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

222 COMMENTS ON KEIR PEEFORMANCE,
in 1840, one woiild be led to think that the late Lord Eutherford was its maiaspring and
conductor, no other counsel being named as employed. But this is palpably erroneous.
He merely chanced, as a chamber-counsel, to give an opinion upon a point of forfeiture
This case ^^^ the case, iipon the strength of the old familiar precedent of Gordon of Park in 1750
of Park"" '^^^ 1754, which, as the English law of forfeiture has been ours ever since the Union,
too, did -vvas capable, in aU its phases, of much riper and fuller illustration. Than this. Lord Euther-
not FO 13.16
to honours, ford, then of course at the bar (whose merits in other legal departments the writer is the
in 183« last to question), did no more. The ghmpse of him thus in private — for he made no public
mainly in appearance in the matter — was quite passager. Like a shadow he came, and so departed ;
and^th""' '^^^^ the entire uncontrolled management of the case as counsel, both in ova and other-
ease of \vise, imtil the end, rested exclusively in the writer and Lord Anderson, who ahke, by
Somerset, ' ...
unnoticed whonisoever suggested (of which they remained ignorant), did not descry the necessity of
in the
opinion Lord Eutherford's casual or summary opinion, by which neither were they enlightened
was strong- 01' influenced. Indeed, the Avriter partly demurred thereupon to the agent, with what
more hi effect he does not pretend to say, but at any rate his Lordsliip was as much subsequently
pomt. iji |,jjg gase legally 7iU as he had been before.
The preceding account, though it is feared rather egotistical, and for which every
apology is made, the writer has been induced to state in common justice to Lord Ander-
son, who deserved, in the work alluded to, from his peculiar situation, far more notice
than the former — and indeed to himself.
Since the Winton service in 1840 was to be there introduced, it ought to have been in
a full, correct way, adapted to the occasion. But it is evident, in the face of most obvious
fact, and certain means of probation, that one only noininatim is represented as the ruling
authoritative counsel, who, on the contrary, did not so figure, and did little or no-
thing. While those, on the other hand, who liad the lead, and took the labouring oar
— in fact, including the writer, who originated the case (which may be deemed gorne-
thlng), and exclusively, without the least communing with Lord Eutherford, or aid from
him, superintended, conducted, and successfully terminated it, in siich very capacity,
are thus ignored just as the leading merits and import of the Drumpellier claim in the
Keii' Performance. Wliether there is justice and propriety in this — or why such conduct
preferred by the Keir and Montgomerie editor — to what might be more eligible, the
writer, without deigning to accomit for it, will leave the pubhc to decide.'^ It may be
* For greater fairness, the following account of Winton, Lord Seton and Tranent. This
1 Vol. i. pp. of the Winton service in the work alluded to,^ service took place before the Sheriff of Edin-
133,139. that has elicited the above remarks, shall be burgh and a distinguished jury, including Lords
here literally given : — Gillies, Moncrieff, and other Judges of the
" The representation of the Seton or Winton Court of Session, Mr Thomas Thomson, Advo-
family having vested in Lord Eglinton, his cate, and other gentlemen well qualified for
Lordship was, on 22d December 1840, served legal and genealogical investigation
nearest and lawful heir-male general, and also Previous to this service, Lord Eglinton had
nearest and lawful heir-male of provision " been advised by eminent counsel of his right to
(this was in reference to the cardinal grant of the Winton and Seton honours. Mr (after-
the Winton honours), " to George, fourth Earl wards Lord) Eutherford gave an opinion in
i