d been
sequestered.

Connected with the family of Seatoun, on his mother's side, the Earl of
Traquair had married the sister of Lord Nithisdale, being thus nearly
related to two of those chiefs who gladly obeyed the summons of Lord Mar
to the hunting-field. The Earl of Traquair appears to have escaped all
the penalties which followed the Rebellion of 1715, perhaps because he
does not appear to have taken any of his tenantry into the field.

Less prudent, or less fortunate, William Mackenzie, Earl of Seaforth,
joined the standard of James Stuart with a body of three thousand men.
He was attainted when the struggle was over, and his estates, both in
Scotland and England, forfeited. He escaped to the Continent; but, in
1719, again landed with the Spaniards at Kintail; and was wounded at the
battle of Glenshiels, but being carried off by his followers, again fled
to the Continent, with the Marquis of Tullibardine and the Earl
Marischal. Lord Seaforth was one of those to whom the royal mercy was
shown. George the First reversed his attainder, and George the Second
granted him arrears of the feu duties due to the Crown out of the
forfeited estates. The title has been eventually restored.

James Livingstone, Earl of Linlithgow, was amongst the many who
experienced less clemency than the Earl of Traquair. He had been chosen
one of the sixteen representative peers of Scotland, on the death of the
Duke of Hamilton; and enjoyed the possession of considerable family
estates, which were eventually forfeited to the Crown. He led a band of
three hundred clansmen to the field.

Perhaps one of the most sturdy adherents of the Chevalier St. George was
James Maule, fourth Earl of Panmure. In his youth this nobleman had
served as a volunteer at the siege of Luxembourg, where he had
signalized his courage. In 1686, he succeeded his brother, and added to
the honours of a peerage those of a character already established for
bravery. To these distinctions was added that of being a Privy
Councillor to James the Second; but he was removed upon his opposing the
abrogation of the penal laws against Popery. Whilst thus protesting
against what might then be deemed objectionable innovations, Lord
Panmure was a firm adherent of James, and vigorously supported his
interests in the convention of estates in 1689.

The accession of William and Mary drove this true Jacobite from the
Scottish Parliament. He never appeared in that assembly after that
e