does the Son possess this Title by his Father but by his Family And Lawyers have resolved that Filius retinet Nobilitatem etiam repudiata haereditate Bart. in L. Iurisjur § 1. ff de Oper. lib. Iac. in L. si non sortem ff de condict in debit But yet this decision may seem unsuteable to the Analogy and Principles of Law For 1 o. Since Honour is by the first Patent and Erection granted to a man and his Heirs It seems Just and Legal that none can enjoy the same but such as are Heirs so that this seems to be a qualified Right granted by the King and consequently can be enjoyed by none but such as Purge and Purifie the qualities and are Heirs 2 o. We see that in other Rights granted to a man and his Heirs no Successor can have Right without being Heir and since this holds in Accessions of the meanest Nature Why should it not much rather hold in Titles and Dignities which are things of great importance 3 o. We have no way nor method to know who is Heir but by an Inquest after which he who is served Heir is lyable to all Debts and if he who is to use the Title needs not be found Heir by an Inquest any man may use the Title of a Deceist Peer and if two contended for it this could not be tryed without an Inquest and Service 4 o. The making men lyable to their Predecessors Debts for using his Title would be very advantagious for the Defuncts Creditors and it is the Interest of the Common-wealth that Creditors should be payed nor could the apparent Heir complain since he may choose to use the Title or not as he pleases 5 o. It were advantagious to the Common-wealth that none had a Title but he who had the Estate which was given out with it and out of which it was to be mantained a Poor Nobility being a great burden upon a Common-wealth and a ruine to it And I find that the Parliament of England did Degrade George Nevil from being Duke of Bedford for want of an Estate suteable to his Dignity which Statut. 17. Ed. 4. expresses the inconveniencies here mentioned which are greater in Scotland than in England because Our Peers have more Interest in laying on Taxes than Lords in England have 6 o. The Law considers not in other cases whether the thing used by the apparent Heir may be advantagious to him Or whether he may pay Debt with it for the using of meer Ornaments which can yeeld no Money Or things of the meanest advantage do make him lyable yea and he would be lyable though he were a looser by the thing he used whereas not onely are Honours and Precedency things of great Advantage and which men would buy at any Rate But if a man have Liberty once to use the Title of his Predecessor it gives him a great Opportunity to inhance his Predecessors Estate by indirect means And the former Arguments prove onely that the Blood interest as to Honour is transmitted without a Service but not that the Feudal Title of Earl can be so transmitted QVESTION XII Whether does the Appearancy of Blood give Precedency where the Predecessor is not Dead This is called by the Doctours Spes expectantia successionis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and upon this account it is Debated Whether the Son of a King ought to be preferred to his Brother and all the Peers And generally whether the Nephew ought to be preferred to the Uncle who was his Fathers second Brother And I find it Recorded that Lycurgus did decide for himself against his Nephew being the Son of his eldest Brother But I would distinguish here thus First in the Families of Kings and Princes all the Kings Children are preferred to the Kings Brothers and all the Kings Brothers to the Kings Uncles and thus it was decided in France by Henry the third Rupanus pag. 508. But formerly the Uncles were preferred by the Constitution of Philip the Long anno 1316. And though in the Roman Empire before Alexius Comnenius the Emperours Son was still preferred to his Uncle Yet that Emperour desiring to put a Mark of Respect upon his own elder Brother preferred him to his Son and now the Sons of Princes are so farr preferred that not onely they but all the Princes of the Blood are preferred to all other Peers though they be last Created as was found by the Parliament of Paris anno 1541. betwixt the Dukes of Neveres and Monpensier 2 o. If in other Families the Brother be of a Dignity equal to his elder Brother then the Brother will be preferred to the Nephew as if the Brother be an Earl and the Nephew a Lord as being an Earles Son in this case Expectation will not prefer the Nephew because there are other actual Degrees of Preferrence 3 o. If the Uncle were a Lord by Creation and the Nephew a Lord by Birth in which case if the Uncle was a Lord before the Nephew was born the Uncle ought to be preferred as first in Time but not if the Nephew was first born and thus Baldus distinguishes ad L. ut intestato C. de su Leg. Hered 4 o. If neither the Nephew nor Uncle have any special Dignity then the Son of the elder Brother is to be preferred to the