The Mannor of Narrow-water is, 1500 acres contiguous about it, leased by one Mr. Barker Deane, an Adventurer, to Mr. Charles Bolton for £40 per annum for severall years to come, which lease is also given over by Mr. Bolton to the Lord of Dungannon, so as the Lord of Iveaghe could not fix on 2000 acres in that place.

Wherefore he hath made his election on a place called Keilmore. On this Keilmore the late Lord of Iveaghe built a house before the warres, and was dwelling therein the summer before his death, and his Lady. It was proved by two witnesses in the Court of Claimes that the said late Lord dwelled there, and that Sir William Brownlow and Mr. Burly the then High Sheriffe of the county of Doune did dine with His Lordship at Keilmore. Wherefore the now Lord of Iveaghe made his election and claime of 2000 acres contiguous, at Keilmore, although the house built thereon be demolished as the other houses are, which election he humbly conceiveth is suitable to His Matie's intencons and Royall favours declared in the Act of Explanacon intended for him as one of the Nominees therein menconed.

Notwithstanding it was objected by the Councell and the persons in possession of the premises that it was not due election, none of the said Mannor Houses being fixed upon, and it is further alledged that the most parte of the said 2000 acres was in the Dowager Lady Iveaghe's possession in Anno 1641, as parte of her joynture, given her uppon a writt of Dower sued out of the Comon place after the late Lord of Iveaghe's death, in the minority and wardshippe of the now Lord of Iveaghe.

In answer to these objections the said Lord offers that his father having built and lived at Keilmore as aforesaid that it is grounds sufficient enough for him to make his election there. And as to the other parte of the objection he saith that it appeareth by a Deede of feoffment inserted in an office taken after the death of Arthure Lord Viscount of Iveaghe, the now Lord of Iveaghe's grandfather, that upon the intermarriage between the late lord of Iveaghe and the Lady Dowager now living, that other lands were made over to the said Lady in liewe of her joynture, which lands were in particular nomi. nated in the said Deede of which lands the 2000 acres of Keil

more aforesaid claimed by the now lord is noe parte; that a writt of Dower could not give her any other joynture but what was made over to her as aforesaid, that she taking then advantage of the now Lord of Iveaghe's minority, tooke out the said writt of Dower unknowne to the Master of the Wardes, and to his guardian the Lord Marquis of Antrim.

That for all the reasons aforesaid hee humbly prayeth his said election may stand, and that the said 2000 acres may forthwith be assigned out, in regard he hathe not a foote of land in Conaught or elsewhere to subsist by or live uppon as the other Nominess have; and that the rather as the said Lady Dowager now living hath not a foote of land as a Dower or joynture nor provided of any wayes either by the Acte of Settlement or Explanacon.

Carte MSS., Bodleian Library, Oxford,

Vol. 35, p. 139.

Patrick Ma Ginn to His Grace the Duke of Ormonde.

Whitehall, this 9th April, 1666.

My Lord,-At this very instant I received a letter from poore my Lord Iveaghe's agent acquainting me how he is hindered in order to getting his 2000 akers by the power and creditt of his adversaries. The poore man hath no body to support him there, nor I noe friend to rely upon but your Grace. Therefore I humbly begg of your Grace to shew yourselfe in this conjoincture his friend, specially seeing his right is so cleere as the Commissioners themselves tould me there, it being a generall rule that any nominee could chuse out of their estates any 2000 ackers. You know my Lord how troublesome I have been heretofore both to the King and to your Grace for this poore man, and how often your Grace gave me all the hopes I could expect to favour him: Now is the time:

I will

My Lord, one word in his behalfe to the Commissioners will do his businesse, which I dare promise myselfe your Grace will due as well for his sake as for the justness of his cause. trouble you noe more upon this subject but wish your Grace all happinesse and long health, for which shall ever pray,

My lord,

Page 359.

MARTIN-BARON MARTIN.

NICHOLAS MARTIN (the only son of Nicholas, the baron by tenure), who d. before his father, had a son, WILLIAM, and a dau., MARIA, who m. RICHARD FLEMING, BARON OF SLANE.

WILLIAM MARTIN, the son of William, was summoned to parliament after his succession, 19th EDWARD II., and d. in the next year.

