Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 2.djvu/337

COLVILL. willow m. John Airnu'n, both being living 1,1 Feb. 1663.(") She »i. (for the 3rd time) Nicholas HOOFBK. She d. 1686, and was bur. at St. Ibereus' Church. Wexford. Will dat. 11 Aug. 1686, leaving all to her only child, Margaret, wife of Cadwallader Edwahdes. III. 1654. 3. William (Colvill), Loud Colvill of Culuoss [S.], s. and h., who' in 1655, rec. lauds of Bally McLauglin "as son and hcir( b ) of James, Lord Colville, then deed., in satisfaction of arrears due to the said Jauies for service in the field in 1849."(") He num. 1656, leaving, by will dat. 1656, his property "to his sole br. ami h., John." IV. 1656. 4- John (Colvill), Loud Colvill of Culross [S.], br. and h., au " infant " at that date under the guardianship of his sister, Marjory, wife of Isaac DonsuN, as, also, in Feb. 1663. He is mentioned in 1667 and 167s. as owner of property in Ireland. (°) He d. probably about 1678, anil, not impro- bably, without issue, there being no further mention of him. [ V. 1GS0 P] 5. Alexander Colvill, of Kincardine, de Jure(' 1 ) Loud Colvill of Culkoss [S.], being 1st s. and h. of the Rev. John Colvill, D.D., also of Kincardine (by Mary, da. of Sir John Pheston, of Valley-field), which John (6. about 1640, at Sedan, in France, and rf. about 1677-78), was s. and h. of the Rev. Alexander Colvill, DJD. (b. 1610, and d, 1676), who was s. and h. of John C, Laird of Cumrie (6. 1573, d. 1615-1650), who was s. and h. of Alexander C, the Com- mendator of Culross, said to be a yr. br. of the 1st Loud Colvill ok Ci'Llioss.( e ) He was b. 1666. Hem. Mary, da. of Sir Charles Kiiskine, Bart [S.], of Cambo, Lyon King of Anm. He d. 1721. _VI. 1721.'] 6. John Colvill, of Kincardine, d» jure^) Loud Colvill of Culross [S.], s. and h., b. 1690. He was an Ensigu at the VI. 1723. battle of Malplaquet in 1709. On 2 April 1722 he was served heir tn John, 2nd Lord Colville of Culross, and, on the 21st, requested to vote at the gen. election of Scotch Peers, but was refused on the ground of the peerage not being on the roll at the Union In 1723 he presented a petition, in which he stated " that James, 2nd Lord Colvill of Culross, died about 50 years ago " | i.e. about 1673, instead of, as mils the /net, in 1654] " leaving no male issue behind him " [whereas he, in fact, left at least two sons, one living 24 years after him], "and that tkui ['.'.] the heirs male of the body of the first Lord failing," the dignity " descended to the heirs ( a ) Records of the Court of Chancery at Dublin. ( b ) His recognition, during the lifetime of his father's widow, almost precludes the idea (which has been suggested) of his having been a bastard. ( c ) Irish Record Commission. () According to the statements (so far as they have not been subsequently dis- proved) in the petition of 1723, whereon the House of Lords decided that the then petitioner was entitled to the peerage of Lord Colvill of Culross. (°) In 'the ancestry of Lord Colville " (see, ante, p. 334, note " c "), the following note is given — " In the narrative of the life of Alexander Colville, Commendator of Culross, the accounts given in the older peerages have been adhered to, between which, however, and other documents consulted on the subject, unijucstionable discrepancies have been found to exist " Such, indeed, is, most truly, the case, and there appears little else but the unsupported, and by no means disinterested, statement of the claimant of 1723 to support such pedigree. The late Mr. Alexander Sinclair is said to have had proof that Alexander the Commendator was an uncle, not brotlier, of the first Lord. This is the more probable, as in 1566, when Alexander received the Abbey lands (of which, in 1569, he appointed Robert Colvill, of Cleish, heritable bailie), he would, if a yr. br. of the 1st Lord, have been ajred at the outside but 14, and there would be no apparent reason for preferring him to his elder br., whose preferment came much later on. The gross misstatements in the allegation of the petitioner of 1723 are alluded to, ante, p. 335, note " b." It is to be regretted that the author of " the ancestry " doos not indicate what the " otlicr documents" say as to these "unquestionable discrepancies" from the statements in the peerage.