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

126 COMMENTS ON KEIE PERFORMANCE,
act, but, on the contrary, carried on liis case most actively, while it was the
Glorat and Keir party who did not carry their case further for a very sufficient
reason — it being untenable.
What could have induced the Keir compiler to have had recourse to such
perversion of facts, to such a false gloss, as the preceding 1 Was it with the
view of assisting his case, and conferring a benefit upon his employer 'i
Indeed, his employer would tender him small thanks for obtaining for him
an advantage, even if he had succeeded in it, at so serious a cost — at the
expense, it maybe maintained, of truth and justice. And will he not indig-
nantly reject it, when he arrives at the knowledge of the real state of the
case'? which it is to be hoped he may soon now do, and might perchance
have done before he authorised the publication of portions of his book, had
livion and hc bcstowcd somcwhat of that acuteness of mind and that literary talent
siouofthe and shrewdness he has the credit of jiossessing on old historical subjects.
Drumpel- ....
lier family With all submissiou, it IS apprehended the DrumpeUier family, being
ID XllG tiSXt
of the legally proved the nearest heir of Cadder in the sixteenth century — including,
werren''*'' too, their male representation, at any rate under the first alternative — their
uuder tbe appropriate place in the history and pedigree of the Stirlings of Cadder, the
headfto a admitted chiefs of the Jibulati Strivelienses, and where they fell to be
promv^ent cntcrcd and discussed, should have been coeval with, and immediately after,
liotice!^'in the unfortunate and ill-fated Janet of Cadder, the hen-ess of line. To sup-
at least, ' posc them for a moment but mere cadets, or treat them as such, either at
\rith Janet • i i ...
of Cadder. commou law. Or even m the male capacity, is quite out of the question.
Such being the case, we will next see how the matter is arranged and set-
tled in the Keir Performance. However the discussion between Glorat and
DrumpeUier may have been known to the editor, which it assuredly was, as
well as the important deeds in the Abstract of Evidence adduced in 1818,
and to which he had full access, directly quoting and referring to it in his
work, though sparingly enough, and only when it suited his purpose, the said
most impartial writer has made his text of his full history of the Stirlings as
he would represent it, and containing incidents of trivial and lesser weight,
quite a tabula rasa as to the DrumpeUier family. He has expunged them
thoroughly therefrom — quite ignoring them, just as if they had never existed ;
while Keir, in his novel unsupported status, there reigns predominant, pre-
cisely as in the case of the usurped Strivelin armorial ensigns — in a great
measure, it may be said, as has been shown — in the frontispiece of the work.