NEVILLE, Edward (c.1551-1622)

Neville became a member of the House of Lords in 1604, as the result of a decision by the upper House to resolve by compromise one of the most notorious inheritance disputes in the history of the English peerage. The dispute turned on whether the parliamentary barony of Abergavenny was synonymous with the feudal barony. The decision of the Lords implied that it was, but it was never explicitly stated that the peerage descended with the lordship. Consequently, although Neville’s summons to the Lords in 1604 was described as a restitution, it may be more accurate to regard it as a new creation.16 J. H. Round, Peerage and Ped. i. 75.

The feudal barony of Abergavenny was originally a marcher lordship, situated in what later became northern Monmouthshire, and can be traced back to the invasion of the Welsh kingdom of Gwent by William Rufus in the late eleventh century.17 P. Courtney, ‘Marcher Lordships’, Gwent Co. Hist. Volume 2: Age of the Marcher Lords ed R.A. Griffiths, T. Hopkins and R. Howell, 53, 55. The first Lord Abergavenny to be summoned to Parliament by that title was William Beauchamp^† in 1392. His son, Richard^†, married Isabel Despenser, who would have become heir to the Le Despenser barony on the death of her brother in 1414 had her father not been attainted in 1400. Richard and Isabel had only one child, a daughter named Elizabeth, who married Sir Edward Neville^†, the 11th and youngest son of Ralph Neville^†, 1st earl of Westmorland. Sir Edward was summoned to Parliament as Lord Abergavenny in 1450. The title then passed from father to son until the death, in 1587, of Sir Edward’s great-grandson, Henry Neville^†, 6th Lord Abergavenny. The 6th Lord’s only surviving child was a daughter, Mary, who married Sir Thomas Fane of Badsell, Kent.18 CP, i. 24-34.

The peerage dispute, 1587-1604

Sir Thomas Fane claimed that, just as the Abergavenny barony had passed to the Nevilles through the female line, it should now pass to the Fanes via his wife. However, his claim was disputed by the 6th Lord’s cousin, Edward Neville, the father of the subject of this biography. On the death of the 6th Lord, Edward Neville had inherited the feudal lordship of Abergavenny thanks to an entail made by George Neville^†, 5th Lord Abergavenny, and confirmed by act of Parliament in 1556. Edward Neville argued that, because he held the lordship of Abergavenny by baronial tenure, he, rather than Mary Fane or her husband, was entitled to the barony of Abergavenny. However, both Edward Neville and Sir Thomas Fane died in 1589 before the dispute could be resolved.19 A. Collins, Procs., Precedents, and Arguments, on Claims and Controversies Concerning Baronies by Writ (1734), 61-2; CSP Dom. 1581-90, pp. 563-4; Rowland, app. pp. iv-xvi; Round, i. 78-80.

Following the death of his father, the younger Edward Neville, the subject of this biography, styled himself Lord Abergavenny. Initially, however, he did little to obtain formal recognition of his title. Indeed, when the parliaments of 1593 and 1597 were summoned, he made it clear that he would accept a new peerage as ‘Lord Neville of some [other] place’ rather than the barony of Abergavenny.20 Round, i. 80; Northants. RO, W(A)1/XI/6, Abergavenny to Burghley, 14 Feb. 1593; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, ii. 298. A peerage, and its attendant right to a seat in the House of Lords, was of primary importance to Neville because the strict entail governing his lands meant that he required a private act of Parliament in order to make any significant changes to his estates. In 1593 legislation was needed to confirm the marriage settlement of his eldest son, Henry Neville^* (subsequently 9th or 2nd Lord Abergavenny), who was about marry the daughter of Thomas Sackville^*, Lord Buckhurst (subsequently 1st earl of Dorset).21 PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1592/35Eliz1n18. Although the bill was enacted, Neville would presumably have found it easier to promote it had he had a seat in the Lords. Queen Elizabeth having proved unwilling to bestow a fresh title on Neville, Mary Fane took the initiative, laying claim to the Abergavenny peerage in 1598, no doubt hoping to pass on the title, which in her father’s lifetime had been ranked as the most senior barony in England, to her son, Francis Fane* (subsequently 1st earl of Westmorland), after her death. In November 1598 the case was referred to the earl marshal, Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, who in turn referred the matter in the following February to the chief justices of King’s Bench and Common Pleas, both of whom found in favour of Lady Fane. Neville’s counsel (although not Neville himself) appear to have conceded defeat, although the Fanes failed to secure a declaration of their right to the barony.22 Round, 80-4; CSP Dom. 1598-1601, pp. 122-3, 131; Northants. RO, W(A)1/XI/6, copy of signet warrant, 19 June 1603.

