Salt-foot controversy

100 REPLY TO THE REMARKS.
history, the Appendix, instead of the Continua-
tion — erroneously asserted the author of the new
pedigree to have called James in Allanton the " only
son of his father ;" (though I rather imagine Allan
in Garbathill was one I introduced to his rela-
tions,*) and still more culpably, that Allanton lay
in the quarter of the Shotts; but I find, upon turn-
ing up the map, that it is actually separated from
that parish by something better than a rivulet.
To these weighty charges I certainly plead guilty,
and much good may the admission do the argument
of my opponent. He is not quite so fortunate, how-
ever, on another occasion, when he so grievously
complains of my having substituted " the" for " this
most extensive branch of the house of Stewart" (Al-
lanton), a casual error, — phrases, according to him,
of different import ;f for he himself has elsewhere
called it " perhaps the most extensive branch after
the descendants of King Robert II."| Hence, the
male line of that Monarch having long failed, and
all the existing Stewarts having sprung previous to
his accession, he here pretty nearly makes it the
most extensive branch, refutes his own cavil, and
thus, in a great measure, proves them to be syn-
onimous. As little in his instances to exalt the
signification of " goodman" that degrading epithet
* He had never, as far as I can learn, figured in any pedigree
previously.
t Vid. p. 7?>. t P- 72,