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
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
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.
V. The Precedencies amongst Common-Wealths IT cannot be denyed but that Kings and Crowned-heads have the Precedency from Common-wealths though they contend that they being the Freest of all men are the Noblest And being in Effect a Countrey of Kings ought to be preferred to any one King Especially since their Government is elder then that of Kings men having drawn themselves into Societies before they either submitted to Kings who assum'd that Government by Force or Elected Kings because they could not agree amongst themselves There are some Common-wealths who claim precedency as having right to Kingdoms And thus Venice claim'd the same precedency with Crown'd-heads in the Popedom of Vrban the eight and Innocent the fifth because they had right to the Kingdom of Corsica But this was denyed Genoa contended with Venice for precedency at the Coronation of the King of Cyprus 1373. but that King preferred Venice And to extinguish these Differences amongst the Common-wealths of Italy Venice is by opinion of all Lawyers preferred to all the Common-wealths of Italy Calefat de Equestr dignit n. 124. Crus de preced pag. 536. Genoa and Sienna did also contend anno 1530. at the Coronation of Charles the fifth but the Debate was then decided And yet Crus pag. 545. prefers Genoa The States General contend with Venice and all other Common-wealths as being the more powerful and being a Society of Common-wealths They pretend also to Precedency from all the Princes of the Empire as being more Independent then they and being equal to Kings Whereas these Princes are but Subjects which is delicately Debated by Besold de praeced cap. 2. But yet the present Emperour has preferred the Electors to all Ambassadours of Common-wealths by an express Ordinance related in Crus p. 545. And now Holland as having a kindness for the Empire Treats the Ambassadours of the Electors as those sent by Crowned-heads And in return of that Kindness the Electors Treat such as are sent from Holland with the same Respect Memor Ambassad pag. 523. Of old the Duke of Savoy did preceed the Common-wealth of Venice But Emanuel Philbert Duke of Savoy during the Oppression he lay under from Charles the fifth put himself under the protection of Venice and became a Son of St. Mark And thereafter as the Father behov'd to preceed the Son the Dukes of Savoy yeelded to Venice And as that Duke pretends Right to the Crown of Cyprus by the Marriage of Anne of Cyprus and the Donation of Charlot of Cyprus So Venice pretends Right to the same Crown by the Donation of Catharine Cornara Widow to Iames King of Cyprus The Difference is now thus settled That Venice shall Treat the Ambassadours of Savoy as they do these of Kings with the title of Excellency And Savoy shall allow Venice the Precedency Memor Ambassad pag. 347. Mazarin treated the Ambassadours of the Common-wealth of England as those sent from Kings Mem. Ambassad pag. 334. The Cantons of Swisse were even of late a part of the Empire But by the Treaty betwixt the Empire and the King of Swed 1648. they are declared Free States Et in possessione seu quasi possessione libertatis exemptionis ab Imperio And now their Ambassadours or Envoys take place after the Venetian and States General And albeit Nolden de Stat. Nobil Thinks that if they were called to fit with the States of the Empire upon any extraordinar Occasion they were not to be preferred to the Princes of the Empire and much less to the Electors For licet jura Principum habent passive materialiter Principes tamen non sunt formaliter active Yet other Lawyers prefer them to all the other States and Princes of the Empire except the Electors Crus pag. 556. The French King treats them with the title of Magnifiques Seigneurs And though their Deputies could not prevail with the French King in anno 1602. and 1603. to be covered when he received them Yet I conceive that now they will be received as the Ambassadours of Holland or Venice who are covered at their Reception since in anno 1646. they are acknowledged to be a Free State The Grison Ambassadours were received in anno 1627. as the Ministers sent by the Princes of the Empire and with the same Honours CHAP VI. Of the Precedency of the Electors and the Princes of the Empire AMongst the Princes of the Empire the Electors are still preferred Which Electoral Colledge though said to be Founded by the Emperour Otho the third and Pope Gregory the fifth anno 997 yet it is more probable that the said Constitution arose from the great Difficulties under which the Empyre was Sunk after the Death of Frederick the second Amongst the Electors the Ecclesiasticks are preferred to the Laicks The Ecclesiastick Electors are the Arch-bishops of Mentz Cullen and Treves whose Precedency amongst themselves was first Determined by Charles the fourth So as that the Bishop of Treves was to sit just over against the Emperour The Bishop of Mentz was to take place in all his own Dyocie and in all Germany Whereas the Arch-bishop of Cullen was to take place in all his own Dyocie and in Italy and France And of old in the Election of the Emperour the Bishop of Mentz was preferred as Arch-chancellor of Germany The Arch-bishop of Treves as Arch-Chancellour of France And the Arch-bishop of Cullen as Arch-chancellour