There can be little doubt that fir John Stuart of Derneley and his brother fir William were much employed during that constant course of warfare; especially as in the letters patent already mentioned by Charles in favor of fir John Stuart of Derneley, there is the following declaration by his majesty: "Il nous a fervis et fait encore chacun jour à l'encontre dés Anglois nos anciens ennemis.”

Though the particular details are not to be learnt from the hiftories of France, the records of the Chambre des Comptes afford evidence, upon many occafions, of the active services in which fir John Stuart was engaged, and of the confidence placed in him.

In the accounts of Hamon Raguier, Treforier des Guerres, which comprehended the period from the 21ft of November 1422, to the last day of December 1423, under the title of "Tauxations, Recompenfations, Eftats, Ancienes Compofitions, et autres deniers payé par Mandements du Roy notre Sire, durant le temps de ce prefent Compte," there are various articles relating to fir John Stuart of Derneley; the services rendered by him, the expences he had incurred, and the allowances granted to him by Charles. An exact copy of these articles in the records of the Chambre des Comptes is printed in the Appendix, N° III.; from the perufal of which the following particulars are afcertained.

1. That fir John Stuart of Derneley had a particular compagnie de gens d'armes et de trait from Scotland, attached to himself and under his command; on account of the expence of which company Charles of France, by his letters dated at Melun, 18th of November 1422, ordered five hundred livres Tournois to be paid monthly to fir John Stuart "pour l'etat de fa perfonne."

2. That the king had allotted to the faid fir John Stuart a great additional charge and retinue de gens d'armes et de trait belonging to Scotland; and in general had given to him all the charge of the Scottish gens d'armes et de trait then in France in his mas jesty's fervice.

6

3. That on account of the great charges, equipments, and expence to which fir John Stuart was fubjected, his majesty ordered the treasurers of his finances to pay to him thereafter monthly 500 livres, "pour l'etat l'etat de fa perfonne;" and as that fum would not be fufficient to furnish the neceffary expence, in order to enable him to fupport his ftate more honourably, and to affift him in defraying other great expences and equipments which would be fuitable for him to incur for the entertainment of the captains and other gens d'armes et de trait of Scotland under his charge, it was ordered, that for the future he should have by way of gift an additional fum of 500 livres monthly, making together 1000 livres, that is to fay, 500 livres " pour l'etat de fa perfonne," and other 500 livres pour don."

'4. That in confequence of these orders the 1000 livres monthly, were paid to fir John Stuart for eight months, from the 22d of November 1422 to the 20th of July 1423.

5. Further, by letters granted by Charles at Bourges on the 22d of June 1423, it appears, that with the advice and deliberation of his grand council, he gave orders to fir John Stuart to affemble all the Scottish troops then in his fervice and to pass the river of Loire, and to lead them into the country of Auxerrois and Nivernois, to make war on the English, and all other enemies and adversaries of the king of France, and to reduce them to obedience. And in order to engage them the more liberally in that service, it was agreed between the grand council and the constable of the Scottish army, that there should be paid to them for two months the fum of 30,000 livres, in manner following; to wit, an immediate payment of 10,000 livres; in the end of July then next a further fum of 5000 livres; and in the end of September then next a further fum of 15,000 livres.

• In confequence of this laft order it appears that 10,000 livres : were paid to fir John Stuart, by his receipt dated 28th of June 1423.'

P. 128.

The account of the celebrated Bernard Stuart, of Aubigny, conqueror of Naples, diftinguished in the pages of Guicciardini, forms an interesting picture. That he was prefent at the battle of Bofworth field, Mr. Stuart feems to have concluded upon too light grounds; a charge fcarcely applicable to any other part of his work. The teftament of Bernard Stuart is among the numerous original papers now first publifhed.

Moft of the pages of the work are fo full of French and Latin quotations, that we fhall chufe our next extract from the view of the above-mentioned competition.

• Every perfon claiming to be defcended from fir William Stuart, the brother of fir John Stuart of Derneley, and through that channel claiming to be confidered as the heir male and representative of the Derneley and Lennox families, must be equally interested in the whole of the preceding difcuffions; and particularly in what has been stated for proving the identity of fir William Stuart of Castelmilk with fir William Stuart, the fon of fir Alexander and the brother of fir John Stuart of Derneley; for without establishing that point, all their pretensions must fall to the ground.

