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
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
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
they were formerly Quest. 2. Whether a Kingdom becoming a Common-wealth or a Common-wealth a Kingdom does their former Precedency remain Quest. 3. Whether he who is elected to a Dignity ought to have Precedency thereby as if he were actually admitted Quest. 4. Whether ought one who has been twice or oftener elected to any Dignity be preferred to him who was only once elected Quest. 5. What influence hath the conjunction of moe Dignities upon Precedency Quest. 6. How far do former Dignities influence a present Advancement and determine the Precedency depending thereupon and what Rank is due to honorary and extraordinary Offices Quest. 7. Whether amongst such as have equal Dignity the first in time ought to be preferred Quest. 8. When many are promoted at once in the same Writ or when many are nominate in the same Commission whether is the order of naming therein express'd to be observed Quest. 9. In what cases does Age prefer and what is its prerogative in the matters of Precedency Quest. 10. Whether does appearancy of Blood give Precedency before actual Investiture and Possession Quest. 11. Whether does the apparent Heir his assuming and using the Title and Precedency of his Predecessor make him lyable to his Predecessor's Debts and infer a passive Title against him as we speak Quest. 12. Whether does the appearancy of Blood give Precedency where the Predecessor is not dead Quest. 13. Whether should an elder Brother who was born before the Father was preferred to the dignity of a King Marquess Earl c. be preferred to a younger Brother who was born after his Father had attained to either of these Dignities Quest. 14. Whether ought a Son who is in publick Imployment and dignified to precede a Father who is not Quest. 15. Whether may he who has the survivance of an Imployment challenge any Precedency upon that account Quest. 16. 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 Quest. 17. Whether if the elder brother be mad or dumb c. does the second brother get the same Precedency as if his brother were dead Quest. 18. Which of two or moe Twins ought to precede when it is controverted which of them was first born Quest. 19 Whether do Natural Children born before a lawful Marriage precede and should they be preferred to the Children born in a lawful Marriage if they be legittimated thereafter Quest. 20 Whether ought the order of the nomination to be observed in Commissions where the Persons are ranked otherwise then can be consistent with the King 's former express Grants Quest. 21. In the competition betwixt two who are advanced at the same time but in different Writs as if two Patents were subscribed by his Majesty to two several Earls on the same day which of the two were to be preferred Quest. 22. Whether is Precedency to be ruled according to the date of the provision Investiture or actual Possession Quest. 23. Whether does the dignity of him who bestows the Honour regulate the Precedency that is bestowed among Equals Quest. 24. Whether can a Prince nobilitate any of his own Subjects in the Territories of another Prince Quest. 25. Whether when the President of any Court or Incorporation is absent may the eldest Member convocate the Incorporation and who ought to precede in that case Quest. 26. Whether may a Peer be degraded because he hath not an Estate sufficient to entertain a person of his Quality and by whom may he be degraded Quest. 27. Whether is a Patent never made use of by the Father valid after his death Quest. 28. Whether if the Father use any low or base Trade which derogates from Nobility will his Children and Descendents lose it thereby Quest. 29. One having resigned a Dignity or Imployment and returning thereafter thereto whether does he who has so resigned return to his former Precedency Quest. 30. Whether may a Nobleman resign his Honours in favours of a third party and if the King's confirmation thereupon will exclude the nearest Agnats who would else have succeeded by their right of Blood Quest. 31. Whether does the former right of Precedency remain with him who has resigned the Office by which he enjoyed the Precedency Quest. 32. If a Person do not of himself resign but be called from his Charge by the Prince to another Imployment and one provided to his Place and returning thereafter to his first Dignity by the Princes command whether does he get Precedency according to his first or last Installment Quest. 33. Whether does he who is suspended from the exercise of an Office return to the same Precedency when the suspension is taken off Quest. 34. Two having Offices and changing one with another their Imployments for a time whether when they resume their former Imployments do they return to their former Precedency Quest. 35. Whether is he who is restored by the Prince to a Dignity from which he was degraded to be restored to the same Precedency which he had formerly Quest. 36. 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 Quest. 37. Whether have such as have been Ambassadours or have been in such honourable Imployments any Precedency thereby when their Imployment is ended Quest. 38. What place is due to the Representatives of Subjects such as Vicars Deputes Assistants c. Quest. 39. What Precedency is due to Assessors appointed for Iudges and to extraordinary Iudges Quest. 40. Whether can the King creat now an new Earl and ordain him to precede all the former Earls or any such number of them as he pleases Quest. 41. Whether if a King should creat an Earl with Precedency to all other Earls during his life or if when an Earl is forefaulted will his Lady in either of these cases retain the Precedency she formerly enjoyed during her Husbands life Quest. 42. Whether amongst those of the Royal-Line does the next to the Royal-Stock precede or does the Precedency belong to the eldest of that Branch Quest. 43. Whether or when is the right or left Hand the chief mark of Precedency and whether is the place opposite to the seat of the chief Person who sits betwixt the two preferable to either right or left Hand Quest. 44. Whether in Improbations raised to secure Precedency can Certifications be granted as well against Patents of Honour as against other Writs Courses taken by Princes and Iudges when they intend to shun the deciding of Controversies concerning Precedency and to preserve the Rights of all the Competitors Errata Page 13. Line 48. dele former p. 14. l. 21. read the French words thus Aubaines sont estrangers nais en pais c. l. penult for in the dependent r. independent p.
