The papers, letters, documents and writings, a favourite diamond ring, and a ducal patent of nobility, were, however, "all lost in the great flood of the river Wear in 1771;" and the Duke is said to have deeply lamented this misfortune. It is not, however, very likely that he would have carried his ducal patent with him in his flight; and had he afterwards sent for it from Drummond Castle, some of his family must have been apprised of his existence. It is stated, however, but only on hearsay, that thirteen years after the year 1745, the Duke visited his forfeited Castle of Drummond, disguised as an old beggar, and dressed up in a light coloured wig. This rumour rests chiefly upon the evidence of the Rev. Dr. Malcolm, LLD., who, in 1808, published a Genealogical Memoir of the ancient and noble House of Drummond; and who declared, on being applied to by the family of Thomas Drummond, that he had been told by Mrs. Sommers, the daughter-in-law of Patrick Drummond, Esq., of Drummondernock, the intimate friend of the Duke of Perth, that the Duke survived the events of the battle of Culloden a long time, and years afterwards, visited his estates, and was recognised by many of his "trusty tenants."[267] A similar report was, at the same time, very prevalent at Strathearn; and it has been positively affirmed, that a visit was received by Mr. Graeme, at Garnock, from the Duke of Perth, long after he was believed to be dead. At this time, it is indeed wholly impossible to verify, or even satisfactorily to refute such statements; but the existence of a report in Scotland, that the Duke did not perish at sea, may be received as an undoubted fact.[268] In 1831, when the case of Thomas Drummond was first agitated, Mrs. Atkinson and Mrs. Elizabeth Peters, the supposed daughters of James Duke of Perth, were both alive, and on their evidence much of the stability of the case depended. The claimant, Thomas Drummond, who is stated to have been the eldest son of James, son of James Duke of Perth, was born in 1792, and was living in 1831 at Houghton-le-Spring, in the occupation of a pitman. Much doubt is thrown upon the whole of the case, which was not followed up, by the length of time which elapsed before any claim was made on the part of this supposed descendant of the Duke of Perth. The act for the restoration of the forfeited estates was not passed, indeed, until two years after the death (as it is stated) of the Duke of Perth, that is, in 1784; yet one would suppose that he would have carefully instructed his son in the proper manner to assert his rights in case of such an event. That son lived to a mature age, married and died, yet made no effort to recover what were said to be his just rights.[269]