<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2009-09-23</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Pip Willcox</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>proofed text and revised markup</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="A84081">
<STC T="W">E3248</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">47683443</BIBNO>
<VID>172905</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1">
<P>ERRORS Appearing in the PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE Of PEERS IN PARLIAMENT In the Fir&s;t and Second Years of the Reign of King <HI>CHARLES</HI> the Fir&s;t, In the Ca&s;e betwixt <HI>Robert De Vere</HI> Earl of <HI>Ox|ford,</HI> and the Lord <HI>Willoughby</HI> of <HI>Eresby,</HI> Concerning the Office of Great Chamber|lain of <HI>England.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed in the Year, 1661.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="2" MS="y">
<PB N="1" REF="2">
<HEAD>Errors appearing in the Proceedings in the Hou&s;e of PEERES in Parlia|ment, in the Fir&s;t and Second yeares of the Raign of King <HI>Charles</HI> the Fir&s;t, in the Ca&s;e betwixt <HI>Robert de Vere</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> and the Lord <HI>Willoughby</HI> of <HI>Eresby,</HI> concerning the Office of Great Chamberlain of <HI>England.</HI></HEAD>
<P>THe Intention of the KINGS Refe|rence, directing the Lords in Parliament to take the Judges A&s;&s;i&s;tance and advice in matter of Law, was not performed when they took the opinion but of Five Judges, which were not half of the Judges of <HI>Eng|land.</HI></P>
<P>Did not certifie the <HI>King</HI> according to his Reference <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">hat they found, but only the majority of the Judges opi|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 letters">ons.</P>
<P>Did give their advice, when they were only to certifie <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">hat they found, and their opinions (there being a grand dif|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="3 letters">ence betwixt an opinion of the Lords in Parliament) de|claring
<PB N="2" REF="3">in which of the Competitors the Right re&s;ided, and an advice of the Lords in Parliament how and in what man|ner his late Maje&s;tie &s;hould declare and &s;ettle the Earl|dome upon One, and the Office upon the Other.</P>
<P>In the Report of the Judges of the 20th of <HI>March</HI> 1625, to the Peers in Parliament, Recorded in the Journals of the Hou&s;e of Peeres, there is a manife&s;t Error as concer|ning the &s;aid Office of Great Chamberlain, &amp; the Baronies of <HI>Bulbeck, Sandford,</HI> and <HI>Badle&s;mere,</HI> for that they do there|in mention that the Baronies of <HI>Bulbeck, Sandford,</HI> and <HI>Badle&s;mere</HI> de&s;cended to the general Heirs</P>
<P>Of <HI>John</HI> the Fourth, Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> who had I&s;&s;ue <HI>John</HI> the <HI>Fifth,</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> and three Daughters; one of them married to the Lord <HI>Latimer,</HI> another to <HI>Wingfield,</HI> and another to <HI>Knightley.</HI></P>
<P>Which <HI>John</HI> the Fifth, Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> dying without I&s;|&s;ue, tho&s;e Baronies de&s;cended upon his &s;aid Daughters and Heirs.</P>
<P>And being not divideable, are and do remain in the Crown.</P>
<P>Whereupon the Hou&s;e agreed upon the Que&s;tion,</P>
<P>That the Baronies of <HI>Bulbeck, Sandford,</HI> and <HI>Badle&s;|mere</HI> are in the <HI>Kings</HI> di&s;po&s;ition.</P>
<P>Whereas in truth</P>
<P>It was <HI>John</HI> the Fourth, Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> of that Chri&s;tian name, who dyed in 18. <HI>H.</HI> 8. without I&s;&s;ue.</P>
<P>And the three Daughters mentioned were neither the Daughters of the &s;aid <HI>John</HI> the Fourth, nor of the &s;aid <HI>John</HI> the Fifth,</P>
<P>But of Sir <HI>George Vere</HI> Knight, third Son of <HI>John</HI> the Se|cond, Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> who dyed in <HI>primo</HI> E. 4.</P>