ELEANOR, his sister, who m. William de Columbers, d. 8. p., and the barony devolved upon James, Lord Audeley, who had livery of all the Martin estates. On the death of Nicholas, Lord Audeley, the son of James, the Barony of Martin fell into abeyance between his three sisters, and it is now in abeyance between the present Lord Audley and the co-heirs to the Barony of Fitz-Warine, Sir Bourchier Wrey, and others.

Page 360.

MASSUE DE RUVIGNY-EARL OF GALWAY.

DANIEL DE MASSUE, Baron de Ruvigny, (son of Nicholas de Massue, by Helen D'Ally, his wife), was father of a dan., Rachel, wife of Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton (and mother of Rachel, Lady Russell), and of a son, HENRY, MARQUIS DE RUVIGNY, who emigrated from France, and left, by Marie Tallemand, his wife, two sons; the elder was HENRY MASSUE DE RUVIGNY, EARL OF GALWAY; and the younger, named CAILLEMOT, the famous Williamite officer, slain at the battle of the Boyne.

"THE MARQUESS OF RUVIGNY," says Macaulay, "had been during many years an eminently faithful and useful servant of the French government. So highly was his merit appreciated at Versailles, that he had been solicited to accept indulgencies which scarcely any other heretic could by any solicitation obtain. Had he chosen to remain in his native country, he and his household would have been permitted to worship God privately according to their own forms. But Ruvigny rejected all offers, cast in his lot with his brethren, and, at upwards of eighty years of age, quitted Versailles, where he might still have been a favourite, for a modest dwelling at Greenwich. That dwelling was, during the last months of his life, the resort of all that was most distinguished among his fellow exiles. His abilities, his experience, and his munificent kindness, made him the undisputed chief of the refugees. He was at the same time half an Englishman: for his sister had been Countess of Southampton, and he was uncle of Lady Russell. But his two sons, He was long past the time of action.

both men of eminent courage, devoted their swords to the service of WILLIAM. The younger son, who bore the name of CAILLEMOT, was appointed colonel of one of the Huguenot regiments of foot. The two other regiments of foot were commanded by La Melloniere and Cambon, officers of high reputation. The regiment of horse was raised by Schomberg himself, and bore his name. Ruvigny lived just long enough to see these arrangements complete."

The baronetcy of the Palmers, Barts, of Wingham, Kent, and Dorney Court, Bucks, to which family the Earl of Castlemaine belonged, became EXTINCT at the death in 1838, of SIE CHARLESHARCOURT PALMER, the 6th baronet, there having been no legal marriage between him and his first cousin, the mother of his children, the eldest surviving of whom, John, however, took by devise, Dorney Court and the other estates of Sir Charles, and he, dying in 1852, was 8. by his brother, the late REV. HENRY PALMER, of Dorney Court, who m Sarah, dau. of George Gerrard, Esq., and has a son, Charles-James Palmer, Esq., barrister-at-law, J.P. and D.L. of Bucks.

nd was far from being in a good condition, I found my Lord of aragh there, who invited me to his hous where I lodged neer a month till I could provide another place for myself; and during the whole time of my abood in those parts he gave me frequent evidences of his good affection and dutye to me, which I resolved to have requited if he had lived. And therefore since hee and his wife are dead, I must particularly recommend his children to you, and likewise their Aunt, Miss Warren, who was there likewise at Bruges, to your care, that they may be out of hand put into the possession of ye severall Jwhich belong to them, of which you are to advertise the other Lords Justices to the end that you may all give effectual orders to the Commissioners to that purpose, and let them know I expect a good account of this business. Your very affectionate friend, CHARLES R.

୮

(Endorsed)

"This Ltre. all written with ye King's own hande."

Page 543.

UFFORD-BARON UFFORD.

Gilbert, in his History of the Viceroys of Ireland, speaking of Sir Ralph de Ufford, viceroy temp. EDWARD III., relates that "the colonial chroniclers of the time, reflecting to some extent the feelings of the settlers, declared that d'Ufford's death was hailed with joy by clergy and laity, who, in consequence, celebrated their Easter with merry hearts;

