Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 3.djvu/153

CHANDOS 133 1768, at Whitchurch, in her 33rd year. Admon. 8 Sep. 1768. He »/., 2ndly, 21 June 1777, also at St. Geo., Han. Sq., Anne Eliza,(^) widow of Roger Hope Elletson, sister of Sir Richard Grace Gamon, Bart., and da. of Richard G., of Datchworthbury, Herts, by Elizabeth, da. of John Grace, of the Grange, Queen's County. He d. at Tunbridge Wells, s.p.m., 29 Sep., and was bur. 10 Oct. 1789, aged nearly 58, at Whitchurch, when all his honours, excepting the Barony of Kinloss [S.], which devolved on his da. and h. (as to which see "Chandos, and Buckingham and Chandos," next below), became extinct.(^) Will pr. 1789. His widow d. 20 Jan. 18 13, at Chandos house. Will pr. 18 13. [The Barony of Chandos of Sudeley cr. 1554] was claimed immedi- ately (by petition to the King), by the Rev. Edward Tymewell Brydges, M.A., as heir male of the body of the grantee. The Attorney Gen. (Mac- donald) having, 15 Apr. 1790, favourably reported thereon, it was referred to the Committee for Privileges. After about 30 hearings, extending over some dozen years (in which new evidence, mostly incapable of proof, was continually being brought forward), it was resolved, 17 June 1803, that Mr. Brydges "had not made out his claim ("=) to the said Barony." The claimant d. s.p.s., Oct. 1807, aged 58, and was sue. by his br. (who had all along been the prime mover of the claim), Samuel Egerton Brydges, better known as Sir Egerton Brydges (b. 30 Nov. 1762), who then called him- self, "per legem teme Baron Chandos of Sudeley." He, however, accepted (^) " From the vanity and extravagance of this woman, and the uncertain contin- gencies of her property, the Hampshire people think that the poor Duke is completely taken in." [The Roya/ Register, vol. iv, p. 171). V.G. (*) James Brydges, of Pinner, Midx., heir presumptive to the Earldom of Carnarvon, being s. and h. of the Rev. the Hon. Henry Brydges, D.D., br. of James, Duke of Chandos (who had been er. Earl of Carnarvon with an extended limitation), d. s.p., a few weeks before his cousin, the last Duke, 12 July 1789, at a great age. ("=) The invalidity of this claim has been thoroughly exposed by G. F. Beltz (Lancaster Herald) in a work called J Review of the Chandos Peerage ease, pp. 233, with an appendix. The claimant's father was Edward Brydges, of Wootton Court, Kent (who m. Jemima, da. and coh. of the Rev. William Egerton, LL.D.), which Edward (who d. 1780) was s. of John Brydges (d. 1712) who acquired the estate of Wootton by marriage (with Jane da. and h. of Edward Gibbon), and who was the son of John Bridges {d. 1699), a grocer, at Canterbury (by Mary, da. of Thomas Young, also a grocer in that city), who was s. of Edward Bridges of Faversham, yeoman (1665), by Catherine, da. of John Sharp of Faversham, maltster. At this point comes the crux of the pedigree. The claimant contended that this Edward was bap. at Maidstone, 25 Mar. 1603, being the s. of Robert Bridges of that town [d. 1636), who was s. of Anthony Bridges, the 3rd surv. s. of John, ist Baron Chandos of Sudeley. Beltz however shows very clearly (l) that the baptism at Maidstone was a modern [and doubtless fraudulent] insertion, (2) that Robert Bridges (son of Anthony abovenamed) d. s.p.m. (the will of his only child, Ann Jackson, alias Bridges, 164 1, is given in appendix xii), and (3) that the said Edward Bridges of Faversham (instead of being bap. at Maidstone in 1603) was hap. at Harbledown (near Canterbury) in 1606, being s. of John Bridges of that place (Churchwarden in 1632), who d. 1646.