of Italy Which Order was confirmed by Frederick the 1. anno 1158. The Secular Electors are Ranked thus by the Golden-bull of Charles the fourth The Duke of Saxony carries the Sword immediately in all Processions before the Emperour The Count-Palatin the Imperial Aple walking on the Emperours Right hand The Marquess of Brandenburg the Scepter on the Left hand And the King of Bohemia was to follow him immediately But when they sit at any Solemnity by the same Bull The King of Bohemia being a Crowned-head was to sit first upon the Emperours Right hand after the King of the Romans and the Arch-bishops of Mentz and Cullen And upon the Left after the Ecclesiastick Electors the Duke of Saxony had the first place and the Marquess of Brandenburg the second But yet I find Beutherus and other German Lawyers contend from old Manuscripts That at first Brandenburg had the Precedency from the Electors Palatin and Saxony The Duke of Bavaria did of old Contend with the Duke of Saxony in anno 1521. and their Debates continued by protestations for many years And with the Elector Palatin till the Emperour Lewis the fourth Ordained the Palatin and Bavaria to preceed one another alternately Though since the late Waries of Germany the Elector Palatin having Usurped the Crown of Bohemia the Duke of Bavaria was made the first Elector in his place the Elector Palatin being now the last of the Electors It is also observable That if any of the Electors themselves be present they are preferred to the Ambassadours and Representatives of all the absent Electors as was Decided in anno
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
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
Precedency that the eldest Sister has And therefore I ascribe this difference rather to the custome of Nations meerly founded upon the respect due to that Sex During the Marriage the Wife regularly participats of the condition of her Husband by the Civil Law and Law of Nations L. 3. C. de Dignitat Mulieres Honore maritorum erigimus genere nobilitamus and since she was to be sharer in his misfortunes the Law thought it just that she should be sharer in his Advantages And the Wife by the Canon Law is called Socia divinae humanae domus and L. Foeminae ff de Senat. it is said that Foeminis dignitatem clarissimam mariti tribuunt But yet this rule has some exceptions for though in France the wives of those who have their Dignities by Offices enjoy the same Precedency with their Husband together with a communication of his title and thus they say there Madam la Chanceliere Madam la Praesidente Yet it is not so with us who think that Offices are bestowed on Husbands upon a personal account which is not communicable to their Wives and yet in some Temporary Dignities such as that of a Knight-batchelour the Wife participates of the Husbands title and precedency Though I find by the Heraulds Records that this proceeded originally rather from Courtesie than from Law and that of old a Knights wife enjoyed onely his Honours during the Spousals nor were they to be called in Law Dame Alice or Dame Catherine c. after the Marriage was dissolved By our Law likewise If a woman have Precedency by her Birth or Descent she retains still the same notwithstanding she marry a person of inferiour dignity contrare to the Rules of the ivil Law And thus if the Heiress of a Dutchie or Earldom marry a Gentleman she has still the precedency due to a Duke or Earl albeit by the Civil Law L. 8. de Senat. it be exprest that Parentes donee Plebeiis nuptiis fuerint copulatae c. the reason whereof is as Faber observes upon that Law because it were most absurd that the Wife should have more dignitie then her Husband and thus Livius observes that Virginia daughter to a Patrician or noble Roman was debarred from the Honours due to her Birth because she had married a Plebeian And it seems indeed that he being her Head it is most unnatural that any part should be more honourable then the Head Nor can there be any thing more contrare to that superiority given both by the Law of GOD and Man to Husbands nor any means fitter to make a Wife despise her Husband than this is But I think this precedency has arisen from the Feudal Law for the wife having once a noble Fee she cannot forfeit the same by her Marriage and therefore she must retain the dignity that is annexed to it which is incommunicable to her Husband because he is not in Fie But it is observable that if the daughter of a Nobleman marry another Nobleman she will lose the precedency due to her by her Birth though she would not have losed it if she had married a Gentleman and the reason of this seems to be because by marrying a Nobleman she receives another Feudal dignity which suppresses the first I find it observed in Judge Cook lib. 12. fol. 112. that if a Baron dies having divers daughters the King may conferr upon either of them the title And thus the Lord Cromwel having died without heirs Male Burchier who married the youngest daughter was made Lord Cromwel of which we have no example in Scotland for by our Law if the title descend to Females by the Patent the eldest onely can succeed to the title but if it descend not by the Patent to Heirs Female then the King may admit neither to the title or either as he pleases After the Husbands decease the Wife did by the Civil Law enjoy her Husbands precedency during her Widowity but if she marry to a person of inferiour