APPENDIX. Great Precedence Question.

Previous

The great question relative to precedence which agitated the cities of Dublin and Edinburgh in 1863, arose at the presentation of addresses to the Queen at Windsor by the respective corporations of those two cities, on the occasion of the marriage of the Prince of Wales, when the corporation of Dublin was given precedence, under protest on the part of the corporation of Edinburgh.

The question was subsequently referred to the chief Irish heraldic authority, the Ulster King of Arms, Sir Bernard Burke, LL.D., and the report which Ulster thereupon wrote was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. Ulster begins by stating that

“The claim of Edinburgh to the higher precedence is made to rest on the following reasons:—1. The Scottish Act of Union being earlier in date than the Irish Act of Union. 2. The arms of Scotland being quartered in the royal shield before the arms of Ireland. 3. By the Acts of Union of Scotland and Ireland, the Peers of Scotland taking rank before the Peers of Ireland.”

However, “Dublin founds its claim to precedence on broader and more intelligible grounds; viz.—1. Prescriptive right of Dublin as second city in the dominion of England from the reign of King Henry II., a right unaffected in any way by the Acts of Union. 2. Greater antiquity of the city of Dublin. 3. Greater antiquity of the charters of incorporation of the city of Dublin. 4. Seat of Government and the Viceroyalty being still retained in Dublin. 5. Greater and more dignified privileges of the corporation of Dublin.”

Ulster then shows that the quartering of the royal arms, which were capriciously varied at different periods, proves nothing in favour of Edinburgh; and that, by her Act of Union, Scotland was amalgamated with England as Great Britain; while Ireland, though united, preserved in her union a quasi separate position, being still a viceroyalty, with a vice-king and court, having their capital in Dublin.

He concludes by urging that, from the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin being privileged to present their addresses to the Sovereign on the throne at St. James’s, Edinburgh not having that privilege,—and from the immense antiquity of the city of Dublin, Dublin is clearly entitled to precedence.

Sir George Grey transmitted this report of Ulster to Garter-King-of-Arms, Sir Charles Young, D.C.L., F.S.A.; Garter gave an opinion, which was also ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. Garter, in his opinion, inclines in favour of Edinburgh, on the grounds—1st, That Scotland occupies the second quarter in the royal shield; 2nd, that England itself became on the accession of James I. an “appanage of the Scottish crown;” 3rd, that as the peers of Scotland were given special precedence by the Irish Act of Union, all other precedence followed “by analogy;” and 4th, that the Mayor of Dublin was not “Lord” Mayor till 1665, while Maitland avers that the style of “Lord” Provost was enjoyed by the chief magistrate of Edinburgh in 1609.

A remark of Sir George Grey’s in the House of Commons, wrongly reported, led to the belief that this opinion of Garter was to decide the question. But, on the contrary, the discussion was continued.

Ulster gave, in reply to Garter, a second opinion, which was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. In his further observations Ulster commences by saying: “The point at issue is not a question of nationalities, or of the relative superiority of Ireland over Scotland, or Scotland over Ireland. That question, a very invidious one, is not now raised, and will, I trust, never be: the only result which could arise from such a discussion would be to wound the feelings and love of country of one or other of two very sensitive peoples.... The only question to be determined is simply which of the two corporations has the higher precedence?—a right to be determined by municipal charters, royal grants, and other legal evidence.” Ulster then still insists on the far longer existence of Dublin. He repudiates the idea altogether that England was an “appanage” of Scotland, any more than France was an appanage of Navarre, when Henry IV., King of the latter country, inherited the crown of France. Appanage has not that meaning. Garter is wrong as to the date of the Mayor of Dublin being “Lord” Mayor in 1665: he was made so by Charles I. 29th July, 1642, while the Provost was not “Lord” Provost till 1667. Ulster concludes for Dublin, on the greater antiquity of Dublin’s charters over those of Edinburgh, on it being contrary to all law to construe acts of Parliament “by analogy,” and on the undoubted fact, that George IV. conferred in 1821 on Dublin, which Sir Robert Peel emphatically styled “the second city of the Empire,” the exclusive (except as to the city of London) honour of presenting addresses to the Sovereign on the throne at Windsor or St. James’s.

With these observations of Ulster the question rests in abeyance.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Douglas Jerrold.

[2] This paper relates to the Invasion Tactics, as illustrated by Sir John Burgoyne: the Paper at page 21-24 refers to the project of Napoleon I.

[3] We have now learned from Mr. Motley’s researches to estimate more correctly the worth of the army at Tilbury. “There were,” he says (History of the United Netherlands, vol. ii. p. 515 et seq.), “patriotism, loyalty, courage, and enthusiasm in abundance;” but “there were no fortresses, no regular army, no population trained to any weapon.” “On the 5th of August no army had been assembled—not even the bodyguard of the Queen—and Leicester, with 4000 men, unprovided with a barrel of beer or a loaf of bread, was about commencing his entrenched camp at Tilbury. On the 6th of August the Armada was in Calais Roads, expecting Alexander Farnese to lead his troops upon London.” Good fortune and gallant sailors saved us from this calamity; but the undisciplined mob which was assembled under an incompetent commander on shore would have done little to avert it; and we have in this case a sufficient proof of the difficulty of improvising an army in an interval of “diplomatic correspondence.”—Quarterly Review, No. 223.

[4] In the Itinerarium ad Windsor.

[5] The Statutes were inscribed in Latin to the time of Edward I. (1272); in Norman-French to about the time of Richard III. (1483); and subsequently in the English language.

