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
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
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
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
not to restore the Precedency in prejudice of those who had acquired titles betwixt the Forfeitour and Restitution A clear instance whereof we have in the Earl of Crawfurd who being Forfeit for Rebelling against K. Iames the 2. at the Battel of Brichen and being thereafter restored he was not restored so as to take place from the Earl of Huntly But yet it is observable that the 4. Act. p. 16. p. 87. I. 6. which appoints restitutions per modum gratiae not to prejudge third paties speaks onely of lands possessions and such other parts of the Estate forfeited but speaks not of Honours and therefore some conclude that persons forfeited may be restored to the Honours of their Family notwithstanding the Precedency by the rest of the Nobility in the interim which is the rather received amongst us that the King may with us creat an Earl with the Precedency from all others as he could have done in England before the statute of Hen. 8. For I find by the Herauld records that Edmond of Hadham is created Earl of Richmond quod habeat sedem in Parliamentis alibi proximum ducibus And Henry Beauchamp Earl of Warwick is made primus Comes Angliae whereas he was formerly almost last and thereafter is created Duke of Warwick with this addition That he shall go Mate-like with the Duke of Northfolk and above the Duke of Buckingham And since our Kings had this prerogative and that they have not restricted themselves they might have it still though they should use it sparingly QVESTION XXXVI Whether have the Ambassadours of Monarchs the Precedency from other Monarchs or Princes themselves if personally present even as the Kings would do whom they represent And if in all cases an Ambassadour ought to have the same Precedency that is due to his Constituent To this it is answered That though an Ambassadour represents the Monarch from whom he derives his Commission and that some learned Lawyers do upon that account assert that they are to have the same Precedency that is due to their Master and so to be preferred to all Kings and Princes though present to whom their Constituents would have been preferred Paschal de Legat. cap. 38. yet the custom of Nations has run contrar to his opinion in preferring even inferiour Kings and Princes And it is decided amongst the Princes of Germany Tit. 25. Aureae Bullae Car. 4. And in anno 1542. the Ambassadours of Charles the fifth Emperour were decerned to cede the Precedency to Ferdinand King of the Romans and the reasons are 1 o. Because Princes found it their Interest to have no Subject compete with them or to have their own presence lessened by such marks of Disrespect 2 o. In a Prince who is present there resides True and Original Majesty whereas an Ambassadour is onely dignified with a Supposititious and Representative Honour shining if I may so say with borrowed rayes And of this opinion are Brunus de Legat. lib. 5. cap. 8. and Costa Consil. 44. though Zouch de Iure inter Gentes seems to favour Paschals opinion It may be likewise doubted whether an Ambassadour does retain the same Precedency due to him as Ambassadour when the Prince who sent him comes to the place himself And this was debated by the Earl Marishal who was sent over Ambassador to Denmark when K. Ia. 6. went over in person thereafter and brought over Chancellour Maitland with him who challenged the Precedency from the Earl Marishal alleaging that an Ambassadours Power evanishes upon his Princes appearance Which debate was decided by King Iames in favours of the Chancellour albeit the Earl contended That as his Ambassie ceased upon the Kings coming thither so did the others Office as Chancellour cease in a forreign Kingdom and therefore that he should have preceeded as being an Earl The former opinion preferring inferiour Princes when Personally present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so much the rather true that Ambassadours are not when they come to visit the Judicatures of the Nations where they preceed allowed the same Precedency And generally it is given as a rule by Lawyers that in locis actibus Iudicialibus Legatis praecedentia solita non servatur non pro dignitate Regis aut alterius a quo ablegati sunt Gothofred de Iure praecedentiae cap. 7. num 47. so that though Kings themselves would sit above all these Judicatures yet their Ambassadours sit but among them Thus the Venetian Ambassadour was onely placed in the Parliament of Paris after the Bishops as Rupan observes lib. 7. cap. 10. Though Ambassadours have the same Precedency that is due to their Constituents yet Agents and Residents of Princes have not nor has the Popes Nuncio the Precedency that is due to an Ambassadour Gothofred ibid. for these in effect are sent oftentimes to prevent the Debates that might-fall amongst Ambassadours and therefore the French King sends very rarely his Ambassadours to the Emperours Court because he knows that Court would give the