Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	aforesaid_a	king_n	say_a	23,782	5	7.5787	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35614	The case of James Percy, claymant to the Earldom of Northumberland with an impartial account of the proceedings he hath made in the several courts of justice in order to the proving and obtaining his right and title to the said Earldom : humbly addressed to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty, and the Right Honourable the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliamnet [sic] assembled.	Percy, James, 1619-1690?; Grey of Ruthin, Charles Longueville, Baron, 1618-1643.	1685 (1685)	Wing C923; ESTC R219212	14,579	14

Berkenhead and the Claymant's Councel to fix upon a Wrong Party as the only way to find out the Right and which in truth had the hoped-for Effect Nor is this an Objection with any knowing intelligent unbyass'd Person it being a thing frequently in practice in the Courts of Law Object II. The Obscureness of the Claymant and Meanness of his Profession having been a Trunk-maker Answ The Obscureness was as before is said from the Misfortunes and Difficulties of the Family of the Percies in the troublesome Times of Queen Elizabeth Nor is it any real Disreputation upon any Noble Family the supporting Families by Lawful Callings though never so mean being esteemed a Virtue by all virtuous Persons And it 's most frequent in the Noblest Families in Germany To Train up their Sons in the learning Handicraft-Trades Nor can any thing but Vice disparage True Nobility Besides the Matter in Controversie is not Whether the Claymant was of this or that Trade but Whether he be Cousin and next Heir Male to Joscelin Percy late Earl of Northumberland which he hath at several Tryals and in several Courts proved to full Satisfaction of the said Courts by all the Methods and Ways imaginable As by Proof of his Lineal Descent and the Ownings and Declarations of the late Earls of Northumberland Algernoon and Ioscelin That the Claymant by the Appellation of James Percy the Trunk-maker at Dublin was of the Blood and Family of the Percies and next Heir Male after the said Ioscelin to the Earldom and by divers other unanswerable Proofs This being the True State of the Claymant's Right and Title to the said Earldom and of the Means by which he has endeavour'd to Recover his said Right wherein he hath been obstructed by the Powerfulness of his Adversaries and the Corruption of his Agents He humbly submits to the Great Wisdom Honour and Justice of the King 's most Sacred Majesty and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled and where it 's not possible there can be any Failer of Justice for Relief and Redress in the Premises To the KING 's Most Excellent Charles R. MAJESTY The Humble Petition of Charles Longeville Esq Cousin and next Heir of Henry late Earl of Kent Lord Hastings Longeville and Ruthin deceased Humbly Shewing THat Reginald Grey Your Petitioners Successor whose Heir he is was Seized to him and his Heirs as of Fee and Right of the Dignities of Lord Hastings and Ruthin That is to say of the Title of Lord Ruthin by descent from Roger Lord Grey of Ruthin his Father and being so seized was divers ●imes in the Reign of Your Majesties Royal Predecessors King Edward the III. Summoned into the Court of Parliament by the Name of Reginald Grey of Ruthin and accordingly sat therein and of the said Titles and Dignities dyed Seized and by divers mean descents the same Dignity descended unto Edmond Grey Knight who by reason thereof was seized of the Dignities thereof as of Fee to him and his Heirs and being so seized the said Edmond by the Name of Edmond Lord Hastings and Ruthin was by the Letters Patents of Your Majesties Predecessors King Edward the IV. Created Earl of Kent to him and to the Heirs Males of his body begotten and shortly after of the Dignities aforesaid dyed seized after whose decease the said Title of Earl of Kent and of Lord Hastings and Ruthin by divers Mesne Descents did descend and come to Sir Henry Grey Knight Cousin and Heir of the said Edmond By reason whereof he became of the said Dignities seized That is to say of the said Title of the Earl of Kent to him and to the Heirs Males of the Body of the said Edmond And of the said Title of Lord Hasting and Ruthin to him and his Heirs and thereof dyed seized by means whereof