Neville was obliged to sponsor two bills in the last Elizabethan Parliament, held in 1601, to alter the entailed estates. One was to augment his wife’s jointure while the other was to sell lands. The latter measure was required because Neville’s eldest son had run into debt. The Neville estates were extensive for, as well as the lordship of Abergavenny, they included his principal country residence at Birling in Kent, Abergavenny House in London, considerable property in Sussex and lands in a further ten counties. However, a significant part of this estate was tied up in the jointures belonging to the widow of Henry Neville, 6th Lord Abergavenny, and to Neville’s own mother. Consequently, Neville was not able to settle his son’s debts without disposing of part of his property.23 D. Dean, Law-Making and Soc. in Late Elizabethan Eng. 235-6; Rowland, 151-2; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1601/43Eliz1n23, HL/PO/PB/1/1609/7J1n41.

On 26 Apr. 1603, shortly after the accession of James I, Neville petitioned the new king for the Abergavenny title, describing his status as ‘a kind of imprisonment’ which prevented him from paying his respects to the new monarch, because he could not attend his monarch in what he regarded as his rightful capacity as a peer.24 Add. 22591, f. 198v. However, he was again opposed by Lady Fane, who drew attention to the 1599 opinion of the judges in her favour.25 Round, 82-3. In June James referred the dispute to a group of privy councillors, but the outcome of their deliberations is unknown.26 Northants. RO, W(A)1/XI/6, copy of signet warrant, 19 June 1603.

The first Jacobean Parliament was summoned to meet in March 1604. Neville secured the return of his eldest son, Sir Henry Neville, for Lewes, where he owned half the barony. In addition, Neville’s brother, Francis Neville^‡, was returned for Midhurst, although probably not due to the former’s influence.27 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 413, 415. The Parliament presented Neville with the opportunity to adopt a new strategy. He again petitioned the king but, this time, requested that the case be referred to the House of Lords, spuriously stating that this was established practice in similar cases. He probably chose this course of action because he hoped that, with the support of his son’s father-in-law, Lord Buckhurst, now lord treasurer, he would be able to persuade the Lords to disregard the weakness of his case in law. With James’s consent, his petition was presented to the upper House, on 5 Apr., which ordered the case to be heard a week later.28 LJ, ii. 274a; Round, 84.

After the initial hearing, on 12 Apr., both sides were ordered to put their case in writing. Neville claimed that baronies by writ had always descended with feudal baronies. However, Mary Fane argued that there were numerous examples of barons who had sold their tenurial baronies and yet retained their peerages and, indeed, provided evidence that the barony of Abergavenny itself had not always descended with the feudal lordship.29 LJ, ii. 276a-b; PA, HL/PO/LB/1/9, f. 1v (see f. 5 for the date of this document); B.R. Dunn, ‘Commons Debates 1603/4’ (Bryn Mawr Coll. Ph.D. thesis 1987), 1287-90.

