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

WITH DEUjMPELLIER'S EXPOSITION, &c. 99
standing in bis father's shoes, upon Thomas Eischop, the " spous affidat " or betrothed of
Janet, and afterwards his actual wife. This special and aggrandising concession, together
with the lands of Uchiltree, though redeemable upon the death of Janet by payment of ^ See p. 67.
" ^ " (under
2000 merks,' were to be a reward and recompense, not inadequate, for Bischop's insidious No. 9).
and artful " help and labour in soliciting and furthering the conveyance made by her of
her heritage" to Keir.
Further stOl, he was to be paid 250 merks, and this confirms his dexterous and advan-
tageous settlement for himself, in the understood arrangement, as we may conclude, in
respect to Cadder, with his interested principal or his advisers. They seem to have played
into each other's hands, while Bischop here, instead of lowly truckling as a culprit, or as
one who had injured or offended him, acts rather as a dexterous friend and benefactor to Keir,
who again, so far from resenting the conceived affront offered by the former towards him,
is to use his dihgence to have it remitted by the ldng.= This is said to be Bischop's " alleged '■' See ibid,
lying A\-ith the said Janet whilst she was the said James's ivife."
But here, as must strike any calm inc[uirer, what need was there for such remission, ^ See
even supposing Thomas and necessarUij Janet were thus guilty of adultery ? It was not Criminal
then a criminal offence, and required no such royal iutervention or condonation, not having j^J^ ^^j jj
been made so, as is notorious, until, by a special Act of Parliament, subsequently in 1563;' PP- 303-4.
so that, after this, it need not surprise us that not a trace or inkling is to be found of such
royal remission, so unduly contemplated. A charge or prosecution thus suspended over
Janet (tlirough Bischop) was but tantamount to an ideal threat, based upon ideal criminality.
It might, however absurd and preposterous elsewhere, do well, and serve its purpose in
this alfair, which, it must be kept in ^dew, was private, solely affecting her and the inteiested
parties, who had aU their own w^ay, and who could play as they chose upon her legal igno-
rance, as they doubtless did, more or less ; while the remission promised to relieve the parties
of the fancied prosecution with which she must have been terrified, was of course to be, in
the event of her compKance with their objects, which it therefore tolerably accomphshed.
The preceding is upon the mere supposition of adidtery, but in truth there was notn: in
the case, Janet never, as has been proved, ha\'ing been legally married to James StirUng
of Keir, and hence neither she nor Bischop capable of such alleged offence against 1iim ;
while the proper steps actually were taken at the time for proving it illegal and nuU and
void, as it truly was found from the heginning. Hence the charge of immorality, in their
respect, only resolved into simple fornication — .so frequent (as indeed even adultery) at that
dissolute and profligate period, shortly before the Eeformation in 1560, which it justly in
the main elicited. Both then were liighly countenanced by the example of the king,
clergy, and the upper classes ; and it is a jest to suppose that this lesser ott'ence or peccacUllo
would have attracted attention, or been for a moment thought worthy of a remission.
The implied charge, too, of immorality against Janet, riever proved, without which, too, a
remission that could neither in any view obtain, was useless — further evincing its ineptness
— appears quite to be unsupported, and merely to resolve into simple allegation, that may be
likened to that scandal of the present day, from which even the best families are not exempt,
through the medium of servants and subonlinates, who are not accustomed to speak too