<P>And the &s;aid <HI>John</HI> the Fifth, Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> was the Fa|ther of <HI>John</HI> the Sixth, Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> of that Chri&s;tian name, (from whom de&s;cended <HI>Edward</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> and <HI>Henry</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> his Son, decea&s;ed without I&s;&s;ue) and <HI>Awbrey de Vere</HI> his Second Son great Grandfather of <HI>Aw|brey de Vere</HI> now Earl of <HI>Oxford.</HI></P>
<P>And by the Judges not &s;tating the whole Fact, and the
<PB N="3" REF="3">Lords in Parliament not certifying as the King required them, what they found, there happened al&s;o other manife&s;t Errors in that Certificate and opinion, <HI>viz.</HI> a making a De|&s;cent and Title to the &s;aid Lord <HI>Willoughby</HI> of the Office of Great Chamberlain in Fee, which could not be if <HI>John</HI> the Fifth, Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> dyed without I&s;&s;ue, leaving his three Daughters and Heirs who were as afore&s;aid &s;everally mar|ryed to the Lord <HI>Latimer,</HI> and to <HI>Wingfield</HI> and <HI>Knightley.</HI></P>
<P>For that there would then have been a de&s;cent to tho&s;e three Daughters and Heirs of the Office of Great <HI>Cham|berlain,</HI> a&s;well as they &s;uppo&s;ed of the Baronies of <HI>Bulbeck, Sandford,</HI> and <HI>Badle&s;mere.</HI></P>
<P>Whether they were the Si&s;ters and Heirs (as in truth they were) of <HI>John</HI> the Fourth, Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> who dyed with|out I&s;&s;ue, or the Daughters and Heirs (as in truth they were not) of <HI>John</HI> the Fifth, Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> who dyed not with|out I&s;&s;ue, but hath I&s;&s;ue and Heir Male of his body, <HI>Awbrey</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> now living.</P>
<P>And if the Office be not dividable, or as they concluded the Baronies to be, mu&s;t by their own rea&s;ons and opinion be in the King.</P>
<P>Or if <HI>John</HI> the Sixth, Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> (Father of <HI>Mary</HI> the Lord <HI>Willoughbies</HI> Ance&s;tre&s;s) was not &s;eized of the &s;aid Office in 4. <HI>Eliz.</HI> when he made the Deed of U&s;es or Intail; Or if he were, and did forfeit it by alienating that Office without the Kings Licence or pardon of Alienation, which appears by the Arguments of the Lord Chief Ju&s;tice <HI>Crew</HI> and Ju&s;tice <HI>Dodridge</HI> to be a more then an ordinary point &s;tirred in that ca&s;e.</P>
<P>And if Tradition &s;ay truth, was the only cau&s;e of Baron <HI>Trevors</HI> ca&s;ting Vote, Error and Opinion, the Office of Great Chamberlain yet remaineth in the King.</P>
<P>And if the then Judges had rightly certified the Lords in Parliament in that particular, and concerning that point,</P>
<P>It would have appeared to the Lords in Parliament, or to His late Maje&s;tie if their Certificate &amp; opinion had not been mi&s;-guided, that the right of the &s;aid Office of Great Cham|berlain was in the Ear<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">s of <HI>Oxford</HI> according to the antient
<PB N="4" REF="4">and con&s;tant u&s;age and cour&s;e of Baronies, Offices and Pla|ces of Honor in <HI>England,</HI> which hath (as may be proved by divers precedents in other Families) alwaies taken care that &s;uch Honors and Dignities &s;hould remain to the Heirs Males, on whom the Lands of the Baronies, though not the Baronies and Honors them&s;elvs were entailed, and pa&s;&s;ed by the Heirs Female (though nearer in blood) to the Ance&s;tor which la&s;t enjoyed them, and &s;ettled them upon the Males in a collateral line, where the Males of the right line dyed without I&s;&s;ue Male; being mo&s;t agreeable tot he intention and meaning of the Grant of the &s;aid Office to <HI>Albericke de Vere,</HI> Ance&s;tor of the now Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> by King <HI>H.</HI> 1. the &s;aid Office being not to be executed by a Woman to wear a Staff, or attend the King in his Bedchamber.</P>
<P>Or if the Office of Great Chamberlain of <HI>England</HI> had in &s;trictne&s;s of Law reverted to the Crown and come to the King, he might (where it was not dividable among&s;t Heirs Females) have &s;ettled it, as was done in this particular Of|fice of Great Chamberlain upon an Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> in 18. <HI>H.</HI> 8.</P>
