DOCSLIB.ORG

The Speaker's Baton the Invention of a Tradition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Speaker's Baton the Invention of a Tradition The Speaker's Baton The Invention of a Tradition by Charles Robert The Speaker's Baton is a short green stick surmounted by a lion in silver with its right forepaw resting on a crown adorned with maple leafs and twelve rubies. The ba- 2002 CanLIIDocs 230 ton first appeared in the personal coat of arms granted to John Fraser as Speaker of the House of Commons by the Chief Herald for Canada in December 1992. In an article published in the winter 2001-02 issue of this Review Bruce Hicks contended that the baton should be recognized as a symbol of the Speaker of the House. This rejoinder takes issue with many of the arguments Mr. Hicks used in coming to that conclusion. peaker Fraser was so taken with the design that he ceremonies of state and appointing the Officers of Arms Shad a silversmith craft a baton which he donated to that constitute the College of Heralds. Since the time of the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons the Duke of Wellington, field marshals in the British as a legacy gift marking the 125th anniversary of army have also had batons to designate their superior Confederation. The intention of Mr. Fraser was to have rank. In adopting this custom in 1813, Mr. Hicks notes, future Speakers carry the baton in the parade that the British were imitating the military traditions of precedes each sitting of the House of Commons and, France, the German states and other European nations during the sitting, to place it before the Speaker's Chair. that have used batons for centuries. This has yet to happen. Neither of the two Speakers who From these preliminary observations, Mr. Hicks pro- have succeeded Mr. Fraser, Speaker Parent and Speaker ceeds to state "it is hardly surprising given its historic Milliken, have ever carried the baton publicly. roots and ancient traditions that batons of office are a At the conclusion of his short essay, Mr. Hicks cites a large part of the opening of Parliament ceremony at draft press release from Mr. Fraser assessing the impor- Westminster." When the Queen opens Parliament with tance of the baton. According to the press release, which a Speech from the Throne, Mr. Hicks writes, she is es- was never issued, the baton is "a fully Canadian creation, corted in a state procession by the Earl Marshal and other this new symbol of office is part of a centuries old tradi- court officiais who carry various batons, wands and tion in Parliamentary governments." How this "new staves that are associated with their offices. symbol" is supposed to fit into the long history of parlia- Satisfied that batons are a feature of British parliamen- mentary tradition is the principal theme of Mr. Hicks' ar- tary tradition, Mr. Hicks next tries to link batons to the ticle. First, Mr. Hicks explains that the baton is a history of Canada. He does this by reference to the ca- centuries-old symbol of rank and honour. He notes that reers of two soldiers, one French, the other British, who the baton dates back to ancient times and that in England obtained high military rank. The first is François Gaston, it has been associated with the office of the Earl Marshal duc de Lévis, who became a maréchal de France some years sine the fourteenth century. The title of Earl Marshal still after his return to Paris following the French withdrawal exists and this court official is now responsible for regal from New France at the conclusion of the Seven Years War in 1763. The second is Earl Alexander of Tunis, who obtained the rank of field marshal during the Second World War, before becoming Canada's last British Gov- Charles Robert is Principal Clerk, Procedure, of the Senate. The ernor General in 1946. author acknowledges the assistance of Frank Kirkwood of the Library of Parliament in the preparation of this article. AUTUMN 2002 / CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW 25 Mr. Hicks then recounts briefly the creation of the Ca- affair. Both the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Cham- nadian authority for heraldry and how the Chief Herald berlain are hereditary office holders and, as