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
in their respective Robes and Crowns on their Heads Coming before the King they made their Reverence Then they were led up by the Master of Ceremonies some steps and sitting down on their Knees on Velvet Cushions the Lyon made an Harrangue both to His Majesty and to them Declaring to the Noblemen That it pleased His Majesty to promote them to that Dignity and that he desired them to Fear GOD and obey His Power Then he took their Oaths that they should obey GOD his Majesty and mantain the Religion then profest Thereafter the Lyon delivered to His Majesty the Patents and His Majesty redelivered them to the Lyon who gave them to the Noblemen In token that they should obey GOD and His Majesties Laws Afterwards the Lyon delivered His Majesty the Marquesses Coronets His Majesty redelivered them to the Lyon The Lyon put the Crowns on their Heads saying Iohn Marquess of Hamilton Earl of Arran Lord Even c. George Marquess of Huntly Earl of Enzie Lord Gordon and Badzenoch c. The same was Proclaimed furth of the windows by the Heraulds and Pursivants with sound of Trumpet Then were they conveyed to their Seats and placed above the Earles upon the Kings left Hand Trumpets sounding The Lyon desired His Majesty to Honour the Gentlemen who bare the Honours with the Honour of Knight-hood His Majesty consented The Lyon caused them sit down on their Knees at the foot of all the Stage and after he had made an Exhortation to them and received all their Oaths they holding up their Hands and promising to obey all the Injunctions The Lyon presented the Sword to His Majesty who stroke each of them therewith on the Right shoulder and Sir offered the Spur the Lyon first proclaiming their Styls and after the Heraulds and Pursivants at the windows with sound of Trumpet I find this Difference in the Creation of many Earles from what is here set down That the four Gentlemen bear the Honours thus The first the Penon the second the Standart the third Sword and Belt the fourth the Crown and lastly the Lyon bear the Patent in a Velvet bag And that the Lyon offered first to His Majesty the Sword and Belt and receiving it back put it on the Person Nobilitat As also when the King was not present and after His going to England The Ceremony was performed be His Majesties High Commissioner if there was one at the time Or otherwise a Writ was direct to the Lord Chancellor appointing him Commissioner for that Creation And then the first thing that was done after the person to be Created was brought in the Lyon gave the Patent to the Commissioner who gave it to the Register or Clerk of Council to be read And I Observe this in all Our old Creations that if the person to be Dignified was a Lord formerly he was conveyed in be two Lords and the Ceremony of the new Creation being over was conveyed to his place by two of that degree to which he was advanced The English Nobility are sometimes Created by being called in a Write to Parliament under the Designations of Earles Viscounts c. Which way is unknown to Us in Scotland though the King may introduce it at His pleasure The Precedency amongst Subjects is thus Established in both Kingdoms Dukes of the Blood Royal Other Dukes according to their Creation The Eldest Sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal Marquesses according to their Creation Dukes Eldest Sons Earles according to their Creation Marquesses Eldest Sons Dukes Younger Sons Viscounts according to their Creation Earles Eldest Sons Marquesses Younger Sons Barrons whom We call Lords Viscounts Eldest Sons Earles Younger Sons Barrons Eldest Sons Barronets Viscounts Younger Sons But the Officers in England are by Act of Parliament Henry the 8. thus Ranked Lord Chancellour Lord Thesaurer The Lord President of the Privy Council The Lord Privy Seal These four being of the Degree of a Barron or above shall sit in Parliament and all Assemblies of Council above Dukes not being of the Blood Royal. The Lord Great Chamberlain The Lord High Constable of England The Earl Marishal of England The Lord Admiral of England The Lord Great Master or Steward of the House The Lord Chamberlain of the Houshold These last Six and the Kings principle Secretary take place according to their present State So that if they be Barrons they take place above all Barrons If Earles above all Earles If Dukes above all Dukes By a Decree and Establishment under the Great Seal of England 1 o. Iacobi the following persons are thus Ranked Knights of the Garter Knights of the Privy Council The Master of the Wards and Liveries The Lord Chancellor and Under-Thesaurer of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Dutchy The Chief Justice of the Kings Bench The Master of the Rolls The Chief Justice of the common Pleas The Chief Barron of the Exchequer The other Judges and Barrons of the degree of the Coif The Younger Sons of Viscounts The Younger Sons of Barrons The Barronets The Precedency amongst Our Nobility differs nothing from what is here set down England and We agreeing in all points since the Union of the two Kingdoms And especially since the Coronation of