SPECTATOR'S LIBRARY.

History of the Earldoms of Strathern. Monteith, and Airth ; with a Report of the Proceedings before the House of Lords on the claim of Robert Barclay Allardice, Esq., to the Earldom of Airth. By Sir Harris Nicolas, G.C.M.G. Pickering. STATISTICS,

- Greece as a Kingdom ; or a Statistical Description of that country, from the arrival of King Otho. in 1833, down to the present time. Drawn up from official docu- ments and other authentic sources. By Frederick Strong, Esq., Consul at Athens for their Majesties the Kings of Bavaria and Hanover Longman and Co. POETRY, Luther ; a Poem. By Robert Montgomery, M.A.. Author of " The Omnipresence of the Deity." &e Hamilton and Adams.

SIR HARRIS NICOLAS'S HISTORY OF THE EARLDOMS OF STRATHERN, MONTEITH, AND AIRTH.

THOUGH partaking of the dryness inseparable from family history and genealogical exposition, this volume is both curious and inter- esting. It throws a strong light upon some singular portions of Scottish history, and the character of Scottish courtiers and lawyers under the STuAirrs ; it exhibits some curious instances of the mu- tability of fortune, and the straits to which noble families might anciently be reduced, without the means of repairing their for- tunes, or the disposition to adapt their mind to their condition ; and it gives a practical insight into Peerage law and the importance of heraldic and genealogical inquiries, in the most attractive if not the most systematic mode in which such knowledge could be ac- quired—an outline of the working of an actual case, prefaced by a general history of the subject, and illustrated by copious annota- tions, as well as by a variety of family, legal, and antiquarian documents.

The circumstance that gave rise to the History of the _Earldoms of Strathern, Monteith, and Airth, was the claim of Mr. BARCLAY ALLAnnicz to the Scotch title of Earl of Airth ; which he was subsequently advised to extend to the two other dignities, for the purpose of bringing the points of the whole case more fully before the House of Peers. The question, so far as regards the Earldom of Airth, turns solely upon the interpretation to be put upon the word keredes in the original charter creating the Earldom : does it mean heirs-male, or heirs of line—that is, who trace their descent through females ? The doubt, or at least the question, in this case arises from the very peculiar circumstances connected with the Earldoms of Strathern and Monteith, and their probable influence upon that of Airth. The royal branch of the STUART race was really and in truth illegitimate. ROBERT the Second, the first King of that line, who succeeded his uncle DAVID the Second in 1371, had formed in early life a connexion with ELIZABETH daughter of Sir ADAM Muni, by whom he had three sons ; the eldest of which ascended the throne by the title of ROBERT the Third, having been legitimized by the subsequent marriage of his parents. Till the middle of the last century, when the Pope's dispensation was discovered in the WO. Vatican, it was generally believed that this marriage did not take lihmertilLaf ter the death of King ROBERT'S second wife ; so that many conceWed hia second family had a better claim to the crown than those who had obtained possession of it. This feeling gave rise to great jealousy and heartburnings on the part of the occu- pants of the throne, and to ambitious aspirings on the part of the Junior but undoubtedly more legitimate branch of the royal race ; very probably originating the murder of JAMES the First, and the cruel executions that followed it. These circumstances must be borne in mind, the better to account for the ill fortune that pursued the titles of Strathern and Monteith.

Immediately on his accession to' the throne, King ROBERT

t created Dawn his eldest son born in wedlock, iarl of Strathern. The charter of this creation is not extant, but the recital of a sub- sequent charter states the title to have been granted to his heirs; and as a proof of the fact, his daughter succeeded him in the Earl- dom, and her husband, Sir PATRICK GRAHAM, bore the title of Earl Strathern in right of his wife. Their only son, MALISE, succeeded to the Earldom and its immense possessions. But JAMES the First, straitened for means and pursuing his plan of reducing the power of the nobles, seized upon the Earldom of Strathern, alleging that it was a male fief, and had therefore reverted to the Crown. This seizure, which eventually led to the Monarch's mur- der, was perpetrated whilst the then Earl of Strathern was a minor and a hostage in England : but, as a sort of compensation for his loss, King JAMES created him Earl of Monteith, and erected some lands into a territorial Earldom for him. The charter granting the personal dignity of Earl is not extant ; the one creating the territorial Earldom limits the lands to the heirs-male.