Uncle And this last case shews that the immediate hope of Succession or jus expectantiae is in it self a ground of Precedency and since a man and his apparent Heir are una eadem Persona in the Construction of Law and that in many things that are Disadvantagious to the Son he is look'd upon as Heir apparent in the same way as if his Father were dead it is therefore just that as he has the Disadvantages of an apparent Heir so he ought to have the Advantages of an apparent Heir And thus We see that Our Statutes having Declared Comprisings bought in by the apparent Heir to be Redeemable by the Defuncts Creditors It was found that a Comprising bought in by the eldest Son even whilst his Father lived was Redeemable from him and that he was an apparent Heir in the construction of Law And therefore since the Law puts him in the same case as if the Father were Dead he ought to have the same Precedency and consequently ought to be preferred to his Uncle to whom he would certainly be preferred if his Father were dead It is remarkable that in Scotland the Uncle was of old acknowledged to be King during not only the Pupillarity of his Pupil but during the Uncles own Natural Life which being an Invasion upon the Natural Right of Our Kings was abrogated under Kenith the third QVESTION XIII Whether should an elder Brother who was Born before the Father was Preferred to the Dignity of a King Marquess Earl c. be Preferred to a younger Brother who was Born after his Father had attained to either of these Dignities Lawyers have varied very much
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
presence of King Iames it was determined in favours of the younger sons of Viscounts and Barons But at the same time it was declared That such Bannerets as should be made by His Majesty or Prince of Wales under the Kings Standard displayed in an Army Royal As also the Knights of the Garter Privy Counsellours Master of the Court of Wards and Liveries Chancellour and Under-Thesaurer of the Exehequer Chancellour of the Dutchy Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Master of the Rolls Chief Justice of the Common-pleas Chief Barons of Exchequer and other Judges and Barons of the degree of the Coif should have place and precedency both before the younger sons of Viscounts and Barons and before all Baronets by which some alterations may appear from the Ranking appointed by Henry the fourth Beside what has been formerly observed in the description of Knights Baronets I find that of old a Banneret or a Ban-rent has been with us a title higher than a Baron for by Act 101. Parl. 7. Ia. 1. Barons may choose their own Commissioners but Bishops Dukes Earles Lords and Ban-rents are to be summonded to Parliament by the Kings special precept And it is probable that these Ban-rents were Knights of extraordinary reputation who were allowed to raise a company of men under their own Banner but now it is commonly taken for such as are Knighted by the King or Prince under the Royal Standard in time of War But I conceive that those could not now sit in Parliament upon the Kings precept the former Act of Parliament being in desuetude They have the precedency from Baronets though their Wives have not this being but a temporary Dignity and the other an heritable Barons in England are Lords with us but a Baron with us is properly he who has power of pit and gallows And yet of old I conceive that Lords and Barons were the same for the Statutes of K. Robert 1. bear to be made in his Parliament holden at Scoon with Bishops Abbots Priors Earles Barons and others his Noblemen of his Realm And in Our old Original Acts of Parliament I find that the Lords and Barons are put in one column undistinguished and under the common name Barons And in the first Parliament of K. Ia. the 4th I find the Master of Glames i. e. the Lord Glames eldest son sitting inter Barones Now the Lords are called the Great Barons and the rest are called Small Barons in the 101. Act. 7. Parl. Ia. 1. and ever since But yet I find by the 166. Act. 13. Parl. Ia. 6. every Earl or Lord payes 2000. pounds for Lawborrows and every great Baron 1000. pounds but by great Baron there is meant a Baron of a considerable estate because that Act was to proportion the Surety to be found to the estate of him who finds the Surety The old Barons or Lairds amongst us especially where they are Chiefs of Clans or the Representatives of old Families that were Earldoms as Pitcurr is of the Earl of Dirleton and as Chief of the name of Halyburton have never ceded the Precedency to Knights-Baronets much less to ordinar Knights Though the other pretend that a Baron is no name of Dignity and that Knights-Baronets have a special priviledge that there shall be no degree betwixt them and Lords except the Bannerets And though militia non est per se dignitas Chassan fol. 344. yet generally it is believed that next to Knights-Baronets succeed Knights-Batchelours and next