Catalogue description THE DUKEDOM OF AUBIGNY

Finally, it may be stated that This heterogeneous collection of archives, nearly all written in French, would be good material for a French legal scholar to work on and classify correctly: it is certainly no task for an English archivist. Although many of the papers are drafts, there is much good original material besides a wealth of correspondence. The documents are listed in order of the date of the earliest in any particular group.

The Duchy of Aubigny in Berry, about 100 miles south of Paris, was granted to Louise, Duchess of Portsmouth by Louis XIV at the earnest desire of King Charles II in 1684; in the following year, letters of naturalization were issued by Louis in favour of the Duchess's son, Charles, 1st Duke of Richmond, which entitled him and his successors to enjoy all the privileges, franchises and liberties to which gentlemen were entitled in France (see no. GOODWOOD/401). On the death of the Duchess of Portsmouth, 14 November 1734, her grandson, Charles, 2nd Duke of Richmond, succeeded as Duke of Aubigny and to the Seignory of Aubigny.

Although there are references to the Dukedom of Aubigny earlier in this Catalogue and there may well be mention of it later on, it is at this juncture that the main series of records of this French estate would be most conveniently dealt with, because the 3rd, 4th and 5th Dukes of Richmond (and especially the latter) were all concerned in measures to retain this inheritance during and after the Revolutionary Wars in France.

The Aubigny estate was placed under sequestration in 1792 and restored under the general article of the Treaty of Peace of Amiens in 1802. War broke out again in May, 1803, and the sequestration was not formally replaced until 1807.

Charles, 3rd Duke of Richmond died in 1806, but nothing had been received by him either during the peace or during any part of the period between the two sequestrations. He had, however, taken steps to render his peerage of Aubigny more complete and unquestionable and did homage to Louis XVI in August, 1776 (see no. GOODWOOD/402). In 1814, the estate was restored by virtue of the Secret Article 22 of the Treaty of Peace as follows: Le sequestre existant sur le Duché d' Aubigny et les biens qui en dependent sera levé et le Duc de Richmond sera recuis en possession de ces biens tels qu'ils sont maintenant.

Upon the death of the 4th Duke of Richmond in August, 1819, the 5th Duke took possession and in 1820 received an indemnity granted by the French government as executor of the 4th Duke, who had had the Dukedom of Aubigny confirmed to him by Louis XVIII on 18 March 1818.

The descendants of the brother and sisters of the 3rd Duke claimed four-fifths of the French estate, asserting that under the French laws the estate should have been divided into these proportions in 1806 (i.e. at the time of the 3rd Duke's death). These claims gave rise to the following questions, among others:--

Whether the decree of the French Assembly in 1789, or any other, abolished the rights of the heir male of the original grantee.

Whether, if it did so abolish them, there were not some qualification of such destruction in the Code Civil or otherwise.

Whether the said decree, or any other, abrogated the condition of reversion to the Crown under which the estate was held.

Whether, under French law, the domain was not freed from the condition until the actual payment of the sum required by that law.

Whether article 726 of the Code Civil was not a modification of the general article 3, and whether that of 726 did not operate against the application of the claimants (as étrangers) under the French law.

Whether the law of 1819 respecting article 726 was not proof of the effectiveness of that article against what was demanded by the descendants of the brother and sisters of the 3rd Duke of Richmond.

What effect had the will of the 3rd Duke, and what effect had those of the ancestors through whom the present claimants claimed?

What was the law relative to the debts of the 3rd Duke if the claimants were admitted to share and what, in that event, would be the probable extent of the claim they could make on the Aubigny rents received since 1819, the period from when the 5th Duke took possession?

These points were the basis of the deliberations in about 1831 of George Bicknell acting with his brother Robert and their French agents on behalf of the 5th Duke of Richmond. In 1834, close attention was being paid to the claim of the French government to one quarter of the estate, a point which had to be determined before the Conseil d'Etat unless it was otherwise settled or postponed by the interference of the English government. Also, the Tribunal de Première Instance at Sancerre had determined (contrary to every expectation and assurance given to the Duke by his counsel personally and otherwise) in favour of the claimants, thus leaving only one-fifth of the estate to the heirs of the 4th Duke; an appeal was speedily lodged against this decision.

The 5th Duke and his advisers then had to consider how far a waiver of his rights in respect of the claim of the French government to one quarter of the estate might be expedient to removing any collateral influence which this question may have upon the other question relating to the claimants. It was obvious that the closest attention had to be given to how far the admission of the French government's claim would affect or prejudice the defence to the other claim.

In order to prepare the case for hearing in the French courts, it was necessary to assemble all the available evidence in the Duke's favour. The vast quantity of archives listed below indicates how thoroughly this work was done: almost all these records had been preserved by the present (9th) Duke of Richmond's London solicitors (successors to Messrs. Clamtree & Bicknell) but unhappily, a great many of the papers were loose and have had to be arranged in chronological order and in such series as seemed appropriate. Whenever there was an intact original bundle, this has been preserved as such. It will be seen that the 5th Duke and his advisers had to rely on many documents much earlier than the dates of the legal proceedings and, in some cases, such documents fit in with others received from Goodwood House; they have not been merged because it would be impossible, without the closest study of all the evidence, to determine whether or not they had any direct bearing on the issues involved.