Paper on the Mar peerage

to the peerage earldom. The Earl of Douglas's wife survived
him and her son, but her second husband was Lord of Mar
only. After her death Isabella, the next heir female, was for
twelve years Lady of Mar only, and her husband Lord of Mar
and not Earl, though brother-in-law to the King. The
evidence derived from the assumption of the title by her
second husband, Alexander Stewart, a lawless man in a lawless
time, under the government of his infamous uncle the regent,
cannot bo held of the same value as that which took place
during her first marriage. All her recorded deeds relate to
the territorial comitatus only. Alexander dealt with the latter
illegally after her death, and his last settlement of it contained
u bribe to the crown which probably obtained for him a grant
of peerage with remainder to his natural son who was to suc-
ceed him in the comitatus. It has been stated as a probable
reason why neither Swynton nor Drummond became Earls of
Mar in right of their wives' peerages that they had no issue by
them. If there is any force in this objection it is equally good
against the assumption of the title by Alexander being in right
of his wife's peerage, and would add to the probability of his
having been created Earl of Mar as suggested in 1426. After
the Erskines became heirs general, one only is recorded to
have ever called himself Earl of Mar, and none of them for
130 years attempted to claim the peerage. This fact, and the
fact of the crown during that long period having treated it as
extinct by new creations, are fatal blows to the claim. The
interval of more than a month after the public acknowledg-
ment by the crown of Lord Erskine as heir to Isabella (which
gave him the ancient earldom if it was held to descend to
heirs female) before he became earl at the time of the queen's
marriage is the final and conclusive blow to it. No other
earldom but that could be in Isabella, and the earl did not
presume to contend for it in the decreet of ranking, but set
up a fancy title commencing with her. It was too well known
in 1606 that the old peerage was held to be extinct in 1565 for
him to attempt to get it.
The only point remaining to be considered is what shall be
held to be the remainder under Queen Mary's creation. The
presumption is in favour of heirs male. What is there in the
evidence before us to contradict that presumption ? The only
points urged are the charter restoring the comitatus to heirs
general, and the fact of the person to whom the earldom was
restored after the attainder being called in the Act the
" grandson and lineal representative " of the attainted earl, he