Salt-foot controversy

102 REPLY TO THE REMARKS.
ler, the " imaginary descendant of Bannerets and
kings." This evidently is unfounded — but, fur-
ther, I hold it not even to be a misrepresentation, for,
though neither Candidus nor Mr G. R have,as yet,
sported this brilliant idea, yet, in a late matricula-
tion in the Lyon Register, dated 15th April 1813,
it is expressly affirmed, that his representative, (I
quote the very words) " is the thirteenth in lineal
DESCENT FROM SIR JOHN STEUART OF BONKILL OR EON-
KLE, BY SIR ROBERT STEUART OF DALDUE, HIS SIXTH SON,
GRANDFATHER TO SIR ALLAN STEUART OF ALLANTON,
AND WHO IS AT THE HEAD OF THE HOUSE OF BONKILL
WHICH JOHN WAS SECOND SON OF ALEXANDER THE SIXTH
LORD HIGH STEWART OF SCOTLAND, AND GREAT GRAND-
FATHER OF KING ROBERT THE SECOND AFORESAID, THE
FIRST PRINCE OF THE STEUART LINE, WHICH ALEXANDER
WAS LINEALLY DESCENDED IN THE THIRTEENTH GNERA-
TION FROM KING KINNETH THE SECOND WHO SUBDUED
THE PICTS AN. 839 AND BECAME THE FIRST SOVEREIGN OF
ALL SCOTLAND ! !
This has also been supposed a misquotation, that
" Sir Allan of Daldiie" (the Knight Banneret) was
a commander in the " Gens d'armes Eccosois" and
(can it be credited) the Hero of Baage and Agin-
court,"* but the only words here quoted are " Gens
d'armes Eccosois" and " Bauge ;" — and it is besides,
only stated in the new pedigree, that " he passed over
to France in the time of King Robert VI. then Dau-
phin, and served in the Gens d'armes Eccosois of that
* Vid. p. 51.