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

40
within these two days, and doubted whether we should not allow
the counsel to speak to it. With all due deference to the author
of the case, I am now satisfied there is no foundation for his ter-
ritorial principle. It certainly does not now exist, and no man
living can say when it did. It clearly must have ceased before
1214, when lands come in commercio, and adjudication went
against them. When the comitatus did not carry the honour,
a charter ought to be held only a conveyance of the estate. I
am now satisfied no inconvenience can arise from the negative of
this hypothesis. It only supports the presumption of male suc-
cession. I thought it proper to mention this solution, but if
your Lordships are any ways doubtful, you would choose to hear
counsel upon it.
I would propose to your Lordships to come to an opinion. 1st,
The title, honour, and dignity of the Earldom of Sutherland, de-
scended to Elizabeth, the wife of Adam Gordon, upon the death
of her brother, John Earl of Sutherland, without issue, in 1514, as
heir of the body of William, who was Earl of Sutherland in 1275,
was assumed by the husband in her right — and from her de-
scended to the heirs-male, who were also heirs of her body, down
to the death of the last Earl of Sutherland in 1766, without any
objection on the part of the male line of the said William.
2d, That none of the charters produced affect the title, hon-
our, and dignity of the Earl of Sutherland, but operate as con-
veyances of the estate only.
3d, That the claimant, Elizabeth Sutherland, has a right to the
title, honour, and dignity of the Earldom of Sutherland, as heir
of the body of William, who was Earl Sutherland in 1275.