King Charles the first at which time he Declared he would have it so But to prevent Differences betwixt the Nobility of both Kingdoms It was Ordered That all those of the same Degree in England should in England take place from all those of the same Degree in Scotland And all those of the same Degree in Scotland should in Scotland take place of the English That is to say All the English Dukes should take place in England of all the Scots Dukes And all the Scottish Dukes in Scotland should take place of all the English Dukes which was very Just and Suetable to the Laws of Nations But as to the Ranking of Our Officers We Differ much from England For clearing whereof it is fit to know That with Us there were Officers of the Crown and Officers of State The Officers of the Crown were all Designed of Scotland as Constabularius Scotiae c. In King Malcom the II. his Parliament The Offices then Extant were The Chancellour the Justice General the Chamberlain the Steward the Constable and Marishal and they are thus Ranked and have their Respective Fees But by the Act 31. Parl. 11. Ia. 6. The Offices of the Crown are Declared to be The Thesaurer Secretar the Collector which Office is now joyned with the Thesaurers the Justice General Justice Clerk Advocat Master of Requests Clerk of Register And though these be called Officers of the Crown there I conceive they Differ not from the Officers of State And these words Officers of the Crown and Officers of State are now Equipollent Terms so far that all the Officers of State are Officers of the Crown by this Act But the High Chamberlain Constable Admiral and Marishal are Officers of the Crown but are not Officers of State
The speciality of Officers of State being That in all Acts or Meetings which concern the State they sit as Members by Vertue of their office as in Parliaments Conventions c. where the Chamberlain and Admiral come not as such nor the Constable and Marishal if they were not Earles The Officers of State have oft contended for Precedency amongst themselves And therefore King Iames did in Privy Council upon the 17. of Iune 1617. Declare That in that and all other Parliaments none should sit as Officers of State save eight and though there should be moe of the saids Officers by Deputation Division or otherwise Yet eight onely should sit which eight he did thus Rank by Act of Council Thesaurer Privy-Seal Secretary Register Advocat Justice Clerk Thesaurer-deput Mr. of Requests And yet His Majesty having appointed Sir Archibald Atchison to be second Secretary and he having contended that his place was to be next the principal Secretary This was Opposed by the Register and Advocat founding themselves upon the said Act of Council It was answered thereto That His Majesty might notwithstanding of the said Act have as many Secretaries as he pleased and by that His Majesty was only Limited to eight Officers of State in Parliament But that notwithstanding thereof he might make use of any eight he pleased and accordingly he had made use of the Chancellor Collector and Comptroller as Officers of State in several Parliaments notwithstanding that they are none of the eight Officers mentioned in this Act Likeas K. Ia. had appointed the Lord Chancellor being a Nobleman to sit amongst the Noblemen and not as Chancellor or an Officer of State The Council did remit this Debate to the King I find that upon the 20. of February 1623. the whole matter of Precedency amongst His Majesties Officers and Counsellors is thus Stated The Lord Chancellor The Lord Thesaurer The Arch-bishop of St. Andrews The Arch-bishop of Glasgow The Earles and Viscounts according to their Ranks Bishops according to their Ranks Lord Privy Seal Lord Secretary Lord Register Lord Advocat Lord Justice Clerk Lord Thesaurer-deput The Lords of the Session according to their Admission Barrons and Gentlemen being Counsellors according to their Admission It is observable from this Act that Lords of the Session have Precedency from Privy Councellors in Scotland otherwise any Counsellor of an elder Admission would be preferred to them And yet in England Privy Councellors are preferred to all the Judges and even to the chief Justices And with Us I find no Privy Councellor take place as such from any person whatsoever which seems very strange For since the Judicatur it self is placed before the Session and that its President hath Precedency from the President of the Session that therefore its Judges ought to preceed the Judges of the Session 2 do Though the Lords of Session are Lords of Council and Session yet there being Secret Councellors gives them a greater nearness and Argues a greater Trust And in all matters of Precedency these are the Chief Topicks for Precedency 3 o. In Law Counsellours are called by the Emperour Pars Corporis nostri l. quisquis C. ad L. Iul. Majest And so to assault them was Treason and is with Us. 4 o. In France this Question betwixt the Members Magni Concilii and the Senators of the Parliament of Paris is Debated by Boerius and he prefers the Counsellours And in Sweden they have place from all the Nobility 5 o. The Lords of Privy Council have more