in their respective Robes and Crowns on their Heads Coming before the King they made their Reverence Then they were led up by the Master of Ceremonies some steps and sitting down on their Knees on Velvet Cushions the Lyon made an Harrangue both to His Majesty and to them Declaring to the Noblemen That it pleased His Majesty to promote them to that Dignity and that he desired them to Fear GOD and obey His Power Then he took their Oaths that they should obey GOD his Majesty and mantain the Religion then profest Thereafter the Lyon delivered to His Majesty the Patents and His Majesty redelivered them to the Lyon who gave them to the Noblemen In token that they should obey GOD and His Majesties Laws Afterwards the Lyon delivered His Majesty the Marquesses Coronets His Majesty redelivered them to the Lyon The Lyon put the Crowns on their Heads saying Iohn Marquess of Hamilton Earl of Arran Lord Even c. George Marquess of Huntly Earl of Enzie Lord Gordon and Badzenoch c. The same was Proclaimed furth of the windows by the Heraulds and Pursivants with sound of Trumpet Then were they conveyed to their Seats and placed above the Earles upon the Kings left Hand Trumpets sounding The Lyon desired His Majesty to Honour the Gentlemen who bare the Honours with the Honour of Knight-hood His Majesty consented The Lyon caused them sit down on their Knees at the foot of all the Stage and after he had made an Exhortation to them and received all their Oaths they holding up their Hands and promising to obey all the Injunctions The Lyon presented the Sword to His Majesty who stroke each of them therewith on the Right shoulder and Sir offered the Spur the Lyon first proclaiming their Styls and after the Heraulds and Pursivants at the windows with sound of Trumpet I find this Difference in the Creation of many Earles from what is here set down That the four Gentlemen bear the Honours thus The first the Penon the second the Standart the third Sword and Belt the fourth the Crown and lastly the Lyon bear the Patent in a Velvet bag And that the Lyon offered first to His Majesty the Sword and Belt and receiving it back put it on the Person Nobilitat As also when the King was not present and after His going to England The Ceremony was performed be His Majesties High Commissioner if there was one at the time Or otherwise a Writ was direct to the Lord Chancellor appointing him Commissioner for that Creation And then the first thing that was done after the person to be Created was brought in the Lyon gave the Patent to the Commissioner who gave it to the Register or Clerk of Council to be read And I Observe this in all Our old Creations that if the person to be Dignified was a Lord formerly he was conveyed in be two Lords and the Ceremony of the new Creation being over was conveyed to his place by two of that degree to which he was advanced The English Nobility are sometimes Created by being called in a Write to Parliament under the Designations of Earles Viscounts c. Which way is unknown to Us in Scotland though the King may introduce it at His pleasure The Precedency amongst Subjects is thus Established in both Kingdoms Dukes of the Blood Royal Other Dukes according to their Creation The Eldest Sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal Marquesses according to their Creation Dukes Eldest Sons Earles according to their Creation Marquesses Eldest Sons Dukes Younger Sons Viscounts according to their Creation Earles Eldest Sons Marquesses Younger Sons Barrons whom We call Lords Viscounts Eldest Sons Earles Younger Sons Barrons Eldest Sons Barronets Viscounts Younger Sons But the Officers in England are by Act of Parliament Henry the 8. thus Ranked Lord Chancellour Lord Thesaurer The Lord President of the Privy Council The Lord Privy Seal These four being of the Degree of a Barron or above shall sit in Parliament and all Assemblies of Council above Dukes not being of the Blood Royal. The Lord Great Chamberlain The Lord High Constable of England The Earl Marishal of England The Lord Admiral of England The Lord Great Master or Steward of the House The Lord Chamberlain of the Houshold These last Six and the Kings principle Secretary take place according to their present State So that if they be Barrons they take place above all Barrons If Earles above all Earles If Dukes above all Dukes By a Decree and Establishment under the Great Seal of England 1 o. Iacobi the following persons are thus Ranked Knights of the Garter Knights of the Privy Council The Master of the Wards and Liveries The Lord Chancellor and Under-Thesaurer of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Dutchy The Chief Justice of the Kings Bench The Master of the Rolls The Chief Justice of the common Pleas The Chief Barron of the Exchequer The other Judges and Barrons of the degree of the Coif The Younger Sons of Viscounts The Younger Sons of Barrons The Barronets The Precedency amongst Our Nobility differs nothing from what is here set down England and We agreeing in all points since the Union of the two Kingdoms And especially since the Coronation of King Charles the first at which time he Declared he would have it so But to prevent Differences betwixt the Nobility of both Kingdoms It was Ordered That all those of the same Degree in England should in England take place from all those of the same Degree in Scotland And all those of the same Degree in Scotland should in Scotland take place of the English That is to say All the English Dukes should take place in England of all the Scots Dukes And all the Scottish Dukes in Scotland should take place of all the English Dukes which was very Just and Suetable to the Laws of Nations But as to the Ranking of Our Officers We Differ much from England For clearing whereof it is fit to know That with Us there were Officers of the Crown and Officers of State The Officers of the Crown were all Designed of Scotland as Constabularius Scotiae c. In King Malcom the II. his Parliament The Offices then Extant were The Chancellour the Justice General the Chamberlain the Steward the Constable and Marishal and they are thus Ranked and have their Respective Fees But by the Act 31. Parl. 11. Ia. 6. The Offices of the Crown are Declared to be The Thesaurer Secretar the Collector which Office is now joyned with the Thesaurers the Justice General Justice Clerk Advocat Master of Requests Clerk of Register And though these be called Officers of the Crown there I conceive they Differ not from the Officers of State And these words Officers of the Crown and Officers of State are now Equipollent Terms so far that all the Officers of State are Officers of the Crown by this Act But the High Chamberlain Constable Admiral and Marishal are Officers of the Crown but are not Officers of State
but appointed Sheriffs who depended upon their own Nomination and were therefore called Vicecomites In Bretagn Barons take place from Viscounts But there are no Viscounts in Germany Bourgrave being in their place Speculat tit de Vicecometatu la Roque de nobilit C. 83. We had no Viscounts in Scotland before 1606. for by the aforesaid Decreet the Lord is declared next to the Earl Barons according to Spelman sunt Clientes Feodales Vassalli Capitales qui Pagos Vrbes Castra vel eximiam ruris portionem cum Iurisdictione acceperunt a Rege And the word according to him comes from Vir or Vi i. e. robur belli But it is more probable that it comes from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gravis they being chosen wise and Discreet men With Us all are called Barons who hold their lands of the King in libera Baronia and who have power of pit and gallows and of old they were all heritable Members of Parliament as all Barons in England are as is clear by Act 52. Parl. 3. Ia. 1. whereby all Barons are appointed to come to Parliament and though this Act may seem to be abrogated by the 101. Act Parliament 7. Iames the first whereby the Barons of each Shire are allowed to choose two wise men to Represent them which is the custom at this day Yet it is observable that though by that Act they may for their conveniency choose two yet they are by no express Law discharged to come in greater numbers And by the 78. Act Par. 6. Ia. 4. no Baron that had below the Rent of 1OO Merks was to be compelled to come to Parliament unless the King particularly wrote for him And when Taxations were laid on by the Council I find by the old Records as particularly in October 1562. that Noblemen and Burgesses are called but no Barons the Barons and Noblemen having been then represented promiscuously and that long after the Act of Parliament allowing them to send Commissioners And this is the Reason why Our old Barons who are not Lords and hold onely their lands in free Barony have supporters in their Atchievement and that with some reluctancy they yeeld the Precedency to Knights-Baronets they being Originally heritable Counsellours to the King as Members of Parliament and not Debarred The several Degrees of Nobility before Treated of did alwayes bear their respective Coronets as in England excepting the Lords who had no Coronet till the year 1665. There being a Warrand under His Majesties hand in Iune 1665. Allowing to the Barons or Lords of Parliament in Scotland a certain Crimson Velvet Cape with a Golden Circle decored with six Pearles on the Top equally distant one from another which is the same with the Barons Coronet in England But the figure of this Coronet on the margine of the principal Signator is done far contrare to the words in the Body The same having points like to that of the Earles which has certalnly been a mistake and ignorance in the Painter and ought to be adverted to be the Lyon and Heraulds This Warrand is Registrat in the books of Council and in the Lyon Books I have here set down for the Readers further Satisfaction a List of all the Nobility at present in this Nation their Sir-names and Principal Titles And Titles of their Eldest Sons With such Officers as have Precedency be Vertue of their Offices The Duke of Albany onely Brother to His most Sacred Majesty Lord Chancellour Lord Thesaurer Lord President of the Privy Council Lord Privy-seal Lord Secretary above all of his degree â‚ Nota. Stuart Duke of Lennox was the premier Duke but this Family is lately extinct DUKES Hamilton Duke of Hamilton His Eldest Son Earl of Arran Scot Duke of Buccleuch His Eldest Son Earl of Dalkeith Maitland Duke of Lauderdale His Eldest Son Earl of Lauderdail Lenos Duke of Lennox His Eldest Son Earl of Darnly MARQUESSES Gordon Marquess of Huntly His Eldest Son Lord Gordon Dowglas Marquess of Dowglas His Eldest Son Lord Angus Graham Marquess of Montrose His Eldest Son Lord Graham Murray Marquess of Athol His Eldest Son Lord Murray EARLES Campbel Earl of Argyl His Eldest Son Lord Lorn Lindsay Earl of Crawsurd His Eldest Son Lord Lindsay Hay Earl of Errol His Eldest Son Lord Hay Keith Earl