NEVILLE, Henry (1573-1641)

In his youth Neville seemed to be destined for a conventional public career of moderate prominence. He married the daughter of a privy councillor, sat in the Commons as a knight of the shire, and was appointed to local and court office. However, his first wife converted to Catholicism and he followed suit, probably shortly before 1611, when he was dropped from the Kent bench. Following the death of his wife in 1613 he married the sister of the notorious recusant, Edward Vaux^*, 4th Lord Vaux. As a result of this second marriage, Abergavenny allied himself with the Jesuit faction in the English Catholic community. Consequently, by the time of his father’s death in 1622, when Abergavenny inherited what was then considered the most senior barony in England, his public role was significantly circumscribed.16 H. Foley, Recs. of the Eng. Province of the Soc. of Jesus, iii. 393; Newsletters from the Caroline Ct. ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xxvi), 78, n.215, 80, n.225.

Abergavenny attended the House of Lords twice at the very start of the 1624 Parliament, on 19 and 21 February. However, on 23 Feb. the House decided that new peers should take the oath of allegiance. Abergavenny was absent that day, and was consequently listed among those peers who had not been sworn. He subsequently continued to stay away, suggesting that he was unwilling to take the oath, although he does not appear to have been listed by contemporaries as being among the Catholic peers who refused to attend the 1624 Parliament.17 LJ, iii. 215a; Add. 40087, f. 18; Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 73; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 247; William Whiteway of Dorchester: his Diary 1618 to 1635 (Dorset Rec. Soc. xii), 61; ‘Hastings 1621’, p. 35. In view of his absenteeism, Abergavenny decided to appoint a proxy. He chose the lord chamberlain, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, possibly feeling that the staunchly Protestant Pembroke would be better able to protect his interests than someone closer to his own religious views. The earl delivered the proxy to the House on 2 March.18 Add. 40087, f. 44. Abergavenny again failed to attend Parliament in 1625. At the call of the House, on 23 June, he was noted as excused because he was ‘sick of the gout’.19 Procs. 1625, p. 45.

By the mid 1620s Abergavenny was coming under increasing financial pressure. On succeeding his father in 1622 his debts already totalled £30,000, and although the family estates were substantial, including his principal residence at Birling in Kent, extensive property in Sussex and lands in a further nine counties, they were entailed and accordingly could not be sold without an act of Parliament.20 APC, 1627-8, pp. 244-5; Rowland, 164-5. Consequently when a new Parliament was convened in early 1626, Abergavenny not only returned to the upper House but also took the oath of allegiance after the adjournment on 15 February.21 Procs. 1626, i. 50. This did not save him from being convicted of recusancy at the Kent assizes in March and inclusion, as a commissioner for sewers, in the Commons’ petition against Catholic officeholders the following June.22 Cal. Assize Recs. Kent Indictments, Chas. I, 21; Procs. 1626, iv. 211.

Abergavenny’s absence was excused four times during the 1626 Parliament because he continued to suffer from gout, but he was, nevertheless, an assiduous attender. After first taking his seat, on 13 Feb., there were only two days when he was neither present nor excused (5th and 13th Apr.) and, in total, he was recorded as attending 72 of the 81 sittings of the upper House (89 per cent).23 Procs. 1626, i. 75, 100, 143, 327.

Abergavenny was appointed to only eight of the 49 committees established by the upper House in 1626. Possibly, because he was the senior baron, he was named to the privileges committee.24 Ibid. 46. In addition, he was appointed to the committee for safety of the kingdom, although perhaps with some reluctance, as he was the last baron named.25 Ibid. 112. Among those instructed to examine the evidence for the king’s charges against John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, he was one of the members of the committee who signed the record of the testimony given by the financier Philip Burlamachi.26 Ibid. 540, 631. He made only one recorded speech, on 18 Apr., when, during an investigation into fraudulent protections for peers’ servants, he was obliged to justify giving a protection to an attorney, Edmund Hasselwood.27 Ibid. 281.