supereminent power then the Lords of Session For they can stop the Precedor of the Justices they can Adjourn the Session they can grant Precognitions moderat punishments c. Notwithstanding of all which such Respect has Our Kings to the Lords of Session who Distribute Justice Equally to the People that they still preferred them to all the Subjects except the Lords of Parliament and their eldest Sons It has been contended by the Younger Sons of Noblemen That they ought to have Precedency from the Lords of Session Because sayes the second Son of an Earl I have Precedency from the Eldest Son of a Lord and yet he has place from the Lords of Session and it is a certain Rule in Precedency That if I preceed you I must preceed him who preceeds you And if an Earles second Son and a Lords eldest Son and a Lord of Session did meet together the Earles second Son could not preceed the Lords eldest Son except he preceeded also the Lord of Session To which nothing can be answered save that the eldest Sons of Peers being presumptive Peers and such as will be Peers It is fit that the Lords of Session who have but a Temporary Precedency should not preceed them But I find that though in England the younger Sons of the preceeding Rank take still the place from the eldest Son of the next mediat as the younger sons of Dukes from the eldest sons of Earles and the younger Sons of Marquesses from the elder Sons of Viscounts And that all the Chain of Precedency is founded upon this Gradation and that it seems that Nature has led men to this Establishment Yet the eldest Sons of Our Lords Lord Barons refuse to Cede to the second sons of Earls and it was so of old with Us and that which may be given as a Reason for this is that it is unreasonable That they who are to be Peers and to have a constant Title should Cede to such as have but a Temporary Honour But if this Reason were sufficient the younger Sons of Dukes should not preceed the eldest Sons of Lord Barons With Us the eldest Sons of Lord Barons are Design'd Masters as the Master of Rosse c. And of old the Uncles of Lords after the Death of their elder Brother though he left a Son were called Masters till the Nephew had a Son For which I know no other Reason but that because they wanted a Tittle they took this For their Father being Lord there was no Degree below to take as the elder Sons of Earles took that of Lord. And I believe that thus the word Master was given in England to meaner People when their name was not known For though the word Dominus was refused by Augustus as importing Slavery which the Romans could not bear rather then from a secret Impulse as St. Augustin sayes In respect Our SAVIOVR was then Born who was the True Master since Sueton tells That Tiberius also refused this Title yet in Complement even then such as were not known were called Domini Obvios sayes Seneca si nomen non succurrit Dominos salutamus and thereafter with the Roman Slavery this Title grew from being a Complement to be a Duty And thus the Grecian Emperour was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the eldest son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from this Title of Master came Meship amongst Us which was given to all such as had not a special Title as Lord Sir
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
but appointed Sheriffs who depended upon their own Nomination and were therefore called Vicecomites In Bretagn Barons take place from Viscounts But there are no Viscounts in Germany Bourgrave being in their place Speculat tit de Vicecometatu la Roque de nobilit C. 83. We had no Viscounts in Scotland before 1606. for by the aforesaid Decreet the Lord is declared next to the Earl Barons according to Spelman sunt Clientes Feodales Vassalli Capitales qui Pagos Vrbes Castra vel eximiam ruris portionem cum Iurisdictione acceperunt a Rege And the word according to him comes from Vir or Vi i. e. robur belli But it is more probable that it comes from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gravis they being chosen wise and Discreet men With Us all are called Barons who hold their lands of the King in libera Baronia and who have power of pit and gallows and of old they were all heritable Members of Parliament as all Barons in England are as is clear by Act 52. Parl. 3. Ia. 1. whereby all Barons are appointed to come to Parliament and though this Act may seem to be abrogated by the 101. Act Parliament 7. Iames the first whereby the Barons of each Shire are allowed to choose two wise men to Represent them which is the custom at this day Yet it is observable that though by that Act they may for their conveniency choose two yet they are by no express Law discharged to come in greater numbers And by the 78. Act Par. 6. Ia. 4. no Baron that had below the Rent of 1OO Merks was to be compelled to come to Parliament unless the King particularly wrote for him And when Taxations were laid on by the Council I find by the old Records as particularly in October 1562. that Noblemen and Burgesses are called but no Barons the Barons and Noblemen having been then represented promiscuously and that long after the Act