January, 1661, and G. E. C. in Complete Peerage_says that the event took place on the 10th, neither give any authority. The difference is not important, but we have merely the contradictory ipse dixit of these two pundits. Many, who care not either for peerages or genealogies, will be interested to learn from Rothesay that the original of The Bride of Lammermoor' was compelled to break her engagement to the third Lord Rutherford, with the disastrous consequences which Sir Walter Scott so graphically describes.

The interesting and valuable article on 'Rothes' is from the vanished hand' of John Anderson, and Vol. VIII opens with a warm tribute from Lyon to the help which this kindly man and able genealogist has rendered in the production; Scotland has not ceased to mourn his loss before England finds itself the poorer for that of G. E. C. What this latter did. even for Scottish genealogy, of which he claimed no special knowledge, is shown by the frequent references to Complete Peerage in the notes to the pages under review.

In our opinion Mr. Anderson will be found to have successfully disposed of the story to which wide currency has been given by Riddell, G. E. C. and others that George, fourth Earl of Rothes, sandwiched in remarriage with his first and divorced wife between his third and his last marriages. The only real evidence for such remarriage is that Margaret, the first wife is (? politely) called Comitissa de Rothes in a Royal Charter to her personally, in which the earl has no place; for the statement that Robert, youngest son of the earl by the said Margaret, was born about 1541, which, if true, would prove either the earl's remarriage, or Robert's illegitimacy, is demonstrably false. Though the precise date of death of the earl's third wife, and of his marriage with the last wife are unknown, yet the fact that the former event took place after August, 1541, and the latter before April, 1543, makes the remarriage with Margaret Crichton exceedingly improbable.

In Vol. VIII the short article by Keith W. Murray deserves honourable mention; like the pill in the American advertisement, 'it does not go fooling about but attends strictly to business,' and gives several new and precise details as to marriage, death and burial of the (Murray) Earls of Tullibardine.

Turning to the article on 'Tweeddale' by the Marquess of Ruvigny, as we are informed in Complete Peerage that the first wife 'd. at Bothaws 21, and was bur. there 29 Aug. 1625,' it seems a pity not to have consulted that well-known work, when the comparatively vague statement that 'she died before 19 January, 1627,' could have been improved. Why also, on p. 449, does the Marquess call the second wife of the first Viscount of Kingston, Margaret Douglas? when the writer of the article Kingston' in Vol. V and, as far as we know, all other authorities call her Elizabeth. Why too, on the same page, does he say that Elizabeth, wife of William Hay of Drummelzier, was da. and heir of the first Viscount of Kingston, when that viscount left two sons, both of whom succeeded in turn to the viscountcy? These errors, however, if errors they be, are few and unimportant amid so much that is both new and true (a rare com

bination), and, knowing the vitreous character of our own residence, we are not disposed to start stone-throwing.

'Wemyss' is an excellent article for which J. A. at the foot is alone sufficient guarantee. Alas! that these initials will be seen no more. 'Wigtown' by Rothesay Herald, and 'Winton' by Col. the Hon. Robert Boyle both mark a decided advance on all previous accounts, and the standard of the last volume is, we really think, higher than that of the earlier

ones.

In conclusion we heartily congratulate Sir James Balfour Paul on the successful accomplishment of his arduous task.

VICARY GIBBS.

THE SOVEREIGnty of the SeA: AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT of the Claims OF ENGLAND TO THE DOMINION OF THE BRITISH SEAS, AND OF THE EVOLUTION OF TERRITORIAL WATERS; WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE RIGHTS OF FISHING AND THE NAVAL SAlute. By Thomas Wemyss Fulton, Lecturer on the Scientific Study of Fishery Problems, the University of Aberdeen. Pp. xxvi, 799. With many Illustrations. 8vo. Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1911. 25s. net. THE two parts of unequal length into which this important book is divided have a closer connection than at first sight appears, though neither of them perhaps justifies its picturesque title. The claims of this country to dominion in the high seas, which are traced in the first part, were connected with the question of fisheries, and, though they are now quite obsolete, it is fishery rights that give an increasing international importance to those claims of territorial property in maritime belts of strictly limited extent which are their modern survivals. In the course of his duties as lecturer at Aberdeen University on the Scientific Study of Fishery Problems, Mr. Fulton naturally turned his attention to the historical claims in relation to exclusive rights of fishery, but soon found that fishery rights by no means exhausted the claims to dominion in the British seas. The first part of his book is the result of his prolonged research into those periods of our history when these claims were made and developed, and under the Stuarts led to war with the Dutch. If it is purely a historical investigation, the second, while dealing also with the detailed history of a more recent period, has an immediate and practical interest, for it gives an account of the claims made by modern maritime states to territorial property in the adjacent seas. Of this part it may be said at once that it contains by far the best account in English of the development of territorial waters and of the rights claimed in them by modern maritime states in regard to fisheries. It cannot fail to be indispensable to the Government officials who have to concern themselves with the frequent international controversies on this topic.

From the time of John until the battle of Trafalgar demonstrated her supremacy at sea, England claimed the homage of the flag in seas which varied always in the direction of increased extent. But though not peculiar to England (for it was made at certain times by France and even Holland) it was tenaciously enforced by the English Government, and at most periods