Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 1.djvu/92

This page needs to be proofread.

42

COMPLETE PEERAGE

ABERGAVENNY

XVII. 1744.
EARLDOM.
I. 1784

1. George (Nevill), Lord Abergavenny, only surv. s. and h., by 1st wife, b. 24 June, and bap. 14 July 1727, at St. Margaret's, Westm., the King, George II, being his godfather. Matric. at Oxford (Ch. Ch.) 14 Feb. 1744/5. In July 1757 he was appointed Lord Lieut. of Sussex, but resigned July 1761. On 17 May 1784 he was cr. VISCOUNT NEVILL of Birling, Kent, and EARL OF ABERGAVENNY, co. Monmouth.^[1] He m., 5 Feb. 1753, at Stanmer, Sussex, Henrietta, widow of the Hon. Richard Temple, of Romsey, Hants, sister of Thomas, 1st Earl of Chichester, being da. of Thomas Pelham, of Stanmer afsd., by Annetta, da. of Thomas Bridges.^[2] She, who was b. 1, and bap. 22 Aug. 1730, at St. Anne's, Westm., d. at Bristol, 31 Aug., and was bur. 8 Sep. 1768, at East Grinstead. Admon. 24 July 1779 to her husband. He d. 9 Sep. 1785, and was bur. at East Grinstead. Will pr. Sep. 1785. (£1,200 p.a. and £20,000.)

EARLDOM
II. 1785.
BARONY.
XVIII. 1785.

2. Henry (Nevill), Earl of Abergavenny, &c., only s. and h., b. 22 Feb. and bap. 19 Mar. 1755, at St. Geo., Han. Sq.; ed at Ch. Ch., Oxford; M.A. 8 Mar. 1776; M.P. for Seaford 1784, and for co. Monmouth 1784–85. Recorder of Harwich. K.T. 23 May 1814. About 1790 he repaired the old family place of Eridge (where

↑ In this patent he is styled "George Lord Abergavenny." The creation of an Earldom of the same place as that of a Barony, but with a different limitation is very objectionable as, in the event of their separating, the anomaly arises of two persons being designated of one and the same place—e.g. in 1717 the Earldom of Ferrers (so cr. 1711) became separated from the Barony of that name, and so continues; and in 1882 the Earldom of Berkeley (so cr. in 1679) became (apparently) separated from the ancient Barony thereof. The Barony of Abergavenny however may be held to have vested in the first Earl, either (1) by a Patent (hitherto undiscovered), granted in 1604 (or even in 1450!) to his ancestor, or in 1724 to his father; or (2) by the Tenure of the Castle. As to the former supposition it is not usual (though not without a precedent) for the House of Lords to imagine a patent to exist, and to regulate the descent of a Peerage accordingly. As to the Peerage being one by tenure, the decision of the House, in 1604, that it was a Peerage less ancient than the Barony of Le Despenser, is certainly greatly against such having been the then theory; and it is one also that has not found greater favour in more modern times. The only other alternative then that remains is (3) that the writ of 1724, (according to the modern law in Peerage) cr. a Barony de novo of that date (1724), to which the House yielded (as it has done in other cases, see Appendix D. at the end of this volume) the precedence due to the ancient Barony of the same name existing (in this case) some 330 years previously.—See pedigree, p. 41.
↑ Hor. Walpole, writing to Lord Hertford 12 Feb. 1765, talks of a separation being in contemplation on account of the Earl's infidelity, and remarks that "his Lordship's heart is more inflammable than tender." In 1774 he figures ("Lord A. and Mrs. P.") in the notorious tête à tête portraits in The Town and Country Mag., vol. vi, p. 452, of which a good account is given by Horace Bleackley in N. & Q., 10th Series, vol. iv, pp. 241–2. V.G.

[1] In this patent he is styled "George Lord Abergavenny." The creation of an Earldom of the same place as that of a Barony, but with a different limitation is very objectionable as, in the event of their separating, the anomaly arises of two persons being designated of one and the same place—e.g. in 1717 the Earldom of Ferrers (so cr. 1711) became separated from the Barony of that name, and so continues; and in 1882 the Earldom of Berkeley (so cr. in 1679) became (apparently) separated from the ancient Barony thereof. The Barony of Abergavenny however may be held to have vested in the first Earl, either (1) by a Patent (hitherto undiscovered), granted in 1604 (or even in 1450!) to his ancestor, or in 1724 to his father; or (2) by the Tenure of the Castle. As to the former supposition it is not usual (though not without a precedent) for the House of Lords to imagine a patent to exist, and to regulate the descent of a Peerage accordingly. As to the Peerage being one by tenure, the decision of the House, in 1604, that it was a Peerage less ancient than the Barony of Le Despenser, is certainly greatly against such having been the then theory; and it is one also that has not found greater favour in more modern times. The only other alternative then that remains is (3) that the writ of 1724, (according to the modern law in Peerage) cr. a Barony de novo of that date (1724), to which the House yielded (as it has done in other cases, see Appendix D. at the end of this volume) the precedence due to the ancient Barony of the same name existing (in this case) some 330 years previously.—See pedigree, p. 41.

[2] Hor. Walpole, writing to Lord Hertford 12 Feb. 1765, talks of a separation being in contemplation on account of the Earl's infidelity, and remarks that "his Lordship's heart is more inflammable than tender." In 1774 he figures ("Lord A. and Mrs. P.") in the notorious tête à tête portraits in The Town and Country Mag., vol. vi, p. 452, of which a good account is given by Horace Bleackley in N. & Q., 10th Series, vol. iv, pp. 241–2. V.G.

[1]

[2]