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
upon the 20. of May 1619. declare That the Ladies of the Privy Chamber should in time of mourning take their places as if the Queen were living till the Funerals were ended and that the Queens Chamberers should for the present Funeral go before Countesses women without prejudice to Countesses women at any time thereafter It is fit to observe That the Wives and Daughters of all Dukes Marquesses Earles c. do take the same place that the Husbands and Sons do conform to the Precedency formerly exprest pag. 35. And I find in the Heraulds Office of England an establishment settled thus amongst women by Iasper Duke of Bedford and other Noblemen by warrand from Henry the fourth The Wives of Dukes of the Blood Royall The Wives of other Dukes The Wives of the eldest Sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal. The Daughters of Dukes of the Blood Royal. The Wives of Marquesses The Wives of the eldest Sons of Dukes The Daughters of Dukes Countesses The Wives of the eldest Sons of Marquesses The Daughters of Marquesses The Wives of the younger Sons of Dukes The Wives of the eldest Sons of Earles The Daughters of Earles The Wives of Viscounts The Wives of the younger Sons of Marquesses The Wives of Barons that is to say our Lords The Wives of the eldest Sons of Viscounts The Daughters of Viscounts The Wives of the younger Sons of Earles The Wives of the eldest Sons of Barons or Lords The Daughters of Barons The Wives of Knight-bannerets The Wives of the younger Sons of Lords The Wives of Knight-batchelours The Wives of the eldest Sons of Knights-bannerets The Daughters of Bannerets The Wives of the eldest Sons of Knight-batchelours The Daughters of Knight-batchelours The Queens Maids of Honour The Wives of the younger Sons of Banerets The Wives of the younger Sons of Knight-batchelours The Wives of Esqueirs The Wives of Gentlemen The Daughters of Esquiers The Daughters of Gentlemen The Wives of Citizens The Wives of Burgesses From all which it is to be observed that the wife of the eldest Son of any degree takes place before the Daughter of that same degree and both of them take place of the younger Sons wife of the preceeding degree Thus the Lady of the eldest Son of a Marquess preceeds the Daughter of a Marquess and both preceed the Ladies of Dukes younger Sons Item the Wife of the next degree as a Countess preceeds the Lady of the eldest Son of the preceeding degree as of a Marquess and the Daughter of a Marquess 3 o. This holds not only in comparing degrees amongst themselves but also in comparing Families of the same degree amongst themselves as for instance though the Marquess of Dowglas Lady would give place to the Marquess of Huntlys Lady yet the Wife of the Marquess of Dowglas eldest Son would take place from the Marquess of Huntlys Daughter 4 o. Though of old with us in Scotland the Wives of Lords did contend that they had the Precedency from the Daughters of Earles Yet since that Letter written by King Charles the first at his Coronation we follow the custome of England in preferring the Earles Daughter who takes place immediately after her eldest Brothers wife 5 o. Though the Daughter of a Marquess gives place to the wives of the eldest Sons of all Marquesses yet if that Daughter be an Heiress and the Daughter of an elder Marquess then she takes place from the wives of the eldest Sons of all younger Marquesses as Segar observes pag. 240. It is likewise observable that since this Ranking under Henry the fourth there are several new additions For after the wives of Lords eldest Sons and Lords Daughters are Ranked the Wives of Privy Counsellours and Judges Wives of the younger Sons of Viscounts and of Lords or Barons the Wives of Baronets the Wives of Bannerets the wives of the Knights of the Bath and the Wives of Knights-batchelours c. as in the former List. Some considerable Questions concerning Precedency Resolved QVESTION I. WHether in Competitions betwixt Kingdoms States and Towns is their present Condition to be Considered or what they were formerly To which it is answered with this Distinction viz. Either the Kingdom or other places betwixt which Competitions are Stated remain the same that they were in their Substantials and then the former Precedency is still continued as for instance Though Rome whilst it was a Common-wealth did sometimes admit of a Dictator who had indeed the power of a King yet they remained still the same Common-wealth and therefore being the same in substantials they ought to have the same Degree of Precedency continued Or when two or three Kingdoms are without any alteration United in one as the Kingdoms of Scotland and England were United into the Kingdom of Great Britain under Kings in the same Race who succeeded to both as is fully Demonstrated by Alb. Gentil pag. 82. and this is likewise clear from L. proponebatur ff de Iudiciis l. 24. ff de Legat. 1. But where there is a substantial alteration called by Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there the former Condition is not considered but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or present condition of the places in Competition is that which ought to be considered And thus when a Kingdom comes to be Conquer'd by a Stranger and by a Strange and Forreign Nation there the State of the Kingdom is absolutely Innovated especially if the Laws of the State be altered And therefore the French Lawyers are of Opinion that the Precedency of England ought onely to be Computed from William the Conquerour Because at that time a Stranger and a Strange Nation did conquer the said Kingdom and the Fundamental Laws of it were much Innovat and if this be not an Alteration none can be For the Antiquity of Land cannot give Precedency for all Land was Created together and there are few Nations so Conquest as that the former people do not remain so that there can be no Precedency upon that account though some who are extravagant in their Zeal for their Countrey doe Argue its Precedency from the first Ages of the World as Vasquius does that of the Spanish Empire in deryving it from Tubal Cain praefatio in Contravers Illust. QVESTION II. Whether a Kingdom becoming a Common-wealth or a Common-wealth a Kingdom does their former Precedency remain This Question has two Branches wherein the Difficulties differ The first is Whether that Town or Place which was a Republick having become a Monarchy or Principality ought it to Retain the Precedency due to the former Common-wealth And that it ought to Retain the same Precedency may be Argued Because when one thing is surrogat in the place of another that which is surrogat ought to have the same priviledge with that in whose place it is surrogat surrogatum subit naturam surrogati But so it is that the subsequent Principality is surrogat in place of the former Common-wealth and
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