peers of the of Canada, exercising his delegated power of the armo- realm, they are and remain members of the House of rial prerogative, determined the design for the arms of Lords for the lime being, despite the elimination of most Speaker Fraser, including especially the baton featured hereditary peers in the recent reforms. It should also be in the crest. Citing a letter from the Chief Herald, Mr. noted that this great event of state takes place principally Hicks describes the symbolic meaning of the elements of in the House of Lords, not the House of Commons. What- the baton. The lion atop the baton, for example, repre- ever parliamentary associations there are through these sents the majesty of Parliament and the coronet of maple royal court officiais, they are linked to the Upper House leaves and jewels symbolizes the people of Canada's exclusively, and not at all to the House of Commons. provinces and territories. In addition, this baton, accord- The attempt to establish historic associations of the ba- ing Mr. Hicks, needs to be distinguished from the ton with Canada based on the careers and achievements mace, long recognized to be the symbol of the authority of two military heroes cannot be taken seriously. The fact of the House of Commons. For Mr. Hicks, the baton "is an that a French officer who eventually became a maréchal acknowledgement of the inherent trust the Crown places spent some years in New France or that a British field in the Speaker of the House and in the loyalty and dignity marshal served as Govemor General in the twilight of his 2002 CanLIIDocs 230 of the Commons." Furthermore "the baton is a symbol career does not firmly root the baton in this country. of authority, an instrument of command, ... and an Overlooked in Mr. Hicks' search to associate the baton historic symbol of honour for the highest ranking officer. with Canada is the fact that the Duke of Connaught, the The baton is a gift from the Queen ... The Queen gave the third son of Queen Victoria, who served as Govemor baton to the Speaker and gives the mace to the Ser- General between 1911 and 1916, was also a field marshal, geant-at-Arms. These symbols of office are rooted in the receiving that rank in 1902. More curious still, Mr. Hicks symbols of office from legislatures past and present." fails to mention that another Govemor General, Viscount Despite the obvious sincerity and enthusiasm with Byng of Vimy, also obtained a field marshal's baton in which Mr. Hicks presents his case, his exposition is sim- 1932. However, these two omissions make very little dif- ply not convincing. His effort to connect the baton to par- ference. As Mr. Hicks himself points out, Canada has liamentary tradition is weak. So too is his attempt to link never possessed an army large enough to justify having the baton to Canada's history. More important, his daim an officer at the level of a field marshal. The baton is sim- that the Speaker's baton is a gift of the Queen is com- ply not a genuine part of Canada's military heritage. pletely unfounded. Perhaps his most grievous error, Even if it were, what has Canada's military history to do however, is his idea that the baton, as a symbol of com- with Parliament and the role played by the Speaker of the mand and superior rank, should be associated with the House of Commons? office of the Speaker. This demonstrates a profound mis- Seeking to endow the Speaker's baton with regal im- understanding of the role and function of the Speaker in portance or significance, Mr. Hicks insists on stating the House of Commons. The Speaker is not in any senne a three times that this baton is a gift of the Queen. This is military commander or an official of the Queen's Court. simply not true. As he himself admits, it was Speaker Rather, the Speaker is first and foremost a Member of the Fraser who had the baton made based on a design incor- House of Commons, the guardian of its rights and privi- porated into the crest of his coat of arms. The Queen did leges and its principal mouthpiece. Whatever authority not give her approval of the baton's manufacture, nor did the Speaker possesses, it is exercised as the servant of the Her Majesty bestow it on Canadian Speakers as a symbol House of