and her Nephew Robert Or as king Edward the third in the Right of the said Crown of France determined of the Controversie betwixt Iohn Earl of Montford and Charles of Bluis for the Dukedom of Bretaigne 3. By the Confession and acknowledgement of Prelats Peers and others the Estates of Scotland subscribed by all their hands and seals in the Roll of Ragman wherein they did acknowledge the Superiority of the kings of England not only in regard of such Advantages as the sword had given him but as his original and undoubted Right Which Roll was treacherously delivered into the hands of the Scots by Roger Mortimer Earl of March in the begining of the Reign of king Edward the third 4. By the tacite Confession of the kings themselves who in their Coyns Commissions and publick Instruments assume not to themselves the Title of kings of Scotland but of Reges Scotorum or the kings of the Scots and thereby imitating that though they are kings of the Nation yet there is some Superiour Lord king Paramount as we may call him who hath the Royalty of the Land 5. By the Judgements Arrests of the Courts of England not only in the times of king Edward the first but in sometimes since For â—hen William Wallace a Scotsman by birth and the best Souldier of that Country was taken prisoner and brought to London he was adjudged to suffer Death as a Traitor which had been illegal and unrighteous judgement had he been a prisoner of War and not lookt upon by the Judges as subject to the Crown of England The like done in the case of Simeon Fraâ—â—ll another of that kingdom in the same kings Reign In like manner in the time of king Edward the third it was resolved in the Court in the Lord Beaumonts case when it was objected That one of the Witnesses was a Scot and therefore as an Alien not to give his evidence that his Testimony was to be allowed because the Scots in the Law of England did not go for Aliens And when one indicted for a Rape in the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeths Reign desired a medietatem linguae because he was a Scots-man and so an Alien it was denyed him by the Court because the Scots were not reputed here as Aliens but as Subjects rather So also when Robert Vmsramville Lord of Kyme was summoned to the Parliament of England in the Reign of king Edward the third by the name of Robert Earl of Angus which is a Dignity in Scotland and after in a Writ against him was called by his own name of Vmsramville without any Addition of that Honour the Writ was adjudged to abate which I conceive the Learned Judges had not done if Scotland had not been reputed to be under the Vassalage of the kings of England 6. And lastly by a Charter of Lands and Arms which I have in my Custody granted by king Edward the first in the last year of his Reign to Peter Dodge of Stopworth in the Countie of Chester one of the Ancestors of my mother In which it is exprest that the said Lands and Arms were conferred upon him by that king for his eminent Services encontre son grand enemi rebel Baliol king of Scotland and Vassal of England In Answer to these Objections founded upon the Reign of Brutus I need say no more save that Cambden and the other Learned English Writers do look upon the same as a meer fiction And for proving the Crown of Scotland to hold of England there must be authentick Documents in Writ produced as has been formerly debated And this does sufficiently answer all that is said of Bellinus king Arthur c. But to refute these Fictions and to show how much of Cheat is in all these Contrivances I need only cite a passage from the Learned Aylet Sammes in his Britannia antiqua pag. 159. whose words are That which gave some Authotity to this Fiction was the use king Edward the first made of it in vindicating his Title to Scotland against the pretence of Pope Boniface and the Church of Rome who laid claim to that kingdom by ancient Right as part of St. Peters Patrimony and that Churches Demesne It appears that the Monks and Friers had a great hand in making out this Title by Brute which story was now new vampt and from all parts sent out of these shops where at first it had been forged and hammered out And this doth more evidently appear if we consider many other parts of the same Letter as it is found in the Records cited by Mr. Prin but especially that miracle of king Adelstane who in perpetuam rei memoriam to give an evident signe of his Right to Scotland with his sword struck a blow upon a Rock near Dumbar that he Cleft it at least an Elne wide As to the Homage made by king Malcome to William the Conquerour it is answered That the matter of Fact is absolutely denyed And not only do our Historians and the Historians of Forreigners mention no such submission but they do on the contrair relate That William the Conquerour having come with a Designe to conquer Scotland he was forced by Malcome king of Scotland to a Peace very Honourable and Advantagious for Scotland one Article whereof was That William the Conquerour should restore such of the English Nobility as had fled to Scotland for shelter to their Estates and Honours And how can it be imagined that Scotland being then very Unite and living under a most warlike Prince would have submitted to a king who had too much to do at home or that King Malcome would have submitted to him whom he forced to restore even the English who had Rebelled against him And as the Constitution of Vassalage requires Writ so if any such Vassalage had been acknowledged he had accepted of a Charter holding of the Conquerour as all the other Vassals did As to King Williams Homage to Henry the second it is Answered That William having been treacherously made Prisoner he was forced by a long and tedious Imprisonment to make this Homage and consequently the Homage it self was null being extorted by Force and made by a person who was not sui juris being in prison It being certain by the Laws of all Nations That Deeds done by Prisoners are null but especially in this case where the Deed was such as that it would have been null however For even the most absolute Kings are so far from being able to alienate their Kingdom or enslave it that by so doing as some say they forfeit their own Right and make the Throne void for the next Successour who is not obliged by what they have done And if any such Act as this were binding then England by the same Argument had remained a Feu of the Empyre since Richard the first their King did Homage to Henry the Emperour for England and King Iohn his brother did the like Homage to the Pope and offered to