Proceedings dragged on through the rest of the month and the first half of the next until, on 19 May, Charles Howard^*, 1st earl of Nottingham, moved that both Neville and Fane should be ennobled. The motion was referred to the commissioners for the earl marshal’s office, of whom Nottingham was one, who were instructed to confer with the heralds. It may well have been the heralds who drew attention to the availability of the Le Despenser barony. (The 1400 attainder had been reversed in 1461, which meant that the barony could be claimed by Isabel Despenser’s descendants.) This enabled the House to agree, on 21 May, to recommend the ennoblement of both claimants by restitution. James promptly asked the Lords to recommend which title each candidate should receive and, on 23 May, the House agreed that Neville should become Lord Abergavenny and Fane, Baroness Le Despenser. The writ summoning Neville was issued two days later and he took his seat on 26 May.30 LJ, ii. 283a, 287b, 289a, 293b, 300b, 302a, 303a-b, 306b-307a, 345b; CP, iv. 282.

Shortly after Abergavenny was seated in the Lords the issue of the relative precedence of his barony with that of Le Despenser was raised and referred by the upper House to the commissioners for the office of the earl marshal. They reported, on 27 May, that the Le Despenser barony should be given seniority, presumably because the barons Le Despenser had been summoned to Parliament long before the barons Abergavenny. This, however, implicitly contradicted the decision to award the Abergavenny title to Neville, which had implied that that the peerage was a barony by tenure, as the feudal lordship of Abergavenny predated the Le Despenser barony.31 LJ, ii. 346b-347a, 348a-b; Northants. RO, W(A)1/XI//4K, ‘The right of precedence of the barons Le Despenser above that of Abergavenny is thus proved’; Round, 86-9.

The decision drew objections from Abergavenny, particularly because Sir Francis Fane promptly tried to have the decision enrolled by Parliament and exemplified by Chancery. On 9 June Abergavenny protested to the lord chancellor, Lord Ellesmere (Thomas Egerton^*, later 1st Viscount Brackley) that the decision of the commissioners had not been formally approved by the Lords. In an undated petition to the king, he complained that the commissioners had not heard his counsel before making their decision and requested that the issue be referred back to the Lords. James complied with Abergavenny’s request but, on 6 July, the commissioners’ order was approved by the Lords, possibly as tacit recognition that the Fane case for ennoblement had always been stronger in law.32 Dunn, 1291-2; Add. 34218, f. 109: LJ, ii. 343a.

In fact, the issue of precedence made little difference because, as a woman, Mary Fane was incapable of sitting in Parliament. Moreover, by the time she died in 1626, her son Francis had been created earl of Westmorland. Consequently, in practice Neville was ranked first among the barons in Parliament and was described as the ‘prime baron of England’ shortly before his death.33 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 248; J. Bradford, Holy Meditations upon the Lords Prayer (1622), sig. A2. It is likely that Abergavenny secured his barony because enough members of the upper House thought that he ought to be a peer, rather than because a majority of them believed in baronies by tenure. However, how he went about persuading his future colleagues is unknown. The influence of his son’s father-in-law, by now earl of Dorset, was presumably one factor, as may have been the fact that the Nevilles, unlike the Fanes, were an old noble family.

Abergavenny in the first Jacobean Parliament, 1604-11

Having secured his seat, Abergavenny was marked as present at every sitting between 26 May and the prorogation on 7 July. A bill to remedy the deficiencies in the 1601 estate act had been introduced in the House of Commons and was sent to the upper House on 30 June. It was given a first and second reading, on 2 July, and was duly committed. Reported by Gilbert Talbot^*, 7th earl of Shrewsbury, the following day, it received a third reading, on 4 July, and was subsequently enacted.34 LJ, ii. 335a, 335b, 337b, 339a; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1603/1J1n68.

Abergavenny was named to eight of the 28 committees appointed by the upper House between 26 May and the end of the session. They included one on a bill to regulate the leather industry, which he appears to have attended.35 LJ, ii. 312b; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/13/3, unfol. (4 June 1604). They also included the committee for the bill to execute the laws against Jesuits and seminary priests. (Towards the end of his life, Abergavenny was described by the printer, Edward Aldee, as ‘a most religious professor of the gospel’.) This measure was redrafted by the committee and, on 19 June, Abergavenny was among those instructed to consider the revised version.36 Bradford, sig. A2 (the work is a reprint of a tract by a Marian martyr); LJ, ii. 314a, 322a, 324b. Together with two other Kentish barons, Abergavenny was instructed to arbitrate between a Kentish knight, Sir Edward Hales^‡, who lived 29 miles from Birling, and a yeoman of the chamber who owed Hales money. In his sole recorded speech of the session, Abergavenny reported an agreement reached by the two parties two days later.37 LJ, ii. 317a, 318a.