The title of Monteith was borne uninterruptedly for seven gene- rations (1427-1610); when WILLIAM GRAHAM, seventh Earl, and a favourite of CHARLES the First, was rash enough to submit his charters and other muniments to the Lord-Advocate, Sir Minus Hoes, in order to lay claim to the title of Earl of Strathern, and, on a hint from the law-officer, to such lands as were not in posses- sion of the Crown but had been granted to subjects. To this King CHARLES consented ; and, after various formal legal proceed- ings, WiLLIAM GRAHAM resigned to the Crown the territorial Earldom, " without prejudice" to the personal dignity, but pro- cured from the Sovereign a patent granting to him and his heirs- male the title of Earl of Strathern, with precedency dating from its original creation in 1371.

So far all was smooth : but this family ambition led at first to the loss or merging of' these cherished ancestral dignities in the

new title of Airth, and the eventual downfal of the proud noble, with the ruin of his race.

" The admission of the Earl of Monteith," says Sir HARRIS NICOLAS, " to the ancient Earldom of Strathern, mused the jealousy of the Peers over wi-oin he had thereby obtained precedence ; and the fears of numerous per? were excited lest his claim to the territorial Earldom should affect their right to their estates. A powerful confederacy was formed against him; and his own ambition and imprudence having afforded ample materials for the designs of his enemies, his fall was even more rapid than his elevation.

" A statement was prepared and circulated by the Earls of Seaforth and Tullibardin, Sir John Scot of Seotatarvet, Director of the Chancery, and others, in which it was asserted that the admission of the Earl of Monteith to the Earldom of Strathern, as heir of Prince David, would be ' dangerous and prejudicial to his Majesty, to the public peace, and to the state of the country on the ground that as the children of King Robert the Second by Elizabeth Muir were born before marriage, the recognition of the Earl of Monteith as heir of Prince David, the eldest son of King Robert's marriage with Eupbemia Ross, would give him a better right to the crown of Scotland than the King himself.' Six ' Reasons ' were assigned to show the expediency of forbidding the Earl of Monteith to pursue his claim to the Earldom of Strathern-

" let. That it was not judicious for his Majesty to promote the succession of the descendants of Euphemia Roes to such an estate and power in the country, as might, in csse of a commotion, give them occasion to think upon the kingdom.'

" 2d. That it would be an imputation upon his Majesty's honour to restore that Earldom to the successors of Malin Graham, from whom it was taken by King James the First, ' a virtuous and just Prince ' ; because such restoration would be to asperse that Monarch with • injury, oppression, and avarice,' and be a justification of his murder by Sir Robert Graham, for having wrongfully usurped the Earldom.

" 3d. That as the Earldom had been annexed to the Crown by Parliament, it would be inexpedient to repeal that proceeding.

" 4th. That as the Earldom had been set in few' by Parliament to various tenants in the year 1508, many honest gentlemen' would be ruined and di- vested of their estates if it were to be again separated from the Crown. " 5th. That if the Earl of Monteith were to recover the Earldom, it would produce great diminution of his Majesty's 'rent and obedience '; because much land and many persons would be subjected to the Earl, as they would then hold of him; among others, the Earls of Montrose, Perth, Tullibardin, the Viscount of Doplin, Lord Maderty, &c.

" fah. That King James the Sixth always refused to grant the title, and still more the territorial Earldom of Strathern, to any subject ; saying to those who sought it, that ' he had no more for the blood and slaughter of King James the First.'"

When these views were privately submitted to the King, CHARLES displayed a feeling of anger towards their originators, mixed with a jealous perception of the force of the arguments; and, though half- threatening the two agents of the cabal, he yet directed them to institute further inquiries, and take opinions on the case. The questions submitted were drawn and answered by enemies to the Earl of Monteith ; and they are printed at large in the Appendix to the volume before us : but, as Sir HARRIS NICOLAS has pre- served their essential points, and brings out their force and bearing by his intermingled commentary, we will quote his narrative in preference to the original.