1654. Excepting onely the Ambassadours of Austria and the Ambassadours of Forreign Kings were still allowed to take place from all the Electors except the King of Bohemia in all the Solemnities of the Empire But the Ambassadours of Common-wealths having claimed the same precedency The Emperour Leopold has Decerned against them in favours of the Electors Crus lib. 4. cap. 4. The eldest Sons of the Electors preceed all the other Princes of the Empire The Arch-dukes of Austria have the first Seat next to the Electors CHAP. VII Of the Precedency of Church-men I Need not debate the Differencies that have fallen in amongst the Patriarchs of Rome Constantinople Antioch Alexandria and Ierusalem Those of Rome and Constantinople having claimed Precedency because their See were the seats of the Roman and Grecian Empires Those of Ierusalem claiming preference because the chief Priest-hood was once settled there Those of Antioch claiming precedency because Antioch was the first seat of Christianity as is clear by the 11. chapter of the Acts And those of Alexandria pretending that they were equal to the Roman Patriarch at least because Alexandria was the chief City of the East before the building of Constantinople and the Church thereof being by Euseb. lib. 11. said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vide Salmas de Primat pap cap. 12. Thus far did Precedency invade even Religion and raise Emulation amongst those who pretended to be the greatest Paterns of Humility The Roman Patriarch was by Phocas the Emperour raised above all the rest in the year 606. since which time they have raised themselves by several Degrees to the Papacy though it cannot be denyed but even before that time the Bishops of Rome had the first Seat in all Councils as is clear by Iustinians Novella 131. cap. 2. And in the Council of Nice Adrian Bishop of Rome had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or the power of preceeding did still belong to the Emperours as hath been fully cleared by Crusius and others And though it be pretended that Constantine the Great did from Christian Humility prefer the Successour of St. Peter as Vicar of IESVS CHRIST to himself and that in the Canon Law cap. Constantinus 14. Dist. 96. the Emperour Constantin is brought in acknowledging himself to have led the Popes Bridle and in the Famous Ceremonial of Rome Fol. 21. the Emperour is allowed no higher place then the Popes Foot-stool Yet Frederick the 1. Emperour did contentiously Debate this Precedency with Adrian the fourth since which time it hath been variously acquiesced in by Popes and Emperours And though the Legats be Representatives of the Popes yet Thuan tells us lib. 98. That the Learned Brissonius President of the Parliament of Paris would not suffer the Popes Legat to preceed him And at the Coronation of Charles the fifth the Pops Legat was denyed the precedency from the Electors The Cardinals have Debated for Precedency with the Patriarchs though by the Novella 132. c. 2. Iustinian places Patriarchs next to the Pope And Panormit in cap. antiqua X de privileg excess Praelat prefers the Patriarchs to the Cardinals and now by the Concession of Sextus Quintus that Pope hath raised the Cardinals to an equal Degree with Kings and if Kings be present at Table or other Solemnities with Cardinals If there be but one King he is to sit after the first Cardinal Bishop and if there be moe Kings they sit mixtly with the Cardinals first a Cardinal and then a King But though this holds amongst Popish Princes yet the Authour of Les Memoirs des Ambassadeurs does Observe That Leicester Grotius and the other Ambassadours of PROTESTANT Princes never yeelded Precedency to Cardinals till Lockhart Ambassadour for Cromwel yeelded it to Cardinal Mazarine Where he likewise observes That though the Prince of Condie yeelded the Precedency to Cardinal Rechlieu yet the Count of Soisson refused it The Bishops of Scotland preceed in this manner Arch-bishops of St. Andrews Arch-bishops of Glasgow Bishops of Edinburgh Bishops of Galloway Bishops of Dunkel Bishops of Aberdeen Bishops of Murray Bishops of Rosse Bishops of Brechin Bishops of Dumblane Bishops of Caithness Bishops of the Isles Bishops of Argyl Bishops of Orknay I find by Letter in anno 1625. that before King Iames going into England the Marquesses of Scotland did take place from the Arch-bishops But now the Arch-bishops take place from all Dukes and Marquesses in imitation of England And by a Letter in anno 1626. renewed in anno 1664. The Arch-bishop of St. Andrews is to take place from all Subjects which is to be limited as not to exclude the Kings Children and Brothers as I conceive And de facto the Arch-bishops of St. Andrews ceds to the Chancellour since the Letter The Bishops of England Preceed thus Arch-bishops of Canterbury Arch-bishops of York Bishops of London