Marischal His Eldest Son Lord Keith Gordon Earl of Sutherland His Eldest Son Lord Strathnaver Areskin Earl of Marr His Eldest Son Lord Areskin Graham Earl of Airth and Monteith His Eldest Son Lord Kilpont and Kilbryd Lesly Earl of Rothes His Eldest Son Lord Lesly Dowglas Earl of Morton His Eldest Son Lord Aberdour Areskin Earl of Buchan His Eldest Son Lord Auchterhouse Cuningham Earl of Glencairn His Eldest Son Lord Kilmawrs Montgomery Earl of Eglington His Eldest Son Lord Montgomery Kennedy Earl of Cassils His Eldest Son Lord Kennedy Stuart Earl of Murray His Eldest Son Lord Down Maxwel Earl of Nithisdale His Eldest Son Lord Maxwell Seton Earl of Winton His Eldest Son Lord Seton Livingston Earl of Linlithgow His Eldest Son Lord Livingston Home Earl of Home His Eldest Son Lord Coldingham Drummond Earl of Pearth His Eldest Son Lord Drummond Seton Earl of Dumfermling His Eldest Son Lord Fyvie Fleeming Earl of Wigton His Eldest Son Lord Fleeming Lyon Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorn His Eldest Son Lord Glames Hamilton Earl of Abercorn His Eldest Son Lord Paslie Ker Earl of Roxburgh His Eldest Son Lord Ker Areskin Earl of Kelly His Eldest Son Lord Pettinweem Hamilton Earl of Haddington His Eldest Son Lord Binning Stuart Earl of Galloway His Eldest Son Lord Garlies Mackenzie Earl of Seaforth His Eldest Son Lord Mackinzie Ker Earl of Lothian His Eldest Son Lord Newbottle Hay Earl of Kinnoul His Eldest Son Lord Duplin Campbel Earl of Lowdown His Eldest Son Lord Mauchlaâ— Crichton Earl of Dumfries His Eldest Son Lord Crichton Dowglas Earl of Queensberry His Eldest Son Lord Drumlanerick Alexander Earl of Striveling His Eldest Son Lord Alexander Bruce Earl of Elgin His Eldest Son Lord Kinlosse Carnagie Earl of Southesk His Eldest Son Lord Carnagie Stuart Earl of Traquair His Eldest Son Lord Linton Ker Earl of Ancram His Eldest Son Lord Nisbets Weems Earl of Weems His Eldest Son Lord Elcho Ramsay Earl of Dalhoussie His Eldest Son Lord Ramsay Ogilvy Earl of Airly His Eldest Son Lord Ogilvy Ogilvy Earl of Findlator His Eldest Son Lord Deskfoord Dalziel Earl of Cranwath His Eldest Son Lord Dalziel Livingston Earl of Callender His Eldest Son Lord Almond Lesly Earl of Leven His Eldest Son Lord Balgonie Ruthven Earl of Forth His Eldest Son Lord Ettrick Iohnston Earl of Anandale His Eldest Son Lord Iohnston Maule Earl of Panmure His Eldest Son Lord Maule Murray Earl of Dysert His Eldest Son Lord Huntingtour Hay Earl of Tweeddale His Eldest Son Lord Yester Carnagie Earl of Northesk His Eldest Son Lord Rosehill Bruce Earl of Kincardin His Eldest Son Lord Bruce Lindsay Earl of Balcarras His Eldest Son Lord Balneâ—l Dowglas
presence of King Iames it was determined in favours of the younger sons of Viscounts and Barons But at the same time it was declared That such Bannerets as should be made by His Majesty or Prince of Wales under the Kings Standard displayed in an Army Royal As also the Knights of the Garter Privy Counsellours Master of the Court of Wards and Liveries Chancellour and Under-Thesaurer of the Exehequer Chancellour of the Dutchy Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Master of the Rolls Chief Justice of the Common-pleas Chief Barons of Exchequer and other Judges and Barons of the degree of the Coif should have place and precedency both before the younger sons of Viscounts and Barons and before all Baronets by which some alterations may appear from the Ranking appointed by Henry the fourth Beside what has been formerly observed in the description of Knights Baronets I find that of old a Banneret or a Ban-rent has been with us a title higher than a Baron for by Act 101. Parl. 7. Ia. 1. Barons may choose their own Commissioners but Bishops Dukes Earles Lords and Ban-rents are to be summonded to Parliament by the Kings special precept And it is probable that these Ban-rents were Knights of extraordinary reputation who were allowed to raise a company of men under their own Banner but now it is commonly taken for such as are Knighted by the King or Prince under the Royal Standard in time of War But I conceive that those could not now sit in Parliament upon the Kings precept the former Act of Parliament being in desuetude They have the precedency from Baronets though their Wives have not this being but a temporary Dignity and the other an heritable Barons in England are Lords with us but a Baron with us is properly he who has power of pit and gallows And yet of old I conceive that Lords and Barons were the same for the Statutes of K. Robert 1. bear to be made in his Parliament holden at Scoon with Bishops Abbots Priors Earles Barons and others his Noblemen of his Realm And in Our old Original Acts of Parliament I find that the Lords and Barons are put in one column undistinguished and under the common name Barons And in the first Parliament of K. Ia. the 4th I find the Master of Glames i. e. the Lord Glames eldest son sitting inter Barones Now the Lords are called the Great Barons and the rest are called Small Barons in the 101. Act. 7. Parl. Ia. 1. and ever since But yet I find by the 166. Act. 13. Parl. Ia. 6. every Earl or Lord payes 2000. pounds for Lawborrows and every great Baron 1000. pounds but by great Baron there is meant a Baron of a considerable estate because that Act was to proportion the Surety to be found to the estate of him who finds the Surety The old Barons or Lairds amongst us especially where they are Chiefs of Clans or the Representatives of old Families that were Earldoms as Pitcurr is of the Earl of Dirleton and as Chief of the name of Halyburton have never ceded the Precedency to Knights-Baronets much less to ordinar Knights Though the other pretend that a Baron is no name of Dignity and that Knights-Baronets have a special priviledge that there shall be no degree betwixt them and Lords except the Bannerets And though militia non est per se dignitas Chassan fol. 344. yet generally it is believed that next to Knights-Baronets succeed Knights-Batchelours and next to them our Lairds or Landed-Gentlemen though a Laird in effect is but the corrupt word of a Lord. Amongst such as profess Sciences the Ranking goes thus uncontravertedly 1 o. Such as profess Theology 2 o. Such as profess the Canon-Law 3 o. The Civil-Law 4 o. Philosophy 5 o. Medicin 6 o. Rhethorick 7 o. Poescy 8 o. History 9 o. Grammer 10 o. Logick 11 o. Arithmetick 12 o. Geometry 13 o. Musick 14 o. Astronomy Chassan de gloria mundi pars decima And amongst these such as are Doctors preceed these that are not and amongst Doctours the priority goes by Age. In Towns These who inhabit Cities are preferred to such as inhabit Burghs and generally those in the Metropolitan or capital City are preferred to all the rest And those who have born Magistracy are even when their Magistracy is over preferred to all others And so far is this Precedency observed that 1 o. A younger Alderman or Bailie takes not Precedency from his Senior because he is Knighted or as being the elder Knight as was found in the case of the Alderman Craven who though all the rest of the Alderman were Knighted at the Coronation of King Iames kept the precedency formerly due to him as Senior Alderman But though this hold not onely amongst Aldermen but that even all Knights of the Countrey being Burgesses of a Town do cede to these who have been their Magistrates in it as to publick meetings relating to the Town Yet it is doubted whether such a Knight will be oblieged to give place to an Alderman or Baily in a neutral place But it is determined in the Heraulds Office of England that all such as have been Mayors of London that is to say Provosts with us do take the place of all Knights-batchelours every where because they have been the Kings Lieutenants It is there likewlse remarked That Sir Iohn Crook Serjeant at Law was Knighted before any other Serjeant his Ancient and standing upon Precedency by reason of his Knighthood It was adjudged against him by the Judges viz. that he should take place according to his Serjeancy and not after his Knighthood yet his wife took her place of a Lady before other Serjeants wives The Members of Courts do take place amongst themselves according to the precedency of the Courts where they serve as the Clerks of the Privy Council take place of the Clerks of the Session In Families likewise the Chief of the Family takes place of any Gentleman of the Family And though generally it be believed that Gentlemen have no precedency one from another yet Reason and Discretion do allow that a Gentlman of three Generations should cede to a Gentleman of ten if there be not a very great disparity betwixt their Fortunes and that for the same Reason almost that a Gentleman of three Generations claims precedency from any ordinary Landed-man who was newly acquired his lands CHAP. IX The Precedency due to Women WOmen before their Marriage have Precedency by their Father but there is this difference betwixt them and the Male-children that the same Precedency is due to all the Daughters that is due to the eldest though it is not so amongst Sons and the reason of the difference seems to be that Daughters would all succeed equally whereas the eldest Son excludes all the rest But if this be the adequat and true reason then where the Estate and Honours are provided to the eldest Daughter onely excluding the rest they ought not to have the same