Commons, not its master. The baton, as a scep- of office. The fact that the Chief Herald is authorized to ter or rod of office, as Mr. Hicks conceives it, is not in any design coats of arms for Canadians does not involve the way an appropriate symbol for the Speaker of the House Queen in any personal way. To suggest otherwise, as Mr. of Commons in Canada. Hicks does, confuses an exercise of the Queen's dele- In the United Kingdom, the opening of Parliament and gated powers with a personal act of the Queen. It is its animal sessions is a great occasion of state. For gran- equivalent to suggesting that all the laws of this country deur, few other spectacles match it. The Queen, escorted and all decisions of its courts are made by the Queen her- in procession by high-ranking members of her Court, is self because the laws are enacted in Her Majesty's name the centrepiece of the ceremony.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Catalogue of the Earl Marshal's Papers at Arundel
    CONTENTS CONTENTS v FOREWORD by Sir Anthony Wagner, K.C.V.O., Garter King of Arms vii PREFACE ix LIST OF REFERENCES xi NUMERICAL KEY xiii COURT OF CHIVALRY Dated Cases 1 Undated Cases 26 Extracts from, or copies of, records relating to the Court; miscellaneous records concerning the Court or its officers 40 EARL MARSHAL Office and Jurisdiction 41 Precedence 48 Deputies 50 Dispute between Thomas, 8th Duke of Norfolk and Henry, Earl of Berkshire, 1719-1725/6 52 Secretaries and Clerks 54 COLLEGE OF ARMS General Administration 55 Commissions, appointments, promotions, suspensions, and deaths of Officers of Arms; applications for appointments as Officers of Arms; lists of Officers; miscellanea relating to Officers of Arms 62 Office of Garter King of Arms 69 Officers of Arms Extraordinary 74 Behaviour of Officers of Arms 75 Insignia and dress 81 Fees 83 Irregularities contrary to the rules of honour and arms 88 ACCESSIONS AND CORONATIONS Coronation of King James II 90 Coronation of King George III 90 Coronation of King George IV 90 Coronation of Queen Victoria 90 Coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra 90 Accession and Coronation of King George V and Queen Mary 96 Royal Accession and Coronation Oaths 97 Court of Claims 99 FUNERALS General 102 King George II 102 Augusta, Dowager Princess of Wales 102 King George III 102 King William IV 102 William Ewart Gladstone 103 Queen Victoria 103 King Edward VII 104 CEREMONIAL Precedence 106 Court Ceremonial; regulations; appointments; foreign titles and decorations 107 Opening of Parliament
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereign and Parliament
    Library Note The Sovereign and Parliament The Sovereign fulfils a number of ceremonial and formal roles with respect to Parliament, established by conventions, throughout the parliamentary calendar. The State Opening of Parliament marks the beginning of each new session of Parliament. It is the only routine occasion when the three constituent parts of Parliament—that is the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons—meet. The Queen’s Speech during State Opening is the central element around which the ceremony pivots, without which no business of either the House of Lords or the House of Commons can proceed. Each ‘Parliament’ lasts a maximum of five years, within which there are a number of sessions. Each session is ‘prorogued’ to mark its end. An announcement is made in the House of Lords, to Members of both Houses following the Queen’s command that Parliament should be prorogued by a commissioner of a Royal Commission. At the end of the final session of each Parliament—which is immediately prior to the next general election—Parliament is also dissolved. Following the Prime Minister’s advice, the Sovereign issues a proclamation summoning the new Parliament, appointing the day for the first meeting of Parliament. All bills must be agreed by both Houses of Parliament and the Sovereign before they can become Acts of Parliament. Once a bill has passed both Houses, it is formally agreed by the Sovereign by a process known as royal assent. Additionally, Queen’s consent is sometimes required before a bill completes its passage through Parliament, if the bill affects the Sovereign.