Spanish Ambassadours the Precedency which he thinks is due to his Ambassadours QVESTION XXXVII Whether have such as have been Ambassadours or have been in such honourable Imployments any Precedency thereby when their Imployment is ended To which it is answered That though after an honourable Imployment is over whether by Dimission or by the expyring of the Commission the Precedency thereto annex'd ceases with it Yet the Prince sometimes gratifies the person with a continuance of some Precedency and Honour And in the Records of the Herauld Office in England I find that in a Court Marishal Sir Dudley Diggs and Sir Thomas Smith were adjudged to have the Precedency from other Knights-Batchelours of their own Degree because they had been Ambassadours though their Commission was expired In the customs also of most Nations a Judge retains still amongst those of his own Bench the same Precedency that he had formerly before his Dimission or his being laid aside except he has been laid aside for a Crime or Fault QVESTION XXXVIII What place is due to the Representatives of Subjects such as Viccars Deputs Assistants c It would seem that as Ambassadours have the same place that is due to him whom they represent so those who represent Subjects as Viccars who represent the Bishop Deputs who represent Judges ought to have the same place that is due to those whom they represent I find that L. 7. de Bonorcodicil C. Theod. there are four Dignities Ranked viz. Praefectorum Proconsulum Vicariorum Exconsularium And certainly in those Acts wherein they represent their Constituent they have the same Precedency that is due to him Felin in cap. cum olim de Offic. de Legat. And thus by the Canon Law the Bishops Viccar is preferred to the Dean and Arch-dean and not onely are these representative Dignities preferred in the acts of their Jurisdiction but even in all other deeds which necessarily preceed or follow them And some Lawyers are of
by Leo the 3. of greater Authority amongst such as acknowledge the Pope to be no infallible Judge And whatever may be debated against other Kingdoms which were once Subject to the Roman Empyre Yet his Plea against Scotland is very ill founded since in the opinion of Scalliger and the best of Historians Scotland nor its Kings were never subject to the Roman Empyre nor conquered by them for they to defend themselves against the Scots were forced to build a Wall called Vallum Adriani which is Extant to this day as an undenyable Proof that Scotland did set Limits to the Roman Empyre And thus as Scalliger observes Romani Imperii fuit olim Scotia limes It is likewise pretended by the German Lawyers that the Emperour ought to precede all others because he is crowned with three Crowns one of Iron at Aquisgrane one of Silver at Milan and one of Gold at St. Peters Church Gloss. ad Clement 1. And since the King of the Romans who is but Emperour in hope debates with other Kings as in anno 1533. he who is actual Emperour ought to be preferred to them For the Emperour it is also pretended That in the Ottomon Court and in all other Courts the Emperours Ambassadors are still preferred and that he only is still styled your Majesty in all Adresses made to him by all other Kings as by France anno 1628. by Pole anno 1621. c. And that the Kings of Pole Sweden Denmark and others have taken Confirmations from him ab eo petierunt veniam aetatis Hering de fidejus c. 2. And yet the Kings of Britain and France may debate the precedency with him because the Empyre is but Elective whereas they are Hereditary the Empyre is a Limited but they have Absolute Monarchies vide Peregrin de jur fise tit 1. num 47. The French King debates his precedency with the King of Spain the Spaniard contending that he ought to be preferred because he is the most Catholick King and King of maniest Kingdoms and some of them are so foolish as to say That the Spainish Nation is more ancient than the French as owing their Origin to Athamaricus one of the first Governours amongst the Goths But for the French it is answered 1. That they are the most Christian Kings 2. That they are Consecrated and Anoynted 3. That Swardus was first King of that Nation in the Reign of Alexander the Great 4. That they were preferred in many General Councils to the Spaniards as in the Lateran Council anno 1215. in the Council of Constans anno 1416. and in the Council of Basil anno 1433. That the Venetians preferred the French after much Debate anno 1558. the Case being submitted by both to that Senate and Pius the IV. preferred him at Rome anno 1564. the King of Spain having appealed from the Venetian to him And though the Emperour has of late decided in favours of Spain yet that Decision is little considered because of the Relation which the Emperour has to the Spainish Crown And therefore the French King does very wisely send only Envoys and Residents to the Imperial Court lest if he sent Ambassadours the Spainiards might be preferred to his Nor was this Precedency ever acclaimed by the Spaniard till the Reign of Charles the V. who being both Emperour and King of Spain did begin this Debate which after many Contests the Spainiard has at last ceded having commanded his Ambassadour the Marquess de la Fuente to acknowledge the same to the most Christian King in Satisfaction of the Injury done to his Ambassadour in anno 1661. at London The King of Great Britain founds his Precedency to both upon 1. His being King of that Isle which was first Christian. 