does the Son possess this Title by his Father but by his Family And Lawyers have resolved that Filius retinet Nobilitatem etiam repudiata haereditate Bart. in L. Iurisjur § 1. ff de Oper. lib. Iac. in L. si non sortem ff de condict in debit But yet this decision may seem unsuteable to the Analogy and Principles of Law For 1 o. Since Honour is by the first Patent and Erection granted to a man and his Heirs It seems Just and Legal that none can enjoy the same but such as are Heirs so that this seems to be a qualified Right granted by the King and consequently can be enjoyed by none but such as Purge and Purifie the qualities and are Heirs 2 o. We see that in other Rights granted to a man and his Heirs no Successor can have Right without being Heir and since this holds in Accessions of the meanest Nature Why should it not much rather hold in Titles and Dignities which are things of great importance 3 o. We have no way nor method to know who is Heir but by an Inquest after which he who is served Heir is lyable to all Debts and if he who is to use the Title needs not be found Heir by an Inquest any man may use the Title of a Deceist Peer and if two contended for it this could not be tryed without an Inquest and Service 4 o. The making men lyable to their Predecessors Debts for using his Title would be very advantagious for the Defuncts Creditors and it is the Interest of the Common-wealth that Creditors should be payed nor could the apparent Heir complain since he may choose to use the Title or not as he pleases 5 o. It were advantagious to the Common-wealth that none had a Title but he who had the Estate which was given out with it and out of which it was to be mantained a Poor Nobility being a great burden upon a Common-wealth and a ruine to it And I find that the Parliament of England did Degrade George Nevil from being Duke of Bedford for want of an Estate suteable to his Dignity which Statut. 17. Ed. 4. expresses the inconveniencies here mentioned which are greater in Scotland than in England because Our Peers have more Interest in laying on Taxes than Lords in England have 6 o. The Law considers not in other cases whether the thing used by the apparent Heir may be advantagious to him Or whether he may pay Debt with it for the using of meer Ornaments which can yeeld no Money Or things of the meanest advantage do make him lyable yea and he would be lyable though he were a looser by the thing he used whereas not onely are Honours and Precedency things of great Advantage and which men would buy at any Rate But if a man have Liberty once to use the Title of his Predecessor it gives him a great Opportunity to inhance his Predecessors Estate by indirect means And the former Arguments prove onely that the Blood interest as to Honour is transmitted without a Service but not that the Feudal Title of Earl can be so transmitted QVESTION XII Whether does the Appearancy of Blood give Precedency where the Predecessor is not Dead This is called by the Doctours Spes expectantia successionis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and upon this account it is Debated Whether the Son of a King ought to be preferred to his Brother and all the Peers And generally whether the Nephew ought to be preferred to the Uncle who was his Fathers second Brother And I find it Recorded that Lycurgus did decide for himself against his Nephew being the Son of his eldest Brother But I would distinguish here thus First in the Families of Kings and Princes all the Kings Children are preferred to the Kings Brothers and all the Kings Brothers to the Kings Uncles and thus it was decided in France by Henry the third Rupanus pag. 508. But formerly the Uncles were preferred by the Constitution of Philip the Long anno 1316. And though in the Roman Empire before Alexius Comnenius the Emperours Son was still preferred to his Uncle Yet that Emperour desiring to put a Mark of Respect upon his own elder Brother preferred him to his Son and now the Sons of Princes are so farr preferred that not onely they but all the Princes of the Blood are preferred to all other Peers though they be last Created as was found by the Parliament of Paris anno 1541. betwixt the Dukes of Neveres and Monpensier 2 o. If in other Families the Brother be of a Dignity equal to his elder Brother then the Brother will be preferred to the Nephew as if the Brother be an Earl and the Nephew a Lord as being an Earles Son in this case Expectation will not prefer the Nephew because there are other actual Degrees of Preferrence 3 o. If the Uncle were a Lord by Creation and the Nephew a Lord by Birth in which case if the Uncle was a Lord before the Nephew was born the Uncle ought to be preferred as first in Time but not if the Nephew was first born and thus Baldus distinguishes ad L. ut intestato C. de su Leg. Hered 4 o. If neither the Nephew nor Uncle have any special Dignity then the Son of the elder Brother is to be preferred to the Uncle And this last case shews that the immediate hope of Succession or jus expectantiae is in it self a ground of Precedency and since a man and his apparent Heir are una eadem Persona in the Construction of Law and that in many things that are Disadvantagious to the Son he is look'd upon as Heir apparent in the same way as if his Father were dead it is therefore just that as he has the Disadvantages of an apparent Heir so he ought to have the Advantages of an apparent Heir And thus We see that Our Statutes having Declared Comprisings bought in by the apparent Heir to be Redeemable by the Defuncts Creditors It was found that a Comprising bought in by the eldest Son even whilst his Father lived was Redeemable from him and that he was an apparent Heir in the construction of Law And therefore since the Law puts him in the same case as if the Father were Dead he ought to have the same Precedency and consequently ought to be preferred to his Uncle to whom he would certainly be preferred if his Father were dead It is remarkable that in Scotland the Uncle was of old acknowledged to be King during not only the Pupillarity of his Pupil but during the Uncles own Natural Life which being an Invasion upon the Natural Right of Our Kings was abrogated under Kenith the third QVESTION XIII Whether should an elder Brother who was Born before the Father was Preferred to the Dignity of a King Marquess Earl c. be Preferred to a younger Brother who was Born after his Father had attained to either of these Dignities Lawyers have varied very much
equal to him to whom he is sent and is in Law no way lyable to his Jurisdiction And this is amongst others the opinion of Alberic Gentil an Engglish Lawyer de Legationibus l. 2. c. 10. And it is clear from Liv. lib. 6. lib. 43. 2. King Henry of England being to enter upon a War with Simeon Earl of Leister did intreat Supply from Alexander King of Scots and lest this might inferr any Acknowledgement of his Superiority he did by Letters under his hand and by his Ambassadours publickly declare that he did not crave this aid as Superiour to which Superiority he had no pretence 3. The same King Alexander being invited to assist at the Coronation of King Edward and being unwilling to go there lest it might inferr an acknowledgement King Edward did declare Quod non ex Debito sed ex Gratia tantummodo hoc petebat 4. The same King Alexander being to make homage in England to king Edward for the Lands of Penrith and Tindale which he held of king Edward he did publickly protest Quod non pro Regno Scotiae sed pro terris in Anglia dictum Homagium faciebat Rexque iste Angliae hujusmodi Homagium admisit per quod praesumitur talia fuisse similia prius facta homagia Regno Angliae per Reges Scotiae Nam talia fuisse praesumitur quale fuit illud declaratum expositum Homagium nam talia sunt subjecta qualia praeadicata admittunt which are the very Words used in the Answer made by the Scots before the Pope where all the former four instances are fully discussed and were offered to be proved by Witnesses beyond all Exception the Writs themselves having been designedly taken away by king Edward And Fordon has in his History unprinted Copies of several Letters written by the said Pope Boniface and others declaring that those Instances consisted in their knowledge and some of those Instances are fully repeated by Duchesne pag. 661. who is to be believed since he is a Stranger And even Matthew Paris a Learned English Historian does declare That king Richard the first did when he was going to the Holy War disclaim this pretended Superiority over Scotland anno 1188. Which Disclamation is likewise observed by Hovedean another Historian of the same Nation And when Matthew Paris speaks of the Homage done to the king of England he makes it only to be for his Lands in England Rex Scotorum Willielmus fecit Homagium Regi Anglorum Ricardo de jure suo in Anglia Which is ordinarly the stile used by Historians when they writ of this Subject And thus Duchesne sayes that Alexander made Homage to Henry the third for his possessions in England but refused to make him Homage for Scotland and that king Alexander sent a Cartell to king Henry for asserting that he had made him Homage for Scotland The Copy of the Homage is yet extant at Rome and the minute of it is thus exprest in the Records of our old Abbacies Memorandum anno Gratiae milesimo ducentesimo septuagesimo octavo Apostolorum Simonis Iudae apud Westmonasterium Alexander Rex Scotiae fecit Homagium domino Edwardo Regi Angliae filio Regis Henrici sub his verbis Ego devenero hominem vestrum pro Terris quas de vobis teneo in Regno Angliae de quibus Homagium vobis debeo salvo regno meo tunc dixit Episcopus Norvicensis salvum sit Regi Angliae si jus habuerit ad homagium vestrum de regno cui Rex statim respondit aperte dicens ad homagium regni mei Scotiae nullus jus habet nisi solus DEUS nec de ullo teneo nisi solo DEO 4. King Alexander having dyed without Males Edward the first treated for a Marriage betwix Margaret Princess of Scotland called the Maid of Norway and Edward his son In which there are many pregnant Acknowledgements of this Freedom Volentes concedentes quod deficientibus praedictis Edwardo Margarita vel eorum altero absque Liberis extantibus in omni casu eventu in quo ad proximiores haeredes regnum praedictum debeat de jure reverti integre habere absolute absque ulla subjectione revertatur restituatur iisdem And in the close of that paper it is said That there shall be no prejudice done to either of the kingdoms Quin libere habeant statum suum And in the Deputation given by the Governours of Scotland dated at Melross anno 1289. for treating that Marriage this express Reservation is insert Salvis tamen in omnibus singulis per omnia Libertate Honore Regni Scotiae Which Reservation is likewise insert in a Warrand granted by king Edward for treating the said Marriage And it is observable That in all the Scottish Addresses to him and accepted by him he is only designed Rex Angliae Dominus Hiberniae Dux Aquitaniae but never designes himself Dominus superior Scotiae till after the War which shews that his former airie Title was very unjust 9. As the kings of England have acknowledged the Scots to be no Vassals so have their Laws and Lawyers For it is contented by these That the Scots were Aliens to England and could not have succeeded to any Estate in England without being Naturalized whereas alibi genitura presupposes that the alibi nati are not Vassals For this jus alibi geniturae called by the French droit d' aubeyne is settled upon this Maxime of the Feudal Law That because Feus are granted by over-Over-lords or Superiours upon designe and promises that their Vassals shal serve them upon all occasions against all persons and never reveal their secrets nor conceal what may be their disadvantage therefore Feudalists do justly conclude That no man can be Leidge man to two supreme Superiours or Over-lords because these Duties are imprestable to both seing the secrets of the one may be incompatible with the Safety of the other and they may by warring against one another distract the Alleadgeance of their Vassal And because men are more prone to serve their Native Prince then others therefore Strangers are alwayes suspect nor have they allowance to sell the Feus to which they succeed lest they should carry away the price out of the Country and possibly imploy it against the same Country Which principle seems at first to have flowed from the Roman Law by which the Goods of Strangers dying in Rome fell to the Exchequer or Fisk fiebant caduca With this foundation of the Feudal Law founded upon so clear Reason do the Customs of other Nations agree who account not these Aliens who live under the same Alleadgeance Thus Rageau pag. 67. Aubains sont estrangers mais 〈◊〉 qui n' est pa de la soveraignete de la Courounne de France Vid. Bacquet du droit d' aubeyne printed in the year 1557. And by the Custom of Milain the Expertest Feudalists of all the World alibi genitura extends not to
