History Of The Mackenzies [278]
the same succession, presumably to heirs male whomsoever.
Sir Kenneth Mackenzie of Grandvale and Cromarty, first Baronet of this re-grant, having died in 1729, the dignity was enjoyed by his eldest son, Sir George, second Baronet, who died without issue in 1748, and afterwards by his youngest son, Sir Kenneth, third Baronet, who died at Tam in 1763, also without issue. At this Sir Kenneth's death, it is clear that the succession would, under the patent of 1704, then devolve upon his heir male, George, the attainted third Earl of Cromarty, who survived all the male descendants of the patentee, but whose honours, having been attainted in 1746, had been restored by the pardon granted to him under the Great Seal on the 20th of October, 1749. Thus was this Baronetcy absorbed a second time in the Earldom of Cromarty. Nor does it appear that it was ever assumed by George, the third Earl (who died in Poland Street, London, on the 29th of September, 1766), nor by his son Lord Macleod, who obtained a pardon dated the 26th of January, 1748, and with whom, who died without issue, on the 2nd of April, 1789, ended the direct line both of the Earldom and of the Baronetcy.
The succession then opened to his cousin, Captain Mackenzie of Cromarty, who obtained the estates; but he also died without issue in 1796, without having assumed either title.
Taking the term "haredibus masculis," according to the opinion of John Riddell, the well-known Advocate and author "in the sense of our law, as an equivalent to heirs male whatsoever," the representation of the Tarbat Baronetcy would then revert to the brothers of George, first Earl of Cromarty, the next of whom was Roderick, Lord Prestonhall. But here again the fatality to heirs male which has dogged the steps of the Cromarty titles in so extraordinary a manner, ended the succession in the children of his son, Alexander of Fraserdale. Riddell, in his opinion upon the revival of 1826, says, "I certainly saw proof of the male extinction of the Prestonhall branch several years ago." That is, in one of the Lovat actions of Fraserdale, or Macleod of Macleod; and, after that family, the succession of the descendants of Alexander of Ardloch, fourth son of Sir John Mackenzie of Tarbat, was proved, in the Service at Tam, on the 30th of October, 1826, in the person of Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Mackenzie, eldest son of Colonel Robert Mackenzie of Milnmount, who assumed the dormant Baronetcies of Tarbat and Royston, and who, dying without issue on the 28th of April, 1841, was succeeded by his only brother, Sir James Sutherland Mackenzie, who also died unmarried on the 24th of November, 1858. Since his death these Baronetcies have remained dormant, no effort to assume them having been made by the next heir male, although no doubt it was quite in his power to do so.
It is obvious from what has already been said that the representation of the Earldom of Cromarty, granted to George, Viscount Tarbat, on the 18th of September, 1703, the succession of which is "haredibus masculis et tallia" devolves upon the same head as the above-named Baronetcies. It is not, however, clear whether the pardon obtained by George, third Earl, is sufficient to remove the attainder, or whether an Act of Parliament would not be necessary for that purpose, although the attainted male-blood is long ago at an end. Since this question was debated, the restoration of the Airlie and other forfeited peerages have, in a great measure, cleared the ground, and in the new creation of 1861 the older title and honours according to the decisions in these cases could be in no way affected or disturbed.
THE MACKENZIES OF ARDLOCH.
THE first of this family, on which devolved the representation of the original Earldom of Cromarty and the Baronetcies of Tarbat and Royston in the male line, was
I. ALEXANDER MACKENZIE, fourth son of Sir John Mackenzie of Tarbat, created a Baronet of Nova Scotia in 1628, by his wife, Margaret, daughter of
Sir Kenneth Mackenzie of Grandvale and Cromarty, first Baronet of this re-grant, having died in 1729, the dignity was enjoyed by his eldest son, Sir George, second Baronet, who died without issue in 1748, and afterwards by his youngest son, Sir Kenneth, third Baronet, who died at Tam in 1763, also without issue. At this Sir Kenneth's death, it is clear that the succession would, under the patent of 1704, then devolve upon his heir male, George, the attainted third Earl of Cromarty, who survived all the male descendants of the patentee, but whose honours, having been attainted in 1746, had been restored by the pardon granted to him under the Great Seal on the 20th of October, 1749. Thus was this Baronetcy absorbed a second time in the Earldom of Cromarty. Nor does it appear that it was ever assumed by George, the third Earl (who died in Poland Street, London, on the 29th of September, 1766), nor by his son Lord Macleod, who obtained a pardon dated the 26th of January, 1748, and with whom, who died without issue, on the 2nd of April, 1789, ended the direct line both of the Earldom and of the Baronetcy.
The succession then opened to his cousin, Captain Mackenzie of Cromarty, who obtained the estates; but he also died without issue in 1796, without having assumed either title.
Taking the term "haredibus masculis," according to the opinion of John Riddell, the well-known Advocate and author "in the sense of our law, as an equivalent to heirs male whatsoever," the representation of the Tarbat Baronetcy would then revert to the brothers of George, first Earl of Cromarty, the next of whom was Roderick, Lord Prestonhall. But here again the fatality to heirs male which has dogged the steps of the Cromarty titles in so extraordinary a manner, ended the succession in the children of his son, Alexander of Fraserdale. Riddell, in his opinion upon the revival of 1826, says, "I certainly saw proof of the male extinction of the Prestonhall branch several years ago." That is, in one of the Lovat actions of Fraserdale, or Macleod of Macleod; and, after that family, the succession of the descendants of Alexander of Ardloch, fourth son of Sir John Mackenzie of Tarbat, was proved, in the Service at Tam, on the 30th of October, 1826, in the person of Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Mackenzie, eldest son of Colonel Robert Mackenzie of Milnmount, who assumed the dormant Baronetcies of Tarbat and Royston, and who, dying without issue on the 28th of April, 1841, was succeeded by his only brother, Sir James Sutherland Mackenzie, who also died unmarried on the 24th of November, 1858. Since his death these Baronetcies have remained dormant, no effort to assume them having been made by the next heir male, although no doubt it was quite in his power to do so.
It is obvious from what has already been said that the representation of the Earldom of Cromarty, granted to George, Viscount Tarbat, on the 18th of September, 1703, the succession of which is "haredibus masculis et tallia" devolves upon the same head as the above-named Baronetcies. It is not, however, clear whether the pardon obtained by George, third Earl, is sufficient to remove the attainder, or whether an Act of Parliament would not be necessary for that purpose, although the attainted male-blood is long ago at an end. Since this question was debated, the restoration of the Airlie and other forfeited peerages have, in a great measure, cleared the ground, and in the new creation of 1861 the older title and honours according to the decisions in these cases could be in no way affected or disturbed.
THE MACKENZIES OF ARDLOCH.
THE first of this family, on which devolved the representation of the original Earldom of Cromarty and the Baronetcies of Tarbat and Royston in the male line, was
I. ALEXANDER MACKENZIE, fourth son of Sir John Mackenzie of Tarbat, created a Baronet of Nova Scotia in 1628, by his wife, Margaret, daughter of