Bishops of Durham Bishops of Winchester Bishops of St. Davids Bishops of Ely Bishops of Norwich Bishops of Hereford Bishops of Salisbury Bishops of Peterborough Bishops of Carlisle Bishops of Worcester Bishops of Rochester Bishops of Landaff Bishops of Lincoln Bishops of Bangor Bishops of Exeter Bishops of Chichester Bishops of St. Asaph Bishops of Oxford Bishops of Lichfield and Coventrie Bishops of Bristol Bishops of Glocester Bishops of Chester Bishops of Bath and Wells CHAP. VIII General Observations concerning the Precedency of Subjects NObility is devided with Us as in England in Nobiles Majores Minores the Greater and the Lesser Nobility Under the Greater are comprehended all such as are Lords of Parliament Under the Lesser are comprehended Knights and Gentlemen And though all these be not Peers of Parliament yet they are all Peers to one another And thus a Gentlemen may be offered to a Dukes Daughter whose Ward and Marriage falls to the King as has been often decyded nor can that Match be refused upon the account of Inequality And it hath been found that though Noblemen must be judged by their Peers yet Landed Gentlemen may pass upon their Assyse and a Nobleman is oblieged to accept of a Challenge from a Gentleman as his Peer where Duels are Lawful Under the word Barron all Our Nobility are comprehended as is clear by the 81. Act. Parl. 14. Ia. 2d And the Inscription of the first Parliament of K. Ia. 5th where the Parliament is said to be holden per Regis Regni tutorem una cum Praelatis Barronibus Burgorum Commissariis Albeit the Parliament of Rob. 1. was cum Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus Barronibus aliis Magnatibus which shews that there were other Magnates infra Barrones It may be Doubted Whether the Younger Son of Dukes Marquesses c. are to be Ranked inter Nobiles majores since they sit not in Parliament Or inter Nobiles Minores since they are designed Lords and take place from many of the Nobiles Majores The Sons of the Kings of France were all Kings and Soveraigns in
Cassiodor lib. 1. opist 4. well observes Honor hic datur egregiis dum ad Imperiale Secretum tales constat elegi in quibus reprehensionis vitium non potest inveniri But yet I find the Secretary onely named in the former Confirmation inter Familiares Of old I find he was Stiled Clericus Regis though some Interpret this Clericus Regis to be either Clerk-Register or the Kings Confessor and Clerk to His Closet and some that he was Almoner We have no Master of Requests now that charge being swallowed up by the Secretaries Office Their Office with Us was as at Rome To represent to the King the complaints of the People Referendarii says Cassiodor lib. 6. dolores alienos asserunt conquerentium vota satiant per eos Iudices corriguntur I find that Advocatus Fisci now Our Kings Advocat or Atturney-General was dignified with the Title of Comes which is now Earl l. jubenius i. de Advoc. divers jud and with the Titles of Clarissimus Spectabiles which was only bestowed on the chief Nobility l. 4. 6. eod tit and from this seems to have flowed Our calling them Lord Advocat And the French calling them Messire which Title only the Chancellor and Advocat there get Upon this Officer Rome in the Reign of Claudius the Emperour bestowed so much Honour that he said Tantum Honoris Authoritatis concessisse procuratori Caesaris ut eum suis Legibus adaequaverit volueritque ut quod ipse statuisset perinde ratum esset ac si ab ipso foret constitutum And of old they were still of the Order of Knights for Tacitus in the life of Agricola says utrumque avum procuratorem Caesaris habuit quae equestris Nobilitas est The Kings Advocat is with Us as in France Consiliarius Natus that is to say is by vertue of his Office a Privy Counsellor in a more peculiar way than the rest For I find by the Records of Council in Queen Maries time that the Register and Justice-Clerk are expresly mentioned in the Commission of Council but the Advocat is in all the Sederunts though he be not named in the Commission And though with Us it was not allowed to the Kings Advocat till Sir Thomas Hope's time that he should be present at the Lords advising of Causes where the Advocat was himself Interested Yet I conceive in Causes which he pleads meerly upon the Kings Account he ought to be present even when the Cause is advising This was allowed Advocato Fisci for Trajan writing to Plinius Commands eos adhibere in Consilium à Praesidibus cum de causa Fiscali agitur which explains very well L. 7. de Iur Fisc. Where si Fiscus alicui status controversiam faciat Fisci Advocatus adesse debet quare si sine Fisci Advocato pronunciatum sit divus Marcus rescripsit nihil esse actum ideo ex integro cognosci opportere Of which Office the Learned Budeus gives this Character Magistratus is est in quem omnes suas actiones Princeps Populus universi transcripserunt asylum Legum arx Iustitiae innocentiae vim passae aut Iudicio circumventae propugnaculum intercessor rerum malarum suasor rerum bonarum praesentis semper animi Actor Defensor de sententia Iuris Equitatis I find that though per L. nemo C. de assessor no man can be both a Judge and Advocat yet the Kings Advocats in France have been allowed to be Judges at the same time they were Advocats for it was thought that the Office of Kings Advocat did naturally participate both of the Judge and Advocat and so was not inconsistent with the Imployment of a Judge l. ult c. de Advocat Fisc. and this was so decided by the Parliament of Paris in Iune 1605. And from this We probably in Scotland took occasion a little after that time to make Sir William Oliphant and of late Sir Iohn Nisbet both Advocats and Lords of the Session The Almoner with Us