and her Nephew Robert Or as king Edward the third in the Right of the said Crown of France determined of the Controversie betwixt Iohn Earl of Montford and Charles of Bluis for the Dukedom of Bretaigne 3. By the Confession and acknowledgement of Prelats Peers and others the Estates of Scotland subscribed by all their hands and seals in the Roll of Ragman wherein they did acknowledge the Superiority of the kings of England not only in regard of such Advantages as the sword had given him but as his original and undoubted Right Which Roll was treacherously delivered into the hands of the Scots by Roger Mortimer Earl of March in the begining of the Reign of king Edward the third 4. By the tacite Confession of the kings themselves who in their Coyns Commissions and publick Instruments assume not to themselves the Title of kings of Scotland but of Reges Scotorum or the kings of the Scots and thereby imitating that though they are kings of the Nation yet there is some Superiour Lord king Paramount as we may call him who hath the Royalty of the Land 5. By the Judgements Arrests of the Courts of England not only in the times of king Edward the first but in sometimes since For â—hen William Wallace a Scotsman by birth and the best Souldier of that Country was taken prisoner and brought to London he was adjudged to suffer Death as a Traitor which had been illegal and unrighteous judgement had he been a prisoner of War and not lookt upon by the Judges as subject to the Crown of England The like done in the case of Simeon Fraâ—â—ll another of that kingdom in the same kings Reign In like manner in the time of king Edward the third it was resolved in the Court in the Lord Beaumonts case when it was objected That one of the Witnesses was a Scot and therefore as an Alien not to give his evidence that his Testimony was to be allowed because the Scots in the Law of England did not go for Aliens And when one indicted for a Rape in the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeths Reign desired a medietatem linguae because he was a Scots-man and so an Alien it was denyed him by the Court because the Scots were not reputed here as Aliens but as Subjects rather So also when Robert Vmsramville Lord of Kyme was summoned to the Parliament of England in the Reign of king Edward the third by the name of Robert Earl of Angus which is a Dignity in Scotland and after in a Writ against him was called by his own name of Vmsramville without any Addition of that Honour the Writ was adjudged to abate which I conceive the Learned Judges had not done if Scotland had not been reputed to be under the Vassalage of the kings of England 6. And lastly by a Charter of Lands and Arms which I have in my Custody granted by king Edward the first in the last year of his Reign to Peter Dodge of Stopworth in the Countie of Chester one of the Ancestors of my mother In which it is exprest that the said Lands and Arms were conferred upon him by that king for his eminent Services encontre son grand enemi rebel Baliol king of Scotland and Vassal of England In Answer to these Objections founded upon the Reign of Brutus I need say no more save that Cambden and the other Learned English Writers do look upon the same as a meer fiction And for proving the Crown of Scotland to hold of England there must be authentick Documents in Writ produced as has been formerly debated And this does sufficiently answer all that is said of Bellinus king Arthur c. But to refute these Fictions and to show how much of Cheat is in all these Contrivances I need only cite a passage from the Learned Aylet Sammes in his Britannia antiqua pag. 159. whose words are That which gave some Authotity to this Fiction was the use king Edward the first made of it in vindicating his Title to Scotland against the pretence of Pope Boniface and the Church of Rome who laid claim to that kingdom by ancient Right as part of St. Peters Patrimony and that Churches Demesne It appears that the Monks and Friers had a great hand in making out this Title by Brute which story was now new vampt and from all parts sent out of these shops where at first it had been forged and hammered out And this doth more evidently appear if we consider many other parts of the same Letter as it is found in the Records cited by Mr. Prin but especially that miracle of king Adelstane who in perpetuam rei memoriam to give an evident signe of his Right to Scotland with his sword struck a blow upon a Rock near Dumbar that he Cleft it at least an Elne wide As to the Homage made by king Malcome to William the Conquerour it is answered That the matter of Fact is absolutely denyed And not only do our Historians and the Historians of Forreigners mention no such submission but they do on the contrair relate That William the Conquerour having come with a Designe to conquer Scotland he was forced by Malcome king of Scotland to a Peace very Honourable and Advantagious for Scotland one Article whereof was That William the Conquerour should restore such of the English Nobility as had fled to Scotland for shelter to their Estates and Honours And how can it be imagined that Scotland being then very Unite and living under a most warlike Prince would have submitted to a king who had too much to do at home or that King Malcome would have submitted to him whom he forced to restore even the English who had Rebelled against him And as the Constitution of Vassalage requires Writ so if any such Vassalage had been acknowledged he had accepted of a Charter holding of the Conquerour as all the other Vassals did As to King Williams Homage to Henry the second it is Answered That William having been treacherously made Prisoner he was forced by a long and tedious Imprisonment to make this Homage and consequently the Homage it self was null being extorted by Force and made by a person who was not sui juris being in prison It being certain by the Laws of all Nations That Deeds done by Prisoners are null but especially in this case where the Deed was such as that it would have been null however For even the most absolute Kings are so far from being able to alienate their Kingdom or enslave it that by so doing as some say they forfeit their own Right and make the Throne void for the next Successour who is not obliged by what they have done And if any such Act as this were binding then England by the same Argument had remained a Feu of the Empyre since Richard the first their King did Homage to Henry the Emperour for England and King Iohn his brother did the like Homage to the Pope and offered to
1654. Excepting onely the Ambassadours of Austria and the Ambassadours of Forreign Kings were still allowed to take place from all the Electors except the King of Bohemia in all the Solemnities of the Empire But the Ambassadours of Common-wealths having claimed the same precedency The Emperour Leopold has Decerned against them in favours of the Electors Crus lib. 4. cap. 4. The eldest Sons of the Electors preceed all the other Princes of the Empire The Arch-dukes of Austria have the first Seat next to the Electors CHAP. VII Of the Precedency of Church-men I Need not debate the Differencies that have fallen in amongst the Patriarchs of Rome Constantinople Antioch Alexandria and Ierusalem Those of Rome and Constantinople having claimed Precedency because their See were the seats of the Roman and Grecian Empires Those of Ierusalem claiming preference because the chief Priest-hood was once settled there Those of Antioch claiming precedency because Antioch was the first seat of Christianity as is clear by the 11. chapter of the Acts And those of Alexandria pretending that they were equal to the Roman Patriarch at least because Alexandria was the chief City of the East before the building of Constantinople and the Church thereof being by Euseb. lib. 11. said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vide Salmas de Primat pap cap. 12. Thus far did Precedency invade even Religion and raise Emulation amongst those who pretended to be the greatest Paterns of Humility The Roman Patriarch was by Phocas the Emperour raised above all the rest in the year 606. since which time they have raised themselves by several Degrees to the Papacy though it cannot be denyed but even before that time the Bishops of Rome had the first Seat in all Councils as is clear by Iustinians Novella 131. cap. 2. And in the Council of Nice Adrian Bishop of Rome had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or the power of preceeding did still belong to the Emperours as hath been fully cleared by Crusius and others And though it be pretended that Constantine the Great did from Christian Humility prefer the Successour of St. Peter as Vicar of IESVS CHRIST to himself and that in the Canon Law cap. Constantinus 14. Dist. 96. the Emperour Constantin is brought in acknowledging himself to have led the Popes Bridle and in the Famous Ceremonial of Rome Fol. 21. the Emperour is allowed no higher place then the Popes Foot-stool Yet Frederick the 1. Emperour did contentiously Debate this Precedency with Adrian the fourth since which time it hath been variously acquiesced in by Popes and Emperours And though the Legats be Representatives of the Popes yet Thuan tells us lib. 98. That the Learned Brissonius President of the Parliament of Paris would not suffer the Popes Legat to preceed him And at the Coronation of Charles the fifth the Pops Legat was denyed the precedency from the Electors The Cardinals have Debated for Precedency with the Patriarchs though by the Novella 132. c. 2. Iustinian places Patriarchs next to the Pope And Panormit in cap. antiqua X de privileg excess Praelat prefers the Patriarchs to the Cardinals and now by the Concession of Sextus Quintus that Pope hath raised the Cardinals to an equal Degree with Kings and if Kings be present at Table or other Solemnities with Cardinals If there be but one King he is to sit after the first Cardinal Bishop and if there be moe Kings they sit mixtly with the Cardinals first a Cardinal and then a King But though this holds amongst Popish Princes yet the Authour of Les Memoirs des Ambassadeurs does Observe That Leicester Grotius and the other Ambassadours of PROTESTANT Princes never yeelded Precedency to Cardinals till Lockhart Ambassadour for Cromwel yeelded it to Cardinal Mazarine Where he likewise observes That