the tempests and floods, which had continually prevailed from the day of his arrival, suddenly ceasing when he died. They denounced him as an unjust man, greedy of gain; doing everything by violence, equitable to none, a robber and oppressor of both rich and poor; adding, that he revoked and cancelled grants which he had made under the king's seal, and extorted money by indicting and imprisoning ecclesiastics as well as laymen. Much of his severity was ascribed to the counsels of his wife, of whom the colonial writers recorded, with malignant satisfaction, that she, who' had for a time maintained the state of a queen, subsequently, with her people, bearing d'Ufford's remains in a leaden coffin, in which her treasure was secreted, passed privately from Dublin Castle, evading her clamorous creditors, and returned ingloriously to England, in horrible grief of heart, sad, and mournful, with the doleful badges of death, sorrow, and heaviness.' The viceroy was interred by his widow in the nunnery of St. Clare, at Cumpsey, or Camescy, near the town of Ufford, in Suffolk, the burial place of her first husband, William de Burgh, Earl of Ulster; and, through the influence of her brother, Henry, Earl of Lancaster, she obtained license from EDWARD III. to found there a chantry of five priests, to offer up prayers perpetually for the repose of their souls."

The fact, stated by Gilbert, that Ufford's remains were interred by his widow in the nunnery of St. Clare, at Campsey, near the town of Ufford, the burial place of her first husband, William de Burgh, clearly proves that the second marriage of de Ufford mentioned by Dugdale could not have taken place and that Vincent's account of the Ufford pedigree is the more accurate.

I venture to believe that the following narrative of my father's claim to the (original) Dukedom of Montrose, as urged before the House of Lords in 1853 (on grounds still maintained by him to be sound and valid), will not be unacceptable to you for insertion in the appendix to the new edition of your Dormant and Extinct Peerage of Great Britain. The claim is one of great interest and curiosity, not only from its connection with history and the important precedents which are involved in its discussion, but from the extraordinary divergences of opinion between the claimant and the noble and learned lords who moved the Resolution as to matters of simple fact, patent before the eyes of the Committee of Privileges, and from the novel interpretations of peerage law, and law generally, started and applied for the first time by the noble and learned lords in question, and which, if hereafter sustained and acted upon, must revolutionize from this time forward the whole system of peerage law.

In 1488, on the occasion of the rebellion against JAMES III. of Scotland (headed by the king's eldest son, afterwards JAMES IV., and which ended in the defeat and death of the king, on the 11th June that year, at the battle of Stirling), David, 5th Earl of Crawford, having joined the royal standard with a large force of his vassals and friends, was in reward of his loyalty created by the king DUKE OF MONTROSE by charter or patent, dated the 18th of May in that year, "changing" his earldom into a dukedom, with limitation to him "et heredibus suis." This patent and the rights conveyed by it could only, by peerage law, be annulled in one of three modes, that is to say, by attainder of the family, by special annulment, or by resignation to the crown, none of which, it is admitted, took place. After the duke's death the dignity was not assumed by his heirs, and it has been dormant (in the claimant's view) ever since. But dormancy is no bar in peerage claims.

In 1850 my father, James, 24th Earl of Crawford, heir and representative of Duke David in terms of the patent, petitioned the Queen to recognize his right to the dukedom; and his petition was referred to the House of Lords for their opinion and advice. The case was heard and reported upon in July and August, 1853. It was admitted (as I have said) that there had been no attainder, that no resignation of the dukedom had taken place, and that there had been no special annulment of the patent. But it was objected that the dukedom had been annulled by a statute-styled, for convenience in the discussion, the Act Rescissory-passed on the 17th October, 1488, by the victorious party assembled in parliament, and purporting to annul, in general terms and without specification, "all alienations of lands, heritage, lang tacks, few-ferms, offices, tailzies, blench-ferm, creation of new dignities," conferred "sene (since) the second day of Februar last by-past be umquhile our Sovereign Lord's fader, whom God assoilzie! quhilk might be prejudicial to our Sovereign Lord and to the crown that now is," with the inductive clause, "because that sic alienation, gifts, and privileges were grantit, sene (since) the said time, for the assistance to the perverst counsale that were contrar the common good of the realm, and cause of the slaughter of our Sovereign Lord's fader." In reply to this objection the claimant, after pointing out certain legal considerations which governed the interpretation of the statute, adduced evidence to prove that the Act Rescissory took no effect whatever on any of the grants struck at by it, and least of all on the Dukedom of Montrose; and further that by peerage law, as established by a leading case and precedent (that of the Dukedom of Norfolk) in the same century, such a general and penal act could not per se and without specification affect a dignity. But the Committee of Privileges disallowed the argument from law and overruled the evidence on the matter of fact; and the House reported to the Crown "that the charter bearing date the 18th day of May, 1488, by which JAMES THE THIRD of Scotland granted the Dukedom of Montrose to David, Earl of Crawford et heredibus suis,' was annulled and made void by the Act of the first year of the reign of JAMES THE FOURTH of Scotland, called the Act Rescissory, that the grant of the dukedom made by King JAMES THE FOURTH to the said David, Earl of Crawford in 1489" (a matter quite, as the claimant holds, of a secondary nature in regard to the present claim, but to which the Committee attached great importance) "was a grant for the term of his life only, and that the petitioner James, Earl of Crawford

