Scottish Text Society publications > Old series > Poems of Alexander Montgomerie

26o
APPENDIX A.
elder brother John1 succeeded to the family estate of Hessilheid.
True, when the trial took place in 1622, Robert, the grand-nephew
of the poet, was in possession of the property; but the passage
does not state the precise relationship of the parties; it merely
says that they were ‘ brother bairns of the hous of Hessilheid,’ and
there are no others in the pedigree of the family to whom such refer¬
ence could be made but to the brothers John and Alexander.”
This somewhat positive statement of Paterson it is now possible,
from charter evidence, to definitely disprove. The Margaret and
Alexander Montgomery who appear in the trial for witchcraft were
the children not of the poet but of his nephew, John Montgomerie of
Auchinbothy. This appears from the following charter: “Apud
Edinburgum, 22 Feb., 1634. Rex, . . . ratificavit cartam de data apud
Stranrawer et Glasgow 1 et 10 lul., 1632, per Margaretam, Annam,
et Cristinam Montgomeries, Alias et heredes portionarias quondam
loannis Montgomerie de Auchinbothy, cum consensu Alexandri
Wallange, mercatoris, burgen. de Glasgow, mariti dicte Marg,
et Hugonis Montgomerie de Grainscheoch, mariti dicte Anne, factam
Roberto Montgomerie de Hessilheid, heredibus ejus et successoribus,
—de earum septima parte terrarum et molendini granorum de
Watterheidis (Watterlandis), et terrarum de Halkettis, in baronia de
Cunynghame, vie. de Air . . ,”2 Margaret Montgomerie, the wife of
Alexander Vallange, is here seen to be the daughter of John Mont¬
gomerie of Auchinbothy.3 His will is recorded in the Register of
Testaments of the Commissariot of Glasgow, vol. iii. f. 97, and therein
appear the names of his three daughters as given in the charter
above. It is also clear that the Alexander referred to in the witch¬
craft trial was another of Auchinbothy’s family. Who the Alexander
Montgomerie was who went to Ireland and became the prebend of
Do. it is impossible to say. He may have been Auchinbothy’s son,
or he may have been the son of Hugh Montgomerie, fifth laird of
Hessilheid, which would equally or rather better explain the appear
ance of the Hessilheid arms attached to the will registered in Dublin.
The point is of no great consequence. It is at least certain that
Paterson’s belief in the poet’s marriage is devoid of any valid
evidence.
The question of Montgomerie’s relationship to Sir William Mure of
Rowallan remains to be dealt with. Dr Cranstoun and Mr Tough
concur in stating that Mure was a nephew of Montgomerie, being the
son of his sister Elizabeth. But this, there can be no doubt, is a mis¬
take. Dr Cranstoun cites, apparently as his sole authority, the note,
already quoted at the beginning of this article, which appears in Lyle’s
1 As already shown, he was the poet’s father.
2 Register of the Great Seal of Scotland.
3 That he was a nephew of the poet is proved by charter evidence, to which
reference will be found in the notes to the genealogical chart.