    [Show full text]
  • Grenzeloos Actuariaat
    grenzeloos actuariaat BRON: WIKIPEDIA grenzeloos actuariaat: voor u geselecteerd uit de buitenlandse bladen q STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT In the United Kingdom, the State Opening of Parliament is an the Commons Chamber due to a custom initiated in the seventeenth annual event that marks the commencement of a session of the century. In 1642, King Charles I entered the Commons Chamber and Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is held in the House of Lords attempted to arrest five members. The Speaker famously defied the Chamber, usually in late October or November, or in a General King, refusing to inform him as to where the members were hiding. Election year, when the new Parliament first assembles. In 1974, Ever since that incident, convention has held that the monarch cannot when two General Elections were held, there were two State enter the House of Commons. Once on the Throne, the Queen, wearing Openings. the Imperial State Crown, instructs the house by saying, ‘My Lords, pray be seated’, she then motions the Lord Great Chamberlain to summon the House of Commons. PREPARATION The State Opening is a lavish ceremony. First, the cellars of the Palace SUMMONING OF THE COMMONS of Westminster are searched by the Yeomen of the Guard in order to The Lord Great Chamberlain raises his wand of office to signal to the prevent a modern-day Gunpowder Plot. The Plot of 1605 involved a Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, who has been waiting in the failed attempt by English Catholics to blow up the Houses of Commons lobby.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords
    THE STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS RELATING TO PUBLIC BUSINESS 2016 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS HL Paper 3 THE STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS RELATING TO PUBLIC BUSINESS Ordered to be printed 18 May 2016 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS HL Paper 3 © Parliamentary copyright House of Lords 2016. Re-use of this material is permitted under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site- information/copyright/open-parliament-licence/ Please address enquiries to the Clerk of the Journals, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW. These Standing Orders are also published at www.parliament.uk/business/publications/house-of-lords- publications/rules-and-guides-for-business/ 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Standing Order Page Arrangements when Her Majesty is present 1. Arrangements when Her Majesty present 7 Lords and the manner of their introduction 2. Lords not to sit in Parliament before twenty-one 8 3. Peers by descent not to be introduced 8 4. No fee to be paid on introduction 8 5. Difference in form or style of writs 8 6. Bishops Lords of Parliament to be introduced 8 7. Lords’ higher titles to be used 8 8. Precedency 8 Excepted Hereditary Peers 9. Hereditary peers 9 10. Hereditary peers: by-elections 10 11. Register of hereditary peers 10 Expulsion or suspension of a member 12. Expulsion or suspension of a member 11 The House and its arrangements 13. Right to be present in House when sitting 12 14. Duties and powers of Black Rod 12 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Accession and Coronation
    DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE INAUGURATING A NEW REIGN: PLANNING FOR ACCESSION AND CORONATION BOB MORRIS INAUGURATING A NEW REIGN: PLANNING FOR ACCESSION AND CORONATION Dr Bob Morris The Constitution Unit University College London May 2018 i ISBN: 978-1-903903-82-7 Published by: The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy University College London 29-31 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU United Kingdom Tel: 020 7679 4977 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit © The Constitution Unit, UCL, 2018 This report is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First published May 2018 Front cover image: Nathan Hughes Hamilton; licenced under Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode ii CONTENTS Preface……………………………………………………………………………….v Executive summary………………………………………………………………….vi 1.1-1.25 Conceptual changes since 1952……………………………………………...1 1.1-1.5 Social…………………………………………………………..1 1.6-1.8 Religion……...………………………………………………....1 1.9-1.10 Political…………………………………………………….....2 1.11-1.14 Geopolitics and security……………………………………..2 1.15-1.23 Constitutional……………………………………………….3 1.24-1.25 Machinery of government…………………………………...5 2.1-2.22 Accession…………………………………………………………………....6 2.1 Demise…………………………………………………………….6 2.2-2.4
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of Status and Genetics in Succession to Titles, Honours, Dignities and Coats of Arms
    Edinburgh Research Explorer The significance of status and genetics in succession to titles, honours, dignities and coats of arms Citation for published version: Black, G & Agnew, SC 2018, 'The significance of status and genetics in succession to titles, honours, dignities and coats of arms: Making the case for reform', Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 321- 348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000417 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1017/S0008197318000417 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Cambridge Law Journal Publisher Rights Statement: This article has been published in a revised form in Cambridge Journal of Law: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000417 . This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works. © of Agnew, Black. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords Record Office.The Making and Keeping of Acts At
