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

234 COMMENTS ON KEIR PERFORMANCE,
HaA'ing thus discussed Sir John of Keir — for we have nothing more worth
stating about him — we now come to
to
-■fc
II. — Thomas Bischop, "Armiger."
To account for the introduction of this person in a work maiulj concerning
the Stirhngs and their representation, it is onlj necessary to bear in mind,
together with his connection by marriage with tliem, the very important,
though no doubt to a gi'eat degree blamable part he played at an eventfid
and critical period of the Gadder history, added thereto the erroneous im-
pressions of his character and position in society likely to be conveyed by the
brief, as usual unauthenticated, and disparaging notices of him in the Keir
Performance — from whence so little in the main is to be gathered.
The editor, from his marked want of ordiuary research, it may be con-
cluded, and inability to act otherwise, says as little as possible about this
gifted and extraordinary individual — supplying no genuine information about
his parentage and original status; and so hard is he driven in this respect,
as to make a signal merit in giving his seal and aiitograjih subscription in
1 See p. s. 1.541 — for which he iuterrajDts the course of his Preface.^
But not only are his accounts of him meagre, they also would imply Bischop
to be almost beneath notice ; for instance, the editor on one occasion calls
2 See p. 38. him " tailor, and a servant of Keir "^ — just as if he was a tailor by profession
(which after all, as will be seen, would not prejudice his rank at the time),
and a low menial, using, as we may infer, the term " servant " in the modern
■2. ' ■ ""'^ sense.^ And he hkewise is gratuitously charged in effect with ill treating his
wife, the only evidence adduced for the first of these facts being wretched
doggerels, probably but of modern origin, which are no evidence at all,
and cannot even in the least be twisted as to have reference to the latter
charge, which rests upon the editor's sole assertion. Indeed, it is remarkable
that none of the charges prejudicial to Janet of Gadder, including that of her
4 See pp.
129, 130. " disliouour,"* so coolly and I'ccklessly made against her in the Keir work, and
that has been so fully exposed, can be established by proper evidence, or
what may even approach to it ; for the writer cannot here admit within such
category the clandestine, most suspicious, and strange transaction in 1541,
which neither can the above fairly own, and has also been commented upon, in
the obvious default of which the Keir family and their adherents have been
di-iveu to stoop to low scandal, and to loose and unfounded fabrications.