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

38
sumed presumption, that there must have^been a creation of her
husband. But why ? I lay out of the case the service 1514, and
infeftment 1515. The same observation occurs on that of her
brother's service to his father ; and in other instances, the service
of her own grandson ; in neither of which is the title of Earl given.
The amount of all the other proofs is, that Adam Gordon was
called Earl of Sutherland. He certainly took it according to the
notions which then prevailed, (rightfully or wrongfully,) by his
wife.
In both kingdoms, personal honour came in place of territorial.
They assimilated by degrees — one crept imperceptibly on the
other. Some peers of this House were made Earls of a county —
keeping the idea by analogy — but still as personal honours, the
territorial being worn out. In territorial dignities, the husband
took by the courtesy. At the coronation of Richard II., the
Duke of Lancaster claimed to act as tenant by the courtesy. In
the reign of Henry VI., the Earl of Salisbury claimed on the
death of the Countess of Salisbury without issue. It comes down
to the reign of Elizabeth, as appears from Collins. It was only
abolished in her reign, but it was as certainly held before as
law. There are many instances in Scotland of the tenants by
the courtesy before 1514. Adam Gordon could not be created
without a resignation — a resignation from whom? one of the coun-
sel put it from Alexander a bastard — till this came — how comes
he to have anything to say ? His right [to succeed] to John
— quite an imagination to set him up. The second counsel did
not care to meddle with him, but put it on John's resignation —
Impossible — there was then no King — there could be no resigna-
tion executed after the resignee's death. The tradition and sense
of the family that the dignity went to Elizabeth is very strong.
No argument or presumption can arise from the entries in Par-
liament. They were marked as they entered, but in 1606, there
issued a commission for ranking the nobility, and how does this
stand ? The Peerage of Sutherland, though not far enough back,
is ranked, as in respect of the old peerage ; taking place of ten
others, which, upon the supposition of a new creation, must have
preceded it. There could not be a new creation. In 1630, the
family enter a protestation, complaining that they were not car-