Reports of claims preferred to the House of Lords in the cases of the Cassillis, Sutherland, Spynie, and Glencairn peerages

19
Ratification of this Charter likewise passed as usual
in the Parliament 1672.
But that these Charters and Ratifications thereof
can have no Effect to alter the legal Descent of the
Title of Honour and Dignity of Earl of Cassillis
from the Heir Male of the Family, will appear from
the following Considerations : —
1. It appears by the Procuratory of Resignation,
upon which the Charter 1642 proceeded, that the
Title of Honour and Dignity was not resigned by
the Earl of Cassillis in the Hands of the Crown,
and of consequence no new Limitation could be
made, or was intended, by this Grant.
2. It appears by the Signature or Warrant of the
Charter in the Records of Exchequer, that it was
not superscribed by the King, which was indisput-
ably necessary ; and accordingly the Charter was
only granted by the Lords of Exchequer, who had
no Power to receive Resignations, or make new
Grants of Titles of Honour.
3. The Charter 1671 proceeds upon the Procu-
ratory of Resignation contained in the Marriage
Settlement between John Earl of Cassillis (the
Son of the former Earl John, who obtained the
Charter 1642) and Lady Susan Hamilton. And
as there is no Warrant for resigning the Dignity,
nor is it once mentioned in the Marriage Settlement,
most certainly no Alteration could be made of the
Descent of the Title of Honour. For though Re-
signations of this kind are peculiar to Scotland, yet
no Instance ever occurred of a new Limitation made
of Honours without a special Resignation ; nor can
it, without Absurdity, be supposed that the King
Answers to the
2d Proposition,
on which the
Earl of March's
Claim is
founded.