of Parliament allowing them to send Commissioners And this is the Reason why Our old Barons who are not Lords and hold onely their lands in free Barony have supporters in their Atchievement and that with some reluctancy they yeeld the Precedency to Knights-Baronets they being Originally heritable Counsellours to the King as Members of Parliament and not Debarred The several Degrees of Nobility before Treated of did alwayes bear their respective Coronets as in England excepting the Lords who had no Coronet till the year 1665. There being a Warrand under His Majesties hand in Iune 1665. Allowing to the Barons or Lords of Parliament in Scotland a certain Crimson Velvet Cape with a Golden Circle decored with six Pearles on the Top equally distant one from another which is the same with the Barons Coronet in England But the figure of this Coronet on the margine of the principal Signator is done far contrare to the words in the Body The same having points like to that of the Earles which has certalnly been a mistake and ignorance in the Painter and ought to be adverted to be the Lyon and Heraulds This Warrand is Registrat in the books of Council and in the Lyon Books I have here set down for the Readers further Satisfaction a List of all the Nobility at present in this Nation their Sir-names and Principal Titles And Titles of their Eldest Sons With such Officers as have Precedency be Vertue of their Offices The Duke of Albany onely Brother to His most Sacred Majesty Lord Chancellour Lord Thesaurer Lord President of the Privy Council Lord Privy-seal Lord Secretary above all of his degree â‚ Nota. Stuart Duke of Lennox was the premier Duke but this Family is lately extinct DUKES Hamilton Duke of Hamilton His Eldest Son Earl of Arran Scot Duke of Buccleuch His Eldest Son Earl of Dalkeith Maitland Duke of Lauderdale His Eldest Son Earl of Lauderdail Lenos Duke of Lennox His Eldest Son Earl of Darnly MARQUESSES Gordon Marquess of Huntly His Eldest Son Lord Gordon Dowglas Marquess of Dowglas His Eldest Son Lord Angus Graham Marquess of Montrose His Eldest Son Lord Graham Murray Marquess of Athol His Eldest Son Lord Murray EARLES Campbel Earl of Argyl His Eldest Son Lord Lorn Lindsay Earl of Crawsurd His Eldest Son Lord Lindsay Hay Earl of Errol His Eldest Son Lord Hay Keith Earl Marischal His Eldest Son Lord Keith Gordon Earl of Sutherland His Eldest Son Lord Strathnaver Areskin Earl of Marr His Eldest Son Lord Areskin Graham Earl of Airth and Monteith His Eldest Son Lord Kilpont and Kilbryd Lesly Earl of Rothes His Eldest Son Lord Lesly Dowglas Earl of Morton His Eldest Son Lord Aberdour Areskin Earl of Buchan His Eldest Son Lord Auchterhouse Cuningham Earl of Glencairn His Eldest Son Lord Kilmawrs Montgomery Earl of Eglington His Eldest Son Lord Montgomery Kennedy Earl of Cassils His Eldest Son Lord Kennedy Stuart Earl of Murray His Eldest Son Lord Down Maxwel Earl of Nithisdale His Eldest Son Lord Maxwell Seton Earl of Winton His Eldest Son Lord Seton Livingston Earl of Linlithgow His Eldest Son Lord Livingston Home Earl of Home His Eldest Son Lord Coldingham Drummond Earl of Pearth His Eldest Son Lord Drummond Seton Earl of Dumfermling His Eldest Son Lord Fyvie Fleeming Earl of Wigton His Eldest Son Lord Fleeming Lyon Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorn His Eldest Son Lord Glames Hamilton Earl of Abercorn His Eldest Son Lord Paslie Ker Earl of Roxburgh His Eldest Son Lord Ker Areskin Earl of Kelly His Eldest Son Lord Pettinweem Hamilton Earl of Haddington His Eldest Son Lord Binning Stuart Earl of Galloway His Eldest Son Lord Garlies Mackenzie Earl of Seaforth His Eldest Son Lord Mackinzie Ker Earl of Lothian His Eldest Son Lord Newbottle Hay Earl of Kinnoul His Eldest Son Lord Duplin Campbel Earl of Lowdown His Eldest Son Lord Mauchlaâ— Crichton Earl of Dumfries His Eldest Son Lord Crichton Dowglas Earl of Queensberry His Eldest Son Lord Drumlanerick Alexander Earl of Striveling His Eldest Son Lord Alexander Bruce Earl of Elgin His Eldest Son Lord Kinlosse Carnagie Earl of Southesk His Eldest Son Lord Carnagie Stuart Earl of Traquair His Eldest Son Lord Linton Ker Earl of Ancram His Eldest Son Lord Nisbets Weems Earl of Weems His Eldest Son Lord Elcho Ramsay Earl of Dalhoussie His Eldest Son Lord Ramsay Ogilvy Earl of Airly His Eldest Son Lord Ogilvy Ogilvy Earl of Findlator His Eldest Son Lord Deskfoord Dalziel Earl of Cranwath His Eldest Son Lord Dalziel Livingston Earl of Callender His Eldest Son Lord Almond Lesly Earl of Leven His Eldest Son Lord Balgonie Ruthven Earl of Forth His Eldest Son Lord Ettrick Iohnston Earl of Anandale His Eldest Son Lord Iohnston Maule Earl of Panmure His Eldest Son Lord Maule Murray Earl of Dysert His Eldest Son Lord Huntingtour Hay Earl of Tweeddale His Eldest Son Lord Yester Carnagie Earl of Northesk His Eldest Son Lord Rosehill Bruce Earl of Kincardin His Eldest Son Lord Bruce Lindsay Earl of Balcarras His Eldest Son Lord Balneâ—l Dowglas
