Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/878

very rule, which, in this case of Lord Willoughby, established that the office was descendible through females to heirs general.

Lady Willoughby of Eresby, when she contends that the office was included in the award made by Henry the Eighth, and thereby given to the heir male, impeaches the determination of the House, which put her ancestor in possession of it in 1625, as the heir general.

The claim of her Grace Charlotte Duchess Dowager of Atholl and Baroness Strange, could not interfere with Lord Perey's right, as her Grace's claim was founded on her being the heir general of the same ancestor as the Lady Willoughby claimed under, who was only second cousin and heir male to John the 14th Earl of Oxford.

His Grace the Duke of Ancaster was the heir male of an ancestor, who came into possession of the office as heir general against the claim of the heir male; and could not possibly, therefore, prove any right to succeed to it.

[164] It was for these reasons hoped, that the office would be adjudged to belong to Lord Percy, as heir general of John, the 14th Earl of Oxford, who died seised of the same in 1526, to him and his heirs.

This honourable dignity was granted by Henry the First, in fee to the illustrious family of De Vere, afterwards Earl of Oxford, and continued through three complete centuries, in the name and family of De Vere, with only two interruptions by attainders, and these two in tempestuous times, when the government was unsettled, and when the crown was in competition.

In the 4th of Elizabeth, John, Earl of Oxford, being seised or possessed of this high office, attempted by deed to settle and create an intail thereof, and thereby to alter the course of succession thereto, considering the same to be so much in nature of a local hereditament, as that it was capable of being limited to an use; but the attempt indubitably proved, that the office of Great Chamberlain of England is a personal dignity, incapable of being intailed, incapable of being settled upon the male heirs of the possessor for the time being, in preference to, or in exclusion of the heirs general.

Several contests have arisen between parties claiming this high personal dignity, some as heir male, others as heir general. In the year 1625, Robert de Vere was a competitor for this high office, claiming the same as heir male by virtue of the deed of intail of 4th of Elizabeth; and Robert, Lord Willoughby, of Eresby, was another competitor who claimed as cousin and next heir to Henry, Earl of Oxford, that is, son and heir of Mary, late wife of Peregrine, Lord Willoughby, of Eresby, deceased, sister of Edward de Vere, late Earl of Oxford, deceased, father of the said Earl, Henry. The petitions of those two competitors were, by King Charles the First, referred to the House of Lords for their advice. The house heard counsel for both petitions; but not being satisfied, appointed the cause to come on again. Counsel were again heard, and the house ordered, that the Judges should consider of the title of each party, and report their opinions to the house on Monday the 20th of that instant March; on which day a report was made to the house by the Lord Chief Justice Crewe, that himself and four other Judges had, according to the order of the 11th of March, considered of the titles of the competitors to the Earldom of Oxford, certain Baronies therein mentioned, and the office of Great Chamberlain of England. And as touching the office of Great Chamberlain, the Lord Chief Justice further reported, that three of the five Judges were of opinion, that the same did belong unto the heir general, the then Lord Willoughby; but when they had perused divers notes of grants of the said office, they [165] all thereupon desired time to peruse the records, and to search upon what causes the said grants were made; and further to inform themselves of the said cause before they delivered any resolute opinion therein. And