Examination of the claim of John Lindsay Crawfurd
(94) Page 72
Download files
Complete book:
Individual page:
Thumbnail gallery: Grid view | List view
![(94) Page 72 -](https://deriv.nls.uk/dcn17/9537/95376853.17.jpg)
72 EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM OF
Evidence and was no doubt, they imagined, a justifiable reason for not only
death of concealing his residence, but his existence."
the Ho-
nourable In the case of 1824, no notice is wisely taken of these proceedings ;
Surd, but in the " Crawfurd Peerage," we have the following statement :
"Crawfurd " Lastly, we are bantered with an instrument which those
i>. 239. ' objectors term a general charge, said to have been at the instance
of Mr Patrick Boyle of Shewalton, against George, Viscount of
Garnock, as apparent heir of his uncles, John and James Crawfurd."
After some confused writing about Shewalton's claims, the following
ibid, p.242. statement is made: — "We now come to the main question: and
first, Why did Lord Garnock disclaim or renounce all right to the
acknowledgment of that charge ? A plain answer to this will put
the matter to rest. But before this query is answered, it will be
proper to explain what we understand by the word renunciation,
which is simply as follows. The act of renouncing, is to deny, to
disown, or disclaim, denial, refusal, or which is deniable, or that may
be denied, and from a certain well-grounded reason to give negation,
refusal, and to reject or to cast off; or rejection, the act of casting
off, throwing aside, through the instrumentality of some agent or
agents. Now, we beg to enquire how comes it that Lord Garnock
should openly renounce, disclaim, disacknowledge, and not only
openly, but legally, refuse to submit to, or take any notice of, this
general charge imposed on him by Boyle of Shewalton ? It is
self-evident that Lord Garnock knew full well that his uncle James
Crawfurd, at that period, teas not dead ; and at first view of the
circumstance of the general charge, at once thought of the dis-
claimer ; but upon farther consideration, not inclined to expose the
poverty of his uncle James Crawfurd, he therefore suffered decreet
of adjudication to come out. But again, was it executed ? No !
certainly not ; at least such a circumstance is not on record : it was
not then come to its birth ; but, at the same time, it is possible that
afterwards it might be pregnant, as many hands are still at work,
and we find, by experience, that money commands all things of a
temporal concern.
" Be this as it may, we are not ignorant of this general charge ; it
is nothing more nor less than a mere form to obtain, or if pos-
12
Evidence and was no doubt, they imagined, a justifiable reason for not only
death of concealing his residence, but his existence."
the Ho-
nourable In the case of 1824, no notice is wisely taken of these proceedings ;
Surd, but in the " Crawfurd Peerage," we have the following statement :
"Crawfurd " Lastly, we are bantered with an instrument which those
i>. 239. ' objectors term a general charge, said to have been at the instance
of Mr Patrick Boyle of Shewalton, against George, Viscount of
Garnock, as apparent heir of his uncles, John and James Crawfurd."
After some confused writing about Shewalton's claims, the following
ibid, p.242. statement is made: — "We now come to the main question: and
first, Why did Lord Garnock disclaim or renounce all right to the
acknowledgment of that charge ? A plain answer to this will put
the matter to rest. But before this query is answered, it will be
proper to explain what we understand by the word renunciation,
which is simply as follows. The act of renouncing, is to deny, to
disown, or disclaim, denial, refusal, or which is deniable, or that may
be denied, and from a certain well-grounded reason to give negation,
refusal, and to reject or to cast off; or rejection, the act of casting
off, throwing aside, through the instrumentality of some agent or
agents. Now, we beg to enquire how comes it that Lord Garnock
should openly renounce, disclaim, disacknowledge, and not only
openly, but legally, refuse to submit to, or take any notice of, this
general charge imposed on him by Boyle of Shewalton ? It is
self-evident that Lord Garnock knew full well that his uncle James
Crawfurd, at that period, teas not dead ; and at first view of the
circumstance of the general charge, at once thought of the dis-
claimer ; but upon farther consideration, not inclined to expose the
poverty of his uncle James Crawfurd, he therefore suffered decreet
of adjudication to come out. But again, was it executed ? No !
certainly not ; at least such a circumstance is not on record : it was
not then come to its birth ; but, at the same time, it is possible that
afterwards it might be pregnant, as many hands are still at work,
and we find, by experience, that money commands all things of a
temporal concern.
" Be this as it may, we are not ignorant of this general charge ; it
is nothing more nor less than a mere form to obtain, or if pos-
12
Set display mode to:
Universal Viewer |
Mirador |
Large image | Transcription
Images and transcriptions on this page, including medium image downloads, may be used under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence unless otherwise stated.
Histories of Scottish families > Examination of the claim of John Lindsay Crawfurd > (94) Page 72 |
---|
Permanent URL | https://digital.nls.uk/95376851 |
---|
Description | A selection of almost 400 printed items relating to the history of Scottish families, mostly dating from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Includes memoirs, genealogies and clan histories, with a few produced by emigrant families. The earliest family history goes back to AD 916. |
---|