Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/882

reign, made his award and decree between the said parties, and thereby bestowed this office, amongst others, with several other hereditaments, upon John, the fifteenth Earl of Oxford, in fee; and gave several manors, messuages, lands, and hereditaments, other part of the estates of John, the fourteenth Earl, to each of his co-heirs general; and by an act of parliament, passed in the same year, (after reciting in general terms that such an award had been made,) it was enacted that the said John, then Earl of Oxford, should hold and enjoy to him, and his heirs for ever, all such castles, manors, messuages, lands, tenements, advowsons, patronages, offices, reversions, rents, services, and other hereditaments, with their appurtenances, which to the same Earl and his heirs, by the same award were decreed, with the usual saving clause of all right to all persons, except the therein before-mentioned John Nevyll, Anthony Wingfield, and Dame Elizabeth his wife, Edmund Knyghteley, and Ursula his wife, and the heirs of the said John Nevyll, Elizabeth, and Ursula; and it was thereby also enacted, that the said John Nevyll, Dame Wingfield, and Ursula Knyghteley, according to the purport of the said award, should enjoy all such manors, messuages, lands, tenements, ad-[170]-vowsons, patronages, reversions, remainders, rents, services, and all other hereditaments, which to them were decreed by the said award, in such manner as in the said act is particularly mentioned. (Sir William Jones, 114. W. G. 298. b. Coll. of Arms. Act 23 Hen. VIII.)

In consequence of this award, thus confirmed by act of parliament, John, the fifteenth Earl of Oxford, enjoyed, and in the thirty-first year of King Henry the Eighth, died seised of the office of Lord Great Chamberlain of England; and although his son John, the sixteenth Earl of Oxford, was interrupted in and withheld from the enjoyment of this office, which was his undoubted inheritance, during the latter part of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, and the short reign of King Edward the Sixth; yet he appears to have been restored to and reinstated therein upon the accession of Queen Mary, and to have exercised the same at her coronation, and to have died seised thereof, in the fourth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. (Coll. of Arms. l. 7. 65. W. y. 123 to 140.) And upon his decease, his son Edward, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, inherited and enjoyed this office, and transmitted the same to his son Henry de Vere, the eighteenth Earl of Oxford, who died seized thereof in the year 1625, without issue, which occasioned the dispute between the heirs male and heirs general of the last named Earl, particularly mentioned in the foregoing case, which was finally decided in favour of the person from whom Lady Willoughby of Eresby was lineally descended.

In the case stated by Lord Percy, (supposing his descent from Dorothy, wife of Lord Latimer, can be proved,) his claim depends solely upon the before mentioned confirmation of this office, to John, the thirteenth Earl of Oxford, in fee, unaccompanied with any exercise or enjoyment of it, or any claim thereto by those from whom the noble Lord is descended, from the eighteenth year of the reign of Henry the Eighth, in the year 1527, down to this present time, a period of above two centuries and a half, and in direct opposition to the award of his Majesty, confirmed by act of parliament, and acquiesced under by all the ancestors of Lord Percy:

The award made by King Henry the Eighth is unfortunately lost, or not to be met with, and referred to only in general words by the before mentioned act of parliament; which has given rise to an assertion, "That there is not the smallest reason to believe, that this award in any degree concerned the office of Lord Great Chamberlain."

But it is submitted, that there is every reason to conclude, that this office was one of the subject matters of this award, because the office was too important to be overlooked, too honourable not to be sought after by the contending parties. The assertion of Chief Justice Crewe, (in the year 1625, at the time when the award probably existed,) that this office was awarded to the fifteenth Earl of Oxford, is clear and positive, and uncontradicted by any of the other Judges who differed from him in opinion respecting the line in which this office should descend. In the year 1625, it was clearly understood by all parties; and the cases [171] of the then Lord Willoughby and Countess of Derby assume it as a fact, that the award of King Henry the Eighth, and act of parliament, did confer this office upon John, the fifteenth Earl of Oxford, in fee. (Collin's Historical Collection of Noble Families, 273, 274.) And it is particularly to be remarked, that in the act of the twenty-third of King Henry the Eighth, the word