though the Prince of Condie yeelded the Precedency to Cardinal Rechlieu yet the Count of Soisson refused it The Bishops of Scotland preceed in this manner Arch-bishops of St. Andrews Arch-bishops of Glasgow Bishops of Edinburgh Bishops of Galloway Bishops of Dunkel Bishops of Aberdeen Bishops of Murray Bishops of Rosse Bishops of Brechin Bishops of Dumblane Bishops of Caithness Bishops of the Isles Bishops of Argyl Bishops of Orknay I find by Letter in anno 1625. that before King Iames going into England the Marquesses of Scotland did take place from the Arch-bishops But now the Arch-bishops take place from all Dukes and Marquesses in imitation of England And by a Letter in anno 1626. renewed in anno 1664. The Arch-bishop of St. Andrews is to take place from all Subjects which is to be limited as not to exclude the Kings Children and Brothers as I conceive And de facto the Arch-bishops of St. Andrews ceds to the Chancellour since the Letter The Bishops of England Preceed thus Arch-bishops of Canterbury Arch-bishops of York Bishops of London Bishops of Durham Bishops of Winchester Bishops of St. Davids Bishops of Ely Bishops of Norwich Bishops of Hereford Bishops of Salisbury Bishops of Peterborough Bishops of Carlisle Bishops of Worcester Bishops of Rochester Bishops of Landaff Bishops of Lincoln Bishops of Bangor Bishops of Exeter Bishops of Chichester Bishops of St. Asaph Bishops of Oxford Bishops of Lichfield and Coventrie Bishops of Bristol Bishops of Glocester Bishops of Chester Bishops of Bath and Wells CHAP. VIII General Observations concerning the Precedency of Subjects NObility is devided with Us as in England in Nobiles Majores Minores the Greater and the Lesser Nobility Under the Greater are comprehended all such as are Lords of Parliament Under the Lesser are comprehended Knights and Gentlemen And though all these be not Peers of Parliament yet they are all Peers to one another And thus a Gentlemen may be offered to a Dukes Daughter whose Ward and Marriage falls to the King as has been often decyded nor can that Match be refused upon the account of Inequality And it hath been found that though Noblemen must be judged by their Peers yet Landed Gentlemen may pass upon their Assyse and a Nobleman is oblieged to accept of a Challenge from a Gentleman as his Peer where Duels are Lawful Under the word Barron all Our Nobility are comprehended as is clear by the 81. Act. Parl. 14. Ia. 2d And the Inscription of the first Parliament of K. Ia. 5th where the Parliament is said to be holden per Regis Regni tutorem una cum Praelatis Barronibus Burgorum Commissariis Albeit the Parliament of Rob. 1. was cum Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus Barronibus aliis Magnatibus which shews that there were other Magnates infra Barrones It may be Doubted Whether the Younger Son of Dukes Marquesses c. are to be Ranked inter Nobiles majores since they sit not in Parliament Or inter Nobiles Minores since they are designed Lords and take place from many of the Nobiles Majores The Sons of the Kings of France were all Kings and Soveraigns in
The speciality of Officers of State being That in all Acts or Meetings which concern the State they sit as Members by Vertue of their office as in Parliaments Conventions c. where the Chamberlain and Admiral come not as such nor the Constable and Marishal if they were not Earles The Officers of State have oft contended for Precedency amongst themselves And therefore King Iames did in Privy Council upon the 17. of Iune 1617. Declare That in that and all other Parliaments none should sit as Officers of State save eight and though there should be moe of the saids Officers by Deputation Division or otherwise Yet eight onely should sit which eight he did thus Rank by Act of Council Thesaurer Privy-Seal Secretary Register Advocat Justice Clerk Thesaurer-deput Mr. of Requests And yet His Majesty having appointed Sir Archibald Atchison to be second Secretary and he having contended that his place was to be next the principal Secretary This was Opposed by the Register and Advocat founding themselves upon the said Act of Council It was answered thereto That His Majesty might notwithstanding of the said Act have as many Secretaries as he pleased and by that His Majesty was only Limited to eight Officers of State in Parliament But that notwithstanding thereof he might make use of any eight he pleased and accordingly he had made use of the Chancellor Collector and Comptroller as Officers of State in several Parliaments notwithstanding that they are none of the eight Officers mentioned in this Act Likeas K. Ia. had appointed the Lord Chancellor being a Nobleman to sit amongst the Noblemen and not as Chancellor or an Officer of State The Council did remit this Debate to the King I find that upon the 20. of February 1623. the whole matter of Precedency amongst His Majesties Officers and Counsellors is thus Stated The Lord Chancellor The Lord Thesaurer The Arch-bishop of St. Andrews The Arch-bishop of Glasgow The Earles and Viscounts according to their Ranks Bishops according to their Ranks Lord Privy Seal Lord Secretary Lord Register Lord Advocat Lord Justice Clerk Lord Thesaurer-deput The Lords of the Session according to their Admission Barrons and Gentlemen being Counsellors according to their Admission It is observable from this Act that Lords of the Session have Precedency from Privy Councellors in Scotland otherwise any Counsellor of an elder Admission would be preferred to them And yet in England Privy Councellors are preferred to all the Judges and even to the chief Justices And with Us I find no Privy Councellor take place as such from any person whatsoever which seems very strange For since the Judicatur it self is placed before the Session and that its President hath Precedency from the President of the Session that therefore its Judges ought to preceed the Judges of the Session 2 do Though the Lords of Session are Lords of Council and Session yet there being Secret Councellors gives them a greater nearness and Argues a greater Trust And in all matters of Precedency these are the Chief Topicks for Precedency 3 o. In Law Counsellours are called by the Emperour Pars Corporis nostri l. quisquis C. ad L. Iul. Majest And so to assault them was Treason and is with Us. 4 o. In France this Question betwixt the Members Magni Concilii and the Senators of the Parliament of Paris is Debated by Boerius and he prefers the Counsellours And in Sweden they have place from all the Nobility 5 o. The Lords of Privy Council have more supereminent power then the Lords of Session For they can stop the Precedor of the Justices they can Adjourn the Session they can grant Precognitions moderat punishments c. Notwithstanding of all which such Respect has Our Kings to the Lords of Session who Distribute Justice Equally to the People that they still preferred them to all the Subjects except the Lords of Parliament and their eldest Sons It has been contended by the Younger Sons of Noblemen That they ought to have Precedency from the Lords of Session Because sayes the second Son of an Earl I have Precedency from the Eldest Son of a Lord and yet he has place from the Lords of Session and it is a certain Rule in Precedency That if I preceed you I must preceed him who preceeds you And if an Earles second Son and a Lords eldest Son and a Lord of Session did meet together the Earles second Son could not preceed the Lords eldest Son except he preceeded also the Lord of Session To which nothing can be answered save that the eldest Sons of Peers being presumptive Peers and such as will be Peers It is fit that the Lords of Session who have but a Temporary Precedency should not preceed them But I find that though in England the younger Sons of the preceeding Rank take still the place from the eldest Son of the next mediat as the younger sons of Dukes from the eldest sons of Earles and the younger Sons of Marquesses from the elder Sons of Viscounts And that all the Chain of Precedency is founded upon this Gradation and that it seems that Nature has led men to this Establishment Yet the eldest Sons of Our Lords Lord Barons refuse to Cede to the second sons of Earls and it was so of old with Us and that which may be given as a Reason for this is that it is unreasonable That they who are to be Peers and to have a constant Title should Cede to such as have but a Temporary Honour But if this Reason were sufficient the younger Sons of Dukes should not preceed the eldest Sons of Lord Barons With Us the eldest Sons of Lord Barons are Design'd Masters as the Master of Rosse c. And of old the Uncles of Lords after the Death of their elder Brother though he left a Son were called Masters till the Nephew had a Son For which I know no other Reason but that because they wanted a Tittle they took this For their Father being Lord there was no Degree below to take as the elder Sons of Earles took that of Lord. And I believe that thus the word Master was given in England to meaner People when their name was not known For though the word Dominus was refused by Augustus as importing Slavery which the Romans could not bear rather then from a secret Impulse as St. Augustin sayes In respect Our SAVIOVR was then Born who was the True Master since Sueton tells That Tiberius also refused this Title yet in Complement even then such as were not known were called Domini Obvios sayes Seneca si nomen non succurrit Dominos salutamus and thereafter with the Roman Slavery this Title grew from being a Complement to be a Duty And thus the Grecian Emperour was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the eldest son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from this Title of Master came Meship amongst Us which was given to all such as had not a special Title as Lord Sir