quality she loses that Precedency L. 8. de Senat. which holds with Us and in England And yet sometimes the King allows her the same Precedency by a Letter as he does also to the daughters of Dukes and others who have lost their Precedency by Marriage which Letters or Warrands are direct to the Heraulds Office and Registrated there And the Queen never loses her former Dignity though she marry the meanest person after the Kings death And generally all the priviledges due to the King are communicated to the Queen per L. 31. ff de Leg Augusta autem Legibus soluta non est Principes tamen eadem illi privilegia tribunut quae ipsi habent Notwithstanding whereof Lawyers think that her Bastards are not Noble as the Bastards of Kings nor does the Womb ever nobilitate The Countrey of Campaigne in France onely excepted where it is sufficient that either the Father or Mother be Noble which was allowed to the Ladies of that Countrey upon the killing of all the Nobility at a great fight Papon de Nobles num 3. By the Civil Law also a Widow living leudly loses her former dignity Arg. § Fin. in authent de restit but this holds not with us vide Bon. de Curt. de Nobilitate cap. 12. num 194. It has been doubted whether a mean woman marrying a Nobleman retains the priviledge due to her by her Husband who has been degraded by forfeiture or otherwayes and Corbin cites a decision 27. August 1698. whereby it was resolved that she retains still her former priviledge since crimes are personal which is also our Custom It has been likeways doubted abroad whether a Noblewoman marrying a Plebeian and thereby losing the Precedency due to her Birth if she marry a Gentleman in the second Marriage she will thereby recurr to her first Dignity the person be whom she lost the first Dignity being dead And it was found that she will not for in Law that which is once extinct does not revive and therefore Women in such cases take Letters of Restitution as they call them or procure a warrand from the King for that effect as the custom is with us ut interveniet Principis restitutio quae plebecitatis maculam abstergat Traitte de la noblesse pag. 324. But there would be no place for this question here since with us a Noblewoman would not lose her Precedency by marrying a Plebeian but the doubt behoov'd to be thus stated with us viz. Whether a Noblewoman marrying a Nobleman of an inferiour degree would recover her first dignity she marrying thereafter a Gentleman Or whether a Knight-Baronets Lady marrying a Plebeian could thereafter recover her dignity if she marry a Gentleman For I conceive a Knight-baronets Lady does not like a Noblewoman retain her Precedency when she marries a person of inferiour quality and I think neither of them would recover their former dignity without a special Warrand I find that the Commissioners appointed to regulate Queen Anns Funerals did
Grand-father is because by the right of Representation her Fathers Family comes in the Grand-fathers place And to shew that this Argument viz. Your Father had not the Precedency of me therefore you cannot have it of my Daughter is a weak Argument in cases of Representation may appear from this That if it were a good Argument the younger Earl might aswell say to that Lords Son Your Father never took the place of me so neither can you And though it may be Answered to this Argument that the Disparity betwixt the Brother and Sister lieth in this That the Son Represents the Grand-father but the Daughter does not Yet if We consider it nearly even this Answer is Fallacious For though the Daughter Represents not the Grand-father yet the Fathers Family Represents the Grand-fathers and so participats all the Honours of the Grand-fathers Family by that Representation And as the elder Brother becomes an Earl Because if his Father had lived he had been an Earl so she ought to have the Precedency as an Earles Daughter because her Father would have been an Earl for the same Reason QVESTION XVII Whether if the elder Brother be Mad or Dumb c. does the second Brother get the same Precedency as if his Brother were dead I have heard this case much Debated some Contending That such as were Incapable of succeeding were to be Reput as dead per cap. 1. an Mutis Surdis it is expresly declared that such as are born Deaf or Dumb or are naturally Idiots shall not Succeed But others thought that even these are to Succeed but have onely their nearest Agnats given them for Curatours and so they are Heirs And consequently the Precedency is not due to their nearest Friends during their Life and they may have children who would exclude their nearest Agnats I find some Lawyers distinguish betwixt such Defects as are Natural and follow the Havers from their Birth and these Defects do Exclude from the Succession so that the next Heir has the same Precedency as if his elder were dead if the Succession be of Kingdoms or Fews that have a Dignity annexed to them But in private Rights and where the Defects are Accidental they assert that the Right remains with the Heir though defectuus and consequently he retains also the Precedency Tiraquel quaest 23. QVESTION XVIII Which of two or moe Twins ought to Preceed when it is Contraverted which of them was first Born We have a remarkable instance of this Gen. 38. where the Mother desired the Scarlet threed to be bound about his wrest who should be first Born and as to this point Lawyers have differed very much For