to them our Lairds or Landed-Gentlemen though a Laird in effect is but the corrupt word of a Lord. Amongst such as profess Sciences the Ranking goes thus uncontravertedly 1 o. Such as profess Theology 2 o. Such as profess the Canon-Law 3 o. The Civil-Law 4 o. Philosophy 5 o. Medicin 6 o. Rhethorick 7 o. Poescy 8 o. History 9 o. Grammer 10 o. Logick 11 o. Arithmetick 12 o. Geometry 13 o. Musick 14 o. Astronomy Chassan de gloria mundi pars decima And amongst these such as are Doctors preceed these that are not and amongst Doctours the priority goes by Age. In Towns These who inhabit Cities are preferred to such as inhabit Burghs and generally those in the Metropolitan or capital City are preferred to all the rest And those who have born Magistracy are even when their Magistracy is over preferred to all others And so far is this Precedency observed that 1 o. A younger Alderman or Bailie takes not Precedency from his Senior because he is Knighted or as being the elder Knight as was found in the case of the Alderman Craven who though all the rest of the Alderman were Knighted at the Coronation of King Iames kept the precedency formerly due to him as Senior Alderman But though this hold not onely amongst Aldermen but that even all Knights of the Countrey being Burgesses of a Town do cede to these who have been their Magistrates in it as to publick meetings relating to the Town Yet it is doubted whether such a Knight will be oblieged to give place to an Alderman or Baily in a neutral place But it is determined in the Heraulds Office of England that all such as have been Mayors of London that is to say Provosts with us do take the place of all Knights-batchelours every where because they have been the Kings Lieutenants It is there likewlse remarked That Sir Iohn Crook Serjeant at Law was Knighted before any other Serjeant his Ancient and standing upon Precedency by reason of his Knighthood It was adjudged against him by the Judges viz. that he should take place according to his Serjeancy and not after his Knighthood yet his wife took her place of a Lady before other Serjeants wives The Members of Courts do take place amongst themselves according to the precedency of the Courts where they serve as the Clerks of the Privy Council take place of the Clerks of the Session In Families likewise the Chief of the Family takes place of any Gentleman of the Family And though generally it be believed that Gentlemen have no precedency one from another yet Reason and Discretion do allow that a Gentlman of three Generations should cede to a Gentleman of ten if there be not a very great disparity betwixt their Fortunes and that for the same Reason almost that a Gentleman of three Generations claims precedency from any ordinary Landed-man who was newly acquired his lands CHAP. IX The Precedency due to Women WOmen before their Marriage have Precedency by their Father but there is this difference betwixt them and the Male-children that the same Precedency is due to all the Daughters that is due to the eldest though it is not so amongst Sons and the reason of the difference seems to be that Daughters would all succeed equally whereas the eldest Son excludes all the rest But if this be the adequat and true reason then where the Estate and Honours are provided to the eldest Daughter onely excluding the rest they ought not to have the same
Blood it seems to have no Dependance upon Riches and as the having of Riches gives not Nobility so neither should the want of them take it away Likewise this is very express by the Roman Law Lege humilem Cod. de Incest nupt where it is said humilem abjectam foeminam non eam esse quae licet pauper sit ab ingenuis tamen parentibus nata est And that this hath been very anciently the opinion of the World is clear from that of Euripides apud Stob. serm 86. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I find that Cook 4. inst folio 355. and the Authour of Ius Imaginis pag. 25. conclude that Poverty is a good cause for the Degrading of a Peer an instance whereof they give in George Nevil Duke of Bedford who was Degraded by Act of Parl. 17. Edward the fourth of which Act this is the tenour And forasmuch as it is openly known that the said George hath not nor by Inheritance may have any livelyhood to support the said Name Estate and Dignity or any name of Estate as oftentimes it is seen that when any Lord is called to high Estate and have not livelyhood convenient to support the same Dignity it induceth great Poverty and Indigence and causeth oftentimes Extortion Embracery and Maintenance to be had to the great trouble of such Countries where such Estate shall happen to be inhabited Wherefore the King by Advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same Ordaineth Establisheth and Enacteth that from henceforth the same Erection and making of the same Duke and all the names of Dignity to the said George or to John Nevil his Father be from henceforth