Abergavenny’s attendance rate in the 1605-6 session was only slightly less impressive than it had been in the first. He is recorded as having been present at 94 per cent of the sittings (77 out of 82) and was named to 27 of the House’s 72 committees, although he made no recorded speeches. Several of his legislative nominations related to religious issues and moral reform and dealt with matters such as swearing, observance of the Sabbath and excommunication by the Church courts. Abergavenny was also among those instructed to confer with the Commons about ecclesiastical affairs generally.38 Ibid. 365a, 368b, 381, 284a, 411a, 437a. Some other nominations may have arisen from Abergavenny’s position as a Monmouthshire landowner, including committees for bills concerning the jurisdiction of the council in the Marches of Wales and the maintenance of Chepstow bridge.39 Ibid. 406b, 421a.

Abergavenny was not quite as consistent in his attendance during the 1606-7 session as he had been previously. Nevertheless, he was marked as present at 85 per cent of the upper House’s sittings (90 out of 106). This deterioration is largely due to his absence between 28 Nov. and 5 Dec. 1606, though he also failed to sit on 9, 12 and 14 December. These absences, for which he was never granted formal leave, remain unexplained, but he may have objected to the proposed union with Scotland, the primary item of parliamentary business at this time, about which he was instructed to confer with the Commons on 24 November. Nevertheless, he may not have succeeded entirely in avoiding Union business, as in June 1607 he was appointed to consider the bill to abolish the hostile laws against Scots in England.40 Ibid. 453a, 520a.

During this session, Abergavenny was named to nearly half the committees appointed by the Lords (19 out of 41). These included a committee to consider the bill to confirm defective titles. This measure was intended to strengthen the authority of letters patent issued to landowners who compounded with the crown for defective titles by providing that they would not be invalidated by minor clerical errors. The committee decided that the measure needed to be redrafted and presented a new bill, ‘an act for confirmation of letters patents, to be made upon composition with the king’s Majesty, his heirs and successors, during seven years’. The new measure received a second reading on 23 Mar., when it was referred to Abergavenny and the rest of the old committee, but was not enacted.41 Ibid. 471b, 493a, 494a; HMC 4th Rep. 118. On 4 July 1607 Abergavenny assisted in the introduction of Thomas Knyvett^*, Lord Knyvett, to the House.42 LJ, ii. 538b.

Abergavenny’s appointment to the committee for the defective titles bill proved ironic because, following the prorogation, he became a victim of the notorious patentee for detecting concealed crown lands, William Tipper. Tipper found evidence, nearly 200 years old, that Abergavenny’s title to the Neville estates was flawed.43 Northants. RO, W(A)1/XI/4K, summary of the bill promoted by Lady Le Despenser in 1610. Consequently, in December 1609 Abergavenny had to pay £666 13s. 4d. to the crown to compound for the title to his estates. However, it was not until the following April that he received a fresh grant of the lands.44 Lansd. 169, f. 10v; Rowland, app. pp. xvi-xxi. It is perhaps significant that Lord Treasurer Dorset, who might have been able to protect him from Tipper, had died the previous year. Raising the money strained Abergavenny’s finances, already fragile due to the increasing indebtedness of both himself and his heir. He therefore prepared a new bill to enable him to sell lands valued unimproved at £30 p.a.45 PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1609/7J1n41.

