lastly (3), That the grants and patents of the Marquisate and Dukedom of Montrose in the Grahams are mere repetitions or elevations of the original or comital fief (as it stood) into the higher titles or designations of Marquis and Duke of Montrose. The charter or patent the claimant held, obtained by Earl David from James III. in May, 1488, elevated the Earldom of Crawford into the hereditary Dukedom of Montrose, and conveyed other subjects to be held "in libera regalitate" under a general limitation to himself "et heredibus suis." The King was then in arms against a rebellion of the barons headed by his eldest son, afterwards James IV., and the advance in honour was understood to be in acknowledgment of a force of eight thousand horse and foot brought by the Duke and his family in support of the Royal standard. No charter of the Dukedom was extant, but there was an entry in the Register of the Great Seal of a charter of the date referred to. In June following, the King was slain at Sauchieburn, or "The Field of Stirling," as it was sometimes called, and on the coronation of his successor a proclamation was issued annulling all recent grants made by the late King to his adherents. In October of the same year (1488) Parliament passed an Act known as the Act Rescissory, annulling all alienations of lands and creations of new dignities granted since the preceding February by the late King, which might be prejudicial to the young King, because, in the judgment of Parliament, such alienations, gifts, and privileges were granted in aid of perverse counsels, and contrary to the good of the realm as causing the slaughter of the King's father. The Earl of Crawford was removed from certain high offices, yet allowed to retain his estates, and ultimately, as the petitioner admitted, was so far restored to royal favour as to obtain a renewed grant of the honour of the Dukedom of Montrose-for life only-"pro toto tempore vitæ suæ"-with the burgh of Montrose, its rents and customs, and the lordship and castle of Kinclevin. The original charter was not extant, but the Act of Parliament and Register of the Great Seal were held to prove its terms with sufficient accuracy. The late Duke of Montrose, therefore, as petitioner against the claim, undertook in his first case to establish two fundamental propositions: That the charter of 1488 did not subsist,

or was not valid in law; and that even if it could be held as subsisting, the claimant was not the heir under the limitations of the patent. In seeking to establish the first point, the petitioner contended—(1), That there was reason for doubting whether the charter of May, 1488, was ever completed; (2), that if ever effectual it was annulled by the Act Rescissory; (3), that David, Earl of Crawford, was not recognised as Duke of Montrose until after a new grant in Parliament and relative patent of Dukedom; (4), that the Act Rescissory was not inoperative, as the claimant held, and in particular that it cut down the charter of the Dukedom of Montrose of 1488; (5), that the same Act was effectual in annulling the Earldom of Glencairn, an honour granted in similar circumstances; (6), that the Act was effectual against other grants; (7), that a statute alleged to have revoked the Act was not intended to affect it; (8), that the new patent for life was the only valid creation; and (9), that the other proofs of the Dukedom being a grant for life only are corroborated by the fact that the Duke's son and subsequent heirs never assumed the title nor asserted any claim to it, or the possessions which accompanied the honour. The Duke's son, John, it was said, was a prosperous person, and married to a daughter of Home, the Chamberlain, among the most influential Scotsmen of his age. He was employed in many offices of trust, and on good terms with James IV., whose side he had taken in the struggle against his father. To this the claimant answered that Earl John was all his life in a situation encouraging the Government to tyrannise over and oppress him. Independently of prodigality and recklessness, he had murdered his elder brother, Alexander, Master of Crawford, whereby the succession opened up to him, and the legal consequences of the crime hung suspended over his head till his death on the Field of Flodden. David Edzell, ninth Earl of Crawford, restored the honour and estates to the son of the "Wicked Master;" but from his time the family retrograded till their fortunes were shipwrecked in the person of David, the twelfth or "Prodigal Earl," confined in Edinburgh Castle so long as to obtain for him the title of the "Comes Incarceratus." Succeeding Earls again were soldiers of fortune in Spain, Flanders, and Germany. The question of "heirs" heredibus suis, gave

