Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

in Scotland; I have forgot whether his brother. His knees were horny with frequent praying."

Thus, though Mr Riddell treats with derision the idea that Sir Robert and his brother were " Scoto-English Napiers," the fact even of their immediate Scotch extraction is proved ex abundanti by the universal understanding of the period,-by the Scotch alias Sandy, by the unhesitating admission of Sir Robert Napier himself, by the express declaration of Sir Archibald Napier of Merchiston,-by the testimony of Aubrey, who had some idea that they were brothers of the Inventor of Logarithms,-and, we may add, by the universal and unhesitating admission and belief of every Napier belonging to these English Napiers of Puncknoll, Luton-hoo, Middlemarch, &c. down to the present day. It only remains to see what was the precise relationship. Sir Archibald in his certificate thus gives it. "Sir John Napier of Merchiston and Ruskie had issue Archibald, father to Sir Alexander and James; Sir Alexander had issue Sir Alexander, who had issue Sir Archibald and Alexander; Sir Archibald had issue Sir John and Sir Alexander; Sir John was my father.* Alexander, second son of Sir Alexander, and brother to Sir Archibald my grandfather as aforesaid, having spent the greatest part of his youth in foreign parts, came into England in the time of King Henry VIII., and had issue, the foresaid Sir Robert Napier, Knight and Baronet, Richard Napier of Lind-ford, now living, and divers other sons and daughters," &c. According to this statement, Sir Robert Napier and his brother were the cousins-german of Sir Archibald's father, the Inventor of Logarithms; and, holding what we have quoted to be

* These lairds were not all knights. This probably is an inaccuracy of the transcript.

really the genealogy as transmitted by Sir Archibald, it is unlikely that he should be entirely mistaken as to the history and family of his own grand-uncle. But that the above is substantially an accurate transcript of the original certificate may be assumed, as it is in point of fact an accurate genealogy, so far as it goes, of the family of Merchiston. This can be proved by a comparison with the genealogy in the peerage, which was most carefully and accurately drawn out by Francis, seventh Lord Napier, from his family papers. His Lordship indeed had even been too cautious in making out that genealogy; for, going entirely by his charters and original deeds, and not finding the ancestor of Luton-hoo mentioned among the other children of that generation, he formed the opinion that there was no authority for his existence, and that the ancestor of Luton-hoo must have been Alexander Napier of Ingliston, a younger son of Merchiston some generations prior to the reputed father of Sir Robert. But his Lordship had not adverted to the circumstance, that the Alexander recorded by Sir Archibald, as Luton-hoo's father, had been foris-familiated at a very early period of his life, had spent his youth abroad, and then settled and married in England, which sufficiently accounts for the absence of his name from the family papers. Besides, Alexander Napier of Inglistoun could not have been (as the author of the Tracts himself takes most unnecessary pains to prove,) the ancestor of the English Napiers; for he lived, and married, and died in Scotland; the Merchiston charter-chest is full of parchments referring to him and his spouse Isobel Littill; and both of their seals and signatures are attached to some of those deeds. Now most assuredly, as Mr Riddell very gravely argues, Isobel Littill was not a Birchley of Herefordshire, or the mother of the baronet of Luton-hoo.

But since our antiquary will not admit the authority of Sir Archibald Napier, nor the evidence of any transcript of his original certificate, nor the universal admission and belief of all the "Scoto-English Napiers" themselves, to prove this cadency from Merchiston, surely he will admit the contemporary and official record of the fact. Now that genealogy, put on record in the lifetime of Sir Robert and Dr Richard Napier, stands thus :

[blocks in formation]

It would appear from the above, that the second Sir Robert had not yet succeeded his father in the baronet