and Balcarres, has not established any title to the Dukedoin of Montrose, created in 1438.'*

Such is a brief summary or historical outline of the Montrose claim up to the present moment. It cannot, however, be appreciated without some more special details, which I will give you as succinctly as possible.

The facts adduced in evidence before the Committee of Privileges and the arguments based upon them for and against the claim may be divided into, I. Primary-those which determine the history and govern the law of the case; and, II. Secondary-those which are in themselves immaterial and superfluous in the presence of the dominant and ruling facts previously established.

I. Primary Facts and Arguments.

The main fact in dispute between the claimant and the crown before the Committee of Privileges was (it must be repeated) this,-'Did the Act Rescissory, 17th October, 1488, or did it not, take effect upon the dukedom?' Every other consideration (it was admitted) was immaterial. The claimant contended that the Act neither could nor did affect the patent, on grounds which I shall proceed to specify. To go into these grounds minutely would occupy too much of the space which your courtesy allows me. The controversy may be said to turn upon the question whether the Act Rescissory did or did not cut down a dignity granted within the same period and under identical circumstances with the dukedom, viz., the Earldom of Glencairn. I shall, therefore, lay especial stress upon that point; and I will merely indicate in the first instance, with as much conciseness as possible, the other points of the argument, simply premising that the claimant conceives that the evidence produced on these points would have been of itself sufficient, by peerage law and precedent, to establish his claim, even if there had been no such identical case as that of Glencairn. The leading pleas of the claimant against the construction attributed to the Act Rescissory were as follows:

1. All legal principle is against it.-1. The Act must be construed according to its grammatical meaning (the entire document being taken together and not piecemeal), and not according to the presumed intention of those who passed it. Words, for example, must not be struck out of, or imported into it, in order to give effect to such presumed intention.-II. It is qualified in its language, being only directed against such grants of the late king as "might be prejudicial" to the existing régime; and the grant of the dukedom must have been proved to have been "prejudicial" by legal application of the Act, before the Act could take effect on the dignity; whereas it cannot be contended that the grant of a dignity, the reward of loyalty, is "prejudicial" to the crown, and JAMES IV. himself testifies (in the regrant) that the duke had been as loyal to himself as to his father.-11. The duke was in no way the "cause of the slaughter" of the king's father, and it is against such accessories only, and in punishment of such accession, that the Act Rescissory was directed; and on this ground the Scottish maxim that "a law, though expressed in the most general terms, ought not to be extended to any case to which the reason inductive of the law is in no degree applicable," saves the patent from the operation of the Act Rescissory.-IV. The grants of JAMES III. were granted by a king in full possession of his regal power and prerogative to the moment of his death, as proved by the evidence of JAMES IV. and the very parliament which passed the Act Rescissory, and by the dates of JAMES IV.'s acts and charters, all calculated from the day of his father's death as the commencement of his own sovereignty, and adduced by the claimant in reply to the objection (sustained by Lord St. Leonards), that JAMES III. was considered as having ceased to reign from the commencement of the rebellion, that is, from the 2nd February, 1487-8, four months before his death, and eight before the Act Rescissory, and "therefore" (in Lord St. Leonards' words) the parliament treated the king in the Act Rescissory "as a person who made these grants without having the authority to do so," this being "beyond all possibility of doubt" the "principle acted upon," and which fixes the true construction of the grants of JAMES III. and of the Act Re-cissory.-v. Further, the Act Rescissory being a penal one, inflicting deprivations

It is to be observed here, that the second clause of the resolution just given, being a report upon a grant under which the claimant had not advanced any claim in the petition which formed the exclusive subject of Her Majesty's reference to the House and of the report of the House to Her Majesty, is, by peerage law and precedent, as if it had not been inserted. It was inserted at the last moment, at the instance of Lord St. Leonards, after the resolution, as originally drawn up, had been moved by the Lord Chancellor Cranworth.

