Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/881

maxim with regard to honours, that they cannot be extinguished otherwise than by forfeiture, or by act of parliament; and it is conceived and contended that whenever the right to a dignity or honour happens to be clearly proved, the safety and dignity even of the peerage itself are both concerned that no length of time shall bar or even prejudice the title. (11 Co. Rep. 1. Lord De la Warre's case. 4 Co. Inst. 355. Lord Purbeck's case in Show. Par. Cases, and in Collin's, passim.)

The admission of the Lord Willoughby of Eresby, to the high office of Lord Great Chamberlain, was, as the petitioner contends, in consequence of the certificate and advice of the House of Lords. But whether the facts referred to in that certificate are agreeable to right, and the truth of the case; whether those facts are not apparently, however unintentionally, mis-stated or mis-judged, is an enquiry which remains for the future discussion of the Lords in parliament, and which is therefore respectfully passed over in silence by the petitioner. One circumstance the petitioner hopes is worthy of observation, which is, that a total neglect or dereliction of claim is not imputable to the unsuccessful competitors, in regard that forty years after the admission of Robert, Lord Willoughby to this high office, petitions were presented by the Earls of Oxford and Derby to the King, for a rehearing of their respective claims, who referred the same to the consideration of the House of Lords; and upon taking the sense of the house, whether, with respect to the Earl of Oxford's claim, it should be confined to matter of error, or whether any new matter might be introduced, it seems to be very material to add, that the votes were equal.

Disappointed although the petitioners were in this singular instance, it is difficult to account for the Earl of Derby's being dissuaded or prevented from proceeding to a rehearing on the matter of error only, which is humbly conceived to be deducible from a fair and full state of the proceedings. And if the admission of the ancestor of the noble family that has fortunately so long enjoyed the high office, appears to have been manifestly founded in error, the claimant hopes this house will be of opinion, that no length of time can sanctify that error in a case of this nature, there being no statute or precedent of limitation in claims of honours.

Subsequent to the reference of the petition of Mr. Burrell and Lady Willoughby of Eresby to the house, the Duchess Dowager of Atholl and Lord Percy presented petitions to his Majesty, in which they severally claimed to be intitled to the high office of Lord Great Chamberlain of England; and such petitions [169] having likewise been referred by his Majesty to the house. it was thought proper, on the behalf of Mr. Burrell and his lady (J. Mansfield, J. Dunning, J. Spranger), to offer some observations upon the cases made by the Duchess Dowager of Atholl and Lord Percy, and to state some facts which it was unnecessary to mention whilst the competition for this high office was between Mr. Burrell and his lady, and the Duke of Ancaster and Lord Robert Bertie.

In the first year of the reign of King Henry the First, Alberic de Vere (the second of that name, whose son was created Earl of Oxford by King Henry the Second) received a grant of this office, to hold to him and his heirs, as freely and honourably as Robert Mallett, or any other person before or after him, ever held the same, and with such liveries and lodgings of his court as belonged to that office. (W. T. fol. 6. Coll. of Arms. Inspeximus, Pat. 5 Rich. II.)

From this period the family of the Veres had an undoubted right to this office, and with some few interruptions during the public troubles and disorders that prevailed in the kingdom, previous to the reign of Henry the Seventh, continued in the enjoyment thereof. But upon the accession of King Henry the Eighth, John, the thirteenth Earl of Oxford. received a confirmation of this office to him and his heirs, and exercised the same until his decease, when it descended to his nephew and heir John, the fourteenth Earl of Oxford, who died seised thereof in the year 1527, leaving three sisters, his co-heirs at law; and John, the fifteenth Earl of Oxford, his second cousin and heir male. (Patent 1 Henry VIII. Pt. 1. M. 26. Inquisitio post-mortem Johannis Com. Oxon. 18 Hen. VIII.)

Upon the decease of the fourteenth Earl of Oxford; a dispute arose between his heir male and his co-heirs and their husbands, concerning the possession and partition of the honours, offices, and other hereditaments, which he died seised of; and in order to decide such differences, all parties submitted their titles to the determination and award of King Henry the Eighth; who, in the twenty-third year of his