The hopes with which the STUART accession was naturally anticipated by all the HOWARDS, were by some of them more than realized, but the heir of Arundel was not of that number. He was, indeed, restored in blood to such honours as his father, Earl Philip, had enjoyed, and also to the baronies forfeited by his grandfather, Thomas, Duke of NORFOLK, in 1572. But the dignities were restored without the lands. His nearest relations profited by their influence at Court to obtain grants of his chief ancestral estates. The Earls of NOTTINGHAM, NORTHAMPTON,[30] and SUFFOLK had each of them a share in the spoil;—salving their consciences, probably, by the reflection that, despite his poverty, their young kinsman had made a great marriage. For his alliance, in 1606, with Lady Aletheia TALBOT, daughter and co-heir of Gilbert, Earl of SHREWSBURY, had already brought to him considerable means in hand, and a vast estate in prospect. The marriage, in higher respects, was also a happy one. But a natural and eager desire to recover what his father had forfeited cast much anxiety over years otherwise felicitous. He could not regain even Arundel House in London, until he had paid £4000 for it to the Earl of NOTTINGHAM. [Sidenote: ARUNDEL AT COURT.] Lord ARUNDEL made his first appearance at Court in 1605. In May, 1611, he was created a Knight of the Garter. Thirteen years of JAMES’ reign had passed before the Earl was admitted to the Privy Council. This honour was conferred upon him in July, 1616. Five years more were to pass before his restoration to his hereditary office of Earl Marshal of England, although he had been made one of six Commissioners for the discharge of its duties in October, 1616. The baton was at length (29th August, 1621) delivered to him at THEOBALDS. [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, James I, 1621, 21 July. (R. H.)] ‘The King,’ wrote John CHAMBERLAIN to Sir Dudley CARLETON, when communicating the news, ‘would have given him £2000 a year pension withal, but—whatsoever the reason was—he would accept but the ordinary fee, which is twenty pounds per annum.’ It is plain, however, that this assertion was an error. According to the ancient constitution of the Earl Marshal’s office there were certain fees accruing from it which were now, under new regulations, to cease. The question arose, Shall the Earl Marshal be compensated by pension, or (according to a pernicious fashion of the age) by the grant, or lease, of a customs duty upon some largely vended commodity? [Sidenote: Minutes of Correspondence in Sec. Conway’s Letter Book; (R. H.) and Council Books (C. O.).] The ‘impost of currants’ was eventually fixed upon. But the Earl had subsequent occasion to adduce evidence before a Committee of the Privy Council, that the rent paid to the King sometimes exceeded the aggregate duty collected from the merchants.[31]