on loyal subjects, must be construed strictly, in favour of justice and mercy, and especially in the privileged matter of honours.-vi. And, finally, the question between the Act Rescissory and the Montrose patent must be decided on the rationes (and especially the three last rationes) laid down in the decision of the House of Lords in England (the precedent being relevant according to peerage law) on the claim to the Dukedom of Norfolk in 1425-that honour having been granted by RICHARD II. in 1399, and struck at by an Act Rescissory passed by HENRY IV. and his parliament that same year-the circumstances of successful rebellion being precisely parallel with those attending the Dukedom of Montrose; the decision being, that, I. As the right to create honours belongs solely to the crown, and not to parliament; 2. As neither the duke nor his heirs were specially mentioned in the Act; 3. As no special parliamentary revocation or nullification of the creation by RICHARD II. had taken place, either as respected the grantee or his heirs; and 4. As notwithstanding the general revocation and nullification of the patent by the Act Rescissory, other persons who had been created earls and raised to dignities under the parliament struck at by it had continued to enjoy those dignities subsequently thereto, unaffected by it (viz., the Earls of Worcester and Westmoreland, answering to the Earls of Glencairn and other grantees of JAMES III. in the present case), therefore the Dukedom of Norfolk still survived untouched by the Act Rescissory.-Briefly, as aforesaid, all these pleas were overruled by the Lord Chancellor and Lord St. Leonards, and life was given to the Act Rescissory by reading its words so as to give effect to the presumed intention of those who passed it.

2. JAMES IV. and the leaders of the parliament which passed the Act Rescissory distinctly, and with the utmost formality, and in a manner from which they could not recede, recognised David, Duke of Montrose, as such, subsequently to the Act Rescissory, and before the second grant above and hereafter to be mentioned, -thereby testifying that the Act had not affected the dignity.-The claimant produced evidence proving that, after the battle of Stirling, in which JAMES III. fell, JAMES IV., actuated probably by remorse, executed a full pardon and remission to the duke under the privy seal of all displeasure entertained by himself against him for the assistance he had given his father; but placed it in the hands of one of his most powerful adherents, Andrew, Lord Gray, as a means of extorting from the duke a resignation, in that nobleman's favour, of the hereditary sheriffdom of Forfarshire. The duke, after some hesitation, and after making a formal iegal protest, reciting the facts of compulsion under which he acted, executed a procuratory or proxy, dated the 1st November, 1488, and thus subsequently to the Act Rescissory of the 17th October, under his ducal signature and his ducal seal, empowering Lord Home, another of the leaders of the late rebellion, to perform the resignation in his name into the hands of the king. The ceremony took place on the 6th November, at Hailes Castle, the fortress of the Earl of Bothwell, a third of the recently rebel nobles, where the king held his court for the time. The procuratory was produced; its seal, in particular, was duly scrutinized, and the validity of the document ascertained; and Lord Home then resigned the office in the duke's name (as duke) to JAMES IV. in person, and the king granted it to Lord Gray as the new feudal tenant. The transaction was recorded at Lord Gray's request in a formal notarial instrument of resignation and donation (produced, with the procuratory, from the Gray muniment room), drawn up by Andrew Macbrek, the king's chaplain and protonotary, who had witnessed the whole transaction and narrates it as just stated-including the facts of the production of the procuratory, the scrutiny of the seal, its recognition as a due and sufficient warrant for the resignation, the resignation itself to the king, and the subsequent gift to Lord Gray, everything passing in the king's presence and with his cognizance, and in the presence of the assembled courtLord Bothwell, Home, and others present, being leaders of the parliament which a few days before passed the Act Rescissory; and yet the title of duke is without the least scruple or hesitation given and applied to the resigner by all concerned, his enemies, and by the king himself, in his absence.t The

The protest was a private instrument, and can give no evidence as to the duke's legal style; but, having been adopted and urged against the claimant by the crown and the noble and learned lords who advised the Committee, the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the facts established by it in his favour, rightly and correctly stated and represented.

