MARQUIS’S TITLE CHALLENGED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20644, 16 February 1929, Page 20

MARQUIS’S TITLE CHALLENGED

GORDON PEERAGE CLAIM. STORY OF THE TWO MARRIAGES. COUNSEL SPEAKS FOR ELEVEN HOURS. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, December 21. Mr J. R. N. Macphail, K. 0., spoke for 11 hours before he had completed his opening statement in the Gordon Peerage case. In this case before the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords the petitioner is Sir Bruce Gordon Seton, Bart., of Abereorn, who claims the title, honour and dignity of Lord Gordon in the peerage of Scotland. Counsel advanced argument that Sir Alexander Seton, who married the heiress of the Gordons, received about 1429. the personal title of Lord Gordon. His son married Egidia Hay, and had a son, Alexander Seton of Touch, from whom ~i r. Bruce Gordon Seton is descended. Egidia s marriage was annulled on the ground of consanguinity, but in 1912 a Papal Bull was discovered in the archives of the Vatican, which the claimant contends proves the validity of the marriage. He therefore ■ maintains that as the father of Alexander Seton of Touch was Lord Gordon he is their heir to that title.

The claim is opposed by the Marquis of Huntly, who does not admit that the ciigmty of Lord Gordon was possessed by the ancestors of Alexander Seton of Touch.

The destination of a peerage, said counsel, could be varied in Scotland by resignation. In Scotland there had. been resignations of big titles, and in some of these cases the smaller titles were not actually resigned. No proof existed that Alexander Seton, the father of Alexander Seton of Touch, by his wife Egidia, when securing that the dignity of Earl of Huntly should descend to the children of lus second marriage with Elizabetli Gr’chton, resigned the barony of Gordon and received a grant of it with a destination to the children of the second marriage. On the death in 1836 the fifth Duke of Gordon the Earl of Aboyiio succeeded in lus claim to the dignities of the Marquis of Huntly, Earl of Enzie, and Lord Gordon and Badenoch, created in !509 He did not claim the old dignity ot Lord Gordon, bo that Sir Bruce Gordon Seton was not seeking to deprive .anyone of this old dignity. THE PAPAL REGISTERS.

Counsel, continuing, said that research had been going on for many years in the Vatican Library by experts employed by the British Government. Extracts had been made from many documents bearing on the affairs of this country. A volume of the Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland, published In 1912, contained a tianslation of a Bull to the Bishop of Moray, which stated that Alexander Seton, the first Earl of Huntly, after having obtained a papal dispensation for his marriage with Egidia, denied that he obtained that dispensation, and secured the annulment of the marriage. Viscount Dunedin said that what the document amounted to was tb It the Pope had heard a story, but had no certain knowledge. He said find out whether as a matter of fact Egidia wap properly married, and, if So, see that Elizabeth is married again.

Counsel: The document mentions a formal statement by Alexander that he obtained the divorce by fraud. Lord Phillimore: This is a statement that Egidia, was legally divorced. There was a definite sentence by a court having jurisdiction.

Counsel asked that the curious marriage contract with Elizabeth Crichton should be kept in mind. He did not know why the conscience of Seton. who was first Earl of Huntly, should have troubled him with regard to _this one of his misdeeds more than the others. Viscount Dunedin: I don’t understand how he didn’t keep quiet altogether. Elizabeth may have said , “ Now there is all this trouble you do something to make an honest woman of mo.”—-(Laughter.) THE DEVIL OF THE PIECE

Counsel said that there was no proof that Elizabeth was remarried to the first Earl of Huntly. They should remember that behind all this scene was Chancellor Crichton, fathrl of Elizabeth, who was a man who left nothing to chance. Lord Askwith: He was the devil of the piece.

Mr W. G. Normand, K.C., who also addressed the committee on behalf of the claimant, said that it was stated that Alexander Seton of Touch was of low capacity, and that he was unfit to manage his own affairs.

The Earl of Donoughmore: Was he not appointed a sheriff? Counsel: I do not know whether that is inconsistent with the suggestion. In a legal document of 1502 Alexander Seton of Touch was admitted to be legitimate. In the setting of him aside there was evidence of fraud, perjury, gad bigamy. Viscount Dunedin. I do not see what the first Earl of Huntly had to gain by confession. There was, of course, his conscience or his wife, Which might be the, same thing. Professor J. A. Twemlow, of Liverpool University, who is engaged in the research at the Vatican, gave evidence regarding the Papal Bull.

Counsel stated that Dr Walter Seton, brother of the claimant, went to Rome and secured photographs and certified copies of the Bull. Dr Seton had, however, unfortunately died.

SIR BRUCE SETON’S EVIDENCE. Sir Bruce Seton, who was called as a witness, produced various documents and instruments in proof of the descent and other matters relating to the claim. He also produced burgess tickets granted to some of his ancestors and the marriage certificates of some members of the Seton family. Sir Bruce, giving evidence, said that he was 60 years of age and succeeded to ; the baronetcy in 1015. Prior to that date there was in the family some general knowledge of the peerage now in question, but there was the difficulty of proceeding with any claim because of the doubts of the legitimacy of Alexander de Seton (No. 3). In 1916 the Papal Bull was brought to his notice by his brother, Walter Seton, who is now dead.

“ When I read the document myself, 5 ' said Sir Bruce, “I at once thought: ‘ That clears up the case of Egidia Hay and the first marriage ’ Before- that I thought that there was an illegitimacy bar,” Sir Bruce added that he and his immediate forbears had thought it impossible to assert a claim to the peerage because of this tradition of illegitimacy.

Lord Phillimorc: May we take it that that tradition went hack to your grandfather?

Sir Bruce: Yes, and he himself said it went back to his grandfather.

NO LANDLESS PEERS. Mr A. J. Stevenson, opening the case for the Marquis of Huntly, argued that the claimant had not proved that the personal dignity of Lord Gordon existed at a time when it could descend to Sir Bruce Gordon Seton. Whatever irresponsible or uninformed writers had said, there was no evidence that the dignity of Lord Gordon existed before 1460. There was a Charter of James 11, of March, 1460, in favour of George, Second Earl of Huntly, by which he became Lord Gordon. Dominus- deGordon did not necessarily connote a peerage. James I intended to introduce his English ideas in Scotland, but there was unsurmountable opposition from the old Scottish Parliament.

“Lord of Parliament” meant nothing more than member of Parliament. Viscount Dunedin: At the time of James I were there no hereditary peers except earls? Counsel; No, and then the earls were territorial.

Viscount Dunedin: Was there no such thing as hereditary territorial barons? Counsel: No. It is quite clear that the lesser barons were Lords of Parliament as much as the greater barons. There were territorial barons before the time of James I. He did not know of any case of a man who was landless being summoned as a baron. Even an earl, if he parted with his laud, went back to the order of commoners.

. Lord Darling suggested that the word “ laird 55 might have the same origin as lord.

Counsel, continuing, said that in some cases where the ‘ de 55 in titles was left out it was suggested that it was done by mistake by English clerks who had come into Scotland at that time and wrote the titles in conformity to the English style. The committee adjourned until January 15.