has no Precedency for ought I know though in France Le grand Aumosnier is thought to be an Officer of the Crown He is very oft a Witness in all Our Charters granted be Our Kings and some think that Clericus noster was Almoner I find that Cockburn of Lanton who was also custos magni Sigilli in the second year of King Robert the thirds Reign is made heretable Ostiarius nostri Parliamenti that is to say Usher of the Parliament The Lyon and he does Debate who shall go next to the King or His Commissioner in Parliament and Conventions The Usher pretending that if he behoov'd to go after the Lyon he behooved to go before the Heraulds and so he behooved to walk between the Lyon and his Brethren which were not decent though both in England and with Us I find that several Degrees of Persons do in all Processions walk between the Garter or Lyon and his Brethren Heraulds Likeas it is implyed in the nature of the Ushers office that he should immediately usher him to whom he is Usher but in England I find that at the Cavalcad when His Majesty entred London in anno 1660. and at His Coronation Garter King of Arms did walk in the midst having the Mayor of London on his left hand and the Knight of the Black-Rod on his right And the Author of Les Memoirs des Ambassadeur tells Us that in anno 1629. at the Procession for Celebration of that solemn Peace betwixt France and Spain the King of Arms did walk immediately before the French King Le Roy d'armes marchant immediatement devant Le Roy. I am likewise informed that in England the Precendency runs thus King of Arms Usher of the Black-Rod Master of Ceremonies and after him the Gentlemen of the Privy-Chamber c. The Title of Duke came from Dux a Leader and Commander of an Army and was at first a Title of Office but now is a Dignity given by Kings and Princes to men of Blood and good Merit And with Us the Prince of Scotland as is already said is Duke of Rothesay The word Marquess was first appropriate to the Lords of the Marches and Frontiers but is since become a Title of special Dignity betwixt a Duke and Earl Earl came from the Saxon word Ear-ethel which was abridged to Ear-el and afterwards by Abbreviation Earl with the Dutch called Eorle and at this day the Germans use the word Grave for it They are in Latine called Comites with Us because in the Roman Empire Comitatus was called the Court of the Prince l. 43. de Testament Militar l. 13. ff de re Militar and those who attended the Emperor were called Comites or his Companions They were appointed to be Governours of the several Countrys of the Empire which were from them called Comitatus or Counties and Earls are to this day designed Earls of such a Shire But the Kings thereafter being desirous to have their Subjects depending immediately upon themselves did
Monteith compearand be Graham his Procutor the said Heugh Earl of Eglington compearand be Iohn Bell his procutor and the said Iohn Earl of Cassils compearand be Iohn Hamilton and Gilbert Ross and the said Andrew Lord Stuart of Ochiltry Iames Lord Balmerinoch Iames Lord Abercorn compearand personally the said Lord Lindsey of the Byres compearand be the said Mr. Robert Learmont his procutor the said Iohn Lord Forbes compearand be Iames Fogo his procutor the said Patrick Lord Glames compearand be Mr. Patrick Sharp younger his procutor the said Patrick Lord Gray compearand be Patrick Whyllie his procutor the said Iohn Lord Seaton compearand be Mr. William Livingston his procutor the said Allan Lord Cathcart compearand be George Angus his procutor the said Iames Lord Carlyl compearand be the said Robert Hamilton his procutor the said Robert Lord Sanchar compearand be Creichton his procutor the said James Lord Hay of Yester compearand be Mr. Iames Burchar his procutor the said Iohn Lord Harres compearand be Corbal Cunningham his procutor the said Iames Lord Torphichen compearand be Mr. Robert Learmont his procutor the said Lord Thirlstain compearand be Thomas Fleyming his procutor the said Alexander Lord Spynie compearand be the said Mr. Robert Learmont his procutor And the hail remanent Lords and Earles particularly abovewritten being oft-times called and not Compearand divers Terms and Dyets assigned to them for this effect the Writs Evidents Documents and Testimonies produced be the saids Persons compearand and every an of them acclaiming the Priority and Precedency before others being divers times and at divers Dyets very diligently and exactly Sighted Tryed Examined and Considered be the saids Lords Commissioners and the saids Lords therewith being as also with the Ranks and Places of such Earles and Lords as were Promoted and Created in His Majesties own time well and throughly Advised The saids Lords Commissioners has Decerned Decreited Appointed and set down and be these presents Decerns Decreits Appoints and sets down the Ranks and Places following to the hail Noblemen of the Kingdom to be Keeped Bruiked and Possessed by them in all Parliaments General Councils and publick Meetings hereafter In the first The saids Lords Commissioners Discerns and Ordains the Duke of Lennox to have the first place the Marques of Hamilton the second the Marques of Huntly the third because be the custom inviolablie observed in all Kingdoms the place of Honor amongst Nobility is first in the persons of Dukes and next Marquesses and then in the persons of Earles and Lords and next unto them the saids Lords Commissioners Discerns and Ordains the Earles abovewritten to have Bruiked and Possessed their Ranks and places according as they are here written Ranked and set down in Order following Viz. Angus Argyl Crawfurd Errol Marishal Sutherland Mar Rothes Morton Monteith Eglington Montrose Cassils