Abergavenny’s estate bill was introduced in the upper House where it was given a first reading, on 27 Feb., and was referred, on 1 Mar., to a committee, which included the earl of Pembroke, Lord Vaux, and Abergavenny’s kinsman, Francis Fane^*, 1st earl of Westmorland. George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, reported the measure two days later and, having received a third reading on 8 Mar., it was sent to the Commons. In the lower House it received a first and second reading and was reported on 20 Apr., but failed to receive a third reading before the dissolution.28 Ibid. 75, 84-5, 99, 127; ii. 255, 278, 305; iii. 29.

On 14 June Abergavenny’s position as the senior baron was challenged by Algernon Percy^*, Lord Percy (subsequently 4th earl of Northumberland), who had been summoned to the 1626 Parliament by writ of acceleration. Percy’s claim was referred to the committee for privileges, but Parliament was dissolved the following day, and, consequently, the issue was left unresolved.29 ALGERNON PERCY. In the aftermath of the Parliament, Neville applied to the king for protection from his creditors, although there is no evidence that his request was granted.30 CSP Dom. Addenda, 1625-49, p. 138. He was also rumoured to have attended a meeting of prominent Catholics at Lord Vaux’s house, at which it was alleged that a health was drunk to Spinola, the commander of the Habsburg forces in the Netherlands.31 Procs. 1626, iv. 344.

By 1628 Abergavenny’s finances had become desperate. On 20 Jan. he informed the Privy Council that although he had made over his estates to trustees in order to pay off his debts, some of his creditors, who numbered over 100, were seeking to seize his lands. Were they to prove successful he would be prevented from satisfying the rest. On the advice of the Council, the king granted him protection for a year, but his only prospect of freeing himself from debt remained a private act.32 APC, 1627-8, pp. 244-5; Coventry Docquets, 241.

Abergavenny’s need to secure the passage of his bill suggests that he probably intended to attend the third Caroline Parliament. When the 1628 session began on 17 Mar. the king appointed him one of the triers of petitions for England, Scotland and Ireland. However he failed to attend the upper House and four days later he was excused on grounds of sickness.33 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 62, 79. He was also excused on 3 and 7 April. He appointed the crypto-Catholic Richard Weston^*, Lord Weston (subsequently 1st earl of Portland) as his proxy, although this must have been after Weston was ennobled on 13 April.34 Ibid. 25, 146, 157. He returned to the House on 4 June, when he was named to his only committee, for annexing lands (mostly in Sussex) to the earldom of Arundel, a measure sponsored by the 21st (or 14th) earl, the crypto-Catholic Thomas Howard^*.35 Ibid. 582. He was subsequently recorded as present at a further 11 sittings. He thus probably attended just 13 per cent of the session.

Despite his absence, Abergavenny’s estate bill smoothly passed through all its stages in 1628, and was enacted. It was given a first reading on 10 Apr. and was committed a week later after George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, informed the House that the king, who had an interest in the property arising from the entail, supported the measure. The committee included Buckingham, Weston, Westmorland, Abergavenny’s brother-in-law, George Goring^*, Lord Goring (later 1st earl of Norwich), and Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset, nephew to his first wife. Westmorland, Dorset and Goring were named in the bill as trustees for Abergavenny’s lands, as was John Mordaunt^*, 1st earl of Peterborough, brother-in-law to Abergavenny’s eldest son, Sir Thomas Neville. Peterborough seems to have been nominated to the committee, but his name was subsequently deleted, possibly because the Lords did not want Abergavenny’s trustees to dominate the committee.36 Ibid. 189, 255-6, 258; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1627/3C1n11. For the crown’s interest in the property, see Second, Third and Fourth Reps. from the Lords Committees on the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm (1826), 22. The bill was reported with amendments, on 8 May, by John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, and was given a third reading, on Westmorland’s motion, four days later.37 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 394, 412. It was then sent to the Commons, where the bill received its first reading on 13 May, its second two days later and, having been reported on 23 May, its third on 26 May.38 CD 1628, iii. 419, 446, 557, 611.