" Six Propositions concerning the Earldom of Strathern' were accordingly drawn up and submitted to Sir James Skene, Sir Archibald Aicheson, and Sir John Scot. Their opinions were, of course, condemnatory of the pretensions of the Earl of Monteith to the territorial Earldom of Strathern, as well as of his conduct in asserting himself to be heir in blood of Prince David. " These learned persons, in answer to the Propositions, reported that the general service of the Earl of Strathern gave no right to that Earldom, be- cause it was annexed to the Crown by King James the Second ; and that, as i

the Earl had no right to it, his renunciation in favour of the King was of no effect, but, on the contrary, weakened his Majesty's right by accepting a right from him, and acknowledging a necessity of renunciation when there was no need ' ; that his Majesty, by granting the Lordship of Urchat to the Earl, had wronged himself, under the idea that it was part of that Earldom, by giving away that which was his own, and would also wrong those who held under the Crown ; that the Earl could not be retoured and infeft in that Earldom as nearest heir of David Earl of Strathern, conformably to the clause in the re- nunciation, because it was annexed to the Crown.

" To the fourth of those Propositions, (which, like the fifth and sixth, was obviously put with the view of alarming the King's jealousy and exciting his displeasure,) ' Is it not boldness that the said Earl should have served himself heir of blood to David Earl of Strathern, eldest lawful son of the first mar- riage to King Robert the Second, whereby he is put in degree of blood equal to his Majesty ? ' they replied, ' In our judgment the boldness seems too great.'

" The inference thus sought to be raised was artfully supported by the next Proposition. ' It is craved if the Earl of Strathern may serve himself heir to King Robert the Second, seeing he is already served heir to David Earl of Strathern, eldest son of King Robert the Second?' which was, in other words, almost demanding whether, if the Earl were admitted heir to Earl David, he would not also be heir to the Crown of Scotland? To this question they dis- creetly answered, ' If the case were among subjects, we see nothing to the contrary.'

" The last Proposition was dexterously framed with the view of showing the King the presumption of the Earl of Monteith, and the effect of his proceed- ings on his Majesty's interests. It is craved whether the King is prejudiced in honour and state by acknowledging the said Earl to be undoubted heir to David Earl of Strathern, and consequently to be in degree of blood equal to his Majesty ?' to which it was no less astutely answered, That, apparently, if his Majesty had known the consequence of it, for reason of state he would never have done it ; and it seems to us his Majesty's honour to be interested in acknowledging any subject to be equal in blood to himself.' " It is impossible to attach due weight to those Propositions and to the answers to them, without bearing in mind that the status of King Robert the Second's children by Elizabeth Muir was then a matter of extreme delicacy . The learned triumvirate, by asserting that King Robert's marriage with Eu- phemia Ross was his first marriage, showed their disbelief of his previous mar- riage with Elizabeth Muir, and thus threw great doubt on the right by birth of his Majesty's ancestor King Robert the Third to the throne. " The expression equal in blood' seems to have been used in an equivocal sense ; and its true meaning would rather appear to be 'superior in blood,' be- cause all the descendants (who were then very numerous) of any child of King Robert the Second, or of the child of any subsequent King of Scotland, were equal in blood' to King Charles the Fiist, though no jealousy was felt re- specting their descent from the blood royal." When these documents were transmitted to London, Sir JoaN SCOTT started after them, personally to enforce their arguments, carrying history with him to second law. 1. On Scot's arrival at Hampton Court, about the 27th December 1632, he had a long conference with hie Majesty, and showed him a remarkable paper which he had caused his brother-in-law, the celebrated William Drummond of Hawthornden, to draw up, deducing from the history of England, Scotland, and Portugal, various precedents in support of the opinions which be, Skene, and Aicbeson, hadgiven, respecting the danger of admitting the Earl of Mon- teith to be heir of David Earl of Strathern. The King instantly commanded this paper to be read in his presence. After adverting to the effect of the restoration in blood by King Henry the Sixth of Richard Duke of York, (who afterwards laid claim to the crown,) and to his descent from King Edward the Third, and allowing his descent and title, the paper observed, that ' the like may he alleged in the title of the Earl of Strathern.' It then boldly asserted, that ' the children of the first marriage by common law are to be preferred in succession to the children of the second; for the marrying of Elizabeth Muir did but legitimate and make her children succeed after the children of the first marriage ; and it was added, ' that as for the authority of Parliament, if the authority of Parliament may confer and entail a crown from the lawful heirs thereof to the next apparent heirs, or if any oath given unto a King by man's law should be performed, when as it tended to the suppression of truth and right, which stands by the law of God, then if one Parliament hath power to entail a crown, whether may not an- other Parliament upon the like considerations restore the same to the righteous heirs ? '

" Not satisfied with so audacious an intimation that the King's right to the throne of Scotland might be disputed, Drummond seems even to have sug- gested that Monteith should be removed by violent means; for his paper pro- ceeded to suggest, that it was a point for consideration whether, if Queen Mary of England, who cut off the head of Lady Jane Grey, and Queen Eliza- beth, who did the same to Queen Mary of Scotland, her next kinswoman, were living, [they] would have suffered [any one] to enjoy the opinion of being nearer to the claim of their crowns than themselves.'