The Duke's signature to the procuratory is as follows:"D. Doik off Montross." The seal bears the ducal arms and crest, with the inscription, "S. David, Ducis de Montro

...

claimant insisted that, a contract having been established between the king and the duke, and the duke having fulfilled his share in that contract, the duke was entitled to the full recognition by the king of his rights as duke, which recognition, he contended, was not withheld-such royal recognition involving, by Scottish law and usage, complete removal of every shadow of displeasure on the king's part, and rehabilitation even against the Act Rescissory, had such attached; while, independently of and beyond this, the notarial instrument of resignation and donation, together with the procuratory on which it proceeded, and which were the two leading documents and sole warrants for the transfer of the sheriffdom from the Lindsays to the Grays and for all that followed, and in which any illegality would have been fatal, proved that, by the testimony of JAMES IV. himself and the lords who figured in the transaction the dignity of Duke of Montrose had not been annulled by the Act Rescissory, passed by themselves on the 17th October previously.-But the noble and learned lords who addressed the Committee overruled the whole of this evidence on the ground that in the charter of the sherifflom, the precept of seizin, and instrument of seizin that followed to Lord Gray-mere formal documents, executed out of the king's presence by the clerks of chancery-the resigner is styled "Earl of Crawford,"-and this, notwithstanding the claimant's previous remonstrance in argument, that in cases of such discrepancy the words of the charter must, especially by peerage law and practice, be controlled and corrected by the warrant, which was unquestionably the instrument of resignation and donation in the present instance; and further, that the question here was not that of the feudal right to the sheriffdom, but which of the five writs constituting the series passed under the eye and with the personal cognizance of the sovereign, which can alone, by peerage law and practice, furnish the evidence required as to the king's personal recognition of the dignity,'--the only two deeds of importance in this point of view being the procuratory and the instrument of resignation and donation in question. The Lord Chancellor denied that the instrument of resignation and donation, drawn up by the king's notary, was "drawn up by the crown," and urged it as "not very likely that when the crown had got the sheriffdom surrendered, the crown would be very particular as to the title by which the party chose to designate himself who made the surrender,"-and both the Chancellor and Lord St. Leonards held that when the crown itself had to act that is, in the subsequent charter and other papers executed in chancery, and out of the presence of the king and the duke-" the crown" (in Lord St. Leonards' words) "called him by his proper title of Earl of Crawford, and in effect rejected his title as Duke of Montrose."-I have given this statement rather more fully than I intended, lest it should be considered that I had not done justice to the reasoning of the noble and learned lords in rejecting this evidence.

Comitis Craufurd." The leading words in the instrument of Resignation and Donation are as follows:-" in Dei nomine, Amen. Per hoc presens publicum instrumentum cunctis pateat, quod" (on the 6th November, 1488) "coram . . . Jacobo Quarto Comparuit Dominus Alexander Home de eodem, procurator. David, Ducis de Montrose ac Comitis Craufordie, legitime ordinatus per unum Procuratorium sigillo proprio dicti Ducis sigillatum, roboratum, et munitum, prout mihi, Notario Publico subscripto, meis intuentibus oculis, evidenti constabat documento, viz., ad resignandum. . . nomine et ex parte dicti David Ducis . . . officium Vicecomitatus de Forfar.. in manibus . . . Domini nostri Regis, tanquam Domini superius (sic) ejusdem:-Qoquidem Procuratorio viso, lecto, et in presentia Domini Regis totaliter intellecto, virtute, vigore, et potestate prefati Procuratorii dictus Alexander Home, Procurator et nomine Procuratorio quo supra, coram celsitudine dicti Domini Regis . . . dictum officium. . . in manibus. Regis..

donavit, sursum dedit, resignavit et deliberavit, ac dictum Dominum Ducem et suos heredes de dicto officio... exoneravit. . . sic quod dictus Dominus noster Rex de eodem officio... ad sue proprie libitum voluntatis licite disponere valeat:-Quibusquidem donacione, resignatione . . . sic factis, receptis, et admissis . . . Rex... dictum officium... Villielmo Liddale ... actornato. . . Andree Domini le Gray. hereditarie. . . dedit, donavit, ac . . . assignavit et libere deliberavit.. :-Super quibus . ... dictus Villielmus Liddale, actornatus ut supra.... ex parte dicti Andree Domini le Gray, a me, Notario Publico subscripto, sibi fieri petiit . . . instrumentum vel instrumenta. Acta erant hec in Camera Regia apud Castrum de Halis," &c. Followed by the notary's attestation, "Presens interfui, eaque omnia et singula sic fieri vidi, scivi, et audivi, ac in notam cepi," &c. MacBrek, the notary, was the King's chaplain and almoner, and protonotary, chancellor of the bishopric of Dunblane, a distinguished public official, and high in the confidence of the successful party in 1488, and especially of the Earl of Bothwell, at whose castle of Hailes the transaction took place.

