Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A50712
|
Observations upon the laws and customs of nations, as to precedency by Sir George Mackenzie ...
|
Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.
|
1680
(1680)
|
Wing M186; ESTC R5733
|
107,612
|
141
|
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
petitionem Willielmi Regis Scotiae he grants a Liberty to the Monks of Aberbrothick to Transport their Goods through England free from Custome And Matth. Par. in many Treatises related by him gives them that Title And Pope Innocent the third in an express Rescript in the body of the Canon Law cap. 4. decret de immunit Eccles. writes Innocentius III. Illustri Regi Scotiae which behoved to be to King William who did reign in that Popes time Nor is this Argument from the Designation concluding since it is not convertible For even Feudatory Kings did and do assume their Designation from the Kingdom they hold as the Kings of Naples Sicily c. Which evinces that it follows not necessarly that the Kings of these Kingdoms are Feudatory Kings because they were designed Reges Scotorum and not Scotiae And in many places of his History Matth. Paris calls the Kings of England Reges Anglorum as in the whole Lives of King Iohn Henry the third It appears also by the former Transaction betwixt Edward the first and the Governours of Scotland that Margaret is even by the King of England constantly Designed Regina ac Domina Scotiae And I observe that in the Contract of Marriage betwixt Henry the VII for his Daughter Queen Margaret and Iames the IV. that sometimes the King of Scotland is called Rex Scotorum and sometimes Rex Scotiae in the same paper and the Commission granted by the King of Scotland for compleating that Marriage is called Commissio regis Scotiae pro matrimonio in all which Contract the King of Scotland is called Charissimus noster frater a Title never granted to a Feudatory King by his Superiour and the people of Scotland are there called Subditi Regis Scotiae whereas if the King of Scotland had been only a Feudatory Prince we had been Subjects to the King of England and not to the King of Scotland And there needs no other Argument against Heylen to prove that the Kings of Scotland were oft-times called reges Scotiae than the instance brought by himself of the Charter granted by King Edward the first to Peter Dodge wherein Baliol is confessed by himself to be called Roy de Escosse King of Scotland And this proves that the said Heylen layes down Grounds which are not only false but inconsistent But secondly though this were true yet it proves nothing seing the Goths and Picts were a free people and yet their Kings were called Reges Pictorum Gothorum which Phrase was ordinary amongst Conquering Nations such as the Scots were whose Princes having at first no fixed Kingdom did whilst their people were spreading themselves in Collonies rather assume a Title from the people than from their Country And seing Men are Vassals and not Land it will follow according to the terms used by Feudalists that seing our Kings were reges Scotorum that therefore the men were not Vassals and so they hold not their Land of the Crown of England nor were ejus subvassalli aut Valvassores The Argument urged from many Decisions in England finding that we were punishable as Traitors in England and that we were lookt upon as Subjects and not as Aliens by their Judges deserves no other Answer then that since their Kings by their power could not make us Vassals neither could their Parliaments or Judges treat us as such And if their Gown-men could have made us such they needed not have imployed Arms to have shed so much Blood in the quarrel Nor can such Domestick Testimonies prove in a case of so great importance And yet even the English Proceedings against those of our Nation shows that their own Judicatories and Lawyers consider us not as Vassals but as the Subjects of a free and independent Kingdom And amongst many other Instances I shall only remember that of Queen Mary against whom that Nation proceeded not as a Vassal but as a person who had made her self lyable to their Jurisdiction ratione loci delicti Which is very clear by Zouch de judicio inter gentes part 2. sect 6. whose very words I have here set down to prove not only this but that the Kings of Scotland were absoluti and equal to and independent from those of England being both pares absoluti principes His words are Erant boni rerum Estimatores qui asperius cum illa actum affirmabant eo quod fuerit Princips libera absoluta in quam solius Dei sit Imperium quod in majestatem peccare non posset cui subdita non fuerit quod par in parem non habeat potestatem unde judicium Imperatoris in Robertum Siciliae regem irritum pronounciatum est quia Imperio ejus non esset subditus Alii aliter censebant illam scilicet subditam esse etsi non originariam tamen temporariam Quia duo absoluti principes quoad authoritatem in uno Regno esse non possunt parem in parem habere potestatem quoties paris judicio se submiserit vel expresse verbis vel tacite contrahendo vel delinquendo intra paris scilicet jurisdictionem Papam sententiam Imperatoris in Robertum Siculùm rescidisse quod factum in territorio Imperiali non fuerit sed Papali Denique nullum magnum extare exemplum quod non aliquid ex iniquo habeat And in the Process against the Bishop of Ross as it is related both by the Forreign Lawyers and by Cambden it clearly appears that he was proceeded against not as a Subject of England but as a meer stranger who not being subject ratione originis became subject ratione delicti as they alleadged And the Learned Author of the late jus maritimum pag. 451. having spoken of the Jurisdiction of England over Ireland has these words But in Scotland it is otherwayes for that is a Kingdom absolute and not like Ireland which is a Crown annexed by Conquest but the other is by Union And though they be United under one Prince ad fidem yet their Laws are distinct so as they had never been United and therefore the Execution of the judgements in each other must be done upon Request and that according to the Law of Nations Nor need I answer the Argument brought from the procedure against the Heroick Wallace and others for these instances show rather an excessive resentment upon present Hostilities then the Justice of those who against the Law of Nations proceeded to murther such as were indeed prisoners of War fighting for their own Native King and Country And even the English of that age by entring into Truces Ransoming of Prisoners and doing all other things which are only allowable in a just War may convince all Mankind that in this and the like Instances they succumb'd to the bitterness of their present Passion I must here also crave Leave to assert That though Vassals are not to be treated as Aliens yet we find very frequently in History that whole Nations have been Naturalized and have