Monteith compearand be Graham his Procutor the said Heugh Earl of Eglington compearand be Iohn Bell his procutor and the said Iohn Earl of Cassils compearand be Iohn Hamilton and Gilbert Ross and the said Andrew Lord Stuart of Ochiltry Iames Lord Balmerinoch Iames Lord Abercorn compearand personally the said Lord Lindsey of the Byres compearand be the said Mr. Robert Learmont his procutor the said Iohn Lord Forbes compearand be Iames Fogo his procutor the said Patrick Lord Glames compearand be Mr. Patrick Sharp younger his procutor the said Patrick Lord Gray compearand be Patrick Whyllie his procutor the said Iohn Lord Seaton compearand be Mr. William Livingston his procutor the said Allan Lord Cathcart compearand be George Angus his procutor the said Iames Lord Carlyl compearand be the said Robert Hamilton his procutor the said Robert Lord Sanchar compearand be Creichton his procutor the said James Lord Hay of Yester compearand be Mr. Iames Burchar his procutor the said Iohn Lord Harres compearand be Corbal Cunningham his procutor the said Iames Lord Torphichen compearand be Mr. Robert Learmont his procutor the said Lord Thirlstain compearand be Thomas Fleyming his procutor the said Alexander Lord Spynie compearand be the said Mr. Robert Learmont his procutor And the hail remanent Lords and Earles particularly abovewritten being oft-times called and not Compearand divers Terms and Dyets assigned to them for this effect the Writs Evidents Documents and Testimonies produced be the saids Persons compearand and every an of them acclaiming the Priority and Precedency before others being divers times and at divers Dyets very diligently and exactly Sighted Tryed Examined and Considered be the saids Lords Commissioners and the saids Lords therewith being as also with the Ranks and Places of such Earles and Lords as were Promoted and Created in His Majesties own time well and throughly Advised The saids Lords Commissioners has Decerned Decreited Appointed and set down and be these presents Decerns Decreits Appoints and sets down the Ranks and Places following to the hail Noblemen of the Kingdom to be Keeped Bruiked and Possessed by them in all Parliaments General Councils and publick Meetings hereafter In the first The saids Lords Commissioners Discerns and Ordains the Duke of Lennox to have the first place the Marques of Hamilton the second the Marques of Huntly the third because be the custom inviolablie observed in all Kingdoms the place of Honor amongst Nobility is first in the persons of Dukes and next Marquesses and then in the persons of Earles and Lords and next unto them the saids Lords Commissioners Discerns and Ordains the Earles abovewritten to have Bruiked and Possessed their Ranks and places according as they are here written Ranked and set down in Order following Viz. Angus Argyl Crawfurd Errol Marishal Sutherland Mar Rothes Morton Monteith Eglington Montrose Cassils Caithnes Glencairn Buchan Murray Orkney Athol Linlithgow Home Pearth Dumfermling and Dumbar And sicklike the saids Lords Commissioners Dicerns and Ordains the Lords particularly abovewritten to have Bruiked and possessed their Ranks and Places according as they are here Written Ranked and set down in Order following Viz. Lindsey Forbes Glames Fleyming Salton Gray Ochiltrie Cathcart Carlyl Sanchar Yester Semple Sinclar Harres Elphingston Maxwel Oliphant Lovat Ogilvy Borthwick Rosse Boyd Torphichen Pasley Newbottle Thirlestain Spynie Roxburgh Lindors Lowdoun Dirleton Kinloss Abercorn Balmerinoch Murray of Tillibairn Colvil Culrosse and Scoon And Decerns and Ordains all Earles and Lords particularly abovewritten to Keep Bruik and Posses their Ranks and Places in all times coming according to the Orders and Ranks abovewritten now set down Appointed and Prescrived to them and to make no Question Trouble nor Plea in this Matter to any appointed to have place and rank in the manner foresaid But prejudice alwayes to such Person or Persons as shall find themselves or their Interests prejudged be their present Ranking to have recourse to the ordinar Remeed of Law be Reduction before the Lords of Council and Session of this present Decreit recovered and of their due Place and Ranks be Production of more Ancient and Authentick Writs nor has been used in the Contrary of this Process Summonding all such persons thereto as shall think themselves wrongously Ranked and placed before them And in the mean time this present Determination to stand in full Force Strength and Effect ay and while the Party Interested and Prejudged obtain Lawfully an Decreit before the saids Lords of Council and Session as said is And Ordains these presents to be Insert and Registrat in the Books of Privy Council and an Authentick Extract thereof to be delivered to the Clerk Register and another Extract to be delivered to the Lyon-herauld to be kept be them for the better knowledge and Information of every mans Ranks and Place when the Occasion of their Ranking shall be Presented Extract de libris Actorum Secreti Consilii Act. 8. D. N. Regis Per me Jacobum Primrose Clericum ejusdem sub meo signo subscriptione manualibus It is fit to know that the Earl of Dowglas was by Act of Parliament Declared to have the first Vote in Parliament and the Carrying of the Crown and leading of the Vanguard But K. Iames did in anno 1582. prevail with that Earl to suffer the Duke of Lennox to carry the Crown for that time and in anno 1632. There is a Charter granted to the said Earl in life-rent and to his Son in Fee cum omnibus privilegiis c. specialiter cum privilegio aciem ducendi Coronam gerendi c. But in anno 1633. the said Earl being Created a Marquess it is Declared by Act of Council that he did quite priviledge of having the the first Vote in Parliament upon his Promotion And yet the Marques of Dowglas still pretends that any such Renunciation could not have prejudged the Family since the Granter of that Renunciation was onely a Life-renter his son having been in Fee I find there are some titles of Nobility in England annexed to places so that whoever is in possession of that place has right to the tittle Thus it was found in the case of the Lord Abergavenny that he in possession of the Castle ought to have the title albeit he be not Heir of Blood Their Reason is because it is a Barony-marchiere and it has been found that Baronies and Castles situate upon the Borders of Scotland and Wales belong alwayes to the Owners the words of the Tenour being per servitium Patriae custodiendae It is alleadged as one of the Reasons in that caise that the Owners of lands holding in capite per Baroniam have Precedency albeit they be not next Heirs The next Degree to the Earles is that of Viscount in Latin Vicecomes as being of old Lieutenant to an Earl Vicecomites olim dicibantur quibus castri Dominus Vices suas committebat seu executionem Iurisdictionis But afterwards Our King gave not the Government of Counties or Shires to Earles
Earl of Forfar His Eldest Son Lord Wendal Midleton Earl of Midleton His Eldest Son Lord Clearmont Scot Earl of Tarras His Eldest Son Lord Alemoor Gordon Earl of Aboyn His Eldest Son Lord Glenlivet Boyd Earl of Kilmarnoch His Eldest Son Lord Boyd Cochran Earl of Dundonald His Eldest Son Lord Cochran Dowglas Earl of Dumbritan His Eldest Son Lord Dowglas of Attrick Keith Earl of Kintore His Eldest Son Lord Inverury Sinclar Earl of Caithnes His Eldest Son Lord Berrendule VISCOUNTS Cary Viscount of Faulkland Constable Viscount of Dumbar Murray Viscount of Stormont Gordon Viscount of Kenmore Arbuthnet Viscount of Arbuthnet Crichton Viscount of Frendraught Seton Viscount of Kingston Macgil Viscount of Oxenford Livingston Viscount of Kilsyth Osburn Viscount of Dumblane LORDS Forbes Lord Forbes Fraser Lord Salton Gray Lord Gray Cathcart Lord Cathcart Sinclar Lord Sinclar Dowglas Lord Mordington Semple Lord Semple Elphingston Lord Elphingston Oliphant Lord Oliphant Fraser Lord Lovat Borthwick Lord Borthwick Ross Lord Ross Sandilands Lord Torphichen Lesly Lord Lindors Elphingston Lord Balmerinoch Stuart Lord Blantyre Areskin Lord Cardross Balfour Lord Burleigh Drummond Lord Madderty Cranston Lord Cranston Melvil Lord Melvil Napier Lord Napier Fairfax Lord Cameron Richardson Lord Crawmond Macky Lord Rae Forrester Lord Forrester Forbes Lord Pitsligo Mackleland Lord Kircudbright Fraser Lord Fraser Hamilton Lord Bargeny Ogilvy Lord Bamff Murray Lord Elibank Galloway Lord Dunkel Falconer Lord Halkerton Hamilton Lord Bethaven Sandilands Lord Abercromby Carmichal Lord Carmichael Sutherland Lord Duffos Rollo Lord Rollo Ruthven Lord Ruthven Colvil Lord Colvil Mackdonald Lord Mackdonald Bellenden Lord Bellenden Lesly Lord Newwark Rutherfurd Lord Rutherfurd Ker Lord Iedburgh Weems Lord Bruntisland ¶ It is to be observed that the eldest Sons of Viscounts and Lords are designed Masters by their Fathers Titles Lord Thesaurer-deput Lord Register Lord Advocat Lord Iustice-Clerk This is the Precedency stated by the present Rolls of Parliament albeit it is not acquiesced in by all the Nobility For the Earl of Sutherland contends with all the Earles who are ranked before him and generally such as are dissatisfied with these Rolls do protest whilst the Rolls are called against such as they conceive are unjustly ranked before them Sometimes also the Son has a different Precedency from what was possessed by his Father As the Earl of Lothian who now as succeeding to his great Grand-father by the Mother comes to have his Precedency next to the Earl of Wigton though his Father taking place by a new Patent was ranked as in the above written Rolls The Justice General pretends to the same precedency with the Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench in England by a report made by the Lord Thesaurer in the Kings name the 17. Iune 1637. but neither is the Letter to which this report relates extant nor has he been in possession since And it is fit to observe that notwithstanding of what is said before page 42. by a Servants mistake that the Lord Privy-seal takes place with us as in England The Order of Baronet in Scotland was erected for advancing the Plantation of Nova Scotia in America and for settling a Colony there to which the Aid of these Knights was Designed The Order was onely intended be K. Ia. 6. before his Death for in his first Charter of Nova Scotia in favours of Sir William Alexander 10. Septem 1621. And in another Charter granted to Sir Robert Gordon of Lochinvar of a part of Nova Scotia Designed the Barony of Galloway 8. Novem. 1621. there is no mention made of this Order So that the same was onely erected by K. Charles 1. anno 1625. In the several Patents granted to Baronents His Majesty did dispone to each of these Knights a certain portion of land in Nova Scotia erecting the same in a free Barony with great and ample priviledges unnecessary to be insert here And moreover for their encouragement did Erect Creat Make Constitute and Ordain that Heritable State Degree Dignity Name Order Title and Stile of Baronet to be enjoyed be every of these Gentlemen who did hazard for the good and increase of that Plantation And so preferred them to that Order and Title Creating them and their Heirs Male heritable Baronets in all time coming with the Place Preeminency Priority and Precedency in all Commissions Breeves Letters-patents Namings and Writes and in all Sessions Conventions Congregations and places at all times and occasions whatsomever before all Knights called Aequites aurati all lesser Barons commonly called Lairds and before all other Gentlemen Excepting Sir William Alexander His Majesties Lieutenant of Nova Scotia who with his Heir their Wives and Children conform is not onely excepted in each of these Letters-patents granted to the Knights his Consorts But likewise the Charter granted to himself be King Charles 1. 