Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 2.djvu/48

BUCCLEUCII. 47 [Walter Scott, master of Bucclouch, gt$ecl Lord Scott, b. 5 Nov. 1618, at DalketU Castle, (/. in childhood, v. p. before 6 liny 1050]. Earldom [&]") nr. I Barony [S.] IV. >1G51 Wemyss, and was bur. 1 anil attainted in 1685, rf. April 1693, buriio-Scntts) Lords Polwartb [S ] See ft Mary, mo jure Countess of Buccleucii, &c, fS.l, 1). gen.,(") being Isfcdn. and h. of line i. 31 Aug. 3637, at Dalkeith Castle. Served heir 6 Oct. 1653. On 9 Feb. 1659, being then about 11 years old, she was m., at Wemyss, to Walter Scott, of Highchester, of the house of Harden, afterwards, I Sep. 1660, fir. Earl ok TaHuas [S.] This marriage v;is the cause of considerable dispute. The Countess d. s.p. in her 13th year, 12 March 1661, at April at Dalkeith. Her husband, who was 6. 25 Dec. 1644, meestor'.fby Helen Hepbnrne) of the (Hep- 'aiuus," Earldom of [S.J cr. 1660. Barony [S.] V. Dukedom [S.] I. 1CG3. 1GG1 Earldom [S.]l J, Anne, suo jure Countess op Bucclel'cii, 2Y Sec. [S.1 only surv. sister and h.,(») b, 11 Feb. 1651 at Dun- dee, and served h. 17 Oct. 1661. On 20 April 1663, she was in. at the house of her stepfather (the Earl of Wemyss [S.]) in London, to James (Scott formerly Cuoros), DUKE OF MONMOUTH, EARL OF DONCASTER, co. York, and BARON SCOTT OF TINDALL, co. Northumberland, who had been thus cr, on the 11 Feby. previously under the name of " Sir James Scott," having already assumed that surname in anticipation of this marriage. He was b. 9 April 1649, being illegit. s. of Charles II. KG. 20 March 16G3. On the day of bis marriage (20 April 1663) he and his wife were er. LORD AND LADV SCOTT OF WHITCHESTER AND ESKDA.LE ; EARL AND COUNTESS OF DALKEITH, and DUKE AND DUCHESS OF BUC- CLEUCH [S.], with rem. to the heirs male of his body by bis said wife, failing which, rem. U) heirs male of his body, who might succeed to the Earldom of Bucclench [S.] The Duke's career, and his rebellion against his uncle James II are matters of history. He was attainted and executed for high treason on Tower Hill, London, in his 37th year, on 15 July !6S5, and bur. in the chapel there. See " Monmouth," Dukedom of, er, 1663. His dignities were of course forfeited, but the Scotch peerages enjoyed mw jure by his widow were not affected. The King granted to her her husband's real and personal estates in England, which else would have gone to the Crown. " She, after the attainder of her husband in 16S3, made conveyance of her estates and honours to their children naminatim, which the King authorised and confirmed (by a regrant upon the Duchess' resignation [16 April 1687], under the sign manual in 1687, [17 Nov.] on record), but these were also rehabilitated the (") It is difficult to account for the succession of the daughter* of the 2nd Earl to the Earldom. In Burke's Peerage it is stated that the creation of the Earldom (in 1619) was with rem. to "heirs ivhatsoercr." This however does not accord with the patent, as quoted in " Douglas " vol. ii, p. 678, where it is stated to be to " heirs male," the Writer adding, as a comment thereon, that these dignities appear to have been extended by a subsequent patent or charter to heirs female as the same were inherited by Ilia [the Grantee's] granddaughter." Mr. Fraser, in his sumptuous work, " The Scotts of Bucclench " throws but little light on the transaction, excepting so far as stating that the 2nd Earl executed an entail of his lands, in which it contained a resit/nation of his honours, into the hands of the Barons of the Exchequer. But unless a crown charter, with a ncio 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 no where else, the charter itself, or some notice of it, would surely have been deposited. The right of succession to this Earldom, since 1651, remains therefore unexplained, tho', possibly (considering the early recognition of the dignity so assumed) not inexplicable.