Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 2.djvu/336

 COLVILL. 335 the property of the Abbey into a hereditary Lordship, was granted to Sir James Colville, with rein, to heirs male, and with the title of Lord Culross In the first part of the document he is styled Sir James Colville, but after the clause regarding the title, James, Lord Culross. This charter, though not in the groat seal register, is recorded in an original Protocol Book in the Gen. Register House. A third charter, 20 Jan. 1609, proceeding on the resignation of John Colville, now Commendator of Culross, was granted, conveying once more the possessions of the Abbey and the title of Lord Colville of Culross, to his issue male, whom failing, to his heirs male whatso- ever. At the general ranking on the 5th of March 1606, the title of Lord Colville of C'idross appears, and the precedence given is that of the charter of 1604."(") The patent of 25 April 1604, cr. him LORD COLVILL OF CULROSS [S.], and that of 20 Jan. 1609, dat. at Royston, cr. him LORD CULROSS [S.], with rem. to his heirs male whatsoever, being the name and arms of Colvill.('') On 13 March 1614 he received a grant of some lands in Ireland. (•) He m. firstly, charter 22 Aug. 1570, Isabel, sister of William, 1st E.VUL ov GOWBIK [S.], da. ot Patrick (Ruthven), 1st Loud Hitthven [S.], by his 1st wife, formerly Janet Douglas, spinster. He m. secondly, Helen, widow of Robert Moubkay, of Barnbougle, formerly Helen Shaw, ■pinater. He was living in 1624, but d. about 1630. from a fall from the terrace at Tillicoultry. [Robert Colvill, Master of Colvill, 2nd s., was, in 1598, only s. and h. ap., at which date he had charter of the Baronies of Easter Wemyss and Tillicoultry. He d. v.p. in 1615.] II. 1630 ? 2. James (Colvill), Lord Colvill of Ctoross [_S.], grandson and h., being only s. and h. of Robert Colvill, Master of Colvill abovenamed. He had a charter of the lands of Tillicoultry, 5 Aug. 1630, and sat in Pari. [S.] in June 1633. In 1634 he sold Tillicoultry (and doubtless the Abbey lands of Culross therewith, being in the next parish), as also, about the same time, the lands and Castle of Easter Wemyss, leaving Scotland for Ireland, where he possessed lands, about 1610. Here he distinguished himself during Cromwell's expedition in 1G49, ami hail a grant of the lands of Bally McLaughlin, co. Kilkenny. He m. firstly Elizabeth, who d. in Edinburgh, and was bur. there 2S Oct. 1638. He m. secondly (— ), who was, apparently, the mother of his children. He m. lastly, shortly before his death. Margaret Clynton. He d. 1654, and was bur. in the vaults of Trinity Church, Dublin. Admon. 1 June 1656 to " the Hon. Lady Margaret Colvill," the relict. His (") See p. 334, note "c." ( h ) It is observed in Riddell " (p. 354, &c.) that " there is not a vestige of such a dignity [as Colvill of Culross] in the whole compass " of the charter of 1609, but " on the contrary, that of Culross is soldi/ earned j" yet, in spite thereof, the title adjudged to the claimant of 1723 was that of Colvill of Culross. This decision is apparently tantamount to recognising the existence of two distinct peerages in the grantee (one of 1604, and the other of 1609), of which the claimant of 1723 was allowed the latter, though with the designation of the former. The peerage of Colvill of Culross, with its proper precedency of 1604, was allowed to the lineal descendant of the grantee as late as 1633 (see " Riddell," p. 358), and a peerage of that designation was ordered in 1723, to be inserted in the Union Roll [S.], not, however, as a creation of 1604, when Colvill was created, but as one of 1609, being the date of the Barony of G'uiross. Mr. Riddell has the merit of calliug attention, not only to the laxity of treatment of this case (the first Scottish case that ever came before the House of Lords by a reference from the Crown), but also to the fact (which in Iris time was becoming almost forgotten) that the Court of Session was not deprived of its jurisdiction in Peerage claims by the Union ' Act. He (p. 354-359) is very severe on the incompetence shewn by^ the tribunal which, in 1723, judged "this strange and rather untractable case," and his remarks are certainly more than justified when it is considered that of the state- ments made by the petitioner, two are palpably false, i.e. (1) the date of the death of the second Lord, and (2) that (the most important statement to the petitioner's case), the said 2nd Lord died without male issue, while (3) the deduction of his own pedigree, from a brother of the first Lord, is unsupported by any evidence, and is open to grave doubts. See p. 336, note " e." ( c ) See 1 5th Report of the Irish Record Commission.