1625. did bear expresly this exception and provision As also excepting Knights-Bannerets who should be Created under the Royal Standard in His Majesties Army and in open War the King himself being present and that during the Bannerets lifetime onely And with Precedency before all of the same Order whose Patents are of a posteriour date His Majesty did moreover Declare and Ordain That the Wives of these Knights and of their Heirs Male should have the Precedency aswell after as before the deaths of their Husbands if they should happen to survive before the Wives of all those of whom the Knights Baronets and their Heirs Male had the Precedeny and even before the Wives of Knights-Bannerets before excepted the Degree of Baronet being heritable And also that the Children Male and Female of the Baronets should take place before the Bairns Male and Female respectively of all persons of whom the Baronets and their Heirs Male had the Priority And likewise before the Children of the Bannerets and that the Wives of the Sons of the Baronets and of their Heirs Male should preceed the Wives of all persons whom their Husbands might preceed and that aswell their Husbands being dead as living And further His Majesty did Declare and Promise That whensoever the eldest Sons and appearand Heirs Male of the Baronets should attain to the Age of twenty one years they should be by His Majesty and his Successours created Equites aurati or Knights Batchelours without payment of any Fies or Dues for the same providing they should desire it But here it is to be observed that some of the eldest Sons of Baronets pretend to the title of Knight at their Majority be vertue of this clause without any previous desire or dubbing which certainly is an errour for if they will not be at the pains to desire it of His Majesty or His Commissioner they should not assume it Likeas His Majesty did Declare and Ordain That the Baronets and their Heirs Male should as an additament of Honour to their Armorial Ensigns bear either on a Canton or Inescutcheon in their option the Ensign of Nova Scotia being argent a cross of St. Andrew azur the Badge of
in this Point For some have been of Opinion that those that are born before the Dignity was attained cannot pretend to the Precedency due to the Father for he cannot be said say they to be the Son of a King or Marquess whom a King or Marquess did not beget And since those who are born before a Crime is committed loose not their Dignity by the Fathers committing of the Crime So by the Rule of Contraries he who was Born before his Father was Advanced to a Dignity ought not to participat of that Dignity This they found likewise upon express Laws L. si Senatus Cod. de Dignitat L. Imperalis Cod. de Nupt. and thus Darius was preferred to be King of the Persians to Artabazanes Others do more justly conclude that these are to be Preferred though Born before the Dignity was obtained For if he who was Born in that Condition can be called the Kings Son he must be the Kings eldest Son And it were very absurd that the Father should be Noble and the Son not And if a King had but one Son he could not be King if this were allowed and this is most clear L. Senatoris Filium ff de Senat. where it is said That he is aswell to be called the Son of a Senator who was Begot before the Father was a Senator as he who was Begot after And though this be true as to Succession and as to the Degree of Nobility in general yet many Lawyers are of Opinion that they do not attain to so eminent a Degree of Nobility as if they had been Born after the Father attained to his Nobility For by the former Law si Senator natus ex illustri ante Dignitatem adeptam est clarissimus solum natus postea illustris Others there are who say That these who were Born before may succeed to Honours which descended from old Predecessors but those which were acquired in the Fathers own time should onely descend to such as were Born after these Honors were acquired But now generally in Europe and particularly with Us even those who were Born before the Father attained to any Dignity do participat of his Dignity as if they had been born after the same was acquired in all cases QVESTION XIV Whether ought a Son who is in publick Imployment and Dignified to Preceed a Father who is not It is answered That a Son being in publick Imployment ought to preceed a Father who is not And thus Fabius Maximus commanded his Father to light down from his horse when he was to meet him and was praised for mantaining the Dignity of the Roman Empire in this case And the Son in this case is not a private person but Represenrs the Prince or Common-wealth who are to be preferred to any person and therefore Laurentius Celsi was justly taxed at Venice because he would not meet his Son when he was newly made Duke of Venice least by being discovered before him he should lessen the Perogative of a Father But it may be doubted Whether though this hold in Employments it ought to hold in Titles since in these the Son Represents not the Common-wealth And therefore in these cases the Laws of Nature ought to prevail above the Laws of Honour especially if there be none present but Father and Son But if there be a third person present who will take the place from the Father but not from the Son then the Son must preceed the Father because though he yeeld to his Father yet he should not yeeld to a third Party And it is a general Rule in matters of Precedency that I must preceed you if I preceed him who preceeds you which is not unlike that Maxime used in other parts of Law qui vincit vincentem me vincit me QVESTION XV. Whether may he who has the Survivance of Imployment challenge any Precedency upon that Account To this it is answered That he cannot Claim any Precedency For though there be there the hope of Succession and that the person to succeed be in actu proximo and that likewise it may seem that he is advanced to a Dignity and so ought to have a Precedency suteable to it and that it may likewise seem fit for the Interest of the Commonwealth that these should be Respected and Preferred who are marked out for the Service of the Common-wealth Yet Law nor Custom have given them no Precedency for since they have actually no Dignity nor Power they ought to have no actual Precedency And thus it was found by the Parliaments of Paris and Tholows in anno 1551. 1560. that these who had Survivances were onely to be preferred according to the dates of their actual Admission And so these who were Admitted to be Councellours or Judges after they got their Survivance ought to have the Precedency from them if they did actually administrate before them vid. Maynerd Notabil quest cap. 72. Math. de afflict deciss Neapolitan 1. QVESTION XVI Whether does the Daughter of a Lord who would himself have been an Earl if he had lived take place from the Daughter of a younger Earl It may be alleaged that the Daughter of the Lord should not preceed because an Earles Daughter should still preceed a Lords Daughter and this Ladies Father was never an Earl nor are We to consider futur Honours in the matter of Precedency And as she would not take it in her Fathers time so neither ought she after his death And as her Father himself being a Lord though an Earles Son would not have taken place from the younger Earl so neither should the Lords daughter from the Earles daughter he being a younger Earl then that Lords Father And I find by the Heraulds Records in England that Sir Thomas Lees daughter got a Warrand from the King to take place as a Lords Daughter her Father having died before his Father the Lord Lee which proves that she could not have taken place otherwise and this is commonly receiv'd in England But yet it may be Debated That the Daughter of that Lord should have the Precedency since her Father would have been an elder Earl And though she could not take place during her Grand-fathers time who was the elder Earl yet per jus accrescendi and the right of Representation she comes after her Grand-fathers death to be the Daughter of the elder Earl for Honour is but a part of Succession and therefore as she might have right to her Fathers Succession if she have not Brothers she may by the same reason have Right to the Honours And it were very ridiculous to Argue so as that her elder Brother if she had any might take place as an Earles Grand-child and that she could not take the same place as his Sister and consequently since he would take the place of that younger Earl so should she of that younger Earles Sister or Daughter And the Reason why she comes to a higher Degree of Precedency by the death of her
it time out of mind It is fit to know that in this Isle not onely that Nobility which comes by Succession and Immemorial possession but even that which comes by priviledge and Concession can be Forfeited by the Fathers Crime and in this We differ from Warnesius opinion and therefore the Children must be rehabilitat and restored by the King But the Fathers unworthiness in exercising mean shifts and Trades does not amongst us Derogate from the Childrens Nobility as in other Nations Nor do I see any reason for the distinction used by Warnesius for all Nobility must be acknowledged to have flowed originally from the King by Concession and even that Nobility which comes by priviledge does descend upon the Children by the Kings grant to them aswell as the Father and so cannot be prejudged by any personal deed of his except in the case of a Crime against the King for that is still implyed in the Concession and it is not just that the Children of Traitours should enjoy those titles and that Nobility which might be useful to them in revenging their unjust quarrels QVESTION XXIX One having resigned a Dignity or Imployment and returning thereafter thereto whether does he who has so resigned return to his former Precedency To this it is answered That he does not but having embraced again the employment he had formerly resigned he is onely to have Precedency according to his last Reinstalment Langleus 7. Semest 8. where it is laid down as a rule that Precedency once lost is never recovered and an instance of this is given cap. ex Insinuatione 26. in a Chanon who having once renunced his Benefice and having thereafter embraced it is onely to be preferred according to the date of his last title From this last rule viz. that a Precedency once lost cannot be recovered Gothofred de Preced cap. 6. num 43. observes these Exceptions First If the person who renounced his Dignity was preferred to a Higher or more Noble in which case if he return to his first Imployment he looses not the Precedency due to it for a greater Dignity never prejudges the lesser L. 3. C. de Dignitatibus Rupanus lib. 7. cap. 27. and contains in it the lesser per eminentiam as Lawyers speak superveniens major Dignitas auget non minuit statum except the two Offices be incompatible in themselves for then the lesser is extinguisht by the greater L. si debitoris ff de fidejussor The second exception is If the person in whose favours the Resignation was