhall near Lynn. These notes from deeds, evidently collected by an honest inquirer, make no extravagant claims of ancient ancestry or illustrious origin for the Howards, although the facts contained in them were recklessly manipulated by subservient genealogists. Doubtless the judge was the son of John Howard of Wiggenhall, living about 1260, whose widow Lucy, called by the genealogists the daughter of John Germund, was probably the wife of John Germund by her second marriage. William Howard was employed as counsel by the corporation of Lynn, and it is worthy of note that the “crosslets fitchy” in his shield of arms suggest the cross with which the dragon was discomfited by St Margaret, the patroness of Lynn. Prospering by the law, William Howard of Wiggenhall rose to knight’s rank and acquired by purchase Grancourt’s manor in East Winch, near Lynn, where he had his seat in a moated house whose ruins remain. He was probably dead and buried in his chapel at East Winch before November 27, 1308, the date of the patent by which Henry Scrope succeeded him as a commissioner of trailbaston. His two wives, Alice Ufford and Alice Fitton—heir of Fitton’s manor in Wiggenhall—were both daughters of knightly houses. Before his death his eldest son, John Howard, was a knight and already advanced by his marriage with Joan of Cornwall, one of the bastard line founded by Richard of Cornwall, king of the Romans.

Sir John Howard served in Edward II.’s wars in Scotland and Gascony, was sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk and governor of Norwich Castle. When he died in 1331 he was seised of many Norfolk manors. His son and heir, another Sir John, admiral of the king’s navy in the north, was a banneret who displayed his banner in the army that laid siege to Calais. By the admiral’s wife Alice, sister and heir of Sir Robert de Boys, the Howards had the Boys manor of Fersfield, near Diss, which is still among the possessions of the dukes of Norfolk. His son Sir Robert Howard, who had married a daughter of Sir Robert Scales (Lord Scales), died in 1388. From Sir John Howard, the only son of Sir Robert, two branches of the house of Howard spring. The elder line was soon extinct. By his first wife, Margaret, daughter and heir of Sir John Plays, Sir John Howard had a son who died before him, leaving a daughter through whom descended to her issue, the Veres, earls of Oxford, the ancient Norfolk estates of the Howards at East Winch and elsewhere, with the lands of the houses of Scales, Plays and Walton, brought in by the brides of her forefathers. After the death of Margaret Plays, her widower found, with the peculiar instinct of his race, a second well-endowed wife. By her, the heir of the Tendrings of Tendring, he had a second son, Sir Robert Howard, a knight who fought under Henry V. in France, and died, like his half-brother, before the old knight’s career ended in 1436.

It is to the marriage of this young knight that the house of Howard owes the tragedy of its greatness. He was a younger son, although he had some of his mother’s inheritance. Had he married the landless daughter of a neighbour he might have been the ancestor of a line of Essex squires, whose careers would have had the parish topographer for chronicler. But his bride was Margaret Mowbray, daughter of the banished duke of Norfolk. Although this was a noble alliance, it is probable that the lady had no great portion. The head of her elder brother, the boy earl marshal, had been stricken off in the cornfield under the walls of York, but her younger brother’s right to his father’s dukedom was allowed by parliament in 1425.