Earl of Forfar His Eldest Son Lord Wendal Midleton Earl of Midleton His Eldest Son Lord Clearmont Scot Earl of Tarras His Eldest Son Lord Alemoor Gordon Earl of Aboyn His Eldest Son Lord Glenlivet Boyd Earl of Kilmarnoch His Eldest Son Lord Boyd Cochran Earl of Dundonald His Eldest Son Lord Cochran Dowglas Earl of Dumbritan His Eldest Son Lord Dowglas of Attrick Keith Earl of Kintore His Eldest Son Lord Inverury Sinclar Earl of Caithnes His Eldest Son Lord Berrendule VISCOUNTS Cary Viscount of Faulkland Constable Viscount of Dumbar Murray Viscount of Stormont Gordon Viscount of Kenmore Arbuthnet Viscount of Arbuthnet Crichton Viscount of Frendraught Seton Viscount of Kingston Macgil Viscount of Oxenford Livingston Viscount of Kilsyth Osburn Viscount of Dumblane LORDS Forbes Lord Forbes Fraser Lord Salton Gray Lord Gray Cathcart Lord Cathcart Sinclar Lord Sinclar Dowglas Lord Mordington Semple Lord Semple Elphingston Lord Elphingston Oliphant Lord Oliphant Fraser Lord Lovat Borthwick Lord Borthwick Ross Lord Ross Sandilands Lord Torphichen Lesly Lord Lindors Elphingston Lord Balmerinoch Stuart Lord Blantyre Areskin Lord Cardross Balfour Lord Burleigh Drummond Lord Madderty Cranston Lord Cranston Melvil Lord Melvil Napier Lord Napier Fairfax Lord Cameron Richardson Lord Crawmond Macky Lord Rae Forrester Lord Forrester Forbes Lord Pitsligo Mackleland Lord Kircudbright Fraser Lord Fraser Hamilton Lord Bargeny Ogilvy Lord Bamff Murray Lord Elibank Galloway Lord Dunkel Falconer Lord Halkerton Hamilton Lord Bethaven Sandilands Lord Abercromby Carmichal Lord Carmichael Sutherland Lord Duffos Rollo Lord Rollo Ruthven Lord Ruthven Colvil Lord Colvil Mackdonald Lord Mackdonald Bellenden Lord Bellenden Lesly Lord Newwark Rutherfurd Lord Rutherfurd Ker Lord Iedburgh Weems Lord Bruntisland ¶ It is to be observed that the eldest Sons of Viscounts and Lords are designed Masters by their Fathers Titles Lord Thesaurer-deput Lord Register Lord Advocat Lord Iustice-Clerk This is the Precedency stated by the present Rolls of Parliament albeit it is not acquiesced in by all the Nobility For the Earl of Sutherland contends with all the Earles who are ranked before him and generally such as are dissatisfied with these Rolls do protest whilst the Rolls are called against such as they conceive are unjustly ranked before them Sometimes also the Son has a different Precedency from what was possessed by his Father As the Earl of Lothian who now as succeeding to his great Grand-father by the Mother comes to have his Precedency next to the Earl of Wigton though his Father taking place by a new Patent was ranked as in the above written Rolls The Justice General pretends to the same precedency with the Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench in England by a report made by the Lord Thesaurer in the Kings name the 17. Iune 1637. but neither is the Letter to which this report relates extant nor has he been in possession since And it is fit to observe that notwithstanding of what is said before page 42. by a Servants mistake that the Lord Privy-seal takes place with us as in England The Order of Baronet in Scotland was erected for advancing the Plantation of Nova Scotia in America and for settling a Colony there to which the Aid of these Knights was Designed The Order was onely intended be K. Ia. 6. before his Death for in his first Charter of Nova Scotia in favours of Sir William Alexander 10. Septem 1621. And in another Charter granted to Sir Robert Gordon of Lochinvar of a part of Nova Scotia Designed the Barony of Galloway 8. Novem. 1621. there is no mention made of this Order So that the same was onely erected by K. Charles 1. anno 1625. In the several Patents granted to Baronents His Majesty did dispone to each of these Knights a certain portion of land in Nova Scotia erecting the same in a free Barony with great and ample priviledges unnecessary to be insert here And moreover for their encouragement did Erect Creat Make Constitute and Ordain that Heritable State Degree Dignity Name Order Title and Stile of Baronet to be enjoyed be every of these Gentlemen who did hazard for the good and increase of that Plantation And so preferred them to that Order and Title Creating them and their Heirs Male heritable Baronets in all time coming with the Place Preeminency Priority and Precedency in all Commissions Breeves Letters-patents Namings and Writes and in all Sessions Conventions Congregations and places at all times and occasions whatsomever before all Knights called Aequites aurati all lesser Barons commonly called Lairds and before all other Gentlemen Excepting Sir William Alexander His Majesties Lieutenant of Nova Scotia who with his Heir their Wives and Children conform is not onely excepted in each of these Letters-patents granted to the Knights his Consorts But likewise the Charter granted to himself be King Charles 1. 