made will not accept and upon his refusal the Resigner does presently return to his Precedency L. si forte ff de Offic. Presid And the reason is because the Resignation being there made in favours of another has that tacit Condition in it that if the other in whose favours it was made accept not the Resignation shall be null and this is the nature of all Resignations in favorem with us as to all Fews as Craig well observes The third Exception is If he who made the Resignation do presently repent for in that case likewise he is in the condition as if he Resigned not And thus the Law takes not advantage of Our sudden and undigested thoughts Et uxor quae mox rediit divertisse non videtur The fourth Exception given by him is If he who Resigned reserved to himself his former Precedency for which though there be several Roman decisions yet it is very debateable how far a man can by Protestation or Paction distinguish and reserve a Precedency when he has Resigned or Disponed the Imployment to which it was annexed For since the Precedency is onely due upon the account of the Imployment it would seem that he who has Resigned the Imployment cannot retain the Precedency and to do so were to retain accidens sine subjecto QVESTION XXX Whether may a Nobleman resign his Honours in favours of a third Party And if the Kings Confirmation thereupon will exclude the nearest Agnats who would else have succeeded by their right of Blood This question seems of great Importance and intricacy For it may seem that he may transfer his title in prejudice of his nearest Heirs because the title is onely a Fee and all Fews may be alienated nor is this a meer right of Blood but a priviledge bestowed by the King and consequently may be transferred by his consent Nor can their be any thing more for the interest either of the Kingdom or of Noble Families than that when the nearest Heir is unfit to succeed wanting either Means or Wit suitable to such a Dignity it should be in the power of the King and the Noble person himself to choose a fit successor Like as this was so decided in the case of Robert King of Sicily Cl. pastoral de re Iud. And many Lawyers have been of opinion that even elder Brothers might resign their right of Succession and primo-genitur in favours of the third Brother passing by the second vid. c. 1. § praeterea tit quib mod feud amit Bald. Consil. 389. But others conclude That the nearest by Blood are not prejudged by such Resignations Because this is a right flowing from the favour of Nature and Law Naturae Legis donum quod non potest auferri L. si arrogater ff § sed an ff de Adopt nor is Dignity exposable to sale or in Commerce L. Iulianus ff si quis omiss Whereas if such Resignations or transmissions were sustainable all titles might be sold and the meanest Fellow if Rich might by the favour of a Minister and the folly of the present Possessor exclude the Noblest Race And by the Feudal Law though a Vassal may denude himself yet he cannot transmit his Fee in favours of remoter Heirs to the prejudice of the nearer cap. Titius tit si de feud fuer Contravers this case is not decided with us but the King upon a Resignation from the late Earl of Caithnes in favours of Glenurchy confirmed the title in his favours but by a new Patent and without the former Precedency and discharged by a letter the next Heir to use the title till the matter should be decided by the Judge competent But I find that in England Ed. 2. granted to Edmond de Lincourt upon his Petition a Patent under the great Seal impowering him to assign his Sirname Arms and Barony But the Lord Hoe having assigned his Name Arms and Dignity without the Kings licence the deed was adjudged void in Parliament From which the Authour of Ius imaginis pag. 27. concludes first That the title of Nobility may be assigned Secondly That it cannot be assigned without the Kings licence And yet I find that in the Viscount Purbecks case it was lately found by the parliament of England that a Nobleman could not levey a fine upon his Honour in prejudice of his Heir that is to say That a Nobleman could not do any deed to the prejudice of his Honour by alienating
Opinion that they are to be preferred to the same Dignity in all promiscuous and indifferent Acts which fall in during the time of the Representation and thus Cautuccius decis 582. is of Opinion that the Bishops Viccar sent by him to hold a Synod is to have Precedency before all the Chapter not onely in the Synod it self but likwise in all other Assemblies Visits and Intertainments during his Commission But the contrare of this is mantained by Menoch Consil. 51. And in my Opinion these Doctors may be thus reconciled viz. If the Representation flow immediately from the Law as for instance If the Council should Delegat any man to be Sheriff there the person substitut would have in all cases during his Commission the same place that is due to him in whose place he was surrogat for there Surrogatum sapit naturam surrogati But if the Representation flow from the person himself whom he Represents in that case the Representative has onely the Precedency whilst he is exercising the Office or in Actions thereto relating And thus Sheriff-deputs with us have onely the Precedency due to their Constituents whilest they are exercising these Acts which relate to their Office And yet I think that those Representatives of Subjects have even in all extrinsick and indifferent Acts the Precedency due to their Constituents when they meet with others of the same Degree and thus amongst Sheriff-Deputes c. the Precedency is to be given according to the Precedency that is due to the Principal Sheriffs QVESTION XXXIX What Precedency is due to Assessors appointed for Iudges and to extraordinary Iudges I conceive that Assessors chosen by a Judge get no Precedency thereby since Subjects cannot bestow Dignities but that where the Prince names any man Assessor to a Judicature the person so named has thereby the Precedency next to the Judge to whom he is named Assessor nam est ejus umbra his shadow as the Law speaks and the shadow should follow the body And with Us when the Council names Assessors to the Justices the Assessors vote onely after the Justices And yet in France I find that Assessors take place after the President and before the other Councellours and so it was decided at Paris 1608. It may be also doubted whether Our extraordinar Lords of Session who sit with and vote after the ordinar Judges should have place after them if they were not Earles or Noblemen as by the institution they are oblieged to be but not either as that the King may not promote Gentlemen hereafter quo casn I think they would take place after the ordinar as they vote after them For these extraordinar Lords are like to these adscriptitiâ— or allecti L. 2. C. ut dignit ord servetur of whom Capitolinus in the life of Pertinax quâ—m Commodus allectionibus innumeris praetorios miscuisset senatus consultum Pertinax fecit jussitque eos qui praeturas non gessissent sed allectione accepissent post eos esse qui vere praetores fuissent QVESTION XL. Whether can the King Creat now an new Earl and Ordain him to preceed all the former Earles or any such number of them as he pleases It would seem that the King cannot For there being a Precedency acquired to the former Earles by their first Gift the King cannot by any new gift prejudge third Parties and this were in effect to Forfeit them of their Precedency Likeas it would seem that since most Earldoms were granted by erecting lands in an Earldom in favours of the Receiver that therefore the Concessions of Land and Honours are of the same Nature and that no new grant can prejudge the one more then the other But it may be urged on the Kings part that the King being the onely fountain of Honour he may do therein as he pleases except in so far as he is limited by Law And therefore since there is no Law with us limiting the King in this point he may do therein as he pleases 2 o. The King by Act of Parliament Henry the eight is limited as to this point in England so that he can grant no such Preference And therefore it may be concluded that this was formerly in his power even there and that since he is not limited here his power is here intire as to this point whereof many instances are given in answer to quest 35. and since that statute it is thought that His Majesty may ordain the last Knight to preceed all the rest formerly dubb'd and created because Knights are not exprest in that statute 3 o. We see the King in Scotland does impower Countesses to retain their former Precedency though they marry a Husband of a Rank inferiour to their first Husband And Dukes Daughters even after their Marriage to retain the Precedency due to them as Dukes Daughters 4 o. His Majesty does by new Confirmations transfer the Honours to Hiers Female though the Patents at first were onely granted to Hiers male and so by the not existing of the Hiers Male those Earles who have the next Precedency might aswell alleadge That the King could not by any new right in favours of the Hiers Female prejudge them 5 o. His Majesty does sometimes appoint any of His Officers of State to preceed other as he pleases though these may likewise alleadge that there is jus quaesitum to them by their prior Gifts 6 o. His Majesty restores the Sons of persons forfeited to their Fathers Precedency notwithstanding of the jus quaesitum by others medio tempore 7 o. The King has oblieged himself not to prefer the Knights of Nova Scotia or Knights-Baronets otherwise then according to their Creation which had been unnecssar if the King could not have preferred them by His Royal prerogative Sometimes also His Majesty confirms to the Nobility the entails of their Estates whereby they have power to name their Successour with the Precedency due to themselves which right being ordinarly ratified in Parliament uses to establish and transfer the Precedency upon the Heir or Successour so nominated But since Ratifications pass without observation and oftentimes without reading it may be doubted whether such a Ratification should prejudge even these who were Members of Parliament but much more such as were not present or such as were Created thereafter these Ratifications not being properly publick and Legistative statutes and so can bind onely such as consented QVESTION XLI Whether if the King should creat an Earl with Precedency to all other Earles during his life Or if when an Earl is Forfeited will his Lady in either of these cases retain the Precedency she formerly enjoyed during her Husbands life To which it is answered That as to the first it was expresly decided in England in the case of the Earl of Notingham that he upon the surrender of the Admirals Office being by King Iames allowed the same Precedency that belonged to Iohn Lord Moubray his predecessour That therefore his Lady should enjoy the same Precedency