Skip to main content

‹‹‹ prev (79) Page 17Page 17

(81) next ››› Page 19Page 19

(80) Page 18 -
[ II ]
dares, " that if he thought tlie children were Lady
*' Jane's,, he would never fettle his eftate on the
? c family of Hamilton ; " nor did he, till after de-
tecting the frauds and confpiracies that had been fo
long and fo induftrioufly carried on againft his fitter
and himfelf, make any alteration in his firft fettle-
ment.
After the Duke's death, the appellant was ferved
heir to his uncle, according to the form prefcribed
by the law of Scotland, upon an uncontroverted
evidence of his being the fon of Lady Jane Douglas,
takes pofTeflion of the eftate, and is virtually acknow-
ledged heir by the Earl of Selkirk, and by the Duke
of Hamilton's guardians themfelves : for thefe enter
actions before the court of feflion, declaring their
right to certain parts of the eftates, upon fome an-
tient claims which the Judges there declared to be
groundlefs, but in the whole action there was not the
leaft infinuation that Mr. Dougias was not the fon of
Lady Jane.
'Tis needlefs to trouble your Lordfhips with the
conduct of the refpondent's guardians at Paris, and
elfewhere upon the continent. Nothing has been
difcovered that could throw the leaft blemifh upon
the honour of Lady Jane Douglas, or Col. Stewart ;
they have indeed proved her ftraits there, and his
here : but both thefe circumftances
carry a further confirmation that the appellant is their
fon, for in every letter that parted between them, the
children are named with a tendernefs fcarce to be
believed j
ing till all was over, when, on his firft going to court, he folicited
the life of the unfortunate Earl of Kilmarnock, the King himfelf
intimated to him this part of his conduct.

Images and transcriptions on this page, including medium image downloads, may be used under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence unless otherwise stated. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence