MOWBRAY. 415 been possessed by his Grandfather, the attainted Duke of Norfolk, becoming"! thereby Lord Mowbray, Seorave and Howard. In 1C27 he obtained an act of Pari, which annexed the Duyonies of Fitzalan of Clun and OsKaldestre and Maltrarcr* to the Earldom of Arundel. He was a: 6 June 1644, Ebl ok Norfolk. He d. 20 Sep. 1640 aged 01. XV. 1G.39. 15. Henry Frederick Howard, 2d but (since July 1624), 1st surv. s. and h. ap. ; h. 15 Aug. 160S; styled LORD MaLTBAYBBS tiuae 1624 till 13 April 1030, when he was sum. v.p. to Pari, in his father's Barony,(«) as LORD MOWBRAY and placed at the upper eud( b ) of the Barons bench on the 18th inst. He sur. his father, 26 Sep. 1646, as Earl ok Arundel, SrmiKV and Norfolk, &c. He d. 17 April 16o2, aged 13. J eS — a 'A 3 0 2< XVL ]Gf>2. 10. Thomas (Howard), Earl ©f Arundel, Sun--. bky and Norfolk, Lohd Mowbray.^) Secrave, <Scc, s. and ' h. ; 4. 12 July 162S. He was restored, 29 Dec. 1660, together with the heirs male of the body of the 1st Duke of Norfolk, tu that Dukedom, becoming thereby Dt'KK ok Noreolk [1483J. He rf. unm. 13 Dec. 1677, aged 49. I ■ . XVIL 1G77. 17. Henry (Howard), Duke of Norfolk, &c, Lord Mowrray, Seorayk, &c, br. and h., who had previously been c>: Baron Howard ok Castle Hisino in 1669, and Earl ok Norwich in 1072. He d. 11 Jan. 16S4, aged 55. XVIH. 1G79. 18. HsNRT Howard, s. and h. ap., h. 11 Jan. 16;"io, sti/lcd Earl of Arfndel, 1G77-S4 ; being sum. v.p. to Pari. 11 Jan. 107S 9, in his father's BaronyO 1 ) as LOliD MOWBRAY, Rod placed (as was his grandfather) at the upper end of the Baron's bench. He sir. his father as Di ke ok Norfolk, &c, II Jan. 10S4. He d. s.p. 2 April 1701, aged 46. ■ I
E -
>M 3 S 3 ( a ) See vol i, p. loo, note " f," sub "Arundel," and see note "d" next below. Mr. Cdurthope, however, held the opinion (usually eutertaiueil till their Lordships decision in 1S77) that the Barony of Mowbray (as also that of Segrave) was in abeyance between the original coheirs (Berkeley and Howard) till (at all events) 1639. He writes as under, "Henry Frederick Howard was not one of the coheirs of the Barony of Mowbray in 1039, nor did he become so until the death of his father in 1646, after which period he never sat in Parliament in the Barony of Mowbray, as he then succeeded to the Earldom of Arundel." Since the decision of 1S77, however, it must (presumably) be held that he was s. and h. ap. of one who had the [whole of the] Barony vested in him and so was rightly sum. in his father's Barony. (>>) The three next immediately below him were Lord Clifford, Lord Abergavenny and Lord Audley. ( c ) On 8 March 1669/70. His Grace as Lord Mowbray disputed the claim of Lord Fitzwalter for preccdencv over all other Barons. See vol. iii, p. 374, note " a," sub " Eitzwalter." C) " There being question whether he should sit in and enjoy the ancient place of the Lord Mowbray, the Journal Book of the House of Peers was produced, wherein it did appear that on the 16th April 1640, Henry, Lord Mowbray, was introduced and placed at the upper end of the Barons' Bench, and after a full consideration the House re«olved that the mid Lord Mowbray should be called in and introduced, and placed in the precedence of his grandfather, as Lord Mowbray, at the upper end of the Barons' Bench, which was done accordingly." Mr. Courthope, writing in lSf>7, adds, " It is thus certain that Henry Frederick Howard was considered to have been duly summoned in the ancient Barony of Mowbray in 1039, and, consequently, as Henry, Duke of Norfolk, his son, succeeded to whatever honours the said Henry Frederick possessed, the House was correct in allowing to the son of the said Duke when summoned in his father's Barony, the precedency which had been allowed to his grandfather. Notwithstanding which proceedings, it appears by no means certain
