232 MAR. right over such as had been alienated, as also the lands of the Lordship of 11 Oarcach," provision being made that forasmuch as Kildrummie, the. ancient chief messuage of the Earldom had been alienated by the Crown, the manor of Migvie should serve for the seisin of Mar and the Castle of Dunuydeer for that of Gan'ocli. The warrant for seisin was dated 24 June Ifilifi, and when (but not before) that was accomplished (which was in about three weeksf.*) time) be became legally entitled to the dignity, and, accordingly, appeared at Council, 1 Aug. 1565, as EARL QF MAR [S.1 It is at this period, or a few days sooner, that according to the remarkable decision of the House of Lords {26 Feb. 1S75) an Earldom ttf Mar [S.] is held to have been created de novoP) with a the present instance. The hypothesis of a lost charter conferring a personal peerage, apart from the lief, is purely gratuitous and unwarrantable : it was stated [i.r., such a supposition was advanced] by (Sir Robert Gordon in 1771 in order to disprove the hereditary transmission of the Karldom of Sutherland hut rejected by the House' of Lords." ["A" as in note 'b,"p. 218 (vol. i, p. 338.) ] Again, "of the multitudes of exist- ing charters of Earldoms, original and on a resignation, from the gtrtietl doit dovn to 1578 only five can be pointed out in which the dignity of Earl is directly mentioned, and in four out of these five there is an obvious reason for its specification. In lfi78 the practise began to vary and from that date down to ItiOO half the recorded charters of Earldoms (they were 10 in all) did and half did not specify toe dignity. Yet in every ease the grantee was recognised as Earl and the line of heirs in the charters enjoyed the dignity as well as the lands. Moreover ho unc professes to have seen in either record or charter chest a (latent or charter of the title of Earl earlier than [that of Wintou in] 16S0." See " D " (p. 11, note 2), as in note " b," p. 218.] " Before that time [i.e., the time of .lames VI. [S.] ], titles of honour and dignity were created by creeling binds into Earldoms and Lordships and probably by some other method that cannot now [1710] in matters so ancient be with any certainty dis- covered." Report of the Court of Session (of which the celebrated Ihincau Forbes was then President) relating to the Peerage of Scotland, 27 Feb. 1710, hi, p. 6, which Court also reports (ib.j "That they cannot discover, in hot records, any patent of honour creating a peerage curlier than the reign of James VI." ( a ) The instrument of infeftinent for Mar is missing, but that for Oarioch, which is preserved, is dated 24 duly 1565. ( h ) As to this supposed new creation, those who believe in it must also believe (1) that it was cr. with a different limitation to that of the t'urldom restored, at the same dale, which, having been inherited by the Krskine family from heirs general, was restored (with the lands appertaining thereto) to such heirs ; (2) that the patent or charter supposed to have effected such creation is not only non-registered and non- apparent (there being also not the slightest documentary evidence in proof of its existence) but is actually of a date some -10 years previous (see p. 231, note " e ), to any similar patents of Scotch Earldoms ; (3) that such supposed nets Earldom was ignored by its (supposed) grantee, who, on 6 July 1585 (some 3 weeks before its presumed creation) granted an obligation (evidently considering himself as restored to the old title) on the narration that the Queen had given bim the " Earldom of Mar and lands pertaining thereto" [Mar minutes, p. 61J J (1) that such new creation was unknown {only 40 years after its presumed birth), in 1 (306, at the elecreet of ranking," when the Earldom of Mar was ranked according to the charters of 1395 or 1404 therein produced, between the Earldom of Sutherland (for which the most ancient, date then produced was 1347) and (1459) the Earldom of Rothes ; (5) that some 100 years later its existence bad still remained undiscovered, the only Earldom of Mar that figures in 1707 on the Union Roll [S.], being one that ranks next immediately under the said Earldom of Sutherland ; (G) that the House of Lords shared such ignorance when in four successive Parliaments, 1707 — 1715, the bolder of Karldum of Mar was placed above all Scotch Earldoms save that of Sutherland ; (7) that the Act of Par)., 17 June 1824, has (to use Lord Redesdale's words as applied to the places assigued to the Earldom of Sutherlaudf and Mar at the decreet of ranking in lGOti) " OF COURSE, been t In neither case, however, teal such ruling wrong. The peerages were in 160(i ranked (only) according to the documents produced and approved. At a future period (1771) the Earldom of .Sutherland shewed grounds for an earlier date of creation (on fresh evidence produced) but that did not make it wrong to have already allowed it a precedence not exceeding such earlier date.