2. Upon his being Anointed and one of the quatuor Vncti which were before all other Kings 3. That having conquered France in the time of Henry the V. he has Right to all the Precedency which France can acclaim And to Spain the King of England was preferred in the General Councils of Pisa Constans and Basil. I find likewise in Golstad lib. 1. cap. 30. That Pope Iulius the II. decided after debate in favours of Henry the II. King of England against Ferdinand the V. Caspar Eup. thesaur polit part 3. apot 63. And therefore in the Book of Roman Ceremonies 1504. England was placed before Castil nor can it be denyed but that Charles the V. in ranking the Knights of the Golden Fleece did give the right hand to the King of England and the left to the King of Spain And though of late the Court of Rome has decided in favours of Spain yet that proceeds from the dislike that Rome had to England for its Separation and the great Esteem which dayly grows there for Spain because Spain has never indulged any who have left the Romish Church CHAP. II. Of the Precedency due to the Kings of SCOTLAND I Must here crave Leave to say That the King of Great Britain may justly claim the Precedency from all those Kings as he is properly King of Scotland For it is an uncontroverted Ground in Law That amongst those of equal Dignity he who first attained to that Dignity is to be preferred L. 1. C. de Consul Quis enim prior esse debet in eodem genere Dignitatis nisi qui prior eum adeptus est L. 1. ff de albo scribendo With which agrees the Canon Law Cap. 1. de major ob And this is declared the uncontraverted Test of Precedency by Crus de jur preced pag. 66. Menoch concil 51. Cuj ad L. 2. C. de Consul And we see that this Rule holds in all other Dignities without respect to Riches or multitude of Possessions And thus amongst Dukes or Earles in all Nations the first who attained to the Dignity is still preferred though others be much richer and have suceeded to moe Earldoms This being then the true and solid Ground of Preference I may truly subsume That the King of Scotland being equall in Dignity with the Kings of England France and Spain attained to that Dignity before either of these For our King Fergus came into Scotland 330. years before the birth of CHRIST Whereas Polydor an English Historian confesses that Egbert the first King of England did begin his Reign eight hundred years after our Saviours birth and the King of Scotland marryed the daughter of Ambrosius Aurelius who was the first King of the Britans and whose Reign preceeded the Origin of the English Kingdom As to the Monarchy of Spain and their Race of Kings they are no older than Rudolphus King of the Romans elected in the year 1273. by whom the house of Austria did rise to this Dignity As to the Kings of France who now Reign they are only descended from Hugh Capet who usurped that Throne in anno 987. And not being descended of either the Carolovingian or Merovingian Races they cannot compet with our Kings Achaius King of Scotland
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
the first two Races Because according to the old German Custom the Few and Honours were devided equally amongst the Sons As now all the Sons of a Duke are Dukes there c. But thereafter all the other Children except the Eldest got onely place and Precedency according to their Offices or Dignities until Philip de Valois Succeeded as Prince of the Blood in a remot Degree After which the French thought fit to give Precedency to those who might one day be their King And so all the Princes of the Blood got precedency from all Subjects With Us the Kings Children Uncles and Nephews onely had precedency from all Subjects And in SCOTLAND no remoter Degree preceed as Princes of the Blood For the Families of Hamiltoun Kinghorne Fintrie and others are Descended from Our Kings by lawful Marriages but had no precedency upon that account The first place next to the King is due to the Prince of SCOTLAND amongst Us who is likewise Duke of Rothesay as the second Son is Earle of Ross that being an Appanage inseparable from him by Act of Parliament But at present his Royal Highness is with Us Duke of Albany as he is Duke of York in England It has been doubted Whether the Kings Son Uncle Nephew c. have the Precedency from the Kings Officers in the actual exercise of their Office as at Coronations Riding of Parliaments in which it is the Constables priviledge to ride upon the Kings Right hand and the Marishals on his Left in his return from the Parliament house The Reason of which Difficulty is because these are Acts which follow the office and not Blood and the Nature of the Action requires that they should be posted where they may be most serviceable I find likewise that this hath been Debated in France