" In the following passage, it was more than insinuated that the Earl of Monteith had served himself heir to the crown, through the oversight or negligence of the King; that he had thereby been guilty of high treason ; and that he and his whole race ought to he extirpated. " It is to be considered also, if a subject serving himself heir to a crown, by the oversight of the Prince and negligence, indirectly and in crafty-co- loured terms, notwithstanding of whatsoever protestations of his advocate in the contrary, may be accused of high treason, and whether a Prince may justly keep under the race of such whose aspiring thoughts dare soar so nigh a crown, as they have been kept these two hundred years bygone, for reason of state, unless the Prince exalt them to give them a more deadly blow and extirpate them and their whole race, suborning mercenary flatterers to make them aim above their reach " dam neseinnt distinguere inter summa et priecipiciaprinceps qui persequitnr honorat, extollit natu ut lapsu graviore ruat." '"

Besides his ill-omened claims, the Earl of Monteith had been imprudently guilty of " insolent speeches " ; having boasted that " he had the reddest blood in Scotland," and that the " King was obliged to him for his crown," &c. But the whole course of the courtly intrigue on both sides must be read in Sir HARRIS'S His- tory of the Earldoms. The final upshot was the dismissal of the aspiring Earl from all his offices ; the immediate result was the re- sumption of the Earldom of Strathern by the Crown, the supposed destruction of every document relating to the grants of Strathern and Monteith, (which accounts for the absence of the charters creating these personal dignities,) and the compelling the Earl of Monteith to merge that old and famous title in the new one of Airth. The patent granting this dignity has various peculiarities, some of a technical kind, others more generally intelligible. It recites that the Earldom of Monteith was granted to MALISE GRAHAM " and his heirs," whereas the territorial Earldom was to heirs-male; it also recited the " retour " of WILLIAM Earl of Monteith as the " heir of line and succession " of the original Earl, instead of heir-male, which he was; and it afterwards pro- ceeds in these words- " We of our certain knowledge and proper motion have made and consti- tuted, and by the tenor of these presents do make and constitute, the aforesaid William Earl of Monteith and his heirs Earls of Airth, and to the same Earl- dom have united and annexed, and by the tenor of these presents do unite and annex, the said Earldom of Monteith, with all liberties, privileges, and immu- nities to a free Earldom pertaining; and specially with place, priority, and precedency due to the said Earl and his predecessors, as Earls of Monteith, m whatsoever parliaments, conventions, public assemblies, and otherwise how- soever, before the Earls whomsoever made, erected, or created since the said sixth day of the month of September in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred twenty-eight, which is the date of the said charter of the aforenamed Earldom of Monteith, granted as said is by the said late James the First, our most illustrious predecessor, of happy memory, to the aforesaid late DIalise Earl of Monteith and his heirs."

And here is the question before the House of Lords—Does the " heirs " in the patent mean heirs, or heirs-male ?

The date of this instrument is the 21st January 1633 ; and from that period the fate of their race dogged the legitimate line of the STUARTS. Dispossessed of his offices, threatened with imprison- ment, and driven to obscurity, the once potent favourite lived till 1670-1, or rather died before that date, leaving his affairs so much embarrassed that his heir " dared not take up his succession." That heir was his grandson ; his son, Lord KILPONT, having been murdered many years before, in the camp of Montrose, by JAMES STUART of Ardvoirlicb,—a fact which Scores hero Monteith in the Legend of Montrose has rendered familiar to the world in a disguised form, the title of the father being given to the son, and the wound in the fiction being severe but not mortal. The second Earl of Airth, notwithstanding some grants of lands from CHARLES the Second, became so involved, that in 1680 he proposed resign- ing his territories and titles after his death to the Marquis of Mon- trose, the chief of the house of GRAHAM ; and the Crown consented to the alienation of the lands, but not of the dignities. This noble- man died in 1694, without legitimate issue; and his sisters became his heirs. From this time, the titles, with one exception to be alluded to presently, became in abeyance,—chiefly, it would appear, from the pecuniary embarrassments of the family, and from the representatives being mostly females. Into the genealogical his- tory of this unfortunate race we are not going to enter ; but the fortune of the last male is too singular to be passed over, furnishing

as it does so singular a coincidence with the condition of the regal branch.