rise to a lengthy and intricate argument on the law of Scotland touching the descent of dignities, but which it would be difficult to make interesting to ordinary readers. The claimant contended that the words carried the honours to him-a collateral heir-male, descended from the uncle of the patentee; while the petitioner held on the other hand that for anything submitted heirs of the body of the patentee might still exist, and in particular that the practice of describing "heirs" only as "heirs-male," and not as "heirs general," by which the succession opened up to females, was confined almost exclusively to the family of Crawford. So far as concerned the confusion likely to arise from the use of similar titles, though even this was not without precedent, the claimant expressed his intention, in the event of the claim being admitted, to continue the title of "Crawford," borne by his predecessors for 700 years, and thereby avoiding even the appearance of infringing "upon a title consecrated by history to the gallant race represented by the noble petitioner." This was put aside by the latter, who also insisted upon the connection of his family not only with the lands of Old Montrose, but with the Burgh of Montrose. The case came before the Committee of Privileges, 14th April, 1851, on which day the Duke of Montrose was permitted to appear in opposition. Mr. Rolt, Mr. Hope Scott, and Mr. Cosmo Innes appeared for His Grace as petitioner; Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Bethell, and Mr. Wortley, with Mr. Riddell, appeared for the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres as claimant. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General watched the case for the Crown. Arguments on the merits were heard between 18th and 23rd July, 1853. Documentary evidence-consisting of charters, precepts, sasines, and accountswas also submitted during the month, the documents being for the most part spoken to by Mr. G. Melville, writer, Edinburgh, and Mr. W. Fraser, Register House. Sir Fitzroy Kelly was heard two days at the close in reply for the claimant. On 5th August, with Lord Redesdale, as usual, in the chair, the committee came to the resolution, "that the charter bearing date 18th May, 1488, by which James III. 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 King James IV. of Scotland, called the Act Rescissory; that the grant of the Dukedom made by King James IV. to the said David, Earl of Crawford, in 1489, was a grant for the term of his life only; and that the petitioner (claimant), James, Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, has not established any title to the Dukedom of Montrose created in 1488." This resolution was reported in due form to the House, and so the ingenious claim fell to the ground. The then Earl of Crawford and Balcarres was succeeded December, 1869, by his son, Alexander William Crawford, Lord Lindsay, eighth and late Earl, the accomplished author of "Lives of the Lindsays," and of the "History of Christian Art." The Duke of Montrose died 30th Dec., 1874, and was succeeded by his only surviving son, Douglas-Beresford-Malise-Ronald Graham, the fifth and present duke, born November, 1852, Lieutenant 5th Lancers. The Montrose Dukedom dates from 1707, the Marquisate from 1684, and the Earldom from 1504. The knightage goes back to the earliest period of our national history. Other titles carried by the present Duke are-Marquis of Graham and Buchanan, Earl and Marquis of Montrose, Earl of Kincardine, Viscount Dundaff, Lord Graham, Aberuthven, Mugdock, and Fintry, in the peerage of Scotland; Earl and Baron Graham, of Belford, Northumberland, in the peerage of Great Britain.

CUMBERNAULD HOUSE AND THE FLEMINGS.

BUILT in 1731, and occupied for only a short period by chiefs of the Fleming family, the mansion destroyed in March, 1877, came to be associated in an indirect way with many stirring events-national as well as domestic-in the history of a once powerful house. Originally from the Low Countries, Baldwin, the first recorded Fleming, appears as settled at Biggar in the reign of William

the Lion, while a Sir Malcolm of the name was appointed Sheriff of Dumbarton in the reign of Alexander III. The family came strongly to the front as adherents of Bruce in the early struggles for national independence, and rose in a great measure on the ruin of Bruce's powerful rival, Comyn of Buchan. The Sir Malcolm of the day is said to have witnessed the slaughter of the Red Comyn at the altar of the Minorite Friars, Dumfries, and to have so thoroughly identified himself with the cause as to follow Bruce in his flight to Glasgow, and witness the absolution in the Cathedral, while the blood of his rival was scarcely dry upon the dagger. Even earlier than this the Comyns of Cumbernauld had smarted under the resentment of Bruce's party. Bishop Robert Wischart, ghostly confessor to the young patriot, begged timber for the spire of our Cathedral from Edward I., then ruling in Scotland as Overlord, and received forty oaks from Darnaway, sixty from Ettrick, and twenty stags for his own table. But, as Dr. J. Robertson shows, the spire of St. Kentigern was not yet to be built. The faithless prelate had scarcely digested the last of King Edward's venison before he turned the oaks into catapults and mangonels, and with them laid siege to the garrison which kept the Comyn's Castle of Kirkintilloch. The barony of Kirkintilloch, known in later times as the Lenzies, and including all the lands of Cumbernauld, passed from Bruce's opponent to Bruce's friend, King Robert granting a charter conveying to Malcolm Fleming that barony formerly held by John Comyn. This Malcolm was also created Earl of Wigtown; but in 1371 this title passed by a formal deed to Archibald, Earl of Galloway, a branch of the Royal Family of Scotland. The title was, however, revived in later days in favour of the Flemings of Cumbernauld. A second Sir Malcolm, son of the above, was present at the disastrous battle of Halidon Hill, 19th July, 1333. Making a skilful retreat from the fatal field, Sir Malcolm secured the person of the young Prince David, with his consort Joanna, and hurrying with them to Dumbarton Castle, of which he was governor, fortified the place against all attack. From this fortress the young couple were removed in safety to France, where they remained