Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
lord_n day_n great_a judgement_n 11,581 5 5.9316 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A84081 Errors appearing in the proceeding in the House of Peers in Parliament in the first and second years of the reign of King Charles the First, in the case betwixt Robert De Vere Earl of Oxford, and the Lord Willoughby of Eresby, concerning the office of Great Chamberlain of England. 1661 (1661) Wing E3248; ESTC R176769 5,867 12

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Intail of the said Office were at that time seized of the said Office And admitting he were seized of the said Office Then whether such an Office may be conveyed by way of limitting uses The former of which Questions viz Whether John Earl of Oxford was seized of the said Office when he made the said Intail doth not at all appear in the Report of the Judges to have been considered as the House directed The Chief Justice Crew not at all mentioning it in his Argument And Justice Dodridge only leaving it as a matter of Fact not proved admitted it only by way of Supposition which by evidence since come to the Earl of Oxfords hands can be fully proved And the 20th of that March 1625. The Petition of William Earl of Derby and Elizabeth his Wife eldest Daughter of Edward Earl of Oxford to the King Praying His Majesty to give Order that the Lords in Parliament might upon the hearing of the Judges Opinions forbear to give their Voices for the Lord Willoughby in any thing which ought to descend upon the Heir general The Petitioners conceiving that their Title in right of the said Lady Elizabeth eldest Daughter of the said Edward Earl of Oxford Father of the said Henry Earl of Oxford ought to be preferred Being read in the House of Peers and the Lord Keeper signifying that His Majesty had referred that Petition unto their Lordships in such manner as He did reser the other Petitions Before the Judges Report of their Opinions concerning the Competitors the Earl of Oxford and the said Lord Willoughby and their several Claims to the Earldom of Oxford and Office of Great Chamberlain of England And giving in their several Opinions and the Reasons of their differences in opinion touching the said Office of Great Chamberlain of England upon Tuesday the 28th of March 1626. The House notwithstanding the Petition of the Earl of Derby and his Wife to be first heard before they should give their Votes concerning the Title of the said Lord Willoughby to the Office of Lord Great Chamberlain And their Order made the said 28th day of March 1626. That they would hear the Councel of the said Earl of Derby and the Lady Elizabeth his Wife and the Lord Willoughby at the Bar the next Thursday morning And then if the time would permit give their Resolutions touching the said Office Did notwithstanding that the Councel of the said Earl of Derby and his Lady and the Lord Willoughby were not as appeareth by the Journals of the House of Peers in Parliament heard the said Thursday being the 30th of March nor upon the next day being Fryday the 31. of that Moneth of March but respited until the first of April 1626. which was the next day after put the said 31. day of March 1626. to the Question Resolve and Agree that the said Office of Lord great Chamberlain was come and descended to the Heir General of the last Earl of Oxford not determining or mentioning whether the said Lord Willoughby or the Lady Elizabeth the Wife of the said Earl of Derby or the Lord Windsor not Petitioning were the Heirs general or which of them were of the half or the whole Blood to the last Earl of Oxford or for what reason or upon what grounds the Heirs of the Lord Latimer Wingfield and Knightley or the Lord Windsor and the Earl of Derby and his Wife were excluded which in that Case would have been necessary And the Duke of Buckingham thereupon signifying to the House that the King required that His Councel might be heard touching his Title and Claim to the Gift of the said Office It appeareth that that Vote and Resolve touching the descending of the said Office to the Heir General of the last Earl of Oxford was made before the Councel of the said Lady Elizabeth and the Earl of Derby were at all heard and before it could be discerned or determined by the House which of the Competitors viz. The said Lord Willoughby or the Earl of Derby's Lady were the Heirs General And before the Kings Title was heard or inquired into And upon the hearing afterwards of the Councel of the Competitors viz. The said Earl of Derby and his Wife the Lord Willoughby it doth not appear by the Journals of the House that the Judges were at all consulted or any Report made by them touching the Earl of Derbey's Petition Though in the Certificate of the House to His Majesty there is mention made that they had consulted the Judges which is to be understood in relation only to the Case betwixt the Earl of Oxford and the Lord Willoughby wherein they were consulted but not of the Earl of Derby wherein they were not consulted And the house did certifie the Iudges opinions That the Office of great Chamberlaine did belong to the said Lord Willoughby When in their Vote and Resolves of the 31 th of March 1626. they did only agree that it belonged to the Heir General not naming or mentioning which of the Competitors viz. the said Earl of Derby and the Lady Elizabeth his Wife or the Lord Willoughby was that Heir General And Justice Dodridge one of the three Judges who is supposed to have made the Majority of Voices That the Office of Great Chamberlain of England did belong to the said Lord Willoughby as Heir General of Henry the last Earl of Oxford deceased did not resolve or declare that the said Office of Great Chamberlain did as Justice Yelverton and Baron Trevor had declared it appertain to the said Lord Willoughby as Heir General to Henry the last Earl of Oxon but to the Heir General of Henry the last Earl of Oxford without naming the said Lord Willoughby or determining who was that Heir General So as it may well be concluded that there was but two Judges that declared the Lord Willoughby to be that Heir General And then not three Judges of the five nor the majority of those five Judges did as the Certificate of the House bearing date the fifth day of that April alleageth resolve that the said Office of Lord great Chamberlain did belong to the said Lord Willoughby For that if the Lord Windsors Lord Willoughbyes and the Countess of Derbeys Ancestors were of the half blood to Edward and Henry Earls of Oxford the said Robert Earl of Oxford was of the whole blood and collaterall line the linea recta being expired to John Earl of Oxford who in 4. Eliz. entailed upon him in Remainder the Office of Lord Great Chamberlaine and all the Lands belonging to the Earldom of Oxford some of which viz. The Castle of Hedingham being the Caput Baroniae and parcel of the Earldome were held in Grand Serjeanty by the Service of being great Chamberlaine And the Lord Willoughby could not as the house certified the King and as some of the Judges resolved be heire generall to Henry Earl of Oxford to whom his mother was but of the halfe blood but if heir generall to any must have been heir generall to the said Edward Earl of Oxford And upon the Resolves of the Peers in Parliament before the Kings Counsel were heard in it that the Office did descend to the Heir General of the last Earl of Oxford and their Resolves after hearing of the Kings Counsel that there should be a Salvo Jure Regis if the matter of Fact had been as it ought to have been truly stated to the King His Majesty might as in such Cases was usual have advised with his Councel learned in the Law how and in what manner to have given his Judgement therein Which advice with the Kings Councel learned in the Law appeareth not to have been taken Nor any Report made to the House of Peers of the Kings acceptance or liking of their Opinion and Certificate as it was of Queen Elizabeth in the 29th year of her Raign in the Case betwixt the Lord La Ware and the Lord Berkly for precedency The delivery of the Staff shortly after to the Lord Willoughby and his taking his p●ace in the House of Peers according to the Statute of H. 8. makes not a legal Judgement either of the King or the House of Peers in Parliament For that doth not signifie any more then an Office during the Kings pleasure and a Temporary estate therein as when Sir Thomas Erpingham and others heretofore had and enjoyed that Office whilst it was wrongfully detained from the Earls of Oxford And if the King had given any Judgement in this Case it would have been in the form or manner usual of Judgements given and entred in Parliament As in that memorable Case betwixt John Earl of Arundel and John Duke of Norff. touching the Earldome of Arundel which the Duke of Norff. claimed as Heir General and the Earl of Arundel by reason of the possession of the Castle and Lordship of Arundel to which the Earldome of Arundel was united and appurtenant both the Competitors having Petitioned King H. 6. in Parliament in An. 11. of his Raign the Judgement was so emnly in this form and manner viz. Audita intellecta Petitione habitaque super materiis in eadem contentis aliis praemissis cum Justiciariis aliis Legis peritis ac caeteris de Consilio Domini Regis in dicto Parliamento existentibus deliberatione communicatione avisamento auditis etiam hinc inde nonnullis profundis et maturis rationibus allegationibus et motivis de Avisamento Assensu Praelatorum Ducum Comitum Baronum in instanti Parliamento existentium Dominus Rex hiis aliis ductus considerationibus motivis Decrevit Instituit Declaravit c. Salvo Jure ipsius Ducis Norfolciae vel alterius cujuslibet in hac parte c. And the like or in the form of a Judgment entred upon the Parliament Roll where the Questions for precedency betwixt Humfrey Duke of Buckingham and Henry Duke of Warwick in 23. H. 6. And in 26. H. 6. for precedency betwixt Thomas Earl of Devonshire and William Earl of Arundell