as the said Title and Earl of Kent is descended and come to the Right Honourable Anthony now Earl of Kent as Heir-Male of the Body to the said Edmond so that the said Dignities of the Lord Hastings and Ruthin are of right ●●●cended to Your Petitioner as Rightful Cousin and Heir of the said Reginald and Nephew and next Heir of the said Henry Earl of Kent That is to say Son and Heir of Susan late Wife of Sir Michael Longeville Knight Sister and Heir of the said Henry May it therefore please Your Excellent Majesty Graciously to give Command for Your Petitioners Summons to this present Parliament there to sit and enjoy the Place and Preheminences to the said Dignities to him descended and of Right belonging And Your Petitioner shall daily pray c. His Majesties Reference At Our Court at Whitehall the 25th of November 1640. WE are Graciously pleased to refer the Petition and the Consideration thereof and of the Petitioners Claim and Title to the Peers o● Our Parliament and Our Will and Pleasure That Justice and Right be done hereupon Order hereupon it was referred to the Commitee of Priviledges and the Lord Ruthin to have notice of it and a Copy of the Petition House of Lords The Opinion of the JUDGES of England in the Case of Charles Longeville Es Lunae 1st February 1640. THE Judges this day delivered their Opinion in the Case of the Lord Grey and Charles Longeville Esq concerning the Titles of the Baronies of Hastings and Ruthin 1. Whether a Possessio Fratris can be upon a Baronage by Writ And it was the Unanimous Opinions of the Judges That there can be no Possessio Fratris in Point of Honour And upon somewhat which was spoken of in the Argument concerning Power in Conveying away of Honour It was Resolved upon the question Nemene Contradicente That no Person that hath any Honour in him and a Peer may Alien or Transfer the Honour to any other person Resolved upon the Question That no Peer of this Realm can drown and extinguish his Honour but that it descends to his Descendants Neither by Surrender Grant Fine nor any other Conveyance to the King Upon which the said House Confirmed the said Opinion and did accordingly Order the Dignities to Charles Longeville Esq Veneris 5. die Febr. Sequentis Vera Copia Examinat ' per Original ' J. P. Die Martis 18. Junij 1678. FOrasmuch as upon the Debate of the Petitioners Case who Claims the Title of Viscount Purbeck A Question at Law did Arise Whether a Fine Levied to the King by a Peer of the Realm of his Title and Honour can bar and extinguish the Title The Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled upon a very long Debate And having heard His Majesties Attorney General are unanimously of Opinion and do Resolve and Adjudge That no Fine Levied or a● any time hereafter to be Levied to the King can bar such Title of Honour or the Right of any Person Clayming such Title under him that Levied or shall Levy such Fine Vera Copia Johannis Brown Clerk Parl ' On the 9th day of January last 1685. KING Charles the Second of Ever Blessed Memory did then in Council direct That the Petitioners Cause should be fully determined in PARLIAMENT Therefore the Petitioner presented to His Most Excellent Majesty KING JAMES the Second the Claymants Petition with Precedents annexed wherein the Descent Property and Right by the Assent of His now Majesty He is become the next Heir-Male and Earl of Northumberland which Petition was presented into His Sacred Majesties hands the 26th of May 1685. By James Percy Who further Prayes That Your Lordships will be pleased to Intercede with the KING for a speedy Determination of this matter which hath been in Contest about Fifteen Years

of November 1678. the Tryal came on and after opening of the Cause the Defendants Councel took Exceptions to some Point in the Declaration which after a debate was waved the Action judged to be well laid and the scandalous Words proved Then the Claymants Councel proceeded to call Witnesses to pove his Pedigree upwards as being the better way to satisfy the Court and inform the Jury and that the Claymant could not possibly Arrive at any present better way to prove his Pedigree than by his Action of Slander For that the Claymant had before that delivered Declarations in Ejectment in several Counties but the Lands being all in the hands of great Personages stopt his Proceedings on such Ejectments by Priviledge which Candidness