<P>And when the five Judges <HI>nemine di&s;&s;entiente</HI> had the 20th. day of <HI>March,</HI> 1625. made their Report and certifi|ed their opinion to the Hou&s;e of Peers in Parliament, that the Earldom of <HI>Oxford</HI> by virtue of an Intail by Act of Par|liament in 16. <HI>R.</HI> 2. was de&s;cended, and of right ought to come to the &s;aid <HI>Robert,</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> and the Heirs Male of his body.</P>
<P>The Lords in Parliament did the 22^d. day of that <HI>March,</HI> agree upon the que&s;tion, That the Earldom of <HI>Oxford</HI> was de&s;cended, and ought of right to come to the Heir Male, <HI>nemine di&s;&s;entiente.</HI></P>
<P>And agreeing upon the que&s;tion concerning the &s;aid Of|fice of Great Chamberlain, that the Judges &s;hould con&s;ider and report to the Hou&s;e whether the Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> who made the Intail of the &s;aid Office, were at that time &s;eized of the &s;aid Office.</P>
<P>And admitting he were &s;eized of the &s;aid Office, Then whether &s;uch an Office may be conveyed by way of limit|ting u&s;es.</P>
<PB N="5" REF="4">
<P>The former of which Que&s;tions, <HI>viz:</HI></P>
<P>Whether <HI>John,</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> was &s;eized of the &s;aid Of|fice when he made the &s;aid Intail, doth not at all appear in the Report of the Judges to have been con&s;idered, as the Hou&s;e directed. The Chief Ju&s;tice <HI>Crew</HI> not at all menti|oning it in his Argument; And Ju&s;tice <HI>Dodridge</HI> only lea|ving it as a matter of Fact not proved, admitted it only by way of Suppo&s;ition, which by evidence &s;ince come to the Earl of <HI>Oxfords</HI> hands can be fully proved.</P>
<P>And the 20th. of that <HI>March,</HI> 1625. The Petition of <HI>William</HI> Earl of <HI>Derby,</HI> and <HI>Elizabeth</HI> his Wife, elde&s;t Daugh|ter of <HI>Edward</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> to the King, Praying His Maje&s;ty to give Order that the Lords in Parliament might upon the hearing of the Judges Opinions, forbear to give their Voices for the Lord <HI>Willoughby</HI> in any thing which ought to de&s;cend upon the Heir general, The Petitioners conceiving that their Title in right of the &s;aid Lady <HI>Eliza|beth,</HI> elde&s;t Daughter of the &s;aid <HI>Edward</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford;</HI> Father of the &s;aid <HI>Henry</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> ought to be pre|ferred.</P>
<P>Being read in the Hou&s;e of Peers, and the Lord Keeper &s;ignifying that His Maje&s;ty had referred that Petition unto their Lord&s;hips in &s;uch manner as He did re&s;er the other Pe|titions.</P>
<P>Before the Judges Report, of their Opinions concerning the Competitors, the Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> and the &s;aid Lord <HI>Wil|loughby,</HI> and their &s;everal Claims to the Earldom of <HI>Oxford;</HI> and Office of Great Chamberlain of <HI>England.</HI></P>
<P>And giving in their &s;everal Opinions and the Rea&s;ons of their differences in opinion touching the &s;aid Office of Great Chamberlain of <HI>England,</HI> upon Tue&s;day the 28th. of <HI>March</HI> 1626.</P>
<P>The Hou&s;e notwith&s;tanding the Petition of the Earl of <HI>Derby</HI> and his Wife to be fir&s;t heard before they &s;hould give their Votes concerning the Title of the &s;aid Lord <HI>Willoughby</HI> to the Office of Lord Great Chamberlain.</P>
<P>And their Order made the &s;aid 28th. day of <HI>March,</HI> 1626. That they would hear the Councel of the &s;aid Earl of
<PB N="6" REF="5"><HI>Derby,</HI> and the Lady <HI>Elizabeth</HI> his Wife, and the Lord <HI>Wil|loughby,</HI> at the Bar the next Thur&s;day morning.</P>
<P>And then if the time would permit give their Re&s;olutions touching the &s;aid Office.</P>
