FRANCIS HAMILTON (ONCE BUCHANAN). xxxii 
took steps to have his conviction legally admitted, Тһе first measure was tà have 
himself recognised аз the heir and representative of his uncle, Robert Buchanan of 
Spittal, and as thus the male representative and head of the house of Spittal! Тыз 
point established, he presented his Claim of Dr. Francis Hamilton Buchanan of Spittal to be 
considered chief of the name as male representatwe of the family of Buchanan of Buchanan, 
To explain this claim it is necessary to advert once more to the history of the 
Buchanan family. When Sir George Buchanan of Buchanan died in 1651, 
succeeded by his only son, John Buchanan of Buchanan, who died without issue in 
1682. The Buchanan estates, being much encumbered, were sold by his creditors 
after he died.  Buckanan itself was purchased by the head of the house of Graham, 
aud is now the seat of the Dukes of Montrose. 
he was 
On the extinction of the main line the headship of the house of Buchanan 
devolved on the house of Buchanan of Auchmar, the youngest of its cadet branches. 
When the house of Auchmar in turn died out in 1816, the headship devolved on 
the next youngest cadet branch, that of Spittal. 
The house of Buchanan of Auchmar was founded by William Buchanan, son of 
Patrick Buchanan, younger of Buchanan, by his second wife, a daugnter of the Earl 
cf Argyle. Patrick Buchanan was killed at Flodden in 1313, and his son George, 
elder half-brother of William Buchanan of Auchmar, succeeding his grandfather, was, as 
we learn from contemporary records, head of the house of Buchanan before 11th July 
1526, and was still in this position on 26th January. 1594, 
George Buchanan’s uncle Walter Buchanan, younger brother of the Patrick 
Buchanan who was killed at Flodden, had a son, also named Walter Buchenan, to whom 
in 15:9 he conveyed the lands of Spittal. Dr, Francis Hamilton’s claim to be the 
lineal descendant of this Walter Buchanan, first of Spittal, was brought to a successful 
issue in 1828, and the entry on the subject in the Inder to Service of Heirs in 
Scotland, which is dated July 9th, 1828, is as follows:—“Dr. Francis Hamilton 
(Buchanan), м.р., to his Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandfather 
Walter Buchanan of Spittal—Heir male in general.” 
This finding established, as a corollary, the fact that Dr. Fiancis Hamilton was, 
as he believed himself to be, the representative of the Buchanans of Buchanan and 
therefore the chief of the name. То the kindness of Hamilton’s grandson, the 
present head of the house of Buchanan, the writer is indebted for a copy of the 
interesting ‘Retour,’ given below, of the ‘inquisition’ that was held with reference 
to Hamilton's ‘claim.’ This document establishes Hamilton’s claim to be heir male 
ia general of his proavus titavi, that is, of the great-grandfather of his great-grand- 
father's great grandfather. 
‘Index to Service of Heirs in Scotland. Entry dated 13th September 1826; * Dr. Francis Hamilton (Buchanan) 
of Leny and Bardowie, to his uncle Robert Buchanan of Spittal.” As Hamilton, like his brother before him, 
and like their father, at all events subsequent to 1756, was already proprietor of Spittal, it is clear that this 
‘Service’ was intended merely to establish Hamilton's right to represent the house of Buchanan of Spittal, as 
being the representative of his uncle Robert Buchanan, his father’s oldest brother, who while he lived was the 
head of the house of Spittal. : 
Beveridge, in the article in the Calcutta Review for July 1894 already referred to, hazards the suggestion that 
Hamilton’s work on the Genealogies of the Princes of India may have led him to think of his own family. 
There is nothing in Hamilton’s correspondence to favour the suggestion. : 