Fortunately for Abergavenny, the fourth session of Parliament commenced in February 1610, giving him the opportunity to promote this new bill. However, his attendance was increasingly hampered by poor health. Absent on 10 Mar., he was excused by Edward La Zouche^*, 11th Lord Zouche, who explained that it ‘is occasioned by a bleeding, wherewith he hath been much troubled since his last being here’.46 Procs. 1610, i. 190. He was excused again, on 20 Apr., this time by Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, on grounds of ‘sickness’ and did not return to the House until eight days later.47 LJ, ii. 580b. Ellesmere again excused him for ‘want of health’ on 2 July, and he remained away until the afternoon of 23 July, the last day of the session.48 Ibid. 632a. Nevertheless, he was recorded as attending 50 of the 95 sittings of the session, 53 per cent of the total.

Abergavenny was named to only seven of the 58 committees established by the upper House that session. Early on in the proceedings he was appointed to attend the conference with the Commons at which Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, who had succeeded Dorset as lord treasurer, outlined the parlous financial condition of the crown.49 Ibid. 550b. He was also named to five legislative committees. These included, on 2 June, the measure requiring those seeking naturalization to take the oath of allegiance, which Abergavenny himself took five days later.50 Ibid. 606b, 608b.

During the time of his sickness, on 14 Apr., Abergavenny’s daughter-in-law, Lady Mary Neville, wrote to Salisbury asking for permission to present Abergavenny’s land sale bill to Parliament.51 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 214; Rowland, app. p. xiv. The king’s permission was probably necessary because the letters patent re-granting the lands to Abergavenny were not issued until eight days later, until which date they technically belonged to the crown. Moreover, although the letters patent included a promise that the king would consent to legislation to confirm the settlement, Abergavenny also wanted to include a provision to sell properties. James agreed and the bill was given a first reading on 7 May.52 Rowland, app. p. xxi; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1609/7J1n41; Procs. 1610, i. 237. However, two days previously, another bill relating to the estate had been given a first reading. This was promoted by the Fanes, who were concerned that the flaw which Tipper had discovered negated the 5th Lord Abergavenny’s entail of the estate. Under the latter, which had been confirmed by the 1556 act of Parliament, the 5th Lord’s heir general (Lady Le Despenser) stood to inherit the lands if the male line should fail. The letters patent of 22 Apr. entailed the estates on the same terms, but this was held to be less secure than the old entail as it lacked statutory confirmation, a lack which Fane’s bill was intended to satisfy. However, the confirmation of the entail contradicted Abergavenny’s proposal to sell part of the property.53 Procs. 1610, i. 86; Rowland, app. pp. xiv, xix; Northants. RO, W(A)1/XI/4K, summary of the bill promoted by Lady Le Despenser in 1610.

On 19 May both bills received a second reading. Henry Howard*, earl of Northampton, a relative of the Fanes, lamented that although he ‘had thought that these two bills … had been relatives’ they were contradictory as ‘one of them desires to sell the land, the other to keep it’. He informed the House that both sides had agreed to accept his services as mediator. However, Abergavenny was unwilling to have the proceedings delayed. In his only recorded speech of the session he successfully moved for both bills to be referred to the same committee and considered together. He also stated that he was willing for the rest of the estate, except the part he wished to sell, to be settled by act of Parliament in accordance with the entail.54 LJ, ii. 596a; Procs. 1610, i. 86-7.

On 12 June, Tobie Matthew^*, archbishop of York, returned both bills to the Lords, but declared himself unable to report any proceedings upon either, whereupon the House ordered the committee to retire and consider both measures. Two days later Northampton reported from the committee. He revealed that the Fanes had abandoned their bill and agreed that Abergavenny’s should pass, but first wanted confirmation of the 1604 ruling that ranked the Le Despenser barony above that of Abergavenny. Sir Francis Fane had complained that when Sir Thomas Smith^‡, clerk of the parliaments, had prepared a certificate of the Lords’ proceedings in the case for filing in Chancery in 1606, he had omitted to state explicitly that the ruling of the commissioners for the office of the earl marshal concerning the precedence of the baronies had been approved by the House. In fact the passage had probably been omitted because of Abergavenny’s earlier objections, but Smith, having died in the interim, made a convenient scapegoat. Northampton informed the House that Fane wanted a fresh certificate of the proceedings to be issued under the great seal and an official record to show that a new certificate had been issued by consent of the Lords. The Lords agreed that Fane should search the rolls for the 1606 order and compare it with that in the Journal.55 LJ, ii. 613b; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/13/4, f. 35.