1625. did bear expresly this exception and provision As also excepting Knights-Bannerets who should be Created under the Royal Standard in His Majesties Army and in open War the King himself being present and that during the Bannerets lifetime onely And with Precedency before all of the same Order whose Patents are of a posteriour date His Majesty did moreover Declare and Ordain That the Wives of these Knights and of their Heirs Male should have the Precedency aswell after as before the deaths of their Husbands if they should happen to survive before the Wives of all those of whom the Knights Baronets and their Heirs Male had the Precedeny and even before the Wives of Knights-Bannerets before excepted the Degree of Baronet being heritable And also that the Children Male and Female of the Baronets should take place before the Bairns Male and Female respectively of all persons of whom the Baronets and their Heirs Male had the Priority And likewise before the Children of the Bannerets and that the Wives of the Sons of the Baronets and of their Heirs Male should preceed the Wives of all persons whom their Husbands might preceed and that aswell their Husbands being dead as living And further His Majesty did Declare and Promise That whensoever the eldest Sons and appearand Heirs Male of the Baronets should attain to the Age of twenty one years they should be by His Majesty and his Successours created Equites aurati or Knights Batchelours without payment of any Fies or Dues for the same providing they should desire it But here it is to be observed that some of the eldest Sons of Baronets pretend to the title of Knight at their Majority be vertue of this clause without any previous desire or dubbing which certainly is an errour for if they will not be at the pains to desire it of His Majesty or His Commissioner they should not assume it Likeas His Majesty did Declare and Ordain That the Baronets and their Heirs Male should as an additament of Honour to their Armorial Ensigns bear either on a Canton or Inescutcheon in their option the Ensign of Nova Scotia being argent a cross of St. Andrew azur the Badge of
upon the 20. of May 1619. declare That the Ladies of the Privy Chamber should in time of mourning take their places as if the Queen were living till the Funerals were ended and that the Queens Chamberers should for the present Funeral go before Countesses women without prejudice to Countesses women at any time thereafter It is fit to observe That the Wives and Daughters of all Dukes Marquesses Earles c. do take the same place that the Husbands and Sons do conform to the Precedency formerly exprest pag. 35. And I find in the Heraulds Office of England an establishment settled thus amongst women by Iasper Duke of Bedford and other Noblemen by warrand from Henry the fourth The Wives of Dukes of the Blood Royall The Wives of other Dukes The Wives of the eldest Sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal. The Daughters of Dukes of the Blood Royal. The Wives of Marquesses The Wives of the eldest Sons of Dukes The Daughters of Dukes Countesses The Wives of the eldest Sons of Marquesses The Daughters of Marquesses The Wives of the younger Sons of Dukes The Wives of the eldest Sons of Earles The Daughters of Earles The Wives of Viscounts The Wives of the younger Sons of Marquesses The Wives of Barons that is to say our Lords The Wives of the eldest Sons of Viscounts The Daughters of Viscounts The Wives of the younger Sons of Earles The Wives of the eldest Sons of Barons or Lords The Daughters of Barons The Wives of Knight-bannerets The Wives of the younger Sons of Lords The Wives of Knight-batchelours The Wives of the eldest Sons of Knights-bannerets The Daughters of Bannerets The Wives of the eldest Sons of Knight-batchelours The Daughters of Knight-batchelours The Queens Maids of Honour The Wives of the younger Sons of Banerets The Wives of the younger Sons of Knight-batchelours The Wives of Esqueirs The Wives of Gentlemen The Daughters of Esquiers The Daughters of Gentlemen The Wives of Citizens The Wives of Burgesses From all which it is to be observed that the wife of the eldest Son of any degree takes place before the Daughter of that same degree and both of them take place of the younger Sons wife of the preceeding degree Thus the Lady of the eldest Son of a Marquess preceeds the Daughter of a Marquess and both preceed the Ladies of Dukes younger Sons Item the Wife of the next degree as a Countess preceeds the Lady of the eldest Son of the preceeding degree as of a Marquess and the Daughter of a Marquess 3 o. This holds not only in comparing degrees amongst themselves but also in comparing Families of the same degree amongst themselves as for instance though the Marquess of Dowglas Lady would give place to the Marquess of Huntlys Lady yet the Wife of the Marquess of Dowglas eldest Son would take place from the Marquess of Huntlys Daughter 4 o. Though of old with us in Scotland the Wives of Lords did contend that they had the Precedency from the Daughters of Earles Yet since that Letter written by King Charles the first at his Coronation we follow the custome of England in preferring the Earles Daughter who takes place immediately after her eldest Brothers wife 5 o. Though the Daughter of a Marquess gives place to the wives of the eldest Sons of all Marquesses yet if that Daughter be an Heiress and the Daughter of an elder Marquess then she takes place from the wives of the eldest Sons of all younger Marquesses as Segar observes pag. 240. It is likewise observable that