the part of Haldane to usurp the patrimonial rights of the eldest coheiress. There is not a shadow of evidence produced, that either John Napier or Elizabeth Menteith were parties to that contract, or that it ever became matter of judicial record; while, on the other hand, this original instrument of protest is proof positive that the contract in question was not even attempted to be put into effect by Haldane himself. The act of transference in 1562 must, under all the circumstances, have been a ridiculous and useless process, for, independently of the lapse of nearly a century, during which period the portion of the eldest coheiress had confessedly been possessed by Merchiston, here is evidence that Haldane himself was, in 1485, met by a protest for attempting to effect a division of the Rusky estates upon an illegal footing. What can be gathered from all this, except that while, on the one hand, John Napier and Elizabeth Menteith were, in terms of their protest, ready and willing to meet Haldane in a proper legal arrangement of their correlative rights, under the sanction of the Lords of Council, and the Stewart of Menteith, Haldane, on the other hand, was struggling by means of contracts of his own wording, and illegal letters of procuratory, to usurp the rights of others, in which, however, it is plain he was not successful.

3. The above protest, and other documents to which attention has been called, are not the only evidence of the disposition of Gleneagles to usurp the rights of the other coheiress. It appears from the Merchiston papers that when, in the year 1490, Elizabeth Menteith obtained an instrument of division, allotting to her the particular lands composing her quarter of the fief, she had not failed to summon all the heirs-portioners as parties to that transaction, that her rights might be forti

fied by their express consent. Yet in the beginning of the year 1492, it seems that James Haldane took out brieves for a division of the whole Comitatus, without any reference whatever to the rights of Elizabeth Menteith, or to her legal establishment in a particular portion of the lands. That lady accordingly was compelled to present the following petition and complaint to King and Council, dated 14th June 1492.

"Sovrane Lord, Unto your gracius hienes, and to the Rycht Reverend, noble and mychtie Lordis of your Counsale, humbly meins and shewis your servitour and wedow Elizabeth Lady of Rusky, that quhar the lands of the erledome of Levinax was devidit of befor be your conrisable brevis of division of your chapell, and be the consent of the Erle of Levinax, Matho Stewart his sone, Johne of Haldane of Glennegas, and James of Haldane his sone, the landis underwritten was devidit and assignit to me for my parte of the properte of the said Erledome, as autentik writtis and instrumentis of thair said consentis beris. That is to say, the landis of Gartnes, Dalnair, Blairour, Gartquharn, Ballattis, Dowchlas, Badvow, Edinbaly, Ballaquharn, and Tumdarow, with the half of the Ile of Inchestavanok, Castlegile, with the quarter of the fischenings of Levin and Lochlowmond, with myllis, woddis, and pertinentis of the samyn; in the quhilk I am in peaceable possession, and gevis soit in your Parliament, justice aris, and sheref courtis therfor. Notwithstanding, James Haldane has purchest of late new brevis of division, direct to your shireffis of Stirueling and Dumbertan, and to certain utheris shirffies in that parte, to devide the said hale erledome, als wele my parte forsaid that is assignit to me, as the laif, quhilk as I understand is express contrair to justice. Beseking therfor maist humbly your gracious Hienes and Lord

schippes, that I may have your lettres direct to your said shireffis to keip me in the said landis that is dividit and assignit to me for my parte, after the forme of the division maid therapon; and to discharge the saidis shireffis, and shireffis in that parte quhasumevir, of the intrometting therwith, sen thai ar devidit be the full consent of the said porcioneris as said is, and your gracious answer herapon at the reverence of God."

Upon this petition the Lady of Rusky obtains, of the same date, royal letters narrating the cause of her complaint, and commanding the sheriffs to protect her in her possessions. Accordingly, in the subsequent division of the earldom between Dernely and Haldane, a special clause is inserted in all the deeds connected therewith, excluding from that division the quarter of the fief already allotted to Elizabeth Menteith, and fully admitting her right therein.

4. It is remarkable that there are some indications of this disposition of the family of Gleneagles, to usurp the rights of Merchiston, even in the following century, and not long before the period of the act of transference, in 1562, of the alleged contract in 1485. The earldom of Lennox fell into the hands of the sovereign by the temporary forfeiture of Mathew Stewart, fourth Earl of that race, in 1545. The Napiers of Merchiston, as we have seen, held of those Earls the lands of Blairnavaidis, Isle of Inchmore, &c. by way of excambion for the rights of superiority belonging to Elizabeth Menteith in the Lennox. It would appear that the then Haldane of Gleneagles, probably taking advantage of the confusion of the times, and the minority of Archibald Napier, (great-great-grandson of Elizabeth Menteith, and father of the philosopher,) had obtained a grant of Blairnavaidis, &c. to the exclusion of the Merchiston family.

66

In the year 1558, however, before the Earl of Lennox was restored, and shortly after the marriage of Queen Mary to the Dauphin, that princess issued a charter revoking the grant to Gleneagles, and reinstating the family of Merchiston in their patrimonial rights. The precept of seisin under the Great Seal of Mary is dated 14th July 1558, and narrates that the lands of “ Blairnavaidis, eister and wester, with the Isle of Inchmone, and the right of fishing over the whole of the lake of Lochlowmond, &c. which belonged to Archibald Napier, holding of Mathew late Earl of Lennox, and which have fallen into our hands by reason of escheat and process of forfeiture against the said Mathew, and which after the decree of forfeiture we, in our minority, had granted by charter under our Great Seal to James Haldane of Gleneagles, his heirs and assignees, and which lands and islands having again fallen into our hands by reason of our general revocation, made in our last Parliament, and we considering that the predecessors of the said Archibald Naper had obtained the said lands in excambion from the predecessors of the said Mathew late Earl of Lennox, and in order that they may have regress to their first excambion, and also because the said Archibald and his predecessors were in no manner of way participators in the crimes of the said Earl, but were innocent of the same, and have in all times past faithfully obeyed the authority of our realm, even to death, and have, under the standard of our dearest grandfather, and under our own standard, in the battles of Flowdoun and Pinkie, been slain ;-therefore, and for other good causes moving us, we, after our general revocation in Parliament, have of new given and granted to the said Archibald Naper of Merchamstoun, his heirs

and assignees, the said lands of Blairnavaidis, eister and wester, isle, fishing," &c.

After all this evidence it may be doubted if the confused and futile remnant of the process of transference pointed out by Mr Riddell could have those great consequences in the question of the right to the earldom of Lennox, which he anticipates, even supposing there was no proof of primogeniture to place against it. It might be conceded, (though it is not proved,) that in 1562, among the Gleneagles papers and processes, contracts, so called, may have been discovered, in which the rights of the eldest portioner were claimed; but, after the details given above, probably the reader will require evidence that such contracts were actually successful and fulfilled, before the expressions contained in them obtain the slightest credit.

We have now to consider the evidence in favour of Merchiston, derived from the possession of the messuages, which affords so complete a refutation of any argument that may be supposed to arise out of the act of transference; and which, Mr Riddell himself declares, occasions when contrasted with the latter evidence, "a kind of puzzle that is perplexing." But that learned antiquary has not fully brought out the value of this evidence for Merchiston. He only observed in the record of the Great Seal, the possession of the messuages by Archibald Napier subsequent to the death of his mother the Lady of Rusky, and he speaks very cautiously of what he is pleased to call " the seeming possession of the messuagium or mansion by the Napiers in 1512, and 1572, while the Haldanes, previous to the last date, claimed the principal chemise or messuage, if not actually entitled to it," thus depreciating as far as possible the