of the Claymants Councel was unreasonably made use of to the Claymants great Damage For hereupon Draughts of the Claymants Pedigree being delivered to the Judges the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs said What need you trouble the Court to Examine all these Witnesses if there be no Lands therefore let us see first what Lands there are Then the Claymant produced divers Records out of the Tower and elsewhere which evidenced that the Lands late the Lady Lucy's in Cumberland and other Counties in the Records especially named were Settled upon the Heirs-Males of the Percyes for ever tendring three Hundred Pounds to the King c. and quartering the said Lucyes Coat of Armes next their own and before the Percyes Here the Defendants Councel started up an Attainder of Sir Thomas Percy in King Henry the Eighth's time also his Son in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth which being new to the Claymant and therefore his Councel not prepared presently to answer time was given to the Clayment to Inform and prepare himself to answer that matter and a further day appointed for Tryal and the Jury then Sworn with-drawn and after that two several dayes appointed for Tryal and also a third day to wit the 27th of January 1678. But The first day of Hillary Term 1678. the Defendants Councel moved the Court for a new Jury and also for a further day for Tryal both which the Court granted Yet after all this the Defendant moved again for a longer day which was granted until Thursday the 6th of February Notwithstanding all which and that the Claymant had at a vast Expence kept his Witnesses in Town all this time yet would not the Court Award him any Costs ☞ Note In the Lord Chief Justice Hayles time it was otherwise for in the Suit brought as aforesaid against Clarke the Defendant moving to put off that Tryal for seven days on pretence he was not prepared the Court Awarded the Defendant to pay the Clayman● Thirty Five Pound Costs in respect of the Charge of keeping his Witnesses in Town before any further time given for Tryal and which was paid accordingly Sixth of February 1678. The New ●ury appeared and the Tryal came on again the Cause opened ●nd one of the Witnesses called to prove the Words who appearing the Court declared he had sufficiently proved them before So no Exception being made thereunto or to any matter in the Declaration by the Defendants Councel It was Agreed to proceed and take up the Case where they left at the former Tryal the 11th of November Hereupon Copys of the Records of the Patents in Queen Maryes time viz. One for the Barony and th● other for the Earldom were produced Upon this the Defendants Councel Objected the Attainder of Thomas Percy Against which the Claymants Councel insisted and Evidenced That the Claymants Descent and Claim was Paramount the Attainder and that the same could not in any sort affect the Claymant and which was admitted by the Court. This Point being thus Cleared the Claymant descended to Examine his Witnesses to prove his Pedigree but the Defendants Councel declared They admitted and owned the Claymants Pedigree and Title but that could not Affect the Lands for that by an Act of Parliament touching Exchange of Lands between King Henry the Eighth and Henry Percy the Sixth Earl of Northumberland and others the Limitations in the Settlement under whom the Claymant Claymed were destroyed But this Point being also answered as well by several Savings in that Act as otherwise and the Claymant Pressing That he might be permitted to Examine his Witnesses to prove his Pedigree and proceed in the Cause The Defendant then resorted to their first piece of Craft and Insisted upon a pretended Insufficiency in the Declaration and which had been debated and waved as aforesaid but the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs now falling in with them would not suffer the Claymants Witnesses to be Examined as to his Pedigree but on the contrary Cryed out The Declaration is nought the Declaration is nought whereupon the Claymant was driven to suffer a Non-Suit After this the Claymant brought an Ejectment for recovery of that part of the Estate belonging to the Earldom called the Lady Lucyes Lands and in 1681. brought the same to Tryal at the Kings-Bench-Bar where the Claymant fully proved his Pedigree and so was Declared by the Court But by the evil Practises