The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-30 00:00:00

THE LOVAT PEERAGE.

This case was beard at the bar of the House yes-
terday, in a Committee of Privileges. Lord SHAFTES.
BURY, as Chairman of Committees of Privileges, in
the Chair. There were also present the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Wynford, the Dukes of Cumber-
land, Gordon, &c., and several other Peers.
Mr. PEPYS, for the appellant, opened the pro-
ceedings, from which it appeared that the petitioner,
Thomas Alexander Fraser, of Lovat, Esq., claims
the title of Baron Lovat, as being the actual heir
male of Hugh, fifth Lord Lovat, who sat in Parlia-
ment as a Baron in 1540. This Hugh died in
1544, and was succeeded by Alexander, 6th Lord
Lovat, his son and heir. He died leaving issue
male Hugh, his eldest son, Thomas of Knockie and
Strichen, (from whom the present claimant is
lineally desended), his second son, and James of
Ardrochy and Glendo, his third son. Alexander
died in 1557, and was succeeded by Hugh the 7th
Lord, who was succeeded by his son Simon, Bth Lord,
who was twice married, and left issue Hugh, the 9th
Lord, Sir Simon of Inverallochy, Thomas, who died a
child, and Sir James of Brea, who left issue. Hugh,
the 9th Lord, had issue Simon, Master of Lovat,
who died in his father's life-time. Hugh, who also
died in his father's life-time, leaving issue Hugh,
10th Lord Lovat (also Thomas, called Thomas of
Beaufort Frothey•) Hugh left issue Hugh, 11th
Lord. This last Hugh had two sons who both died
without leaving issue. On failure of issue male from
Hugh, the succession opened to Thomas Beaufort,
son of Hugh the 9th Lord, as nearest heir male.
But this Thomas, together with his son Simon, corn-
mitted great crimes, and refused to lay down their
arms to the sheriff of Inverness. The said Simon
was tried in absence in 1698, before the High Court
of Justiciary of Scotland (Thomas having died), and
was sentenced to be executed as a traitor (his name,
fame, memory, and honours to be extinct, their arms
to be erased from books of arms, &c.) In 1716 the
said Simon was pardoned by George 1., when he re-
sumed the title of Lord Lovat. He afterwards engaged
in the rebellion in 1745, was tried, and executed.
He left Simon, Alexander, and Archibald Campbell,
&c. Suffice it to say, that after a long list of succes-
sions, the whole line descended from Hugh, the eldest
son of Alexander, the 6th Lord, being extinct. The
appellant claims as before stated.
After Mr. PEPYS had been heard at some length,
and Mr. RUTHERFORD was going to follow, be was
stopped on a point of form, it appearing that this
case had been partly heard before their Lordships at
soate former period, and had arrived at a particular
stage ; but after a consultation amongst their Lord-
ships, who, taking into their consideration that some
of the parties present hearing the case had not had
the opportunity of doing so before, and other sub-
jects brought under their consideration, it was de-
clared that, under the special circumstances of the
case, the Counsel be allowed to proceed. On which
Mr. INtutherford proceeded in his argument, on the
conclusion of which

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, having another case
to hear, they would adjourn till Wednesday next ;
and in the mear► time the Lord-Advocate, who ap-
peared for the Crown, would get them what in-
formation he could on the following point,—(as
there was this peculiarity in Scotch cases, they
could not get the opinion of the Judges,)—whether
there was any difference between a grant to A and
the heirs male of his body, arid a grant to A, and
after him to B, his eldest son, and heirs male of that
eldest son's body : failing whom to C, his second
son, and the heirs male of that second son's body.
The latter case being what the law of Scotland
called a descent by substitution.