Stirling peerage

INTRODliCTlON. 35
and is objectionable on the score of relationship ; that
Trumbull's is also silent, quoad John of Gartmore, and
seems a fabrication ; that Lyner's is entirely eo? partct
signed by a mark, and no account given why it was
taken, or how it came into Mr Humphrys' hands ;
and that Hovenden's is worse than all, proving nothing
of the descent, and evidently a forgery.
Such was the evidence adduced by Mr Humphrys
in the general service — ^the foundation of all his subse-
quent measures ; and from it, it is plain that, even
had he succeeded in extinguishing the three previous
branches, he has not connected himself with the fourth.
This, by the additional proofs and productions in the
process, (Appendix, No. II. proof taken on commission
in Ireland,) he now attempts to do.
Assuming that the three branches have been extin-
guished, and that the Rev. John Alexander was the
grandfather of INIr Humphrys, what evidence is there
that the father of this clergyman was a legitimate son
of John, the fourth son of the Earl of Stirling ? The
Officers of State admit that John of Gartmore had a
daughter, but deny that he had a S07i. Mr Humphrys
maintains that he had, and that he was named John,
was settled at Antrim, where he died in 1712, and
was interred at Newton Ards, with a long and lauda-
tory inscription on his monument.
To bolster up this fiction, he has recourse again to
the voluntary affidavits of Lyner and Hovenden ; to
the evidence of Margaret M'Blain, an old woman of
eighty ; of Mary Lewis, aged eighty-six ; and Eleanor
and Samuel Battersby, each about fifty ; to these he
adds the alleged inscription on the monument, and
the sole evidence of its existence by the aforesaid
M'Blain.