of the Adversaries with the Person that managed the Cause for the Claymant and his not producing at the Tryal the Copy of the Grants made by Richard the Second to the Earls of Northumberland for want thereof and some other Records the said Agent was entrusted with by the Claymant the said Tryal passed against the Claymant The then Lord Chief Justice Pemberton standing up in Court and saying to the Claymant Mr. Percy Your Cause is ill managed suffer a Non-suit Note Through the like Practises and evil Dealings of another of the Claymants Agents one Mr. James Hooton the Claymant lost the benefit of two Writs of Error brought in the House of Lords By these Methods the Claymant proceeded in the Courts of Law singly Now for Equity and Law together The Earldom of Northumberland being heretofore endowed by his Majesty's Ancestors with an Annual Rent or Fee of Twenty Pounds per Annum payable by the Sheriff of Northumberland out of the County In order to the Recovery thereof and Affirmance of the Claymants Title he exbibited his Bill in his Majesties Court of Exchecquer against Edmond Craister Esq the then Sheriff of Northumberland for Recovery of the said Twenty Pounds per Annum not in the least doubting but to bring the Merits of that Cause to a speedy Issue but on the contrary notwithstanding the Sheriff was otherwise an uninterressed Party then only as the hand to pay the Twenty pounds per Annum to the Claymant and have it again allowed in his Accounts Yet the Spirit and Practises that had hitherto opposed the Claymant in his Prosecuting his just Right in the Courts of Law appears in this also and that the World may see it plainly take this following Account of those Proceedings viz. In Trinity-Term 1682. The Bill was fyled against Mr. Craister who appears but sits in Contempt for

not answering whereupon four several Attachments issued against him directed to the Coroner of the County of Northumberland but before any Obedience would be given thereunto or Execution procured thereon the Claymant Plaintiff in the Cause was necessitated to be at the extraordinary Expence of sending Persons on purpose from London into Northumberland to procure the same to be Executed Note These Delayes spent all Trinity Michaelmas and Hillary-Terms 1682. and Easter-Term 1683. Trinity-Term 1683. The Coroner returns Cepi Corpus but neither brings in the Body nor Assignes the Bail-Bond and is therefore amerced Five pounds Michaelmas-Term 13 November 1683. The Plaintiff moves and obtains an Order for a further Americiament of Ten pounds against the Coroner and liberty for the Plaintiff to Examine his Witness de bene esse November the 20. 1683. Upon another Motion a further Amerciament of Twenty pounds November the 27. 1683. Upon another Motion a further Amerciament of Forty pounds Hillary-Term 1683. January 25. Upon another Motion a further Amerciament of One Hundred pounds and then Ordered that the former Amerciaments should be forthwith Estreated and Levyed February 12. 1683. Upon another Motion a further Amerciamen● of Fifty pounds and to be forthwith Estreated Easter-Term 1684. April 16. Upon another Motion and Information o● these Matters and that no Obedience was given by the Coroner It was Ordered That the Comptrollor of the Pipe should forthwith Issue special process to the Sheriff of Northumberland for Levying those Amerciaments and that the Process should be returnable the first day of the next Term and that Mr. Craister should not have his quietus until he had answered the Plaintiffs Bill and cleared his Contempts yet no Obedience yielded 10 of May 1684. Upon another Motion a further Amerciament of One Hundred and Fifty pounds 30 of May 1684. Mr. Craister put in his Answer and upon the Plaintiffs Motion it was referred to the Remembrancer to Tax the Plaintiff his Costs for these Abuses and Delayes which amounted to One Hundred Sixty Four pounds Twelve shillings Six pence and yet Taxed but at Twenty one pounds Sixteen shillings and Six pence Now any reasonable Man would have Imagined That after all 〈…〉 and Contempt this small Pittance of 21 ll 16 s. 6 d. Costs should have been readily paid But observe the contrary 20 June 1684. Upon the Plaintiffs Motion Ordered That unless Mr. 