with the dukedom, under the patent 18th May, 1488, during the interval between the passing of the Act Rescissory, 17th October, 1488, and the grant of the second creation, 18th September, 1489, this receipt being of right, not of allowance or favour; his receipt of these revenues during the interval in question further proving that the Act Rescissory had not affected the patent.-The receipt of these revenues was admitted, but no weight was allowed to the circumstance.

4. The Earldom of Glencairn, created within the same period and in pari casu in all respects with the Dukedom of Montrose, survived, unaffected by the Act Rescissory.-The claimant urged that, if such was the case, à fortiori the dukedom must stand untouched. I shall speak of the Glencairn case presently, after completing the general outline of the argument to which I here limit myself.

5. All the other grants of JAMES III. during the proscribed period which can now be discovered survived the Act Rescissory, and descended to the heirs according to the limitations, some of them being confirmed in the ordinary feudal manner applicable only (as by technical proof) to valid and unquestioned grants, and others surviving without confirmation, the argument being, that all this proved the Act Rescissory to have been effete and a dead letter from the commencement, and thus absolutely null and void by the Scottish rule of Desuetude.The survival of some of these grants was admitted by the crown, but represented as "cases of trifling moment, in which it was not thought worth while to divest the parties of their estates;" and the opposition, after exhausting Scotland in the search, failed to produce one single instance (for the Glencairn patent cannot be considered so, for reasons which will be shown) of the Act Rescissory itself taking effect, and only produced two cases, admittedly illegal, in which property granted by JAMES III. was seized and re-granted by JAMES IV., several months before the date of the Act, and which, as such, they apologised for; although Lord St. Leonards vindicated them in his address to the Committee as cases of resumption and re-grant "with the intention of the Crown, and with the knowledge of the Crown that those grants" (of JAMES III.) "would be defeated by parliament."

6. Lastly, even if the general Act Rescissory had been effective, and had cut down the dukedom, that Act was annulled in its turn by a general Act Revocatory, passed by JAMES IV., with consent of parliament, in 1503-4, and by which he revoked "all donations, gifts, acts, statutes of Parliament or General Council, and all other things done be him in times bygane either hurtand his saul, his crown, or Holy Kirk," under which Act Revocatory the Act Rescissory, with all its supposed consequences, necessarily fell, inasmuch as the rebels against JAMES III., were (as proved by a bull adduced) actually under sentence of excommunication by the Pope, INNOCENT VIII., as representing Holy Kirk, at the moment when they passed the Act Rescissory, -the claimant's argument being that, if the Act Rescissory, expressed in general terms, could rescind dignities, the Act Revocatory, expressed in equally general terms, could à fortiori restore dignities, and ought to be held to do so in the case of the Dukedom of Montrose if credit is given to the earlier and obnoxious statute.-The Lord Chancellor treated this Act Revocatory as "a flourish of trumpets that meant nothing at all," and "so loose" in its language that "it is impossible to say that grants or title deeds could possibly be in any way affected" by it, (which is precisely one of the claimant's objections to the Act Rescissory); while Lord St. Leonards held that the phrase "Holy Kirk" only referred to a private chapel founded by JAMES IV.

II. Secondary Facts and Arguments.

These embrace the matter of the second grant of the dukedom in September, 1489, and the report to the Crown, or rather the speech of Lord Chancellor Loughborough, the report being in general terms-on the claim to the Earldom of Glencairn in 1797. Both the re-grant and the Glencairn report, in 1797, are admittedly immaterial to the question, if only the Act Rescissory did not cut down the original patent. They were considered by the Committee of Privileges as affording proof that such had been the case.