[6] Selected and condensed from the Times, June 13, 1863.

[7] See Things not generally Known, First Series, pp. 120-121. Popular Errors Explained, p. 207.

[8] In some cases where parties had been married at Gretna, the marriage used to be repeated, as soon as they returned to England, in a church.

[9] In 1815 the number of marriages celebrated at Gretna was stated in Brewster’s Edinburgh EncyclopÆdia, at 65, which produced about 1000l. at the rate of fifteen guineas each: Murray, however, charged as low a fee as sixpence each.

[10] For the details of these successful steps for the abolition of the Gretna Green marriages, the writer is indebted to the obliging courtesy of a Correspondent who took an active part in the measure.

[11] This Treasury Minute of July 16, 1861, directs that the superintendents and inspectors of police shall be authorized to receive treasure-trove from the finders, and shall transmit it to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who will ascertain at the Mint the real intrinsic or metallic value of the treasure, and the amount will then be remitted to the finder. Cases will no doubt occur in which rare and valuable coins will be disposed of at a higher price than their bullion value, but they will then find their way into some collection, either public or private, and will not be melted down. It should be generally known that treasure-trove is not claimed peremptorily by the Crown, nor is there any occasion for the finder to sell it to the nearest silversmith under the apprehension that it would have to be given up without compensation.

[12] It is now shown to be 91,328,600 miles.

[13] Abridged (with interpolations) from a communication to the Illustrated London News, 1857.

[14] There are two distinct theories respecting the formation of coal, though all agree that it is of vegetable origin. This is proved by the trees and plants found in the substance of coal, by the vegetable remains imbedded in the accompanying strata, and by microscopical examination. The plants most abundant are ferns, some of which were of gigantic size. These are supposed to have composed two-thirds of the mass of most coal. Large trees are sometimes discovered growing upright in the shale that lies beneath and above a seam of coal. The vegetation from which coal has been formed, according to the views of some geologists, grew on the places where it is found, and they consider it to have been composed of decayed beds of peat which grew in succession one over the other, and that by the compression of the whole, when submerged, and by the accompanying action of heat, these vegetable beds were converted into coal. Other geologists imagine that it was produced by the accumulation of drift wood brought down by great rivers, similar to the present accumulation of drift wood on the coast of Mexico brought down by the great American rivers. There are geological facts adduced in support of both theories. Ireland presents the remarkable geological feature of an immense area of carboniferous rocks without coal, that valuable portion of the deposit having, it is supposed, been swept away by some of the denudations to which the surface of the globe has been exposed in the early periods of its history.—Prof. Morris.

[15] This and the other abstracts in the present section by Prof. George Wilson, are from a valuable paper by that able writer, on the Physical Sciences which form the Basis of Technology.

[16] Described and illustrated in Things not generally Known. First Series.

[17] Herschel’s Outlines of Astronomy.

[18] What would the old Scotchman of the following anecdote say to such an age?—Sir Alexander Ramsay had been constructing upon his estate in Scotland, a piece of machinery, which was driven by a stream of water running through the home farm-yard. There were a thrashing machine, a winnowing machine, a circular saw for splitting trees, and other contrivances. Observing an old man, who had long been about the place, looking very attentively at all that was going on, Sir Alexander said, “Wonderful things people can do now, Robby?” “Ay,” said Robby, “indud, Sir Alexander; I’m thinking if Solomon was alive now, he’d be thought naething o’!”—Dean Ramsay.

[19] In a book published in 1679, we find these cautions on Gold and Silver Wares:—“Can you imagine that although the buyer perceive not the deceit at first, when the work is newly sold and cunningly set off with all your skill, that he will not perceive it in the wearing like brass or copper, and when sold again be allowed but 3s. or 3s. 6d. the ounce for the silver, and but 2l. 10s. or 3l. the ounce for the gold, when he paid 5s. the ounce for the silver, and 4l. the ounce for the gold, besides the fashion? You may be sure he will not only repent the dealing with you, but publicly say you are a very cheating knave; and say also, ‘Who would buy such sort of works, wherein is so much deceit, but rather use any other thing instead thereof?’ And thus the people are discouraged to buy your works, and your trade decays, while you vainly think to treble your profit, but instead thereof lose your trade. When otherwise, if your gold and silver works be of standard goodness, your customers will say, ’Tis as good as money in their pockets, weight for weight; and that they know what they paid for the fashion, which is all the loss they shall be at, and the work wears creditable; and they will not repent of their bargain, but publicly commend it, whereby others will be encouraged to buy such works, and so your trade increases.”

[20] Many years since, the writer heard Sir Lucas Pepys, (some time President of the College of Physicians,) inquire of a druggist at Dorking what use he could possibly make of the many drugs in his shop; “for,” added Sir Lucas, “I have only used five or six articles in all my practice.”—J. T.

[21] Liebig: Letters on Chemistry, p. 28.

[22] The Bishop has elsewhere observed, with respect to what he terms “the prescriptive rights of the Church,” that, “there always must be subjects upon which good men, from the mere natural law of the mind contemplating one side of a subject with greater interest than another, will arrive at different conclusions.”

[23] See Times, May 2nd and 5th, 1863.

[24]

“Atheist, use thine eyes;
And having view’d the order of the skies,
Think (if thou canst) that matter blindly hurl’d
Without a guide, should frame this wondrous world.”

Creech.

[25] In Blackfriars: originally the Palace of Bridewell, and subsequently a House of Correction.

[26] See the beautiful poem entitled, “Intimations of Immortality.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page