since this Ranking under Henry the fourth there are several new additions For after the wives of Lords eldest Sons and Lords Daughters are Ranked the Wives of Privy Counsellours and Judges Wives of the younger Sons of Viscounts and of Lords or Barons the Wives of Baronets the Wives of Bannerets the wives of the Knights of the Bath and the Wives of Knights-batchelours c. as in the former List. Some considerable Questions concerning Precedency Resolved QVESTION I. WHether in Competitions betwixt Kingdoms States and Towns is their present Condition to be Considered or what they were formerly To which it is answered with this Distinction viz. Either the Kingdom or other places betwixt which Competitions are Stated remain the same that they were in their Substantials and then the former Precedency is still continued as for instance Though Rome whilst it was a Common-wealth did sometimes admit of a Dictator who had indeed the power of a King yet they remained still the same Common-wealth and therefore being the same in substantials they ought to have the same Degree of Precedency continued Or when two or three Kingdoms are without any alteration United in one as the Kingdoms of Scotland and England were United into the Kingdom of Great Britain under Kings in the same Race who succeeded to both as is fully Demonstrated by Alb. Gentil pag. 82. and this is likewise clear from L. proponebatur ff de Iudiciis l. 24. ff de Legat. 1. But where there is a substantial alteration called by Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there the former Condition is not considered but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or present condition of the places in Competition is that which ought to be considered And thus when a Kingdom comes to be Conquer'd by a Stranger and by a Strange and Forreign Nation there the State of the Kingdom is absolutely Innovated especially if the Laws of the State be altered And therefore the French Lawyers are of Opinion that the Precedency of England ought onely to be Computed from William the Conquerour Because at that time a Stranger and a Strange Nation did conquer the said Kingdom and the Fundamental Laws of it were much Innovat and if this be not an Alteration none can be For the Antiquity of Land cannot give Precedency for all Land was Created together and there are few Nations so Conquest as that the former people do not remain so that there can be no Precedency upon that account though some who are extravagant in their Zeal for their Countrey doe Argue its Precedency from the first Ages of the World as Vasquius does that of the Spanish Empire in deryving it from Tubal Cain praefatio in Contravers Illust. QVESTION II. Whether a Kingdom becoming a Common-wealth or a Common-wealth a Kingdom does their former Precedency remain This Question has two Branches wherein the Difficulties differ The first is Whether that Town or Place which was a Republick having become a Monarchy or Principality ought it to Retain the Precedency due to the former Common-wealth And that it ought to Retain the same Precedency may be Argued Because when one thing is surrogat in the place of another that which is surrogat ought to have the same priviledge with that in whose place it is surrogat surrogatum subit naturam surrogati But so it is that the subsequent Principality is surrogat in place of the former Common-wealth and
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
not to restore the Precedency in prejudice of those who had acquired titles betwixt the Forfeitour and Restitution A clear instance whereof we have in the Earl of Crawfurd who being Forfeit for Rebelling against K. Iames the 2. at the Battel of Brichen and being thereafter restored he was not restored so as to take place from the Earl of Huntly But yet it is observable that the 4. Act. p. 16. p. 87. I. 6. which appoints restitutions per modum gratiae not to prejudge third paties speaks onely of lands possessions and such other parts of the Estate forfeited but speaks not of Honours and therefore some conclude that persons forfeited may be restored to the Honours of their Family notwithstanding the Precedency by the rest of the Nobility in the interim which is the rather received amongst us that the King may with us creat an Earl with the Precedency from all others as he could have done in England before the statute of Hen. 8. For I find by the Herauld records that Edmond of Hadham is created Earl of Richmond quod habeat sedem in Parliamentis alibi proximum ducibus And Henry Beauchamp Earl of Warwick is made primus Comes Angliae whereas he was formerly almost last and thereafter is created Duke of Warwick with this addition That he shall go Mate-like with the Duke of Northfolk and above the Duke of Buckingham And since our Kings had this prerogative and that they have not restricted themselves they might have it still though they should use it sparingly QVESTION XXXVI Whether have the Ambassadours of Monarchs the Precedency from other Monarchs or Princes themselves if personally present even as the Kings would do whom they represent And if in all cases an Ambassadour ought to