At the start of the 1628 Parliament Abergavenny’s position as the senior baron received another challenge. When the House was called on 22 Mar., it was agreed that Henry Clifford^*, Lord Clifford (subsequently 5th earl of Cumberland), who had ostensibly been summoned by writ of acceleration, should be ranked first among the barons.39 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 87. Two days later Clare successfully moved to reserve the right of the absent Abergavenny to challenge the decision. Nevertheless, when Clifford was introduced into the House on 26 Mar. he was seated above Abergavenny.40 Ibid. 99-100, 103. Percy also renewed his claim to the senior barony but, on 26 May, the Lords deferred consideration of the dispute until the next session. Perhaps as a result, Abergavenny does not seem to have challenged Clifford’s position when he took his seat in June, presumably accepting that he would have to wait until Parliament met again.41 ALGERNON PERCY.

Abergavenny seems to have been determined to re-establish his precedence in the second session of the 1628-9 Parliament. He missed the first eight days of the session but, on 5 Feb. 1629, two days after he had taken his seat, the committee for privileges was ordered to consider the claims to the senior barony. On 9 Feb., when Abergavenny was again absent due to sickness, Percy provided the privileges committee with evidence that his barony dated back to the Conqueror.42 LJ, iv. 22a, 25a; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 336. Four days later it was reported that Abergavenny would accept Percy’s precedence, but not Clifford’s.43 Fairfax Corresp. ed. G.W. Johnson, i. 159. However, this seems to have been mistaken, as, on 16 Feb., Abergavenny’s lawyers argued that an earl’s son (such as Percy and Clifford) should not sit in accordance with the precedence of his father’s barony, but according to the date of his own writ. This would have returned Abergavenny to pre-eminence on the baron’s bench, but the committee pointed out that its remit was merely to determine the precedence of the baronies in question, not the status of peers sitting by virtue of writs of acceleration. It nevertheless agreed to refer to the House the point raised by Abergavenny, who in the meantime was given more time to search the records.44 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 339-40. Edward Somerset^*, 4th earl of Worcester, informed the Lords of Abergavenny’s objection on 19 Feb., and they in turn referred the matter back to the privileges committee, but with the instruction that it should first establish which barony was the most ancient. However, before the issue could be settled the session ended.45 LJ, iv. 35a; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 340.

Aside from this dispute, Abergavenny played little recorded part in the 1629 session. From 3 Feb., when he took his seat, until the dissolution of the Parliament, on 10 Mar., he was recorded as present at nine out of 15 sittings. However, having missed the start of the session, his overall rate of attendance was only 39 per cent. He made no recorded speeches and was appointed to just one committee, to survey munitions.46 LJ, iv. 37b.

Following the passage of his estate act, Abergavenny and his trustees promptly proceeded to sell off lands in Warwickshire, Surrey, Essex and Sussex.47 Coventry Docquets, 583-4; R.C. Renshaw, ‘Manor of Keymer’, Suss. Arch. Colls. liv. 15; C78/351/20. Further land sales were made during the 1630s; however, a large proportion of the proceeds had to be used to satisfy the creditors of Abergavenny’s eldest son, Sir Thomas Neville, who had died heavily in debt in 1628, rather than meet Abergavenny’s own obligations. As a result, in the early 1630s Abergavenny had been forced to settle a £1,000 a year from his remaining estates to be paid to his creditors for ten years. When Abergavenny was called to attend the king in order to fight the Scottish Covenanters in 1639, he initially claimed that he was unable to serve his monarch because he was ‘decrepit both in my limbs and fortune’, but he soon after promised to send his son, John Neville^† (subsequently 10th or 3rd Lord Abergavenny) with ‘as fit an equipage as my poor estate will permit’.48 Coventry Docquets, 606, 623, 667, 721-2, 725; CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 251; SP16/412/59, 78.

The exact date of the Abergavenny’s death is unclear. The writ summoning his heir to the upper House was issued on 4 Dec. 1641; however, he was not buried at Birling until 20 days later. His age and infirmity suggest that he did not travel far from his home in his final years and he certainly did not attend Parliament. It is possible that exaggerated reports of his final sickness led the authorities at Westminster to anticipate his death, and that a late seventeenth-century pedigree may be accurate in recording that he died on 16 December.49 C231/5, p. 498; Birling Par. Reg. (Soc. Gen. transcript). No will or grant of administration has been traced. As Sir Thomas Neville’s two sons had died in the late 1630s, it was John Neville, Abergavenny’s eldest surviving son, who was summoned to the Lords as his successor.50 Rowland, 168.