〈◊〉 by Monday then next pay to the Plaintiff the Costs 〈◊〉 the Amer●●aments should forthwith be levyed 27. June 1684. The Plaintiff Moves further and inform● th● 〈…〉 were not paid whereupon ordered the Costs be paid that day 〈…〉 Motion but not a Penny paid Michaelmas-Term 1684. Nov. 4. The Plaintiff Moves the 〈…〉 forms That no Costs is paid nor any Obedien●● given to the 〈…〉 whereupon an Attachment was ●warded against 〈◊〉 unless he 〈…〉 21 ll 16 s. 6 d. and 1● s. and 4 s. more for 〈◊〉 of Costs 〈…〉 but no Obedience given Hereupon the Plaintiff b● Petition to the B●ron● of the 〈…〉 the whole progress the Cause had had and that to put the Plaintiff to 〈…〉 Craister de nov● with the ordinary Process was to run the old 〈…〉 in Infinitum and that the Plaintiff having taken all the Method● that 〈◊〉 could advise and to no purpose prayed the Consideration 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉 and such course to be taken 〈◊〉 the Defendant as might enforce Obedience 〈◊〉 these or the like Reasons incert●● in his Petition First The notorious and out-daring Practises of the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 flying in the Face of the Court by their unpresidented D●●obed●●nce to Authority and rendring the same Contemptuous to all and ineffectual in it● Justice to the prosecutor Secondly The Ruin hereby following the Suitor not only by the 〈◊〉 Charge but Delay Thirdly For that it 's dishonourable and reflects upon the Justice as well as 〈◊〉 of the Court That any person should be suffered to dare and tri●●e with 〈◊〉 and Ruin the Prosecutor immediately under the protection thereof if after ●uch Delay he must yet further suffer in his real Expence ●●casioned 〈◊〉 by this unparallel'd Contempt of Justice The loss of near ●● s. 6 d. in the pound the Costs taxed being little more than 2 s. 6 d. in the pound And Lastly For that nothing deters any Person from Contemning Justice but making the Delinquent Exemplar Upon this Petition the Court ordered That if Craister did not pay the Costs by a day certain in Michaelmas-Term 1684. then all the former Amerciaments to be forthwith Levyed and a further Amerciament set Notwithstanding all which the Plaintiff was put to the Charge of several other Motions for the Costs and they not paid until the beginning of Hillary-Term last 9 January 1684. The Claymant by Petition humbly Addressed himself to his late Sacred Majesty and the Lords of his Privy-Council briefly setting forth the said Matters in the Suit against Craister and that the proceedings of Craister and the Coroner were in notorious Contempt of His Majesties Dignity and Authority and tended not only to the bringing His Majesties Courts of Justice into Contempt but to the Obstruction of Justice in general and utter Ruin of the Claymant in particular Upon this Petition the Claymant received a Gracious verbal Answer That the whole Matter of the Petitioners Cause should be heard and determined in the next ensuing Parliament That it being necessary to make his said late Majesty by his Attorney General a Desendant to the Claymant's said Bill in the Court of Exchequer he made humble Application to the said Attorney General to put in an Answer thereunto but hath not hitherto been so happy as to obtain the same whereby the Claymants further proceedings in that Cause are at a full stop Now it remains that the Claymant answer some Objections much insisted on by his Adversary As Object I. That the Claymant at first derived his Pedigree from Sir Richard Percy as his Great Grand-Father and afterwards from Sir Ingleram Percy Answ This is admitted to be true in Fact but the occasion of deriving from Richard Percy was 1. The Matches of the Percies were rent out of the Heralds Book and Sir Ingleram Percy 's was quite lest out of the First Pedigree 2. The Misfortunes of the Family of the Percies in Queen Elizabeth's Time and thereby those of them under whom the Claymant is immediately Descended driven out of their Native Country and from their Father's House in a most obscure manner meerly for Preservation of their Lives in their tender Years 3. The taking away the Court of Wards and Inquisitions post mortem 4. The Interruption in the Executing the Office of Heralds in ●he Times of the late Rebellion 5. The Adversaries having the Advantage o● possessing themselves of all the Memorandums and Records of the late Earls of Northumberland Algernoon and Ioscelin and the Pedigrees and Descents of that Family 6. The Advice above-said given to the Claymant by Sir Edward Walker Sir John