have the same Precedency that is due to his Constituent To this it is answered That though an Ambassadour represents the Monarch from whom he derives his Commission and that some learned Lawyers do upon that account assert that they are to have the same Precedency that is due to their Master and so to be preferred to all Kings and Princes though present to whom their Constituents would have been preferred Paschal de Legat. cap. 38. yet the custom of Nations has run contrar to his opinion in preferring even inferiour Kings and Princes And it is decided amongst the Princes of Germany Tit. 25. Aureae Bullae Car. 4. And in anno 1542. the Ambassadours of Charles the fifth Emperour were decerned to cede the Precedency to Ferdinand King of the Romans and the reasons are 1 o. Because Princes found it their Interest to have no Subject compete with them or to have their own presence lessened by such marks of Disrespect 2 o. In a Prince who is present there resides True and Original Majesty whereas an Ambassadour is onely dignified with a Supposititious and Representative Honour shining if I may so say with borrowed rayes And of this opinion are Brunus de Legat. lib. 5. cap. 8. and Costa Consil. 44. though Zouch de Iure inter Gentes seems to favour Paschals opinion It may be likewise doubted whether an Ambassadour does retain the same Precedency due to him as Ambassadour when the Prince who sent him comes to the place himself And this was debated by the Earl Marishal who was sent over Ambassador to Denmark when K. Ia. 6. went over in person thereafter and brought over Chancellour Maitland with him who challenged the Precedency from the Earl Marishal alleaging that an Ambassadours Power evanishes upon his Princes appearance Which debate was decided by King Iames in favours of the Chancellour albeit the Earl contended That as his Ambassie ceased upon the Kings coming thither so did the others Office as Chancellour cease in a forreign Kingdom and therefore that he should have preceeded as being an Earl The former opinion preferring inferiour Princes when Personally present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so much the rather true that Ambassadours are not when they come to visit the Judicatures of the Nations where they preceed allowed the same Precedency And generally it is given as a rule by Lawyers that in locis actibus Iudicialibus Legatis praecedentia solita non servatur non pro dignitate Regis aut alterius a quo ablegati sunt Gothofred de Iure praecedentiae cap. 7. num 47. so that though Kings themselves would sit above all these Judicatures yet their Ambassadours sit but among them Thus the Venetian Ambassadour was onely placed in the Parliament of Paris after the Bishops as Rupan observes lib. 7. cap. 10. Though Ambassadours have the same Precedency that is due to their Constituents yet Agents and Residents of Princes have not nor has the Popes Nuncio the Precedency that is due to an Ambassadour Gothofred ibid. for these in effect are sent oftentimes to prevent the Debates that might-fall amongst Ambassadours and therefore the French King sends very rarely his Ambassadours to the Emperours Court because he knows that Court would give the Spanish Ambassadours the Precedency which he thinks is due to his Ambassadours QVESTION XXXVII Whether have such as have been Ambassadours or have been in such honourable Imployments any Precedency thereby when their Imployment is ended To which it is answered That though after an honourable Imployment is over whether by Dimission or by the expyring of the Commission the Precedency thereto annex'd ceases with it Yet the Prince sometimes gratifies the person with a continuance of some Precedency and Honour And in the Records of the Herauld Office in England I find that in a Court Marishal Sir Dudley Diggs and Sir Thomas Smith were adjudged to have the Precedency from other Knights-Batchelours of their own Degree because they had been Ambassadours though their Commission was expired In the customs also of most Nations a Judge retains still amongst those of his own Bench the same Precedency that he had formerly before his Dimission or his being laid aside except he has been laid aside for a Crime or Fault QVESTION XXXVIII What place is due to the Representatives of Subjects such as Viccars Deputs Assistants c It would seem that as Ambassadours have the same place that is due to him whom they represent so those who represent Subjects as Viccars who represent the Bishop Deputs who represent Judges ought to have the same place that is due to those whom they represent I find that L. 7. de Bonorcodicil C. Theod. there are four Dignities Ranked viz. Praefectorum Proconsulum Vicariorum Exconsularium And certainly in those Acts wherein they represent their Constituent they have the same Precedency that is due to him Felin in cap. cum olim de Offic. de Legat. And thus by the Canon Law the Bishops Viccar is preferred to the Dean and Arch-dean and not onely are these representative Dignities preferred in the acts of their Jurisdiction but even in all other deeds which necessarily preceed or follow them And some Lawyers are of