On 16 June Northampton reported that Smith’s certificate was indeed ‘imperfect’, as Fane had complained, and moved that Robert Bowyer^‡, who had succeeded Smith, should make a new one on receipt of a writ of certiorari. However, the House preferred to instruct the committee for the Abergavenny bills to draft ‘a perfect and full order’ embodying the House’s 1604 decision.56 LJ, ii. 615a. Northampton seems to have been unhappy with this decision as he raised the issue again three days later, but was overruled.57 Ibid. 618a. He subsequently reported the draft order from the committee, on 25 June, when it was approved, but the Lords ordered it not be entered in the Journal until Abergavenny’s bill was reported. The members of the committee confessed that they ‘did at their last meeting, peruse the same bill but lightly’. Consequently, the bill was referred back to the committee for further consideration.58 Ibid. 622b. The bill was returned by Northampton the following day, having been amended to confirm the entail of the remainder of the lands in accordance with the 1556 act, and the draft certificate was entered in the Journal.59 Ibid. 625a-8a.

The amendments were read a second time, on 28 June, when the bill was ordered to be engrossed but, two days later, Ellesmere complained that it contained ‘some small errors’. These included ‘a mistaking, as is conceived, in the title’ given to Abergavenny’s father. It is likely that, like the letters patent, the bill originally described the elder Edward Neville as Lord Abergavenny, although his right to that title had never been acknowledged. The bill was promptly recommitted, and reported again with amendments, on 3 July, when it received its third reading and was sent to the Commons. The bill appears to have been engrossed again, as the corrections in the final text, all relatively minor, are not those raised by Ellesmere. It only refers to Abergavenny’s father as Lord Abergavenny when citing the letters patent.60 Ibid. 631b, 634a-b; Rowland, app. p. xix; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1609/7J1n41. The measure was rapidly approved by the lower House and returned to the Lords, with amendments, on 17 July, and the bill was passed the following day.61 LJ, ii. 648a, 649a. On 24 July, the day after the session was prorogued, Abergavenny conveyed the properties specified in the bill to trustees authorized to make the sales.62 PROB 11/140, f. 351v.

Abergavenny was recorded as attending every sitting of the Lords in the short-lived fifth session of the 1604-10 Parliament, which assembled in October 1610. Named to five of the House’s seven committees, the subjects of his legislative appointments were the preservation of timber, unnecessary lawsuits over land bequests and the administration by Prince Henry of the newly recreated duchy of Cornwall estate.63 LJ, ii. 669a, 675a, 677a. He was twice instructed to attend conferences with the lower House, concerning the Great Contract and a final attempt to persuade the Commons to grant supply.64 Ibid. 671a, 678a; HMC Hastings, iv. 222-6. Possibly due to his status as senior baron, Abergavenny was appointed a commissioner for proroguing the session on 6 Dec., and for dissolving the Parliament on 9 Feb. 1611.

Later life, 1612-22

In 1611 Abergavenny sold his London residence, Abergavenny House, one of the properties specified in the 1610 act, to the Stationers’ Company for £3,500.65 Blagden, 212. The following year, he served as one of the four bearers of the pall at the funeral of Prince Henry.66 J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 498. By the time the Addled Parliament was summoned, in 1614, Abergavenny’s heir, Sir Henry Neville, had converted to Catholicism, which may explain why it was the lord’s younger, Protestant, son, Christopher Neville^‡, who was returned for Lewes.67 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 414. Abergavenny was twice excused attendance in the upper House in 1614. On 7 May he was among those ‘ill of colds’ and, on 30 May, he was reported as suffering from gout. Nevertheless, he was recorded as present at 24 of the 29 sittings, 83 per cent of the total, although this includes 7 May, when he was excused.68 HMC Hastings, iv. 248; LJ, ii. 710b. He received only one committee appointment, namely to consider a further bill concerning the legality of real estate bequests.69 LJ, ii. 694a. He left no further traces on the parliamentary record. He subsequently paid £100 towards the benevolence levied by James I to compensate for the failure of the Addled Parliament to vote supply.70 E351/1950.

