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

27
that he imposed upon John, whom he had entirely
under his management, and that he drove Alex-
ander out of the field. — He says farther, that the
Duke of Albany, who was then Regent of Scotland,
was induced, from the great power and influence of
his brother the Earl of Huntly, to bestow upon
Adam the title of Earl of Sutherland, descendible
to his heirs-male.
There is a short answer to all this. It is clear
that Adam Gordon imposed upon nobody. Most
certainly he did not take the estate of Sutherland,
for it remained with his wife. And, as to the dig-
nity, what did he do with respect to the male branch
of the family then existing, and who by this doctrine
had a right to the dignity ? Nothing. It is admitted
he did nothing. The whole circumstances he has
stated have been invented to give a colour to his
claim.
If Adam Gordon had been ambitious, would he
not have first secured the estate ? This was cer-
tainly an object worth his attention. But there is
not a colour of evidence of any kind to support this
claim.
Sir Robert has farther introduced a resignation
by John and Alexander, without expressly saying
from which of them it proceeded. Then a question
arose, whether a Regent had, by the law of Scot-
land, any power to confer dignities ?
I am of opinion, that a Regent could not, by the
law of Scotland, have done it. There is no evidence
of any creation by a Regent in the long time of
minorities which happened in that kingdom.
The Lord Advocate seemed to admit, that the dig-