*Mr Riddell has two very valuable and instructive pages (135, 136) to prove that Isabel Litill (the wife of Alexander Napier of Ingliston) could not be Ann Birchely (the wife of Alexander Napier of Exeter ;) and he also gives the history of one Helen Litill, whom he has not connected with Isabel, but supposes them sisters purely for the sake of indulging in the following sarcastic remark: "Admitting the fact, which seems extremely likely, the Napiers would then be connected with royalty, for it is a curious circumstance, and one possibly little known, that Helen was 'nourice' (nurse) to James VI. which lacteal relationship, it is not improbable, may have tended to aggrandize them," i. e. the family of Merchiston. If the author of the Tracts will write nonsense, he might enliven it a little; he should have called the hypothetical relationship, a milky-way to preferment, of more avail than the paths of their astronomy. But they had a "lacteal relationship" to royalty, though that had little to do with their aggrandizement. Annabella, the Countess of the

cy, and it is certain that his uncle, Dr Richard, did not die until 1st April 1634. Upon a comparison with Dugdale, it is obvious that before 1696 the boy Robert,* son of Sir Robert's first marriage, had failed, and that his father had, subsequently to 1633, two other sons, John and Alexander, by his second wife.

Here, then, is the first Sir Robert's Merchiston origin admitted in his own time, if not actually recorded by himself; and also the name of his mother, Anne Birchley,

good Regent Mar, and Sir Archibald Napier of Merchiston, were sisters' children. This lady, it is well known, was intrusted with the infant person of James VI.,-" his Hieness continuing under her noriture as towards his mouthe, and ordering of his person." Whether she nourished him at her own bosom, or consigned that "lacteal relationship" to Helen Litill, I leave as a question worthy of Mr Riddell's minute researches. Upon one occasion, all the ladies of the household, including the Countess, were called out of bed in the middle of the night, because the royal babe was seized with colic; it was remarked that the Countess had a shift on,-a rare event in those days,-and the excuse assigned was, that her ladyship was tender," i. e. in delicate health.

[ocr errors]

* This boy Robert had a splendid genealogy through his mother. Her mother was the daughter of Thomas Howard, Viscount Bindon, whose father was Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey and Duke of Norfolk, and her mother, Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckinghame.

Luton-hoo became extinct in the male line about the middle of the last century. Dr Charles Loudon, M. D. of Leamington Spa, very kindly commenced a correspondence with me from that place on the subject of the antiquities of Merchiston, and has furnished me with some very interesting information. Among the rest, he mentions, that, happening to broach the subject in the family of Cox of Eaton-Bishop, Miss Cox said, "we are descended from that family, (Merchiston,) and possess our estate of Eaton-Bishop in Herefordshire through our ancestor Dr Napier, who was a physician in the time of James I., Charles I., and even physician to Old Noll." This was accidentally communicated to me by the polite attention of a stranger, who had not the slightest knowledge of the matter being controverted in Scotland.

in right of whom Sir William Segar adds to the Lutonhoo quarterings, "the 4th partye ane cheveron or and vert, 3 birchen branches counterchanged of the field by the name of Birchely ;" while he gives for her husband, "The first, argent ane salter engralled betwixt four roses rubies, by the name of Napier."

The above details were not inserted in the voluminous Memoirs of Merchiston, nor have they been given now as fully as they might. So much, however, was rendered necessary by what has been quoted from Mr Riddell's recent work, and also from what follows: "The learned gentleman, while charging Sir Walter with ignorance,* owing to this remark, positively affirms that these two Napiers and the Inventor of Logarithms were near relatives,-nay, even brother's sons,-which circumstance, he rightly adds, is not generally known ;— in this event, they would be sons of a younger brother (although a nonentity it is conceived) of Sir Archibald the Inventor's father, and grandsons of Alexander Napier of Merchiston. It would have been highly obliging if Mr Napier had condescended upon evidence of the fact, which, if true, might have been had in abundance, owing to the recentness and extreme nearness of the connection."

There are other families of the name of Napier, besides Luton-hoo, mentioned in the first Lord's certificate,

* Tracts, p. 137. May we suggest, that to alter the plain words of an author, so as to pervert them from an innocent and respectful, to an offensive and derogatory meaning, is not within the pale of legitimate controversy. The author (Memoirs, p. 7, note) alludes to Sir Walter Scott's sagacity in conjecturing that Dr Richard Napier was "of the stock of the Scottish Napiers ;" and he adds, "our illustrious author was not aware of the near relationship," &c. Indeed the fact was sufficiently honoured by Sir Walter's notice.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »