Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 2.djvu/624

 6o8 APPENDIX D Nevertheless, his son, who espoused Queen Mary's cause, officiated (on what plea is unknown) at her coronation, and at that of Elizabeth petitioned the Queen that his father, the late earl, "and his auncestors whois heyr he was, Erles of Oxford, from the tyme whereof the memory of man ys not to the contrary, wer seasid as of fee of and in the office of grand-chamberlyn of England" and had exercised it accordingly. This allegation was false, not only as to his father (as has been shown) but also as to his ancestors, the office being out of his family from 1265 to 1485, so far as can be ascer- tained, save for the brief period 1377-1388. In the absence, however, of a counter-claimant, his statement was not exposed, and the recognition (in error) of his right has been the root of title to the office ever since. This has been explained somewhat fully because these facts were not established till 1902, when the Crown itself claimed the office as having been thus wrongfully obtained. But the House of Lords declined to reopen the question at that distance of time. The earl having thus secured the office, resolved, doubtless, to avoid any further risk of its passing out of his family by entailing it on his heirs male. This he did by a private deed of 2 June 1562. The right to the office was next in question in 1625 when the Earl of Oxford, who was both heir male and heir general to the successful claimant in 1559, died without issue, leaving (i) three sisters of the half-blood, his heirs general according to modern law, (2) the issue of an aunt of the whole- blood, (3) a cousin his heir male, who claimed the office under the entail. On no intelligible principle — for he was not the heir general of its grantee — the office was decided by the judges to belong to his aunt's son. Lord Willoughby d'Eresby.('') In 1 779 the right was again in dispute, on the death of Robert, Duke of Ancaster — heir male and heir general to Lord Willoughby — leaving two sisters. The office was then decided to belong to the two sisters jointly as co-heirs, by whom a deputy could be appointed for its performance. The younger sister had married I>ord Cholmondeley and the present Lord Chol- mondeley is her heir. But the interest of the other sister, who had married Mr. Burrell, became divided in 1870 between her two granddaughters and co-heirs, who had married, respectively. Lord Aveland and Lord Carrington. There were thus three joint-holders of the office, increasing the difficulty, already felt, in agreeing on a Deputy. Lord Aveland's son, the Earl of Ancaster, who had officiated to the death of Queen Victoria, put forward, on her son's accession, the claim that the office was indivisible (the decision of 1779 being wrong) and ought, by feudal law, to belong to himself solely as senior heir general. This claim was opposed not only by the other co-heirs, but by the Duke of Atholl as a representative of the original grantee and also of the earl who had died in 1625, which gave him a double claim. The Crown also, as has been said, asserted its own right. Although the question of right was argued at great (^) See, for this famous case, Collins' Precedents. The judges, to whom the point was referred, decided by a majority of one against the validity of the entail.