VVHen Fergus the first was chosen King the Estates gave the Crown to him his Heirs and Successors, and confirmed it by an Oath.

Fergus being deceased, leaving two Sons Ferleg, and Main, who being but young were not for Governing; and the Estates being conveened, choosed a King: And there being great con­test among them, it was objected by one partie, that the Crown having been given to Fergus and his Heirs, and the Estates having confirmed it by an Oath, they could not pass by his Son and choose another King; and on the other hand it was pleaded, that the Estates should consider that there were great dangers both at home and a­broad if they should admit a Chind to be King. And after being de­bated they came to this Resolution; that notwithstanding their Oath given to Fergus, yet when their King dies, leaving Children, who in respect of their age are not fit for Governing, that the next of the Line who is fittest to Govern should be King; and that after his decease the Crown should return to the former King's Children; upon which, Feritharis, Pergus his Brother was chosen King, and this Law continued for the space of one thousand years, from Feritharis his time, to Kenneth the Third, who (as the histori­an sayes) by force and fraud, obtained this Law to be changed.

Ferleg, Fergus his eldest Son, when he came to age, being ambitious to Reign entered into a conspiracie against Feritharis, which being discovered, he was taken and imprisoned, but escap­ed with some of his accomplices, and few Months after Feritharis having died, it was thought he got wrong by Ferleg, and there­fore [Page 2] upon the presumptions of Ferleg his former ambition, and con­spiracie, and sudden slight, Ferleg, by unanimous consent of the Estates, was condemned and deprived of the Right and Succession to the Crown, and Main his Brother was made King.

Albeit by the Law made in Fergus the first's time, the Estates granted the Crown to the King and his Heirs, which was confirmed by Oath, yet when the Estates found it not for the interest of the Nation, that the Crown should descend upon the Kings Chil­dren, and immediate Heirs, They conferred it upon another of the same Line, as in the case of the tvvo Sons of Durstus vvho albeit they vvere of age fit for Governing vvhen their Father died, yet the Estates considering, that if they should admit any of Durstus his Chil­dren to the Crown, (who had been a wicked King and had forced his Subjects to a conspiracy against him) the likeness of manners might make them continue in their Fathers vvickedness, and the neereness of Blood incite them to revenge: Therefore they passed by Durstus his tvvo sons, and choosed Evven Durstus his Cusine German to be King.

In Ferchard his Reign, the Estates conveened by their ovvn authority, and having cited the King to appear before them, he refused to appear, and having retired to a strong castle, the Estates did take him out, and brought him before them, and hav­ing accused him of many heinous Crimes, and particularly that he vvas guilty of the pelagian Heresie, and contempt of the Sacrament of Baptism, and other holy Rites; and he not being able to clear himself of the Crimes, vvith vvhich he vvas charg­ed, vvas put in Prison and shortly after died.

King Robert Bruce when he was first settled upon the Throne having only a Daughter who by the Law should have succeeded, there was a new Law made, that if the King should die without Male Children, his Brother Edvvard and his Sons should succeed; and if he should die without Children, that then King Robert's Daughter and her Heirs should succeed to the Crown: But it was provided that the Estates should choose a Husband for her, that was most fit to govern, for they thought it was much more reasonable that they should choose their King, than that the Queen should choose her Husband. And there after the King having a Son, and [Page 3] another Daughter, the entail was again altered, and the Crown was provided to King Robert and his Children: and they failing to Robert Stevvart the Kings Grand-child, by his eldest Daughter, passing by his two Daughters, Which settlement the Estates did confirm by Oath: And yet that notwithstanding David the second, King Robert's Son, did alter this Law and Settlement, and made a new Law, excluding Robert Stevvart, and substituting Alexander, Son to the Earle of Sutherland, by King Robert's second Daughter, which the Estates did likeways confirm by Oath, but Alexander having died shortly after, and King David being reconciled to Ro­bert Stevvart, he was by Act of Parliament restored to his own place in the Succession.

The said Robert, who was the first King of the Race of Stewart, being first married to the Earle of Ross his Daughter, by whom he had two Sons, and a Daughter, did after the Queen's decease, marry Elizabeth Muir with whom he had begotten three Sons before his marriage with the Earle of Ross his Daughter. And albeit the for­mer course of Succession was not only established by Law, but confirmed by Oath; Yet the Estates did again alter it and entail­ed the Crown upon Elizabeth Muire [...]s Children, passing by the Children of the first Marriage, who were for ever excluded; and Robert the third who was the eldest Son by Elizabeth Muir suc­ceeded to the Crown, of whom King James the seventh is lineally Descended.

From all which these things may be evidently inferred.

1. That by the constitution of the Government of this King­dom there was an original Contract betwixt the King and the People by which their Kings were oblidged to Rule by Law.

2. That when the Kings made Invasion upon Religion and the Law and Liberties of the Subject, tending to the subversion of the Government, the Estates did conveen by their own Authority and called their Kings in question for it.

3. That the Estats have been in use to alter the course of Suc­cession, when they did see it for the Interest and Well of the King­dom; and did entail the Crown to others than those who by for­mer Laws had Right to succeed, keeping alvvays the same Family.

4. It is by vertue of such an entail and settlement of the Crovvn that King James the seventh, and his Predecessors succeeded to the Crovvn, ever since King Robert the third.

5. That vvhen the Estates, conferred the Crovvn upon any Person or Family, albeit they confirmed it by Oath and svvore Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors, yet vvhen their Kings broke the Original Contract vvith the People, and upon that ground the Estates did think fit to lay aside any of their Kings, or did alter the course of Succession, they thought themselves no longer tyed by their former Oath of Allegiance, but loosed therefrom and svvore Allegiance to their nevv King, vvhich [...]as not only been the practice of this Kingdom, but is, and has been the practice of England, and other Nations, on the like occasions.