Salt-foot controversy

92 REPLY TO THE REMARKS.
stance of his argument * Therefore, I shall state
it fully in his own words ; — * your family (Allan-
ton's) was scarcely emerging from obscurity after
the beginning of the 16th century,' See p. 439.
Again, more precisely, p. 445, " The genealogy of
your family, subsequent to 1500, is abundantly clear,
all previous, is involved in obscurity.' Again,
Mag. No V. p. 480, ' I may here state, that as
little elsewhere, in any shape, has the faintest notice
been yet adduced of the family of Allanton previous
to the 16th century'— This proposition, 1 must ob-
serve, is not only, as he calls it, • a very simple one,'
but what is worse, it is not true. — Besides, the ex-
istence of Sir Allan Steuart of Daldowie in 1393,
which is clearly proved by the charter quoted ; it is
stated by me, Hist, of Renf. p. 472, that there is a
charter still extant, by Walter Scott of Wesclenfar,
to Adam, son and heir to James Steuart of Dal-
dowie, ( Ade Steuart Jilio et heredi Jacobi Steuart
de Daldowie)^ of certain heritages at Lanark, dated
16th August 1493. For the authenticity of this
document I can confidently vouch, having myself
inspected it ; now, supposing this Adam to be not
older than one and twenty, when the charter was
granted, in 1493 ; and, further, supposing his father
James, the second of that name, to have died in the
very same year, at the very moderate age of sixty,
ed Baronet j" what this is, I cannot comprehend, I should
certainly have wished him to have been more explicit.
* Remarks, p. 83.
+ Until I see this original charter, I must be permitted to doubt
the quotation.