Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 7.djvu/209

 SPYNIE. 207 Jean, widow o{ Archibald (Douglas), Earl of Amgus [S.] {d. t>?,$), and before that of Robert Dooglas, the younger, of Lochleven, da. of John (Lyon), 8th Loud Gla.mis [S-], by Elizabeth, da. of Alexander (Abkrnethy), Lord Saltoun [S.] He was inadvertently slain in a fray(*) at Edinburgh, in July 1607, arising out of a strife between him and the Earl of Crawford [S.] Will confirmed at Edin- burgh, 7 Aug. 1607, his widow being then living. She d. before 23 Feb. 1611.( h ) II. 1607. 2. Alexander (Lindsay), Lord Spynie [S.], 1st s. and h, who sue. to the parage [S.]. July lb'07, being then a minor ; served heir, 3 March 1621. Episcopacy having been restored in Scotland, he surrendered great part of his lands, receiving others in exchange, which, with his own lands of Ballysak, were, 26 July 1621, ( c ) entailed on him and his heirs male, the Barony of Spyuie being confirmed to him according to the charter of 1590. He was P.C. [S.] and was appointed, 2 April 1626, and 28 June 1633, Commander in Chief for Scotland. He, also, fought with distinction in the service of Oustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden. He is said (but it is somewhat doubtful) to have IB. firstly Joanna Douglas liefore 1607, she being then living, but dying apparently s.p. He m. (undoubtedly) Margaret, only da. of George (Hay), 1st Haul of Kinnoull [S.], by Margaret, da. of Sir James Haltburton. lie d. .March 1646. III. 10 10, J. George (Lindsay), Lord Spynie |"S.], 2 J but 1st to surv. s. and h ,('■) by Margaret, his wife ; awe. to the peerage TS.], 1672. March 1648; was a zealous Loyalist, opposing the surrender of Charles I. to the pari, of England in Jan. 1647, being Col. of the Stirling and Clackmannan horse for his rescue in 1648, and ruining his estates in the royal cause. He was taken prisoner at the battle of Worcester and sent to the Tower of London, and was excepted out of Cromwell's "act of mercy," 1654. On the death (probably in 1652) of Ludovic, 16th Earl of Crawford [S.]. he became the head of his house and would but for the spec. rem. of that dignity, have been entitled to that Earldom, as great-grandson and only remaining 'male issue of David, the 10th Earl, who d. in 1574;°); he was S Nov. 1606, served heir male of David, the 11th E ol, '• lilii patris avi," who d. 1607. He sat in the Pari. [S.] of 1669, but t(. s.p. (probably unm.) 167G,( since which date(S) the tiLle has never been assumed tho' it was claimed by, but not allowed to, the heir of line in 1 785. ( h ) ( a ) Sir David Lindsay, of Edzell, who is usually said to have slain him, denied on oath that he was actually concerned therewith. ( b ) Date of Koyal confirm, of a charter to Lord Spynie, wherein she is called " late." ( c ) This is the deed on which the decision of 1785, as to the peerage being one in tail male, is mainly grounded, but it is well observed in " Hewlett " that " there was no resignation of the peerage or dignity of Lord Spynie made before the charter of 1621 was granted, nor at any subsequent time, and, iu consequence, the charter of 1621, even if it could be held to create a new dignity, could not affect the peerage which had been held by Lord Spynie's father, and to which Lord Spyuie had succeeded." (^) His elder br.. Alexander Lindsay, Master of Spynie, m. Magdalen, 2d da. of John (Carnegie), 1st Earl of Nurthesk [S.], but d. s.p. aud v.p. His widow m. John Lindsay of Edzell. (°) See tabular pedigree in vol ii. p. 110. note "d," sub " Crawford." ( f ) His ecclesiastical patronage was resumed by the Crown (aud granted to the Earl of Airlie [S.] ) on bis death for want of male heirs. This faet may have an important bearing as to whether the peerage (also) was not (or at all events whether it was not then considered so to he by the Crown) one to heirs male also. [fx. inform. W. A. Lindsay, Windsor Herald.] ( B ) It was, however, retained on the Union Roll. See vol. vi, p. 458, note " b," >ub " liuthven," for similar cases of such retention. The Lords of Session in their return of 1740 observed on this dignity " that the patent of creation has not been found in the records, nor has any person sat in Pari, under that title since 1669, neither has any person claimed a vote in virtue thereof at any election since the Union, hut whether the peerage is extinct they cannot say." The claimant, the undoubted ke.ir oj line to the dignity, was Lieut. Co).