Caithnes Glencairn Buchan Murray Orkney Athol Linlithgow Home Pearth Dumfermling and Dumbar And sicklike the saids Lords Commissioners Dicerns and Ordains the Lords particularly abovewritten to have Bruiked and possessed their Ranks and Places according as they are here Written Ranked and set down in Order following Viz. Lindsey Forbes Glames Fleyming Salton Gray Ochiltrie Cathcart Carlyl Sanchar Yester Semple Sinclar Harres Elphingston Maxwel Oliphant Lovat Ogilvy Borthwick Rosse Boyd Torphichen Pasley Newbottle Thirlestain Spynie Roxburgh Lindors Lowdoun Dirleton Kinloss Abercorn Balmerinoch Murray of Tillibairn Colvil Culrosse and Scoon And Decerns and Ordains all Earles and Lords particularly abovewritten to Keep Bruik and Posses their Ranks and Places in all times coming according to the Orders and Ranks abovewritten now set down Appointed and Prescrived to them and to make no Question Trouble nor Plea in this Matter to any appointed to have place and rank in the manner foresaid But prejudice alwayes to such Person or Persons as shall find themselves or their Interests prejudged be their present Ranking to have recourse to the ordinar Remeed of Law be Reduction before the Lords of Council and Session of this present Decreit recovered and of their due Place and Ranks be Production of more Ancient and Authentick Writs nor has been used in the Contrary of this Process Summonding all such persons thereto as shall think themselves wrongously Ranked and placed before them And in the mean time this present Determination to stand in full Force Strength and Effect ay and while the Party Interested and Prejudged obtain Lawfully an Decreit before the saids Lords of Council and Session as said is And Ordains these presents to be Insert and Registrat in the Books of Privy Council and an Authentick Extract thereof to be delivered to the Clerk Register and another Extract to be delivered to the Lyon-herauld to be kept be them for the better knowledge and Information of every mans Ranks and Place when the Occasion of their Ranking shall be Presented Extract de libris Actorum Secreti Consilii Act. 8. D. N. Regis Per me Jacobum Primrose Clericum ejusdem sub meo signo subscriptione manualibus It is fit to know that the Earl of Dowglas was by Act of Parliament Declared to have the first Vote in Parliament and the Carrying of the Crown and leading of the Vanguard But K. Iames did in anno 1582. prevail with that Earl to suffer the Duke of Lennox to carry the Crown for that time and in anno 1632. There is a Charter granted to the said Earl in life-rent and to his Son in Fee cum omnibus privilegiis c. specialiter cum privilegio aciem ducendi Coronam gerendi c. But in anno 1633. the said Earl being Created a Marquess it is Declared by Act of Council that he did quite priviledge of having the the first Vote in Parliament upon his Promotion And yet the Marques of Dowglas still pretends that any such Renunciation could not have prejudged the Family since the Granter of that Renunciation was onely a Life-renter his son having been in Fee I find there are some titles of Nobility in England annexed to places so that whoever is in possession of that place has right to the tittle Thus it was found in the case of the Lord Abergavenny that he in possession of the Castle ought to have the title albeit he be not Heir of Blood Their Reason is because it is a Barony-marchiere and it has been found that Baronies and Castles situate upon the Borders of Scotland and Wales belong alwayes to the Owners the words of the Tenour being per servitium Patriae custodiendae It is alleadged as one of the Reasons in that caise that the Owners of lands holding in capite per Baroniam have Precedency albeit they be not next Heirs The next Degree to the Earles is that of Viscount in Latin Vicecomes as being of old Lieutenant to an Earl Vicecomites olim dicibantur quibus castri Dominus Vices suas committebat seu executionem Iurisdictionis But afterwards Our King gave not the Government of Counties or Shires to Earles
in this Point For some have been of Opinion that those that are born before the Dignity was attained cannot pretend to the Precedency due to the Father for he cannot be said say they to be the Son of a King or Marquess whom a King or Marquess did not beget And since those who are born before a Crime is committed loose not their Dignity by the Fathers committing of the Crime So by the Rule of Contraries he who was Born before his Father was Advanced to a Dignity ought not to participat of that Dignity This they found likewise upon express Laws L. si Senatus Cod. de Dignitat L. Imperalis Cod. de Nupt. and thus Darius was preferred to be King of the Persians to Artabazanes Others do more justly conclude that these are to be Preferred though Born before the Dignity was obtained For if he who was Born in that Condition can be called the Kings Son he must be the Kings eldest Son And it were very absurd that the Father should be Noble and the Son not And if a King had but one Son he could not be King if this were allowed and this is most clear L. Senatoris Filium ff de Senat. where it is said That he is aswell to be called the Son of a Senator who was Begot before the Father was a Senator as he who was Begot after And though this be true as to Succession and as to the Degree of Nobility in general yet many Lawyers are of Opinion that they do not attain to so eminent a Degree of Nobility as if they had been Born after the Father attained to his Nobility For by the former Law si Senator natus ex illustri ante Dignitatem adeptam est clarissimus solum natus postea illustris Others there are who say That these who were Born before may succeed to Honours which