whereupon in anno 1576. Henry the third emitted an Ordinance in Favours of the Princes of the Blood And with Us his Royal Highness the Duke of York at His Majesties Coronation preceeded all the Officers Amongst the Princes of the Blood the Last descended from the Royal Family has still Precedency accordingly But though this hold in the Branches yet the Eldest of the same Branch will preceed all of that Branch and thus the Prince Palatins Grand-Child would succeed to the Crown before Prince Rupert his Brother though Prince Rupert be several Degrees nearer I find that of old all Church-men were Ranked together and were first Ranked before all Laicks And thus the Parliament of King Robert the first was habito Solemni tractatu cum Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus and even before the Kings Sons Brothers or Nephews Thus King Robert the first grants a Charter to the Abbacy of Aberbrothick Confirming a Ratification made to them be Lundie wherein the Witnesses are Reverendis Waltero Gilberto Episcopis c. Davide Duce de Rothesay Comite de Carrick Carissimo nostro Filio primigenito Roberto Duce de Albania Comite Fyffe Fratre nostro And even the Abbots and Priors were Ranked before them and when any of them were Officers of State they were named according to their Ecclesiastick preferments Thus Iacobo Sancti Andreae Episcopo Galvino Archiepiscopo Glaseuensi Cancellario nostro And in the Session when it consisted of half Church-men half Laicks the Church-men sat on the Chancellors Right hand and Voted first But it does not follow from these Instances that therefore of old any Church-man did take place from the Kings Son no more then that a Bishop took then place of an Earl because he was named before them The Archbishop of St. Andrews was by a special Letter in anno 1626. and Renewed in Ianuary 1664. Declared to have the Precedency from the Chancellor and all His Majesties Subjects In time of Popery he was Legatus natus and both then and now he is totius Scotiae Primas But though by this Letter he is Ordained to take the place of all Subjects yet I think it would not give him place from the Kings Sons Uncles and Nephews though they be likewise Subjects since the word Subjects must be here Interpret according to the Custom of Nations by which these near Relations of Princes are preferred to all other Subjects The Nobility of Scotland were either Declared such by Feudal Erections their Lands being Erected by the King in a Dutchy Earldom c. which did of it self make him a Duke or Earl in whose Favours the Lands were so Erected Or else they got Patents of Honour Declaring them Dukes Earles c. and this is a much later way none being Nobilitated by Patents amongst Us before King Iames the first The third way of Nobilitating with Us is by Creation and Solemn Investiture the whole Form whereof will in all its Ceremonies be best known by the following Narration The Form of the Creation of the Marquess of Hamilton and Marquess of Huntly tuesday the 17 of April 1599. IN His Majesties great Chamber in the Abbay of Holy-rood-house where the like Ceremony was wont to be done being richly hung with Tapistry five Stages or Degrees of Timber were Erected One for His Maiesty on the West-side whereon His Majesties Chair of State was set under the pale of Honour One for the Duke One for the Earles One for the Lords and one for the Knights There was also before the Throne a Table covered with cloath of Gold whereon was laid the Sword Scepter and Crown the Noblemen attending the Ceremony in their respective Seats in their Robes and His Majestie in His Rob-Royal being placed in His Chair The Queen sitting by The Lyon King of Arms and Master of Ceremonies With the Heraulds and Pursivants in their Coats and Trumpets sounding brought in before His Majesty these two Noblemen viz. The Earles of Arran and Huntly the first conveyed be the Duke of Lennox and Earl of Mar the second be the Chancellor and Earl of Caithnes Thereafter the Lyon asked His Majesty If His Majesty would be pleased to promote these Noblemen to further Honours His Majesty answered Yes Then the Lyon Master of Ceremonies with Heraulds Pursivants and Trumpets Conveyed them into the Green Council-chamber where they were Devested of their Comital Robes and Vested in the habit of a Marquess And so were again conveyed to His Majesties presence thus The Ordinary Macers that attend the Chancellor and Session making place Master of Ceremonies Trumpets sounding with the Noblemens Colours at their Trumpets Pursivants in their Coats Heraulds in their Coats Four Gentlemen for each of the Persons to be Created bearing their Honours viz. For my Lord Arran Robert Hamilton of Goslington the Penon Alexander Hamilton of Fenton the Banner Claud Hamilton of Shawfield the Marquess Crown Iohn Campbel of Ardkinlas the Patent For my Lord Huntly Iohn Ogilvy of the Craig the Penon Iohn Crichton of Frendraught the Banner Mark Ker of Ormistoun the Crown Alexander Gordon of Strathdon the Patent Lyon King of Arms. The two Earles conveyed be the forenamed Noblemen
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