<P>Did notwith&s;tanding that the Councel of the &s;aid Earl of <HI>Derby</HI> and his Lady, and the Lord <HI>Willoughby,</HI> were not (as appeareth by the Journals of the Hou&s;e of Peers in Parlia|ment) heard the &s;aid Thur&s;day, being the 30th. of <HI>March,</HI> nor upon the next day, being Fryday, the 31. of that Moneth of <HI>March,</HI> but re&s;pited until the fir&s;t of <HI>April,</HI> 1626. which was the next day after, put the &s;aid 31. day of <HI>March,</HI> 1626. to the Que&s;tion, Re&s;olve, and Agree, that the &s;aid Office of Lord great Chamberlain, was come and de&s;cended to the Heir General of the la&s;t Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> not determining or mentioning whether the &s;aid Lord <HI>Willoughby,</HI> or the Lady <HI>Elizabeth</HI> the Wife of the &s;aid Earl of <HI>Derby,</HI> or the Lord <HI>Wind&s;or</HI> not Petitioning were the Heirs general, or which of them were of the half or the whole Blood to the la&s;t Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> or for what rea&s;on, or upon what grounds the Heirs of the Lord <HI>Latimer, Wingfield</HI> and <HI>Knightley,</HI> or the Lord <HI>Wind&s;or</HI> and the Earl of <HI>Derby</HI> and his Wife were exclu|ded, which in that Ca&s;e would have been nece&s;&s;ary.</P>
<P>And the Duke of <HI>Buckingham</HI> thereupon &s;ignifying to the Hou&s;e, that the King required that His Councel might be heard touching his Title and Claim to the Gift of the &s;aid Office.</P>
<P>It appeareth that, that Vote and Re&s;olve, touching the de&s;cending of the &s;aid Office to the Heir General of the la&s;t Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> was made before the Councel of the &s;aid La|dy <HI>Elizabeth</HI> and the Earl of <HI>Derby</HI> were at all heard and be|fore it could be di&s;cerned or determined by the Hou&s;e which of the Competitors, <HI>viz.</HI> The &s;aid Lord <HI>Willoughby</HI> or the Earl of <HI>Derby</HI>'s Lady were the Heirs General.</P>
<P>And before the Kings Title was heard or inquired in|to.</P>
<P>And upon the hearing afterwards of the Councel of the Competitors, <HI>viz.</HI> The &s;aid Earl of <HI>Derby</HI> and his Wife, &amp; the Lord <HI>Willoughby,</HI> it doth not appear by the Journals of
<PB N="9" REF="5" MS="y">the Hou&s;e, that the Judges were at all con&s;ulted, or any Re|port made by them touching the Earl of <HI>Derbey's</HI> Peti|tion.</P>
<P>Though in the Certificate of the Hou&s;e to His Maje&s;ty, there is mention made that they had con&s;ulted the Judges, which is to be under&s;tood in relation only to the Ca&s;e be|twixt the Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> and the Lord <HI>Willoughby,</HI> wherein they were con&s;ulted, but not of the Earl of <HI>Derby</HI> wherein they were not con&s;ulted.</P>
<P>And the hou&s;e did certifie the Iudges opinions, That the Office of great Chamberlaine did belong to the &s;aid Lord <HI>Willoughby.</HI></P>
<P>When in their Vote and Re&s;olves of the 31 <HI>th.</HI> of <HI>March</HI> 1626. they did only agree that it belonged to the Heir Gene|ral, not naming or mentioning which of the Competitors, <HI>viz.</HI> the &s;aid Earl of <HI>Derby,</HI> and the Lady <HI>Elizabeth</HI> his Wife, or the Lord <HI>Willoughby</HI> was that Heir General.</P>
<P>And Ju&s;tice <HI>Dodridge</HI> one of the three Judges, who is &s;uppo&s;ed to have made the Majority of Voices, That the Of|fice of Great Chamberlain of <HI>England</HI> did belong to the &s;aid Lord <HI>Willoughby,</HI> as Heir General of <HI>Henry</HI> the la&s;t Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> decea&s;ed, did not re&s;olve or declare that the &s;aid Of|fice of Great Chamberlain did (as Ju&s;tice <HI>Yelverton</HI> and Ba|ron <HI>Trevor</HI> had declared it) appertain to the &s;aid Lord <HI>Wil|loughby,</HI> as Heir General to <HI>Henry</HI> the la&s;t Earl of <HI>Oxon,</HI> but to the Heir General of <HI>Henry</HI> the la&s;t Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> with|out naming the &s;aid Lord <HI>Willoughby,</HI> or determining who was that Heir General.</P>
<P>So as it may well be concluded, that there was but two Judges that declared the Lord <HI>Willoughby</HI> to be that Heir General.</P>
<P>And then not three Judges of the five, nor the majority of tho&s;e five Judges did, as the Certificate of the Hou&s;e bear|ing date the fifth day of that <HI>April</HI> alleageth, re&s;olve that the &s;aid Office of Lord great Chamberlain did belong to the &s;aid Lord <HI>Willoughby.</HI></P>
<P>For that if the Lord <HI>Wind&s;ors,</HI> Lord <HI>Willoughbyes,</HI> and the Counte&s;s of <HI>Derbeys</HI> Ance&s;tors were of the half blood to
