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 DRUMPELLIER'S EXPOSITION, &c.
223
only added, for otherwise it would be miknown, that Mr Derapster, the chief clerk of
the agent, in the Winton service, well acquitted himself by his zeal and industry. As to
the Keir editor, a clerk then in the same establishment, he can here speak for himself, as
he has in fact done in the Preface to the Memorials of the Montgomeries.
1836, that Lord Eglinton has right to the hon-
ours of Winton, Seton, and Tranent, notwith-
standing the attainder of George, fifth Earl of
Winton. The case, adjudged in the House of
Lords, tempore Lord Hardwick, is still of un-
questioned authority, and must rule every case
in the same circumstances. I see no ground of
distinction . between it and the present case.
After expeding this service. Lord Eglinton as-
sumed the additional titles of Earl of Winton,
Lord Seton," &c.
No doubt, under the above description of
" eminent counsel," the late Lord Corehouse —
than whom a more accomplished geutleraan and
lawyer never sat upon the bench — together with
the writer (if he may add), who originally ad-
vised the Winton procedure, as was shown,
at a much earlier period (in 1825), and Lord
Andei-son, must be included, for there were
no other counsel, excepting Lord Rutherford,
who was but a momentary chamber one in 1836.
But that avails nothing as to them, from the
complete omission and strange withholding of
their names, notwithstanding their especial
situation, while so different a course is adopted
in regard to his Lordship, who is pointedly
named, and in effect as the sole legal oracle in
the case, which tells by marked contrast to the
prejudice of the former. As to the importance
of publicly naming and specifying parties too,
that they might be known and fairly defined,
that has been already shown in a previous por- ' See p. 179.
tion of the Exposition.^