some think that the Estate ought to be devided amongst the Pretenders if it be divisible of its own Nature Or if it be indivisible the Superiour may prefer either he pleases if the Succession be of a Few Or the Decision may be referred to Lot in privat Persons Or to the Vote of the Representatives of the Kingdom if the Succession be to a Monarchy Some likewise are for the Brothers possessing by turns and alternately and though one Witness be not sufficient generally to Establish the Right of Succession yet if any one Woman was onely present her Testimony would certainly prefer either necessity forming it self into a Law here as in other cases vid. Tiraquel de Iur. primi Gen. quaest 17. QVESTION XIX Whether do Natural Children Born before a Lawful Marriage preceed And should they be preferred to the Children Born in a Lawful Marriage if they be Legitimated thereafter This case did exist in a most illustruous instance in Scotland For King Robert the second having begot a Son upon Elizabeth Mure he thereafter Married Eupham Daughter to the Earl of Rosse and had by her the Earles of Strathern and Athol after which having married the said Elizabeth Mure that Marriage did Legitimate her Children and by Act of Parliament her Children were by a Recognition and acknowledgement of Parliament preferred to the Children Born in the Lawful Marriage The Reasons pro and contra urged in that Debate at that time are now unknown But the Arguments which might have been urged in the case are 1 o. That a Son so Legitimated would seclude without all Contraversie all Uncles and other Agnats Therefore by the same he should Seclude his other Brothers § si quis autem defunctis Authent quibus mod nat cap 1. qui Filii sunt legit 2 o. Legitimation is Retrotracted and drawn back to the time of the Nativity cap. tanta qui fil sunt legit and Legitimation puts the Person so Legitimated in the same Condition as if he had never been a Bastard L. si quis Filio § pen. ff de injust Test. and this is bestowed as a particular Respect upon Marriage and its Sacred Character and to invite men to make Satisfaction for the wrong they have done 3 o. By the Roman Law those that were born in Captivity were not capable of Succession but how soon they were Ransomed and had returned they were restored to the Right of primo-genitor and preferred therein to those who were thereafter born at Rome And therefore since such was the Force even of a Civil and unreasonable Fiction much more ought greater Force to be allowed to Legitimation which is founded upon so Just and Pious Principles 4 o. Quo-ad the Right of Succession the time of the Defuncts death to whom he is to succeed does regulat the quality of the Succession And therefore since the Person Legitimated was capable of Succession the time the Defunct died and was then likewise the eldest he ought to Succeed as eldest whatever his Condition was the time of his Birth L. post Consanguineos § proximam ff de suis Legit. nec enim prius debet de cujusque conditione queri quam haereditas vel legatum ad eum pertineat L. in opportet ff de Legat. 2. 5 o. The eldest Son was always eldest and was onely hindred from this Right of primo-genitor and Precedency by the Legal imperfection of his Birth and therefore this impediment being removed by the same Law which put it his Birth-right continues intire But whether this Priviledge should be granted to such as are Legitimated by the Prince and not by the subsequent Marriage may be doubted And I incline to think it should not because the special Reason of the former Concession depends upon the Favour and Honour of Marriage and this is likewise clear cap. quoniam Auth. quib mod nat vid. Imolam in cap. Grand de sup negl Praelat And my second Argument is That the Prince cannot by any deed of his prejudge third Parties But here such a Legitimation would prejudge the Children of the intermediate Lawful Marriage QVESTION XX. Whether ought the Order of the Nomination to be Observed in Commissions where the Persons are Ranked otherwayes then can be consistent with the Kings former express Grants An instance of this may be given in
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
purum Honorem habent L. 7. de Decur they are called inanes umbrae cassae imagines dignitatum I have heard this case also Stated with relation to the same quaere viz. By the Erection of the Town of Brichen in a Burgh Royal the Bishop of Brichen is first to Elect and then the Town are to Elect their Bailies From which the question arises Whether if the Bishop choose One who was never a Bailie formerly and the Town choose those who were formerly Elected Bailies should the Bishops Bailie preceed It being pretended that though he is to have the first Nomination and the choise of all yet that should not give his Bailie or Alderman the Precedency in respect that by the constant Custom observed by all the Burrowes when many are Elected to be Aldermen or Bailies at once he who has been formerly a Bailie preceeds always him who was never QVESTION VII Whether amongst such as have equal Dignity the first in time ought to be Preferred It is Answered That Generally and Regularly the first in Time ought to be Preferred amongst such as are equal in Dignity Which is clear be the Civil Law not onely in Kingdoms but in all the Degrees of Nobility and Promotions And this Our Reason may teach Us without Law for if there were not some Certain and