Sir John Howard, only son of the match between Howard and Mowbray, took service with his cousin the third duke of Norfolk, who had him returned as knight of the shire for Norfolk, where, according to thePaston Letters, this Howard of the Essex branch was regarded by the gentry as a strange man. He followed the White Rose and was knighted at the crowning of King Edward IV., who pricked him for sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. In the duke’s quarrel he brawled with the Pastons, his wife boasting that, should her husband’s men meet with John Paston “there should go no penny for his life.” “And Howard,” writes Clement Paston, “hath with the king a great fellowship.” Offices and lands came to John Howard by reason of that fellowship. Henry VI., when restored, summoned him to parliament in 1470 as Lord Howard, a summons which may have been meant to lure him to London into Warwick’s power, but he proclaimed the Yorkist sovereign on his return and fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury. When peace was made, Edward summoned him again as a baron and gave him the Garter and the treasurership of his household. After Edward’s burial, at which he bore the king’s banner, Howard, an enemy of the Wydviles, linked his fortunes with those of the duke of Gloucester. At this time came his sudden lifting to the highest rank in the peerage. The last of the dukes of Norfolk had left a child heir, Anne Mowbray, married to the infant duke of York, the younger of the princes doomed by Richard in the Tower. By the death of this little girl, John Howard became one of the coheirs of her illustrious house, which was now represented by the issue of Margaret Mowbray, his mother, and of her sister Isabel, who had married James, Lord Berkeley. A lion’s share of the Mowbray estates, swollen by the great alliances of the house, heir of Breouse and Segrave, and, through Segrave, of Thomas of Brotherton, son of Edward I., fell to Howard, who, by a patent of June 28, 1483, was created duke of Norfolk and earl marshal of England with a remainder to the heirs male of his body. On the same day the lord Berkeley, the other coheir, was made earl of Nottingham. High steward at Richard’s crowning, the duke bore the crown and rode as marshal into Westminster Hall. For the rest of his life he was Richard’s man, and though warned by the famous couplet that “Dykon his master” was bought and sold, “Jack of Norfolk” led the archer vanguard at Bosworth and died in the fight, from which his son the earl of Surrey was carried away a wounded prisoner. An attainder by the first parliament of Henry VII. extinguished the honours of the father with those of the son, who had been created an earl when the lord Howard was raised to the dukedom. Their estates were forfeit.

Thomas Howard, a politic mind, loyal to the powers that be, was released from the Tower of London in 1489, his earldom of Surrey and his Garter restored. Accepting the position in which the Tudor king would have his great nobles, he became the faithful soldier, diplomatist and official of the new power. In his seventieth year, as lieutenant-general of the North, he led the English host on the great day of Flodden, earning a patent of the dukedom of Norfolk, dated 1 February 1513/4, and that strange patent which granted to him and his heirs that they should bear in the midst of the silver bend of their Howard shield a demi-lion stricken in the mouth with an arrow, in the right colours of the arms of the king of Scotland. This augmentation has been interpreted as a golden scocheon with the demi-lion within the Scottish tressure. Thus charged on the silver bend, it makes bad armory and it is worthy of note that, although the grant of it is clearly to the duke and his heirs in fee simple, Howards of all branches descending from the duke bear it in their shields, even though all right to it has long passed from the house to the duke’s heirs general, the Stourtons and Petres.

The victor of Flodden is the common ancestor of all living Howards that can show a descent from the main stock. The second duke, twice married, was father of at least eleven sons and six daughters, the sons including Edward the lord high admiral, killed in boarding Prégent’s galleys at Brest, Edmund the knight marshal of the army at Flodden, and William the first Lord Howard of Effingham. The eldest son, Thomas, succeeded as the third duke of his name, although the second under the patent of 1514. He had fought as captain of thevanguard at Flodden and after the victory was created earl of Surrey. When Richard III. was allying himself with the Howards, Thomas Howard, a boy of eleven, had been betrothed to Anne, daughter of the late King Edward IV., and Henry VII. allowed the marriage with his queen’s sister to take place in 1495. This royal bride died of consumption, leaving no living child, and her husband took in 1513, as his second wife, Elizabeth Stafford, daughter of that duke of Buckingham upon whom the old duke of Norfolk, the tears upon his cheeks, was forced to pass sentence of death. Succeeding his father in 1524, Norfolk was created earl marshal in 1533. An unsuccessful diplomatist, his chief services in arms were the butchery in the north after the Pilgrimage of Grace and the raid into Scotland which ended with the rout of Solway Moss. He left his wife for a mistress, Elizabeth Holland, was in discord with his family, and lived to see his two nieces, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, and his son Surrey, the fiery-tempered poet, go in turn to the block. He himself was attainted and was lying a prisoner in the Tower, doomed to die in the morning, on the night of the death of Henry VIII. He was not released until the accession of Mary, parliament restoring his dukedom on his petition for reversal of the attainder. His grandson Thomas succeeded him in 1554, and in 1556 made the second of thosemarriageswhich have given the Howards their high place among the English nobility. The bride was Mary, sole heir in her issue of her father Henry, the last of the Fitzalan earls of Arundel. Her father’s line and the royal Stewards of Scotland sprang from one forefather, Alan, son of Flaald the Breton. The Mowbray match had already brought to the Howards the representation of an elder line of the Fitzalan earls, who sat in the seats of their ancestors, the Aubignys and Warennes, great earls near akin to their sovereigns. And now the younger line, earls of Arundel and Lords Mautravers, were also to have a Howard to represent them. From this time the spreading genealogy of the Howards drew its origins from most of the illustrious names of the houses founded after the Norman Conquest.