void and of none effect c. From which Act three things may be well observed First That the said Duke had not any Possessions to support his Dignity yet his Dignity could not be taken away from him without an Act of Parliament Secondly The inconveniencies appear where a great Estate or Dignity is not accompanied with a livelyhood Thirdly This is a good Cause to take away the Dignity by Parliament For reconciling which opinions it seems indeed that though a person who is noble by Birth should fall into poverty yet that poverty can no more Degrade him from his Nobility then it can taint his Blood but though it cannot root out that Noble Character from his Blood and make him no Gentleman yet it seems a good reason why he may be Degraded from being a Peer of the Realm For the being a Peer is no necessar effect of Blood but a mark of the Royal bounty bestowed for the better Government and Advantage of the Kingdom Earles being by their Original Praepositi Comitatus or Commanders of the County and Counties or Shires are so called because they are the Governments of a Count or Earl And therefore when the King and Parliament find that they are not fit to bear this quality they may justly take away that Honour that was given nor can there be any thing so inconvenient as that these should represent the Kingdom in its greatest concerns and burden it with with Taxes who have no interest in the one nor can bear any share in the other And that these Feudal Dignities and markes of Nobility may be taken off by the loss of the Fews is clear by Bartolus in L. inam Cod. de Dignitatibus and that this is the custome of Sicily is clear Afflictus Col. non in 6. not It may likewise seem reasonable that as the King onely can bestow Nobility so that it should be onely proper for him to Degrade And since he may Create any Nobleman though he be poor so he may continue him so notwithstanding of his Poverty specially seing the being a Peer is but to be the Princes Counsellour nor can any judge who are fit to be his Counsellours but himself nor is the Parliament any thing but his great Council But since this Degradation is a kind of Forfeitur it seems that the Parliament onely can be Judges therein since the King does not use to Forfeit by his own Authority And though the former Arguments may prove that a Peer cannot be Degraded for poverty except the King pleases which is certainly true since no Act of Parliament can pass without his Royal consent yet they prove not that the King may Degrade a Nobleman by his own Authority except he may Judge all cases immediately by himself QVESTION XXVII Whether is a Patent never made use of by the Father valid after his death It is answered That though the Patent being granted to such a man therein Designed seems to die with him and that the Father dying with this quality cannot transmit it to his Son yet it is certain that the Patent is valid to his posterity For except where it was Designed to be personal it is conceived in Favours of a man and his Heirs and thus it was judged in the cause of Quesnel Advocat in Rowan 4. May 1623. vid. La Rocque cap. 67. QVESTION XXVIII Whether if the Father use any low or base Trade which Derogates from Nobility will his Children and Descendents loose it thereby In answering to this case We must distinguish betwixt such as derive their Nobility from their Fathers onely and some think that in that case the misbehaviour of the Father does extinguish the Nobility of the Race and that the Descendants are no more Noble except they be restored by an express Gift Or otherwise the Nobility of the Race has descended from a long Series of Predecessours and then the Fathers Deed does not prejudge them since they do not owe their Nobility to him and the Prince having Nobilitat such a man and his Posterity they owe their Nobility to the King and derive it from him equally with the Father which Distinction I find in the Learned Faber Cod. L. 9. T. 28. Def. 1. But it seems that by this last reason Even that Nobility which is begun in the Father cannot be lost by his fault And therefore some Lawyers have been of Opinion that that Nobility which descends by immemorial possession and which flows not from a particular priviledge and Concession can never be taken away by the Fathers baseness or crime Warnaesius tom 1. responsorum de Iure Pontificio Consil. 20. num 7. and thus we find in the Roman Story that Marcus Emilius Scaurus was found not to have lost his Nobility by his Fathers becoming a bearer of Coals Curt. conjectur jur civil lib. 2. cap. 20. and others think that as it is sufficient for acquiring Nobility that the Grand-father and Father have been repute Noble So by the rule of Contraries it is sufficient for extinguishing Nobility that the Father and Grand-father have been repute Ignoble And though the rights of Blood cannot be lost by prescription yet Nobility may be lost as all other priviledges can by not exersing or owning