Historical and genealogical memoirs of the House of Hamilton

MEMOIRS OF THE HOUSE OF HAMILTON. 459
under a great misconception as to subjects he introduces apparently irrelevant. He
asserts, that, in the 14th century, Machan was " the only feudal property" of the
Hamiltons, and that Cadyow was ' : then a demesne of the crown, of which they had
the management ; which did not belong to them, but where they merely resided."
Surely the two following charters must hove escaped hira ; the one by David Bruce in
1369; narrating a previous grant by Robert his father, whereby it appears that Cad-
yow, which was a barony in the reign of David the Second, had been alienated to the Rob. Index, p.
family in feu-farm, subject ODly to the annual payment of so much grain and money ;
and the other by the latter in 1324, to Walter Fitz-Gilbert de Hamilton, of the barony
of Kinniel to him and his heirs. They are well known, and are in the Hamilton
Charter Chest.
But, independently of the last argument, there is, among other strong circumstances
stated in the Memoirs, the grant by David de Hamilton in 1378, admitted to have been P. 45, Not?.
David of Cadyow and Janet his wife — going far indeed to identify her with Janet
Keith of Galstoun, who certainly had Bathgate. This evidence the Doctor disregards,
because the former is not styled by her surname, nor shown to possess the whole,
although he allows she possessed partj? of Bathgate ; but, with submission, this is not
sufficient to deprive it of its irresistable force, especially when taken along with the other
proof. Neither from what has been observed, is there room for his assumption, that
there could not, in 1381, have been a David, elder of Cadyow; nor is it easy to see
how the tenure, as he seems to insinuate, of the property of Janet, the wife of David
of Cadyow, in Bathgate, was different fiorn that of Janet of Galstoun or Bathgate.
All the arguments and objections against the identity of these persons have now been
considered, and it is conceived fairly replied to. In addition to the great improbability
of there having been two David Hamiltons cotemporaries, the husbands of two ladies
of the same christian names and surnames, possessors in Bathgate, there is the remarka-
ble circumstance of the total absence of legal proof i;i support of the supposition : — On
the other hand, while they all admit that the wife of David of Cadyow was " Janet
.Keith," no old genealogist has ever yet maintained that the first of Bardowie was
married to a lady of that name ; far less ever possessed Dalserf. On this last point the
Doctor is reduced to a dilemma in maintaining the affirmative. For as Janet of Galstoun,
whom he claims as his ancestrix, is instructed also to have been ancestrix of the Hanii!-
1ons of Bathgate, and certain branches of Hamiltons in Ayrshire, partly by a charter
on record in 140G, dated at Dalserf, (which is further important for the identity,) these Reg. Robert!
must necessarily have been cadets of Bardowie, and not of Cadyow, as they hitherto - o.V^V-' a "jy
have invariably been represented.
Upon the whole, combining the account of Baillie and antiquarians, that the ancestor
of Bardowie was a younger son of David of Cadyow, with the facts legally proved of
the first Bardowie having been John Hamilton, and of the existence of a cotemporary
John, a son of David of Cadyow,* it is humbly submitted whether there is not every
* That Sir John Hamilton, the son of the younger David of Cadyow, had a brother of the name
of John, is proved by a charter granted by Sir John, as superior of the lands ol Balderstone in Lin-
lithgowshire, to Adam Forrester of Costorphine, of date 3d March, 1395, wherein, among other wit-
nesses, is " John rfe Hamyli(me,fratern'r caristimus." — Charts penes Ducem de Hamilton.