Comments in refutation of pretensions advanced for the first time, and statements in a recent work "The Stirlings of Keir and their family papers"

xiv CONTENTS.
No. II.
The Stirlings of Craigbamet or Craigbamard, and evidence supplying a material deficiency
at the outset of their pedigree in the Keir Performance, and substituting a true ances-
tor for the supposititious Duncan Stirling, foisted into the Glorat brief of service in
1818, to be afterwards noticed ; which, however, in truth enliances their antiquity, ,
together with the high repute and importance of the Craigbarnet and Glorat families,
of whom the latter are now heirs-male of the former, and inherit independently the
direct representation of the noble houses of the Stewarts and Hepburns, seriatim, Earls
of Bothwell, Lords Hailes, with other dignities, . . . . 27, 28
CHAPTER II.
THE DRUMPELLIEK-CADDEB " HEIESHIP" AND REPRESENTATION.
State of the Cadder representation — That involves the question at issue — On the death of
Andrew Stirling of Cadder, the last direct heir-male, in 1522 — Primary steps of the
Driunpellier family in 1817 and 1818 to assert their gentilitial rights and Cadder
status — Kelative corresjiondence between them and that of KeLr in the above years —
Abstract of their evidence then, with important conclusions, and additional corrobora-
tive proof — This chapter especially comprises, mter alia of importance — (1.) The
correspondence between the Drumpellier and Keir families in reference to the Cadder
descent and representation, with avowed determination of the latter to oppose the
former; and questions at issue fi-om July 28, 1817, to Febniary 20, 1818, including
material journal (at pp. 45, 46), of William Stii-ling, younger of Drumpellier, 19th
February in the same year, for which see p. 36 to 46 — (2.) The printed statement or
abstract of evidence in 1818 of the merits of the Drumpellier case, also bearing upon
points at issue that were fairly communicated to Keir at the time — together with a few
necessary explanations by the wi-iter, for which see again p. 49 to p. 70, and — (3.) The
remainder of the correspondence between the parties alluded to from March 6, 1818,
to April 9, 1818 inclusive, and for which finally see p. 70 to p. 78, . . 29-96
The above correspondence is followed by conceived material inferences and conclusions,
while the subject at large is closed by fiu-ther evidence, illustrations, and arguments,
corroborative of the Drumpellier claim upon the merits, besides what is adduced in
the printed abstract cited in 1818, for which reference may be also made to p. 80 of
this Chapter, down to p. 96,
No. I.
Decreet in 1535 in favour of Janet Stirling, heiress of Cadder, . . . 96-9 8
This comprises the incident of the ill-u.sage of the lady by Sir John Stirling of Keir, her
forced and illegal union with .James, his son, and undue conveyance, as may be inferred,
of her estate, in 1541, to the latter, there being but little trust to be given to their
statements and expositions in the matter, she being an unfortunate victim in their
hands, much at their mercy, and subjected to their interested designs a,nd machinations,
or those of their tools.
No. II.
The strange suspicious collusive transaction is here discussed — or clandestine paction and
settlement, with the mutual quid 2^>'o quo, in accordance with their views, between
James Stirling of Keu' and Thomas Bischop, in 1541, the import of which was
accidentally derived by the Exponent from a copy taken long ago by a curious