The young duchess died in her seventeenth year after giving birth to a son, and the duke took a second wife from a humble stock, newly enriched and honoured, the daughter of Henry VIII.’s subservient chancellor, the Lord Audley of Walden. Within ten years he married a third time, the lady being Elizabeth Leybourne, the widow of Lord Dacre of Gilsland. She survived her marriage but a few months and her husband then obtained the wardship of her Dacre offspring, a son who died young, and three daughters whom the duke, with the true Howard eye for a rich inheritance, gave as brides to three of his sons. After three such good fortunes by marriage Norfolk in his folly looked for a crown with a fourth match, listening to the laird of Lethington when he set forth the scheme by which the duke was to marry a restored queen of Scots and rule Scotland with her who should be recognized as Elizabeth’s successor. Ten months in the Tower under strong suspicion would have warned another man, but Norfolk was unstable and false. After promising fidelity and the abandonment of the Scots marriage scheme, Cecil took him corresponding with Mary and tampering with the Ridolfi plot. He died on Tower Hill in 1572 for an example to the disloyal counties, protesting innocence and repentance, warning his children in a last letter to discredit all “false bruits” that he was a papist.

By his attainder the Norfolk titles were once more forfeited. But Philip Howard, the son and heir, succeeded to the ancient earldom of Arundel in 1580, on the death of his maternal grandfather, while the Lord Lumley, his uncle by marriage, surrendered to him his life interest in the castle and honour of Arundel. The next year an act of parliament restored the earl in blood. After a profligate youth at court, he followed his wife in professing the Roman faith, and in 1585 made an attempt to leave England to seek safety from the penal laws. But his ship was boarded in the Channel and the earl, condemned by the Star-Chamber to a heavy fine and to imprisonment during the queen’s pleasure, suffered a harsh captivity in the Tower. After the defeat of the Armada he had been condemned to death on a charge of high treason, founded on the tale drawn by torture from a priest, that Arundel had urged him to say a mass for the success of the Spaniards. But he was allowed to linger in his prison until 1595 when he died, the sight of his wife and children being cruelly refused to the dying man. Thus it befell that, of the chiefs of the Howards born since the great Mowbray alliance, two had died by the axe and one in the prison from which a fourth had hardly escaped. A fifth had fallen in a lost battle, and only one had died in peace in his own house.

The ill fate of the Howards seemed to be appeased by the death of Philip, earl of Arundel. Tudor policy did its work well, and noblemen, however illustrious their pedigrees, could no longer be counted as menaces by the Crown, which was, indeed, finding another rival to its power. In the first year of James I., Thomas, the young son of Earl Philip, was restored in blood and given the titles of Arundel and Surrey. But the lands belonging to these titles remained with the Crown and he had to repair his fortunes by one of those marriages which never failed his house, his wife being Alathea Talbot, who was at last the heir of Gilbert, earl of Shrewsbury. To the grief of his mother he left the Roman church. A knight of the Garter, he was in 1621 created earl marshal for life, and revived the jurisdiction belonging to the office. An act of 1627, one of several such aimed at aggrandizing families by diverting the descent of dignities in fee from heirs general, entailed the earldom and castle of Arundel upon Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey and the heirs male of his body “and for default of such issue, to the heirs of his body.” His pride and austerity made him unpopular at court and he left the country in 1642, settling at last in Padua, where he died in 1646, impoverished by the sequestrations of the parliament, whose forces had taken and retaken his castle of Arundel. In answer to his petition for the dukedom, the king had, on the 6th of June 1644, given him a patent of the earldom of Norfolk, in order, as it would seem, to flatter him by suggesting that the title of Norfolk would at least be refused to any other family. He is celebrated as a collector of paintings, books, gems and sculptures, his “Arundel marbles” being given by his grandson in 1667 to the University of Oxford. The dukedom for which Arundel had petitioned Charles I. in vain was restored by act of the first parliament of Charles II. to his grandson Thomas, a lunatic living at Padua, on whose death in 1677 it passed to this Thomas’s brother, Henry Frederick, who had been created earl of Norwich and hereditary earl marshal of England in 1672. In 1777 Edward, the ninth of the Howard dukes, died childless in his ninety-second year. With him ended the earldom of Norwich, while the representation of the Mowbrays and Segraves passed to his nieces, the Ladies Stourton and Petre, the abeyance of the two baronies being determined in 1878 in favour of Lord Stourton. Under the act of 1627 the earldom of Arundel and the castle passed with the dukedom to a second cousin, Charles Howard of Greystock (d. 1786), an eccentric recluse. At his death in 1786 he was succeeded by his son Charles, the notorious “Jockey of Norfolk,” the big, coarse, generous, slovenly, hard-drinking Whig of whom all the memoir-writers of his age have their anecdotes. He conformed to the Church of England and spent a vast sum in restoring Arundel Castle. A third cousin succeeded him in 1815, Bernard Edward Howard, who, although a Roman Catholic, was enabled, by the act of 1824, to act as earl marshal. This was the grandfather of the fifteenth duke, earl of Arundel, Surrey and Norfolk, and hereditary earl marshal of England.

