BUCCLEUCH 365 EARLDOM [S.] II. BARONY [S.] III. burgh and Selkirk. 2 and 3. Francis (Scott), Earl of Buc- CLEUCH, fsPc. [S.], only surv. s. and h., b. 21 Dec. 1633. 1626; ed. at St. Andrew's Univ. 1636-42. On 27 Feb. 1634 he was served h. to his father in vast estates in the counties of Berwick, Dum- fries, Edinburgh, Haddington, Lanark, Rox- He possessed the extensive domain of Liddesdale, and acquired the great Barony of Dalkeith from the family of Douglas of Morton, in 1642, <3'c. He was so conspicuously loyal to his King that in the "Act of Grace," 12 Apr. 1654, no less a fine than ;{^i 5,000 was imposed by Cromwell on his heirs. He ?«. (cont. at Edinburgh, 25 July 1646) Margaret, widow of Alexander Leslie, styled I^oko Balgonie (who d. soon after 1642), sister of John, Duke of Rothes [S.], and da. of John (Leslie), Earl of Rothes [S.], by Ann, da. of John (Ersrine), Earl of Mar [S.J. He d. s.p.m.s., at Dalkeith Castle, 25 Nov., and was bur. there 4 Dec. 1651, aged nearly 25. His widow w/., 13 Jan. 1652/3, at Sheriff hall, as 3rd wife, David (Wemyss), 2nd Earl of Wemyss [S.], who d. June 1679. She d. his widow, Feb. 1688. [Walter Scott, Master of Buccleuch, styled Lord Scott, b. 5 Nov. 1648, at Dalkeith Castle, d. young, v.p.^ before 6 May 1650.] EARLDOM [S.]' IIL BARONY [S.] IV. 1651. 3 and 4. Mary, suo jure Countess of Buc- cleuch, i^c. [S.], h. gen.,(^) being ist da. and h. of line, b. 31 Aug. 1647, at Dalkeith Castle. Served h. 6 Oct. 1653. On 9 Feb. 1659, being then about 1 1 years old, she «;., at Wemyss, Walter Scott, of Highchester, of the House of Harden, afterwards, 4 Sep. 1660, cr. Earl of (^) It is difficult to account for the succession of the daughters of the 2nd Earl to the Earldom. In Burke's Peerage it is stated that the creation of the Earldom (in 1 619) was with rem. to "heirs whatsoever." This, however, does not accord with the patent, as quoted in Douglas, vol. ii, p. 678, where it is stated to be "heirs male" the writer adding, as a comment thereon, that these dignities "appear to have been extended by a subsequent patent or charter to hcrs female as the same were inherited by his [the grantee's] granddaughter." Eraser, in his sumptuous work, The Scotts of Buccleuch, throws but Httle light on the transaction, except so far as stating that the 2nd Earl executed an entail of his lands, in which is contained a resignation of his honours into the hands of the Barons of the Exchequer. But unless a crown charter, with a new limitation, followed such resignation, the resignation could not of itself alter or extend the original limitation granted by the Crown in 1619. The fact of such a charter having ever existed is open to grave doubts; neither in the Register of the Great Seal, nor elsewhere, is there any trace of it, not even (apparently) in the Buccleuch charter chest, where, if nowhere else, the charter itself, or some notice of it, would surely have been deposited. The right of succes- sion to this Earldom since 1651 remains therefore unexplained, though, possibly (considering the early recognition of the dignity so assumed), not inexplicable.
