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

100 COMMENTS ON KEIR PERFORMANCE,
liigUy of their superiors. The truth may have been that, m her unfortunate, desolate
situation, she may, at a period when little delicacy prevailed, even in the manners of the
liigher classes (and so exemplified in the case of Elizabeth of England, and certauily her
inferiors), some indiscreet freedom may have been taken by Bischop, the family agent,
then constantly with her, either casvially or purposely, which most likely, under a false
colour, with every aggravation, might have served and advanced their mutual designs ;
that of the one, to obtain her estate ; of the other, her person, mth necessary preferment
in life — ^in both of which they lamentably succeeded.
This striking fact in the case, at any rate, cannot be denied, that falsehood, whose only
object could be to inspire Janet with terror, and bind her to Keir's views, u-as resorted to
by the interested parties in her instance, and but secondary immorahty (if it obtained)
exaggerated to her as heinous criminal guilt. There was here a direct perversion of truth
and fact, only accountable for in one view, that creates the most unfavourable inferences
against Keir ; and if he thus erred in one respect, he may have in all, according to the
legal brocard falsum in ana falsum in omnibus, which may not irrelevantly apply, and
have actually perpetrated in toto that with which he has been charged.
That Janet of Gadder had been the subject of undue coercion previously, and compelled,
1 ggg gq against her will, to ahenate parts of her property by the deceased Keir, is proved by her
^l- own mouth in 1535 ;' and, according to her statement again in 1541, she even, at one time,
had revoked the surrender of her estate to his son.
Upon the whole, we cannot abstain from concluding that Janet was more or less con-
cussed, and that terror was used to eUcit unjust results on the last distressing occasion, when
fully stript of her heritage for the benefit of Keir.
We may not altogether, certainly, be able fully to penetrate the veil or cloud that may
obscure this, at least, most startUng and suspicious affair, not improbably promoted by the
mystifications and address of Bischop (for which subsequently, in a grander and more
public sphere, as may be seen, he was famous in history), hj his profession, well up to the
state of the law (however he might disguise it for a purpose), and not really apprehensive
for himself; and who of course, as by the imderstanding with Keir, and also for liis
own advantage and reward, would "help and labour" to the utmost, hj every seductive
and plaiisible device, right or wrong, to attain the end Avith Janet, suitable to both their
views.
But, at any rate, in the question at issue, for its due and possibly additional illustration,
it would be desirable, besides what can be otherwise discovered, to obtain a fuU and literal
copy of the original self-inculjjatinij disposition (as it may be indeed styled), that has been
referred to, by Keir to Bischop, February 20, 1541, of which we have only some imper-
fect abridged jottings, inasmuch, too, as it might likely disclose more both of Cadder or
Keir at a critical moment. In these circumstances, the most natural source of information
would be the Keir Performance, the framers of which had full access to the Cadder
p. X? ^*'^' writs ; while the editor remarks" that "not the least interesting parts of the following narra-
tive is the story of the ill-fated heiress of Cawder." "We then, certainly, would at once
expect that, so far from suppressing, he woiUd carefully be at j)ains to adduce all afiecting