descended from old Predecessors but those which were acquired in the Fathers own time should onely descend to such as were Born after these Honors were acquired But now generally in Europe and particularly with Us even those who were Born before the Father attained to any Dignity do participat of his Dignity as if they had been born after the same was acquired in all cases QVESTION XIV Whether ought a Son who is in publick Imployment and Dignified to Preceed a Father who is not It is answered That a Son being in publick Imployment ought to preceed a Father who is not And thus Fabius Maximus commanded his Father to light down from his horse when he was to meet him and was praised for mantaining the Dignity of the Roman Empire in this case And the Son in this case is not a private person but Represenrs the Prince or Common-wealth who are to be preferred to any person and therefore Laurentius Celsi was justly taxed at Venice because he would not meet his Son when he was newly made Duke of Venice least by being discovered before him he should lessen the Perogative of a Father But it may be doubted Whether though this hold in Employments it ought to hold in Titles since in these the Son Represents not the Common-wealth And therefore in these cases the Laws of Nature ought to prevail above the Laws of Honour especially if there be none present but Father and Son But if there be a third person present who will take the place from the Father but not from the Son then the Son must preceed the Father because though he yeeld to his Father yet he should not yeeld to a third Party And it is a general Rule in matters of Precedency that I must preceed you if I preceed him who preceeds you which is not unlike that Maxime used in other parts of Law qui vincit vincentem me vincit me QVESTION XV. Whether may he who has the Survivance of Imployment challenge any Precedency upon that Account To this it is answered That he cannot Claim any Precedency For though there be there the hope of Succession and that the person to succeed be in actu proximo and that likewise it may seem that he is advanced to a Dignity and so ought to have a Precedency suteable to it and that it may likewise seem fit for the Interest of the Commonwealth that these should be Respected and Preferred who are marked out for the Service of the Common-wealth Yet Law nor Custom have given them no Precedency for since they have actually no Dignity nor Power they ought to have no actual Precedency And thus it was found by the Parliaments of Paris and Tholows in anno 1551. 1560. that these who had Survivances were onely to be preferred according to the dates of their actual Admission And so these who were Admitted to be Councellours or Judges after they got their Survivance ought to have the Precedency from them if they did actually administrate before them vid. Maynerd Notabil quest cap. 72. Math. de afflict deciss Neapolitan 1. QVESTION XVI Whether does the Daughter of a Lord who would himself have been an Earl if he had lived take place from the Daughter of a younger Earl It may be alleaged that the Daughter of the Lord should not preceed because an Earles Daughter should still preceed a Lords Daughter and this Ladies Father was never an Earl nor are We to consider futur Honours in the matter of Precedency And as she would not take it in her Fathers time so neither ought she after his death And as her Father himself being a Lord though an Earles Son would not have taken place from the younger Earl so neither should the Lords daughter from the Earles daughter he being a younger Earl then that Lords Father And I find by the Heraulds Records in England that Sir Thomas Lees daughter got a Warrand from the King to take place as a Lords Daughter her Father having died before his Father the Lord Lee which proves that she could not have taken place otherwise and this is commonly receiv'd in England But yet it may be Debated That the Daughter of that Lord should have the Precedency since her Father would have been an elder Earl And though she could not take place during her Grand-fathers time who was the elder Earl yet per jus accrescendi and the right of Representation she comes after her Grand-fathers death to be the Daughter of the elder Earl for Honour is but a part of Succession and therefore as she might have right to her Fathers Succession if she have not Brothers she may by the same reason have Right to the Honours And it were very ridiculous to Argue so as that her elder Brother if she had any might take place as an Earles Grand-child and that she could not take the same place as his Sister and consequently since he would take the place of that younger Earl so should she of that younger Earles Sister or Daughter And the Reason why she comes to a higher Degree of Precedency by the death of her
it time out of mind It is fit to know that in this Isle not onely that Nobility which comes by Succession and Immemorial possession but even that which comes by priviledge and Concession can be Forfeited by the Fathers Crime and in this We differ from Warnesius opinion and therefore the Children must be rehabilitat and restored by the King But the Fathers unworthiness in exercising mean shifts and Trades does not amongst us Derogate from the Childrens Nobility as in other Nations Nor do I see any reason for the distinction used by Warnesius for all Nobility must be acknowledged to have flowed originally from the King by Concession and even that Nobility which comes by priviledge does descend upon the Children by the Kings grant to them aswell as the Father and so cannot be prejudged by any personal deed of his except in the case of a Crime against the King for that is still