Stirling peerage

36 INTRODUCTION.
By reference to these evidences, (Appendix, No. II.
proof in Ireland, ut supra,) it is manifest that Lyner's
merely attempts to shew that John of Gartmore
brought with him to Ireland his son, John, who after-
wards settled at Antrim, and in the service of whom
she lived. Mr Humphrys does not in any way touch
upon the history of this document, which is ex parte-
and inadmissible, unless propped up by other testi-
mony ; it is engrossed in the nomograph of the period,
but that also is unsupported; and, even if it were
correct, it could not benefit Mr Humphrys, as it
neither testifies nor throws light upon the legitimacy
of John. It moreover seems to require interpretation
why this deposition should have been made in 1722,
when, by Mr Humphrys' own evidence in the alleged
deposition of Trumbull, and the inscription on the
monument, the last earl died only in 1739, seventeen
years afterwards.
As to the deposition of Hovenden, presuming it to
be free from all other objection, it is merely matter of
hearsay. But both that and Lyner's are sufficiently
proved by the chemical evidence, (Aj^endix, No. I.)
to be forgeries.
Mr Humphrys having discovered that this evidence
was wholly useless, took a commission for the exami-
nation of witnesses both in England and Ireland, to
supply the deficiency. But, although it is said that
John was settled in Antrim, was proprietor of consider-
able property, had founded or endowed charitable
institutions, and died there in 1712, Mr Humphrys
never went to that town in search of proof of these
assertions. He has adduced no evidence of John's,
existence, or even connection with the Earl of Stirling ;
and all his witnesses are ignorant and illiterate peasants,.