The eldest of the cadet branches of the ducal house has its origin in William (c.1510-1573), eldest son of the victor of Flodden by his second marriage. He survived the reign of Henry VIII., that perilous age for the Howards, with no worse misadventure than the conviction of himself and his wife of misprision of treason in concealing the offences of his niece, Queen Catherine. But both were pardoned. In 1553 he had the office of lord admiral of England, and in the next year the Garter. For his services against Sir Thomas Wyat he was created (March 11, 1553/4) Lord Howard of Effingham, the title being taken from a Surrey manor granted him by Edward VI. Queen Elizabeth continued his employment in diplomacy, and had he been richer he might have had an earldom. His eldest son Charles (1536-1624), lord admiral of England in 1585, sailed ascommander in chief against the Spanish Armada, and, although giving due weight to the counsel of Drake and his other officers, showed himself a leader as prudent as courageous. He was created earl of Nottingham in 1596 and died in 1624. The legend that the admiral was a Roman Catholic has no authority. Two of his sons succeeded in turn to the earldom of Nottingham, extinct on the death of Charles, the third earl in 1681. Sir William Howard of Lingfield, younger brother of the great admiral, carried on the Effingham line, his great-grandson succeeding to the barony on the extinction of the earldom. Francis, seventh Lord Howard of Effingham, was created earl of Effingham in 1731, a title extinct in 1816 with the fourth earl, but revived again in 1837 for the eleventh baron, who had served as a general officer in the Peninsular campaign, the great-grandfather of the present peer.A patent of 1604 created Henry Howard (1540-1614), younger son of Surrey the poet, earl of Northampton, a peerage which ended with the death of this, the most unprincipled of his house.Thomas, son of the fourth duke of Norfolk’s marriage with the daughter and heir of Thomas, Lord Audley of Walden, founded the line of the present earls of Suffolk and Berkshire and of the extinct Lords Howard of Escrick. His barony of Howard of Walden has descended to his heirs general. Lord William Howard (1563-1640), the “belted Will” of Scott’s Lay and the “bauld Willie” of more authentic legend, was another of the sons of the fourth duke and Margaret Audley. Married in 1577 to one of the three co-heirs of the Lord Dacre of Gilsland he suffered under Elizabeth more than one imprisonment with his brother the unfortunate earl of Arundel. But in 1603 he was able, on the partition of the Dacre lands, to make his home at Naworth Castle, where he lived, a border patriarch, cultivating his estates and serving as a commissioner of the borders. His great-grandson Charles Howard, although fledged in a nest of cavaliers, changed sides and fought at Worcester for the parliament. The Protector summoned him in 1657 to his House of Lords, but he was imprisoned in 1659 on suspicion of a share in Booth’s insurrection and, after the Restoration, was created, in 1661, earl of Carlisle, Viscount Morpeth and Lord Dacre of Gilsland, titles which are still held by his descendants. From Sir Francis Howard, a cavalier colonel and a younger son of “bauld Willie,” come the Howards of Corby Castle in Cumberland, a branch without a hereditary title.William Howard, Viscount Stafford, was the fifth son of Thomas, earl of Arundel, and grandson of Philip the prisoner. Marrying the sister and heir of the fifth Lord Stafford, who died in 1637, he and his wife were created Baron and Baroness Stafford by a patent of 1640, with remainder, in default of heirs male, to heirs female. A grant of the precedence enjoyed by the bride’s father being held illegal, her husband was in the same year created Viscount Stafford. Roger Stafford, the impoverished heir male of the ancient Staffords, had been forced to surrender his barony to the king by a deed dated in the preceding year, a piece of injustice which is in the teeth of all modern conceptions of peerage law. The Viscount Stafford was one of the “five Popish lords” committed to the Tower in 1678 as a result of the slanders of Titus Oates and he died by the axe in 1680 upon testimony which, as the diarist Evelyn protested, “should not be taken against the life of a dog.” But three earls of his own house—Carlisle, Suffolk and Berkshire—and the Lord Howard of Escrick, an ex-trooper of Cromwell’s guard and an anabaptist sectary, gave their votes against him, his nephew Mowbray being the only peer of his name in the minority for acquittal. In 1688 his widow was created countess of Stafford for life, and his eldest son, Henry, had the earldom of Stafford, with special remainder to his brothers. This earldom ended in 1762, but the attainder was reversed by an act of 1824 and in the following year Sir George Jerningham, the heir general, established his claim to the Stafford barony of 1640.Authorities.—State papers; patent, close and plea rolls. Tierney,History of Arundel; G. E. C.,Complete Peerage; J. H. Round,Peerage Studies; Howard of Corby,Memorials of the Family of Howard; Brenan and Statham,House of Howard; Howard,Historical Anecdotes of the Howard Family; Morant,Essex; Blomefield,Norfolk.

A patent of 1604 created Henry Howard (1540-1614), younger son of Surrey the poet, earl of Northampton, a peerage which ended with the death of this, the most unprincipled of his house.

Thomas, son of the fourth duke of Norfolk’s marriage with the daughter and heir of Thomas, Lord Audley of Walden, founded the line of the present earls of Suffolk and Berkshire and of the extinct Lords Howard of Escrick. His barony of Howard of Walden has descended to his heirs general. Lord William Howard (1563-1640), the “belted Will” of Scott’s Lay and the “bauld Willie” of more authentic legend, was another of the sons of the fourth duke and Margaret Audley. Married in 1577 to one of the three co-heirs of the Lord Dacre of Gilsland he suffered under Elizabeth more than one imprisonment with his brother the unfortunate earl of Arundel. But in 1603 he was able, on the partition of the Dacre lands, to make his home at Naworth Castle, where he lived, a border patriarch, cultivating his estates and serving as a commissioner of the borders. His great-grandson Charles Howard, although fledged in a nest of cavaliers, changed sides and fought at Worcester for the parliament. The Protector summoned him in 1657 to his House of Lords, but he was imprisoned in 1659 on suspicion of a share in Booth’s insurrection and, after the Restoration, was created, in 1661, earl of Carlisle, Viscount Morpeth and Lord Dacre of Gilsland, titles which are still held by his descendants. From Sir Francis Howard, a cavalier colonel and a younger son of “bauld Willie,” come the Howards of Corby Castle in Cumberland, a branch without a hereditary title.