1. The Re-grant.-An Act of JAMES IV., with advice of parliament, exists on the Statute Book, dated 18th September, 1489, stating, that in consideration of the loyalty of David, Earl of Crawford and his predecessors hitherto towards the king's predecessors and the king himself (thus proving that his loyalty to the Crown had undergone no interruption), and on account of services to be rendered in future times; and in consideration of the fact of the earl's ancestors, the former Earls of Crawford, having held their possessions from ancient times by the title of

of his Great Council, changes the said "title of earl" into a greater and higher one, viz., that of duke-willing the grantee to enjoy the dukedom according to the form and tenor of the charter to be executed in favour of the said David, Duke of Montrose, in accordance with what has been premised-" super premissis conficiende." * No registration of the charter thus ordered to be executed in order to give effect to the preceding grant exists; but there is in the Great Seal Register a brief and slovenly extract, seven lines and a half in length, interpolated, with erasures, and at the bottom of a page already occupied, and on that portion of it which by universal practice is left blank,-this extract purporting to describe a "Litera" (which the crown held to have been not a charter), stated to have been granted to the Earl of Crawford, creating him duke "pro toto tempore vite sue." The claimant proved that these words constantly occur in patents preceding a limitation to heirs, and that from the language even of the extract itself (which ends with the words "cum omnibus clausulis secundum formam carte," referring, as the claimant maintains, to the original patent of 1488, which is duly recorded in the register) † a limitation must legally be presumed to have been in the full document,-that a descent to heirs is implied in the Act on the Statute Book, which was the warrant for the charter which was to be drawn up in conformity with it ("super premissis conficiende ") and by which the charter (and à fortiori the abridged "Litera") fell to be governed and interpreted,-and that, at all events, as the de novo grant does not proceed on a resignation of the existing dukedom (the indispensable preliminary, the narration of which was never omitted, and which cannot be presumed-all this being of strict obligation in peerages), it could not in any way affect the original patent, if not cut down by the Act Rescissory. The re-grant, the claimant contended, was virtually (there being, as premised, no resignation) a confirmation, according to feudal usage, proceeding upon a recognition and acknowledgment of the validity and subsistence of the original title; while, under any circumstances it conveyed a grant de novo of the dukedom, descendible to the duke's heirs and to himself in that capacity.-The noble and learned lords, on the contrary, interpreted the Act, or warrant, on the Statute Book by the abridged "Litera," (thus putting the cart before the horse, in violation of the fundamental principle of peerage law), and ruled that the re-grant was for life only, and that the duke (in Lord St. Leonards' words) acquiesced in the Act of 1488... by accepting the re-grant limiting to him for life the same dignity,"-the argument from the non-resignation of the original dignity being overruled. It was a "mockery," according to the noble and learned lord, "to talk of that" (the re-grant) being a confirmation to the duke."

2. Lord Loughborough's speech and the Report on the Glencairn Case in 1797.-These I shall proceed to mention in sequence to the argument from the Glencairn precedent, in accordance with the programme to which I have restricted myself in this letter, and this will now occupy our more full attention.

The Ruling Glencairn Decision of 1648, binding on the House of Lords in 1853.

The dignity of Earl of Glencairn was granted by JAMES III. to Alexander, Lord Kilmaurs, by patent, on the 28th May, 1488, and thus must have perished on the 17th October that year, had the Act Rescissory affected it. The patent of 1488 is the only one in the Glencairn charter-chest, or on record. The grantee fell at the battle of Stirling, and his successors did not assume the dignity for some years,-it descended in them nevertheless, in virtue exclusively of the patent,-Cuthbert, Earl of Glencairn, grandson of the grantee, sat under it in parliament in 1504, -the patent was recognized and referred to by the Crown and the Supreme Civil Court in 1515-16,

After praising the obedience, &c., of "David, Comes Craufurdie et Dominus Lindesay" and his ancestors, the grant proceeds as follows:-"Cum itaque predecessorum suorum, Craufur lie Comitum, digne recolenda prioritas titulo Comitatus suas dominaciones supradictas ab antiquis temporibus tenuerunt; hinc est quod Rex eundem David... volens ampliori fulgere dignitate, et Comitis titulum supradictum in majorem excelsioremque mutans, dictum David, . . . Ducem de Montross, . . . sublimavit, fecit, creavit, et de novo erexit in Ducatum, Ducatusque nomine . . . volens ipsum gaudere... secundum formam et tenorem carte... dicto David, Duci de Montross, super premissis conficiende."

The opposition maintained that the "Litera" was not a full and hereditary charter. If so, the "carta" here spoken of was necessarily the original patent.