Abergavenny promoted enclosures on his lands, and it may have been improved estate management which enabled him to buy back some of the lands specified in the 1610 act from his trustees in 1616 and 1617. These he settled on his younger son, Christopher, in July 1617.71 J.G. Jones, ‘Landownership and Power 1530-1642’, Making of Mon. 1536-1780 ed. M. Gray and P. Morgan, 26; APC, 1615-16, p. 225; PROB 11/140, ff. 351v-2. By this date Christopher and Henry were his only surviving sons; his second son and namesake had died in 1610 and three other sons were drowned in the Thames in March 1616.72 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 17. In late 1620 he paid £200 towards the benevolence for the relief of the Palatinate, although only after a certain amount of pressure from the Council.73 SP14/117/2, 97.

In the elections for the 1621 Parliament, Christopher Neville was returned for Sussex and Abergavenny’s son-in-law, Sir George Goring* (subsequently 1st earl of Norwich) for Lewes.74 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 404, 414. Before the summer recess Abergavenny was recorded as attending 54 out of 87 sittings of the upper House (62 per cent). His attendance appears to have been poorest in the period between the end of the Easter recess, on 17 Apr., and 8 May inclusive, when he was recorded as present at just five out of 22 sittings, despite not being given leave of absence until the last day of this period.75 LJ, iii. 114. He was named to only five of the 74 or 75 committees established by the upper House, including committees for bills relating to a Kentish manor and the government of Wales and a subcommittee of the committee of the whole House to consider the proposal of George Villiers*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, to build a new academy to educate the sons of the nobility and gentry.76 Ibid. 21b, 36b-7a, 130a; PA, HL/PO/CO/2/1, p. 8. Early in the session Abergavenny subscribed to the petition of the English peerage against allowing Englishmen who had purchased Irish and Scottish peerages of a higher rank to claim precedence over English barons.77 A. Wilson, Hist. of Great Britain (1653), 187. This is perhaps not entirely surprising, given his concern over the position of his barony in relation to others.

Abergavenny attended 23 out of 26 sittings after the session resumed in November (88 per cent of the total), although he was given leave to be absent on 4 December.78 LJ, iii. 181a. He was named to two of the 11 committees established by the upper House in this period, on bills concerning the debts of attainted persons and the Welsh butter industry.79 Ibid. 182b, 185b.

Abergavenny made his will on 19 Jan. 1619, which he reaffirmed before witnesses on 24 Nov. 1622. Possibly because of the conversion of his heir Henry to Catholicism, he appointed as his executor his younger son, Christopher, to whom he bequeathed the residue of personal estate. Goring was appointed overseer and given £20 for a horse ‘as a remembrance of my love unto him’.80 PROB 11/140, ff. 352v-3. It was probably estrangement between Abergavenny and his eldest son that was the cause of a royal letter written to the former in March 1622, in which Abergavenny was urged to provide for Henry’s eldest son, who had married the daughter of a Catholic peer, Henry Mordaunt^*, 4th Lord Mordaunt. The letter also included the king’s ‘recommendation’ of Abergavenny’s heir.81 SO3/7, unfol. (Mar. 1622). There is no evidence that Abergavenny responded to the letter before he died at his house in the parish of St Bartholomew-the-Great, London, reportedly of a cold, on 1 December. He was buried two days later at Birling.82 Coll. of Arms, I.8, f. 8v; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 466; Birling par. reg. (Soc. Gen. transcript). Henry succeeded to his peerage as the 9th (or 2nd) Lord Abergavenny.