William Howard, Viscount Stafford, was the fifth son of Thomas, earl of Arundel, and grandson of Philip the prisoner. Marrying the sister and heir of the fifth Lord Stafford, who died in 1637, he and his wife were created Baron and Baroness Stafford by a patent of 1640, with remainder, in default of heirs male, to heirs female. A grant of the precedence enjoyed by the bride’s father being held illegal, her husband was in the same year created Viscount Stafford. Roger Stafford, the impoverished heir male of the ancient Staffords, had been forced to surrender his barony to the king by a deed dated in the preceding year, a piece of injustice which is in the teeth of all modern conceptions of peerage law. The Viscount Stafford was one of the “five Popish lords” committed to the Tower in 1678 as a result of the slanders of Titus Oates and he died by the axe in 1680 upon testimony which, as the diarist Evelyn protested, “should not be taken against the life of a dog.” But three earls of his own house—Carlisle, Suffolk and Berkshire—and the Lord Howard of Escrick, an ex-trooper of Cromwell’s guard and an anabaptist sectary, gave their votes against him, his nephew Mowbray being the only peer of his name in the minority for acquittal. In 1688 his widow was created countess of Stafford for life, and his eldest son, Henry, had the earldom of Stafford, with special remainder to his brothers. This earldom ended in 1762, but the attainder was reversed by an act of 1824 and in the following year Sir George Jerningham, the heir general, established his claim to the Stafford barony of 1640.

Authorities.—State papers; patent, close and plea rolls. Tierney,History of Arundel; G. E. C.,Complete Peerage; J. H. Round,Peerage Studies; Howard of Corby,Memorials of the Family of Howard; Brenan and Statham,House of Howard; Howard,Historical Anecdotes of the Howard Family; Morant,Essex; Blomefield,Norfolk.

(O. Ba.)

HOWARD, CATHERINE(d. 1542), the fifth queen of Henry VIII., was a daughter of Lord Edmund Howard and a granddaughter of Thomas Howard, 2nd duke of Norfolk (d. 1524). Her father was very poor, and Catherine lived mainly with Agnes, widow of the 2nd duke of Norfolk, meeting the king at the house of Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester. Henry was evidently charmed by her; the Roman Catholic party, who disliked the marriage with Anne of Cleves, encouraged his attentions; and after Anne’s divorce he was privately married to Catherine at Oatlands in July 1540. Soon afterwards she was publicly acknowledged as queen. Before her marriage Catherine had had several lovers, among them being a musician, Henry Mannock, or Manox; her cousin, Thomas Culpepper; and Francis Dereham, to whom she had certainly been betrothed. After becoming queen she occasionally met Dereham and Culpepper, and in November 1541 Archbishop Cranmer informed Henry that his queen’s past life had not been stainless. Cranmer had obtained his knowledge indirectly from an old servant of the duchess of Norfolk. Dereham confessed to his relations with Catherine, and after some denials the queen herself admitted that this was true; but denied that she had ever been betrothed to Dereham, or that she had misconducted herself since her marriage. Dereham and Culpepper were executed in December 1541 and their accomplices were punished, but Catherine was released from prison. Some fresh information, however, very soon came to light showing that she had been unchaste since her marriage; a bill of attainder was passed through parliament, and on the 13th of February 1542 the queen was beheaded.

See A. Strickland,Lives of the Queens of England(vol. iii. 1877).