Stated Rule whereby Precedencies might be known it were impossible to evite Confusion and all other Rules except this are uncertain but yet this Rule has some Exceptions 1 o. Princes of the Blood viz. the Sons Brothers Grand-sons and Nephews of Kings are excepted from this Rule For though they be Dukes or Earles of a latter Creation they are preferred to all of that Dignity 2 o. In Germany if the Chief of a Family come to a Dignity equal to one of his Kinsmen who formerly enjoyed that Dignity he will be preferred to him though his Kinsman did first attain to the Dignity An Example whereof Gothofred gives cap. 3. Thes. 16. this Exception seems to be founded upon the right of Blood to which those of the same Family seem to give that Respect as to an elder Brother But though those of the Family may give this Respect out of Favour yet in Law they are not thereto Oblieged For the Prince being the Fountain of Honour he onely can give Preference and his Patent may prefer one Cousin to another since he can bestow Employments which can prefer a Son to a Father And therefore in Britain the date of the Patent is onely considered QVESTION VIII When many are Promoted at once in the same Write or when many are Nominate tn the same Commission Whether is the Order of Nameing therein exprest to be Observed It is answered That Ordinarly he who is first named ought to be preferred L. 1. ff de Albo scrib Albericus ad L. inter Claras C. de sum Trinit but though this hold where the Write wherein many persons are named is drawn upon Design to Prefer those who are named because there Promotion being the design It is to be presumed that the Order of the Promotion was Observed Glossa ad § ult Auth. de Defens Civit. Clement 1. de Baptismo yet where the Write had any other design and the Nomination did onely proceed by way of Narration there an Argument from the Order of Nomination is not still Concluding especially Considering that such as draw publick Papers are not always versed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus I have my self seen old Charters wherein the Chancellour is oft-times placed after the Lord Chamberlain and both of them after some of the Nobility and if any man will consider Our Statutes wherein Commissions are granted they will find this Order very ill Observed And Lawyers conclude this Argument very weak in such cases Everard in Topicis loco ab ordine num 13. Golstad lib. 1. cap. 23. And there are very clear Examples of this given cap. 2. de Iudiciis cap. Pastoralis de Concess prebend But yet in dubious cases where the Person injured cannot otherwise prove his Precedency this ought to bear great weight especially If many such Papers can be shewed of one tenour And if the Office granted by that Commission gives Precedency above what the persons therein named could otherwise pretend to then the first Nomination has the Precedency As when Ordinar Gentlemen are named in the Commission of the Privy Council c. I find also by the old Records of Parliament and Privy Council that the Members of Parliament and Counsellours are in the Sederunts named as they entered into that particular Meetings but now they are named according to their true Precdency QVESTION IX In what cases does Age prefer and what is its Prerogative in the matters of Precedency The Concession of the Prince being the Rule of Honour he who has the first Concession ought to be preferred in the matter of publick Honour except in three cases observed by Gothofred cap. 3. Thes. 14. First in cases dubious Secondly where the pretences are absolutely equal And thus of the two Roman Consuls the Eldest always preceeded as Plutarch observes Thirdly to take away Contraversies amongst persons of the same Family but of different Lines It is observed in Germany and other places that the Eldest has always the Precedency as Golstad and other German Authours observe And this last holds likewise with Us if the Precedency be not clear and was so decided by King Iames the sixth betwixt Blair of that ilk and Blair of Balthaiock QVESTION X. Whether does Appearancy of Blood give Precedency before actuall Investiture and Possession Though it may seem that since Marquisats Earldoms c. being Feudal Honours conferred oft-times by erecting Lands in a Marquisat or Earldom that therefore till the apparent Heir be actually Invested or Infeft as We call it he ought to have no Precedency Yet that being expresly Debated in anno 1608. in the case of Frederick Duke of Wirtemberg it was decided that the very right of Blood transmitted the Precedency But Golstad Coment de Reg. Bohem. lib. 3. cap. 6. is of opinion That though this may hold where the apparent Heir sought to be Invested or Infeft and his not being Entered nor Infeft was not his Fault Yet if he did not seek to enter he ought not to have the Precedency With Us though an apparent Heir never enter yet he has still the Precedency due to his Predecessor QVESTION XI Whether does the apparent Heir his Assuming and Vsing the Title and Precedency of his Predecessor make him lyable to his Predecessors debts and Infer a Passive Title against him as We speak To this it is answered That it makes him not Lyable in payment according to the present Curent of Our Decisions because Honour descends from the King and is not any lucrative Accession out of which Debt may be payed and no man should be made lyable to Debts for enjoying that which cannot pay Debts Nor