    House of Lords Record OfficeThe making and keeping of Actsat Westminster House of Lords Record Office The making and keeping of Acts at Westminster Reprinted from: History Today, Vol. VI, pp. 765-773 (1956) House of Lords Record Office Additional Memorandum (1958) La Reyne le Veult: The making and keeping of Acts at Westminster by M. F. Bond One of the great events in our social and political calendar is the Opening of Parliament. Then the Sovereign drives ceremonially through the streets of London to her Palace of Westminster, to be met at the foot of the Victoria Tower by the Lord Chancellor, the Earl Marshal, the Lord Great Chamberlain and other dignitaries. After assuming the parliamentary robes and the Imperial Crown, she walks in procession to the Parliament Chamber, preceded by Peers who bear the Cap of Maintenance and the Sword of State. Seated on the Throne the Queen then makes to the assembly of robed Peers and Judges, with the members of her faithful Commons standing at the Bar of the House, and the Ambassadors and Peeresses seated in the Chamber, as guests of the day, the Speech which outlines the business to be transacted by Parliament in the coming session. It is a glittering occasion; its importance and brilliance are enhanced by its uniqueness, for at no other time in the year does the Sovereign nowadays participate in the business of Parliament. Yet in the past royal visits were frequent: not only did the Sovereign start Parliament on its way, but from time to time the ruler sat in the Lords, listening to the progress of business, and, after discussion on a Bill had reached its conclusion in both Houses, the Sovereign played his historic part by coming again in person and giving or, indeed, withholding his assent to the Bill in question.
    [Show full text]
  • For Those Royalists Disappointed by Charles II's Failure to Reward Them
    1 The earls of Derby and the opposition to their estate bills in parliament, 1660-92: some new manuscript sources By Charles Littleton, History of Parliament Trust Abstract: The bills introduced in 1660-62 by Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, to reclaim his property conveyed by legal procedures to other proprietors during the Interregnum are well-known to students of the Restoration, as their ultimate defeat is seen as evidence of the royal government's wish to enforce 'indemnity and oblivion' after the civil war. The leading members of the House of Lords opposed to the bill of 1661-2 can be gauged by the protest against its passage on 6 February 1662, which has been readily available to students to consult since the 18th-century publication of the Lords Journals. A number of manuscript lists of the protesters against the bill's passage reveal that the opposition to the bill was even more extensive and politically varied than the protest in the Journal suggests, which raises questions of why the printed protest is so incomplete. A voting forecast drawn up by William Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, in 1691 further reminds us of the often neglected point that the Stanleys continued to submit bills for the resumption of their hereditary lands well after the disappointment of 1662. Derby's manuscript calculations, though ultimately highly inaccurate, reveal much about how this particular peer envisaged the forces ranged for and against the claims of an old civil war royalist family, a good forty years after the loss of their land.
    [Show full text]
  • Crown Application-Temp.Backup.Book
    CROWN APPLICATION This pamphlet is intended for members of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Office of the Parliamentary Counsel January 2021 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 THE BASIC PROPOSITIONS Introduction. 1 The presumption that an Act does not bind the Crown . 1 Binding the Crown by express words . 2 Binding the Crown by necessary implication. 2 Other exceptions to the presumption . 4 Presumption irrelevant where no obligations or restraints imposed . 4 Waiver of Crown immunity . 5 Scope of “the Crown” for the purposes of the presumption . 6 CHAPTER 2 PRACTICAL MATTERS Instructions . 12 Informing the Cabinet Office Legal Director . 12 Queen’s or Prince’s consent . 12 CHAPTER 3 OTHER ISSUES Partial application clauses . 13 Amendments of Acts . 13 Other members of the Royal Family . 14 Other basic privileges and immunities of the Crown . 14 Non-Crown bodies and Crown employment. 15 Other relevant case-law . 15 CHAPTER 4 EXAMPLES OF CROWN APPLICATION CLAUSES “This Act binds the Crown” . 16 Application of Acts to different types of land . 20 Other examples . 22 Crown Application — CHAPTER 1 The basic propositions CHAPTER 1 THE BASIC PROPOSITIONS Introduction 1.1 The basic propositions about Crown application are— • An Act does not bind the Crown unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication. • The courts have not been quick to find any such necessary implication or to support any other general exceptions to this doctrine. • The Crown can take advantage of an Act without prejudicing the doctrine (see section 31(1) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947). • The Crown can waive its immunity. The presumption that an Act does not bind the Crown 1.2 The Crown is not immune from statutes by virtue of any rule of the constitution.1 1.3 However, it does enjoy a measure of immunity by virtue of a common law rule of statutory construction.