HOWARD, JOHN(1726-1790), English philanthropist and prison reformer, was born at Hackney, probably on the 2nd of September 1726. His childhood was passed at Cardington, near Bedford, where his father, a retired merchant of independent means, had a small estate. He was apprenticed to a firm of grocers in the city of London, but on the death of his father in 1742, by which he inherited considerable property, he bought up his indenture, and devoted more than a year to foreign travel. Never constitutionally strong, he became, on his return to England, a confirmed invalid. Having been nursed through an acute illness by an attentive landlady, a widow of some fifty-three years of age, Howard, in return for her kindness, offered her marriage and they were united in 1752. Becoming a widower in less than three years, he determined to go abroad again, Portugal being his destination. The ship, however, in which he sailed was taken by a French privateer, the crew and passengers being carried to Brest, where they were treated with great severity. Howard was permitted to return to England on parole to negotiate an exchange, which he accomplished, as well as successfully representing the case of his fellow-captives. He now settled down on his Cardington property, interesting himself in meteorological observations. He was admitted a member of the Royal Society in 1756. In 1758 he married Henrietta, daughter of Edward Leeds, of Croxton, Cambridgeshire. He continued to lead a secluded life at Cardington and at Watcombe, Hampshire, busying himself in the construction of model cottages and the erection of schools. In 1765 his second wife died after giving birth to a son. In the following year Howard went for a prolonged foreign tour, from which he returned in 1770.

In 1773 the characteristic work of his life may be said to have begun by his acceptance of the office of high sheriff of Bedford. When the assizes were held he did not content himself with sitting out the trials in open court, his inquisitiveness and his benevolence alike impelled him to visit the gaol. Howard found it, like all the prisons of the time, wretchedly defective in its arrangements; but what chiefly shocked him was the circumstance that neither the gaoler nor his subordinates were salaried officers, but were dependent for their livelihood on fees from the prisoners. He found that some whom the juries had declared not guilty, others in whom the grand jury had not found even such appearance of guilt as would warrant a trial, others whose prosecutors had failed to appear, were frequently detained in prison for months after they had ceased to be in the position of accused parties, until they should have paid the fees of gaol delivery (see Introduction toThe State of the Prisons of England and Wales). His prompt application to the justices of the county for a salary to the gaoler in lieu of his fees was met by a demand for a precedent in charging the county with an expense. This he undertook to find if such a thing existed. He went accordingly from county to county, and though he could find no precedent for charging the county with the wages of its servants he did find so many abuses in prison management that he determined to devote himself to their reform.

In 1774 he gave evidence before a committee of the House of Commons, and received the thanks of the house for “the humanity and zeal which have led him to visit the several gaolsof this kingdom, and to communicate to the House the interesting observations which he has made on that subject.” Almost immediately an act was passed which provided for the liberation, free of all charges, of every prisoner against whom the grand jury failed to find a true bill, giving the gaoler a sum from the county rate in lieu of the abolished fees. This was followed in June by another requiring justices of the peace to see that the walls and ceilings of all prisons within their jurisdiction were scraped and whitewashed once a year at least; that the rooms were regularly cleaned and ventilated; that infirmaries were provided for the sick, and proper care taken to get them medical advice; that the naked should be clothed; that underground dungeons should be used as little as could be; and generally that such courses should be taken as would tend to restore and preserve the health of the prisoners. It was highly characteristic of the man that, having caused the provisions of the new legislation to be printed at his own private cost in large type, he sent a copy to every gaoler and warder in the kingdom, that no one should be able to plead ignorance of the law if detected in the violation of its provisions. He then set out upon a new tour of inspection, from which, however, he was brought home by the approach of a general election in September 1774. Standing as one of the anti-ministerial candidates for Bedford, he was returned by a narrow majority but was unseated after a scrutiny.

