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 DRUMPELLIEHS EXPOSITION, &c. 165
of Gadder), " who married her kinsman. Sir James Stirling of Keir, and thus Gross mis-
representa-
the Ccaoder and Keir families became united ; ' and (2.) That " Sir James tionsin
' Keir work
StriveHng married the heiress of Cawder in 1534, and thus united the ^s to Keir
° represent-
families of Keir and Caivder ;" while, after discussing the same Janet, it '"gladder.
announces that it had " now traced the main or Cawder line till its junc- fon^ancer
TION with the Keir branch," ^ the descent of which branch, it adds, " will next ""oHgin'^of
be shown ; " which accordingly follows, under the title of " the Keir line," with ungs," p.s.
Sir William Stirling, their supposititious ancestor, as its patriarch ! " See p. 13.
The above is bad and favdty enough, yet the editor, according to his Two even
fashion, must soar still higher in error ; and, moreover, asserts (1.) That the aggerated
Cawder line " terminated m an heiress, who was married to James Stirling of posterous
_ untruths.
Keir, and thus again united both families;"^ and (2.) That " Sir James a^pg^tHis
Strivcling married the heiress of Cawder in 1534, and thus RE-united the g^Siings,'^^
families of Keir and Cawder," — hence preposterously exaggerating, and even contents,
doubling, such putative union ! ^' '^'
AVith respect to the above marrying, or rather giving in marriage (by the Noiegai
L ^o u u o\^ marriage
editor), it has yet been shown that there was no marriage at all between J^ere be-
J' J o tween
the above parties^that de facto celebrated against Janet of Gadder's will ^rdJeJ"^
having, "by the decreet of divorce in 1541, been declared null and void ; * it 4 see Ex-
further bearing that the same " a principio non tenuisse, nee viribus sub- p°6V°"'
sistere posse de jure." Such illegal connection could never constitute a
union, as is thus asserted, nor could the before-mentioned assumed and
visionary descent from Sir William Stirling tie the present Keirs to the Gadder
family, as is implied by the most reprehensible words " again united " and
" reunited," — the supposititious results of both fictions in the passages cited.
There was no union, reunion, nor proper junction betM'een the families.
There never had been, there was not then, and has not been still^ — how-
ever certainly a peculiar legal specialty operates, as was shown, in favour
of the legitimacy of the issue of Janet of Gadder by Keir,' but within ^seehere
which category the present family of Keir do not come. The preceding pas- t^e Expo-
° -^ sition, in-
sages are not the less obviously calculated to lead casual readers into slarins eluding the
° •' tot note, ibid.
error. They convey the impression that the present Keir may represent
Cadder in both the male and female lines, than which notliing can be more
contrary to truth. The fact of his possessing the property of Gadder proves
nothing, because the original cardinal right merely through a singular title
by which he holds it, is well known. The representation of a family, of a