    [Show full text]
  • DAVID STARKEY Court, Council, and Nobility in Tudor England
    DAVID STARKEY Court, Council, and Nobility in Tudor England in RONALD G. ASCH AND ADOLF M. BIRKE (eds.), Princes, Patronage, and the Nobility: The Court at the Beginning of the Modern Age c.1450-1650 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) pp. 175–203 ISBN: 978 0 19 920502 7 The following PDF is published under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND licence. Anyone may freely read, download, distribute, and make the work available to the public in printed or electronic form provided that appropriate credit is given. However, no commercial use is allowed and the work may not be altered or transformed, or serve as the basis for a derivative work. The publication rights for this volume have formally reverted from Oxford University Press to the German Historical Institute London. All reasonable effort has been made to contact any further copyright holders in this volume. Any objections to this material being published online under open access should be addressed to the German Historical Institute London. DOI: 7 Court, Council, and Nobility in Tudor England DAVID STARKEY 'IT is difficult to realize that the king's Council was part of the king's household, ... and that we have to trace the develop- ment of the Council with the help of household books and ordinances.' This is A. F. Pollard's most striking insight into the history of the council. It is also the one that has least affected the historiography. This chapter aims to redress the balance by treating the development of the Tudor privy council as an aspect of the history of the Tudor court.
    [Show full text]
  • Office Holders in the House of Lords
    Library Note Principal Office Holders in the House of Lords This Library Note provides a short overview of the role and functions of some of the key office holders in the House of Lords: the Lord Speaker, Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen, Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, Leader and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Leader of the Opposition, Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, Chief Whip, Opposition Chief Whip, Lord Great Chamberlain and Earl Marshal. It also details the proposals made over recent years for reforms to some of these roles. Thomas Brown and Heather Evennett 19 March 2015 LLN 2015/007 House of Lords Library Notes are compiled for the benefit of Members of the House of Lords and their personal staff, to provide impartial, politically balanced briefing on subjects likely to be of interest to Members of the Lords. Authors are available to discuss the contents of the Notes with the Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. Any comments on Library Notes should be sent to the Head of Research Services, House of Lords Library, London SW1A 0PW or emailed to [email protected]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Lord Speaker ................................................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chap. 1. of TECIVIL STATE.. 395 Ish Clerk Was Formerly Very Frequently in Holy Orders, and Some Are So to This Day
    Chap. 1. OF TECIVIL STATE.. 395 ish clerk was formerly very frequently in holy orders, and some are so to this day. He is generally appointed by the incumbent, but by custom may be chosen by the inhabitants; and, if such custom appears, the court of king's bench will grant a mandamus to the archdeacon to swear him in, for the estab- lishment of the custom turns it into a temporal or civil right. (i) CHAPTER XII. OF THE CIVIL STATE. THE lay part of his majesty's subjects, or such of the people as are not com- prehended under the denomination of clergy, may be divided into three distinct states, the civil, the military, and the maritime. That part of the nation which falls under our first and most comprehensive division, the civil state, includes all orders of men from the highest nobleman to the meanest peasant, that are not included under either our former division, of clergy, or under one of the two latter, the military and maritime states: and it may sometimes include individuals of the other three orders; since a noble- man, a knight, a gentleman, or a peasant, may become either a divine, a soldier or a seaman. The civil state consists of the nobility and the commonalty. (1) Of the nobility, the peerage of Great Britain, or lords temporal, as forming, together with the bishops, one of the supreme branches of the legislature, I have before sufficiently spoken: we are here to consider them according to their several degrees, or titles of honour.
    [Show full text]