After a tour in Scotland and Ireland, he set out in April 1775 upon an extended tour through France, the Low Countries and Germany. At Paris he was at first denied access to the prisons; but, by recourse to an old and almost obsolete law of 1717, according to which any person wishing to distribute alms to the prisoners was to be admitted, he succeeded in inspecting the Bicêtre, the Force l’Évêque and most of the other places of confinement, the only important exception being the Bastille. Even in that case he succeeded in obtaining possession of a suppressed pamphlet, which he afterwards translated and published in English, to the unconcealed chagrin of the French authorities. At Ghent he examined with special interest the great Maison de Force, then recently erected, with its distinctive features—useful labour, in the profits of which the prisoners had a share, and complete separation of the inmates by night. At Amsterdam, as in Holland generally, he was much struck with the comparative absence of crime, a phenomenon which he attributed to the industrial and reformatory treatment there adopted. In Germany he found little that was useful and much that was repulsive; in Hanover and Osnabrück, under the rule of a British sovereign, he even found traces of torture. After a short tour in England (Nov. 1775 to May 1776), he again went abroad, extending his tour to several of the Swiss cantons. In 1777 appearedThe State of the Prisons in England and Wales, with Preliminary Observations, and an Account of some Foreign Prisons. One of the immediate results was the drafting a bill for the establishment of penitentiary houses, where by means of solitary imprisonment, accompanied by well-regulated labour and religious instruction, the object of reforming the criminal and inuring him to habits of industry might be pursued. New buildings were manifestly necessary; and Howard volunteered to go abroad again and collect plans. He first went to Amsterdam (April 1778), and carefully examined the “spin-houses” and “rasp-houses”1for which that city was famous; next he traversed Prussia, Saxony, Bohemia, Austria and Italy, everywhere inspecting prisons, hospitals and workhouses, and carefully recording the merits and defects of each. The information he thus obtained having been placed at the service of parliament, a bill was passed for building two penitentiary houses, and Howard was appointed first supervisor, but he resigned the post before anything practical had been achieved. In 1780 he had published a quarto volume as an appendix (the first) to hisState of Prisons; about the same time also he caused to be printed his translation of the suppressed French pamphlet on the Bastille; but on obtaining release from his employments at home his passion for accumulating statistics urged him to new and more extended continental tours, as far as to Denmark, Sweden and Russia in 1781, and to Spain and Portugal in 1783. The results of these journeys were embodied in 1784 in a second appendix, with the publication of which his direct labours in connexion with the subject of prison reform may be said to have ceased.

The five remaining years of his life were chiefly devoted to researches on the means for prevention of the plague, and for guarding against the propagation of contagious distempers in general. After an extended tour on the continent his researches seemed to be complete; and with a great accumulation of papers and memoranda, he was preparing to return homewards from Constantinople by Vienna, when it occurred to his scrupulous mind that he still lacked any personal experience of quarantine discipline. He returned to Smyrna, and, deliberately choosing a foul ship, took a passage to Venice. A protracted voyage of sixty days, during which an attack by pirates gave Howard an opportunity of manifesting his personal bravery, was followed by a weary term of confinement which enabled him to gain the experience he had desired. While imprisoned in the Venetian lazaretto he received the information that his only son, a youth of twenty-two years of age, had lost his reason and had been put under restraint. Returning hastily by Trieste and Vienna (where he had a long and singular interview with the emperor Joseph II.), he reached England in February 1787. His first care related to his domestic concerns; he then set out upon another journey of inspection of the prisons of the United Kingdom, at the same time busying himself in preparing for the press the results of his recent tour. The somewhat rambling work containing them was published in 1798 at Warrington, under the titleAn Account of the Principal Lazarettos in Europe: with various Papers relative to the Plague, together with further Observations on some Foreign Prisons and Hospitals, and additional Remarks on the present State of those in Great Britain and Ireland.

In July 1789 he embarked on what proved to be his last journey. Travelling overland to St Petersburg and Moscow, and so southwards, and visiting the principal military hospitals that lay on his route, he reached Kherson in November. In the hospitals of this place and of the immediate neighbourhood he found more than enough to occupy his attention while he awaited the means of transit to Constantinople. Towards the end of the year his medical advice was asked in the case of a young lady who was suffering under the camp fever then prevalent, and in attending her he himself took the disease, which terminated fatally on the 20th of January 1790. He was buried near the village of Dauphigny on the road to St Nicholas. There is a statue by Bacon to his memory in St Paul’s, London, and one at Bedford by A. Gilbert. In personal appearance Howard is described as having been short, thin and sallow—unprepossessing apart from the attraction of a penetrating eye and a benevolent smile.

Back to Index Next