THE LAST MALE OF THE LEGITIMATE STUARTS.

James Graham was born in September 1705, and was living in 1708; but died, without issue, before May 1740, leaving William Graham, his brother and heir. He styled himself Earl of Monteith as early as the year 1744, on the presumption that his great.grandmother, Lady Elizabeth Graham, was the eldest sister of William Earl of 5lonteith and Airth, and that the Earldom of Monteith stood destined to heirs-general. He voted as " Earl of Monteith" at the election of Peers of Scotland in October 1744, August 1747, March 1749, July 1752, November 1752, and on the 5th May 1761. His assumption of the dignity was however, prohibited by an order of the House of Lords of the 2d March 1762, he having failed to ap- pear before the Lords' Committees for Privileges on the 1st of that month, pursuant to an order of the House made on the 27th January preceding, to show by what authority and upon what grounds he took upon himself that title.

Although be was reduced to great distress, he never relinquished the title of Earl of Monteith, and died, without issue, on the 30th June 1783.

The fate of this person exhibits in a striking manner the vicissitudes of for- tune. Though undoubtedly one of the heirs of the body of a Prince of the Blood Royal of Scotland, and the immediate descendant of a powerful Peer, whose claim to the honours of that Prince, in the year 1631, was considered' dangerous to the rights of the reigning family, he lived in his latter years upon charity, and died a wanderer by the way-side.

In the case which has given rise to this singular historical and genealogical investigation—the claim of Mr. BARCLAY ALLAS- DICE to any or all of these titles—one great point, his pedigree, is not disputed. It seems to be allowed that he is the heir of line (through female descents) of the Earls of Strathern, Monteith, and Airth; and in fact their only representative, the other female branches, whether elder or not, (if lie is not elder,) being extinct. With respect to the dignities, if we may offer an opinion on such a point, it seems to us that he can have no tenable claim to the Earldom of Strathern. In the absence of the document creating the title, no mere collateral evidence, (as a recital,) or fact, (as the succession of Earl DAVID'S daughter,) both of which might be erro- neous, can bar a seizure by the Crown confirmed by Act of Parlia- ment, especially after the lapse of nearly five hundred years. The seizure of the title and estates by JAMES the First might be a deed of tyranny and fraud ; the confirmation of the deed by Parliament might be a subservient colouring of wrong ; the alleged destruction of the charters by CHARLES the First, and the legal proceedings connected with them, might be of a similar character : but there they stand, recorded facts, with nothing to oppose to them but con- jectural inferences. The claim to the title of Monteith is of a similar kind. It is undoubtedly possible that the personal dignity was given to heirs-general ; but, the charter not being extant, the only approach to evidence is the recital of the patent creating the Earldom of Airth, which recital might be false from intention or mistake, and can never outweigh the positive limitation of the territorial Earldom to heirs-male. In like manner, not travelling out of the record, nor calling in fancy or conjecture to interpret the words of a deed which contain within themselves a meaning of their own, we think the general term " heirs," in the patent creating the title of Airth, would convey it to heirs of line,—always sup- posing that " heirs " in documents of this nature means descend.. ants from females as well as males ; a point which might perhaps have been advantageously argued more fully and clearly before the Lords, than some of those collateral and at best inferior arguments that were dwelt upon ; for we fully agree with a note of Sir HARRIS NICOLAS upon the speech of the Lord-Advocate, that we need not go beyond the four corners of the deed to get at its meaning.

", Inconsistency' would be more easily, as well as more satisfactorily avoided, by construing this patent by the usual rules of construction, viz. by what is contained within its four corners. It states, that the charter of the 6th Sep- tetnher 1428 was to the heirs of Earl Molise, and that the grantee was the heir of line of that person ; and it then grants the new Earldom to the heirs of the said grantee. All its terms are, therefore, strictly accordant with the design of the Crown and with each other ; and it is not until another charter is culled in that any inconsistency arises. It cannot be necessary to observe, that the right to use the charter of the lands of Craynis entirely depends upon its being undoubtedly the charter referred to in the patent; but of that fact there is no

proof."