implyed in the Concession and it is not just that the Children of Traitours should enjoy those titles and that Nobility which might be useful to them in revenging their unjust quarrels QVESTION XXIX One having resigned a Dignity or Imployment and returning thereafter thereto whether does he who has so resigned return to his former Precedency To this it is answered That he does not but having embraced again the employment he had formerly resigned he is onely to have Precedency according to his last Reinstalment Langleus 7. Semest 8. where it is laid down as a rule that Precedency once lost is never recovered and an instance of this is given cap. ex Insinuatione 26. in a Chanon who having once renunced his Benefice and having thereafter embraced it is onely to be preferred according to the date of his last title From this last rule viz. that a Precedency once lost cannot be recovered Gothofred de Preced cap. 6. num 43. observes these Exceptions First If the person who renounced his Dignity was preferred to a Higher or more Noble in which case if he return to his first Imployment he looses not the Precedency due to it for a greater Dignity never prejudges the lesser L. 3. C. de Dignitatibus Rupanus lib. 7. cap. 27. and contains in it the lesser per eminentiam as Lawyers speak superveniens major Dignitas auget non minuit statum except the two Offices be incompatible in themselves for then the lesser is extinguisht by the greater L. si debitoris ff de fidejussor The second exception is If the person in whose favours the Resignation was made will not accept and upon his refusal the Resigner does presently return to his Precedency L. si forte ff de Offic. Presid And the reason is because the Resignation being there made in favours of another has that tacit Condition in it that if the other in whose favours it was made accept not the Resignation shall be null and this is the nature of all Resignations in favorem with us as to all Fews as Craig well observes The third Exception is If he who made the Resignation do presently repent for in that case likewise he is in the condition as if he Resigned not And thus the Law takes not advantage of Our sudden and undigested thoughts Et uxor quae mox rediit divertisse non videtur The fourth Exception given by him is If he who Resigned reserved to himself his former Precedency for which though there be several Roman decisions yet it is very debateable how far a man can by Protestation or Paction distinguish and reserve a Precedency when he has Resigned or Disponed the Imployment to which it was annexed For since the Precedency is onely due upon the account of the Imployment it would seem that he who has Resigned the Imployment cannot retain the Precedency and to do so were to retain accidens sine subjecto QVESTION XXX Whether may a Nobleman resign his Honours in favours of a third Party And if the Kings Confirmation thereupon will exclude the nearest Agnats who would else have succeeded by their right of Blood This question seems of great Importance and intricacy For it may seem that he may transfer his title in prejudice of his nearest Heirs because the title is onely a Fee and all Fews may be alienated nor is this a meer right of Blood but a priviledge bestowed by the King and consequently may be transferred by his consent Nor can their be any thing more for the interest either of the Kingdom or of Noble Families than that when the nearest Heir is unfit to succeed wanting either Means or Wit suitable to such a Dignity it should be in the power of the King and the Noble person himself to choose a fit successor Like as this was so decided in the case of Robert King of Sicily Cl. pastoral de re Iud. And many Lawyers have been of opinion that even elder Brothers might resign their right of Succession and primo-genitur in favours of the third Brother passing by the second vid. c. 1. § praeterea tit quib mod feud amit Bald. Consil. 389. But others conclude That the nearest by Blood are not prejudged by such Resignations Because this is a right flowing from the favour of Nature and Law Naturae Legis donum quod non potest auferri L. si arrogater ff § sed an ff de Adopt nor is Dignity exposable to sale or in Commerce L. Iulianus ff si quis omiss Whereas if such Resignations or transmissions were sustainable all titles might be sold and the meanest Fellow if Rich might by the favour of a Minister and the folly of the present Possessor exclude the Noblest Race And by the Feudal Law though a Vassal may denude himself yet he cannot transmit his Fee in favours of remoter Heirs to the prejudice of the nearer cap. Titius tit si de feud fuer Contravers this case is not decided with us but the King upon a Resignation from the late Earl of Caithnes in favours of Glenurchy confirmed the title in his favours but by a new Patent and without the former Precedency and discharged by a letter the next Heir to use the title till the matter should be decided by the Judge competent But I find that in England Ed. 2. granted to Edmond de Lincourt upon his Petition a Patent under the great Seal impowering him to assign his Sirname Arms and Barony But the Lord Hoe having assigned his Name Arms and Dignity without the Kings licence the deed was adjudged void in Parliament From which the Authour of Ius imaginis pag. 27. concludes first That the title of Nobility may be assigned Secondly That it cannot be assigned without the Kings licence And yet I find that in the Viscount Purbecks case it was lately found by the parliament of England that a Nobleman could not levey a fine upon his Honour in prejudice of his Heir that is to say That a Nobleman could not do any deed to the prejudice of his Honour by alienating