<PB N="8" REF="6"><HI>Edward</HI> and <HI>Henry</HI> Earls of <HI>Oxford,</HI> the &s;aid <HI>Robert</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford</HI> was of the whole blood and collaterall line, (the <HI>linea recta</HI> being expired) to <HI>John</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> who in 4. <HI>Eliz.</HI> entailed upon him in Remainder the Office of Lord Great Chamberlaine, and all the Lands belonging to the Earldom of <HI>Oxford;</HI> &s;ome of which, viz. The Ca&s;tle of <HI>Hedingham</HI> being the <HI>Caput Baroniae</HI> and parcel of the Earldome were held in <HI>Grand Serjeanty</HI> by the Service of being great Chamberlaine.</P>
<P>And the Lord <HI>Willoughby</HI> could not, as the hou&s;e cer|tified the King, and as &s;ome of the Judges re&s;olved, be heire generall to <HI>Henry</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> to whom his mother was but of the halfe blood, but if heir generall to any, mu&s;t have been heir generall to the &s;aid <HI>Edward</HI> Earl of <HI>Oxford.</HI></P>
<P>And upon the Re&s;olves of the Peers in Parliament before the Kings Coun&s;el were heard in it, that the Office did de|&s;cend to the Heir General of the la&s;t Earl of <HI>Oxford,</HI> and their Re&s;olves after hearing of the Kings Coun&s;el that there &s;hould be a <HI>Salvo Jure Regis,</HI> if the matter of Fact had been as it ought to have been truly &s;tated to the King.</P>
<P>His Maje&s;ty might, as in &s;uch Ca&s;es was u&s;ual, have advi&s;ed with his Councel learned in the Law, how and in what man|ner to have given his Judgement therein.</P>
<P>Which advice with the Kings Councel learned in the Law appeareth not to have been taken:</P>
<P>Nor any Report made to the Hou&s;e of Peers of the Kings acceptance, or liking of their Opinion and Certificate, as it was of Queen <HI>Elizabeth</HI> in the 29th. year of her Raign, in the Ca&s;e betwixt the Lord <HI>La Ware</HI> and the Lord <HI>Berkly</HI> for precedency.</P>
<P>The delivery of the Staff &s;hortly after to the Lord <HI>Wil|loughby,</HI> and his taking his p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ace in the Hou&s;e of Peers, ac|cording to the Statute of <HI>H.</HI> 8. makes not a legal Judge|ment either of the King or the Hou&s;e of Peers in Parlia|ment.</P>
<P>For that doth not &s;ignifie any more then an Office during the Kings plea&s;ure, and a Temporary e&s;tate therein, as when Sir <HI>Thomas Erpingham</HI> and others heretofore had and en|joyed
<PB N="9" REF="6">that Office, whil&s;t it was wrongfully detained from the Earls of <HI>Oxford.</HI></P>
<P>And if the King had given any Judgement in this Ca&s;e, it would have been in the form or manner u&s;ual of Judgements given and entred in Parliament.</P>
<P>As in that memorable Ca&s;e betwixt <HI>John</HI> Earl of <HI>Arun|del,</HI> and <HI>John</HI> Duke of <HI>Norff.</HI> touching the Earldome of <HI>Arundel,</HI> which the Duke of <HI>Norff.</HI> claimed as Heir Gene|ral; and the Earl of <HI>Arundel</HI> by rea&s;on of the po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the Ca&s;tle and Lord&s;hip of <HI>Arundel,</HI> to which the Earldome of <HI>Arundel</HI> was united and appurtenant, both the Competi|tors having Petitioned King <HI>H.</HI> 6. in Parliament in <HI>An.</HI> 11. of his Raign, the Judgement was &s;o emnly in this form and manner, <HI>viz.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Audita &amp; intellecta Petitione habita&abque; &s;uper materiis in eadem contentis, &amp; aliis praemi&s;&s;is cum Ju&s;ticiariis &amp; aliis Legis peritis ac caeteris de Con&s;ilio Domini Regis in dicto Parliamento exi&s;tentibus, deliberatione, communicatione, &amp; avi&s;amento auditis etiam hinc inde nonnullis profundis et maturis rationibus, allegationibus, et motivis de Avi&s;amento &amp; A&s;&s;en&s;u Praelatorum, Ducum, Comitum, &amp; Baronum in in&s;tanti Parliamento exi&s;tentium, Dominus Rex hiis &amp; aliis ductus con&s;iderationibus &amp; motivis, Decrevit, In&s;tituit &amp; Decla|ravit, &amp;c. Salvo Jure ip&s;ius Ducis</HI> Norfolciae, <HI>vel alterius cuju&s;libet in hac parte, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>And the like or in the form of a Judgment entred upon the Parliament Roll, where the Que&s;tions for precedency betwixt <HI>Humfrey</HI> Duke of <HI>Buckingham,</HI> and <HI>Henry</HI> Duke of <HI>Warwick,</HI> in 23. <HI>H.</HI> 6. And in 26. <HI>H.</HI> 6. for precedency betwixt <HI>Thomas</HI> Earl of <HI>Devon&s;hire,</HI> and <HI>William</HI> Earl of <HI>Arundell,</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
