Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/869

their humble petition to his Majesty, therein stating the enjoyment of the office of Lord Great Chamberlain of England by the Dukes Peregrine and Robert, and that upon the death of the last-mentioned Duke, the same descended upon Lady Priscilla Barbara Elizabeth Burrell, and that Mr. Burrell was entitled to execute the same, and therefore praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to permit the petitioner Peter Burrell to execute the office of Lord Great Chamberlain of England, in right of the lady Priscilla Barbara Elizabeth Burrell his wife.

The Most Noble Brownlow, now Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven, and the Right Honourable Lord Robert Bertie, also presented a counter petition to his Majesty, stating, that the office of Great Chamberlain of England had for many generations been enjoyed by the petitioners ancestors and their heirs male, as the immediate descendants of Henry the last Earl of Oxford, who died without issue the 26th of March 1625; and the letters patent in the first year of King George the First, for creating Robert, then Marquis of Lindsey, Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven; and an act of parliament passed in the same year for settling the precedency of the last-mentioned Robert, and of the heirs male of his body, and of the body of Robert, then late Earl of Lindsey, after such [151] intended creation should have taken place; the petitioners then insisted, that upon the death of Robert the last Duke of Ancaster, the petitioner Brownlow, Duke of Ancaster, became entitled to the hereditary office of Lord Great Chamberlain of England, as the immediate heir male by descent of Robert, late Earl of Lindsey; or that by an implied construction of the before-mentioned statute, the said office was annexed to the honour and dukedom of Ancaster and Kesteven, and that this office being a personal dignity or honour, and an office of skill or science, could not be held by a woman, and reverted to the crown whenever it happened that there was a failure of the male line; and therefore praying, that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to permit the Duke of Ancaster, as the immediate heir male descended from the line of the Veres, Earls of Oxford, and his heirs male, and in default of such issue, the petitioner, the Lord Robert Bertie, the next heir male of the same line, and his heirs male, to enjoy this office with the Dukedom of Ancaster and Kesteven, or to grant this office to the petitioners and their heirs male, to go along with the Dukedom, taking such precedency only as is prescribed by the before-mentioned statute.

These petitions having been referred to his Majesty's Attorney General, to report his opinion concerning the legality of the respective claims to the said office, he reported, that he was humbly of opinion, that in the event that had happened, the office of Lord Great Chamberlain was not at his Majesty's disposal, but that the eldest co-heir having taken an husband, he was, in her right, entitled to execute the same.

The claim of the present Duke of Ancaster and Lord Robert Bertie to the office, was rested upon three different grounds:

In the first place it was urged (J. Mansfield, J. Dunning, J. Spranger), that by an implied construction of the before-mentioned act, passed in the first year of King George the First, this office is annexed to the honour and dukedom of Ancaster, and therefore must be enjoyed by the person who is entitled to that honour and dukedom.

In answer to this it was insisted, that this act of parliament related merely to the regulation of the precedency of Robert then Marquis of Lindsey, and those who might then after be Dukes of Ancaster, and Great Chamberlains of England, and to prevent them from taking place before other peers of equal rank, which, under the statute of precedency, they would otherwise have been entitled to do; and that this private act of parliament, in the reign of King George the First, neither gave or took away any title to this office, which existed antecedent to that act.

The second argument in favour of the present Duke of Ancaster and Lord Robert Bertie was, that the present Duke was the immediate heir male descended from the line of the Veres, Earls of Oxford, and as such entitled to this office.

But in answer to this it was contended, that the present Duke of Ancaster could not, with any propriety, be called the heir male of the Veres, Earls of Oxford, having descended from a female branch of that family, that is to say, Mary, sister of Edward [152] Earl of Oxford; and still further it was insisted on the behalf of Mr. Burrell, and Lady Willoughby of Eresby, that upon a case so solemnly argued and thoroughly considered, as that was in the year 1626 respecting this office, the decision there, in favour of the heir general in preference to the title of the heir male of Earl