Stirling peerage

APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. cxxi
to establish this fact, the Clerks of Session, under the resolu-
tion of the House of Lords, cannot be justified in receiving
and giving efficacy to his votes.
Thirdly, Because if the claim of the person who on this
occasion has assumed the title of Earl of Stirling, is
founded on an alleged patent to heirs general of the original
patentee, we know that under these circumstances there are
others who have a preferable claim to that dignity. Besides,
we have great reason to suspect the authenticity of the docu-
ments, such as they are, on which the claimant is said to rest
his assumption of that title.
(Signed) BUCCLEUCH and QUEENSBERRY.
LAUDERDALE.
Copy of the Earl of Stirling's Answer to the above
Protest.
Alexander, Earl of Stirling, answered to the Protest
of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry and the Earl of
Lauderdale,
First, That the first reason of Protest is without application,
and wilfully perverted in its statement, for the purpose of mis-
representation — inasmuch as the resolution of the House of
Lords there cited, that William Alexander, assuming the title
of Earl of Stirling, should not be admitted to vote by
virtue of the said title until it was allowed by law, proceeded
from the cause that he was at that very time claiming the
same title by petition before the House, and as such, until the
House had decided upon his petition, he could not be war-
ranted in its assumption, or in exercising any of its privileges.
The principle, therefore, acted upon with reference to the
said William Alexander, is foreign to the case of the respon-
dent, who has no claim depending for the judgment of the
House of LordJ. Farther, the respondent is lineally descended
of a son of the First Earl of Stirling, while the said
William Alexander only claimed as an heir-male by a dubious
collateral descent.
Secondly, That the allegation that the Clerks, under the
said Resolution of the House of Lords, could not be justified