There are only two families in Scotland who pretend to be defcended from fir William Stuart of Caftelmilk, or from fir William the brother of fir John Stuart of Derneley; these are, the earl of Galloway's family, and the family of the Stuarts of Caftelmilk in the county of Lanark. No other competitors have hitherto appeared.

"On the part of the earl of Galloway, there has been printed and circulated about two years ago, a paper intitled "A View of the Evidence for proving that the prefent Earl of Galloway is the lineal Heir Male and lawful Reprefentative of fir William Stuart of

Jedworth, fo frequently mentioned in hiftory from the year 1385 to the year 1429."

In that paper the writer of it concurs with the Stuarts of Ca-` stelmilk in maintaining, that fir William Stuart of Caftelmilk was the brother of fir John Stuart of Derneley; but he goes further, by: fuppofing that fir William Stuart of Jedworth and fir William Stuart of Caftelmilk were one and the fame perfon; in fhort, it is al leged on the part of lord Galloway, that fir William Stuart of Jedworth was the proprietor of the estate of Jedworth in Tiviotdale, and of the estate of Caftelmilk in Annandale ;` and that in confe→ quence thereof, he was fometimes defcribed of Jedworth and at other times of Caftelmilk. Thefe facts being affumed, that paper proceeds to state that fir William Stuart of Jedworth and Castelmilk had two fons; to wit, fir John Stuart the eldest fon, who married the heiress of Dalfwinton, of which marriage the earl of Galloway is defcended; and a fecond fon, fir William Stuart of Castelmiik, from whom the prefent family of the Stuarts of Caftelmilk in La❤ narkshire are fuppofed to be defcended. In the faid paper, on the part of lord Galloway, it is related that thefe lands of Caftelmilk, were, during fome time, enjoyed by fir John Stuart, of Dalfwinton the eldest fon, as well as the lands of Dalfwinton and Jedworth; and that upon his death they went to his younger brother William, the anceftor of the prefent Stuarts of Caftelmilk.

Accordingly, there is on p. 37 of that paper, a pedigree of the Derneley family, commencing from fir Alexander Stuart of Derneley in the year 1370; in which pedigree fir John Stuart of Derneley, and fir William Stuart of Jedworth and Caftelmilk, are reprefented as brothers; and it is ftated, that there were two fons of that, fir William Stuart of Jedworth; to wit, John Stuart of Dalfwinton, the ancestor of the earl of Galloway, and fir William Stuart of Castelmilk, the ancestor of the Stuarts of Caftelmilk in the county of Lanark. The fame thing is repeated in another more full pedigree of the Derneley family, which is fubjoined to the faid printed paper drawn up on the part of the earl of Galloway.

The author of this prefent Genealogical History having be ftowed several years in the investigation of what relates to the' Derneley family, and in tracing the different branches of that family, is ready to admit, that if it can be established by an authentic inftrument, or by any thing deferving the name of folid good evidence, that fir William Stuart of Jedworth was the son of fir Alexander, or the brother of fir John Stuart of Derneley, or that he pof feffed the lands of Castelmilk, as well as thofe of Dalfwinton and Jedworth, and in confequence thereof was fometimes defigned of Jedworth, and at other times of Castelmilk; then and in either of these cafes, he should be of opinion, that the present earl of Galloway must be the undoubted heir male and representative of the Derneley family on the failure of cardinal York, the laft of the male defcendants from fir John Stuart of Derneley; for it is very

well afcertained that the earl of Galloway is defcended from, and is the true heir male and reprefentative of fir William Stuart of Jedworth, whofe fon John married the heiress of Dalfwinton.

. But the author has seen no fatisfactory evidence of fome of the affumed facts above-mentioned, and therefore cannot admit, either that fir William Stuart of Jedworth was the fon of fir Alexander Stuart of Derneley, or that fir William Stuart of Jedworth ever was poffeffed of the lands of Caftelmilk, or ever enjoyed the title of Castelmilk; on the contrary, the course of the evidence which has fallen under his confideration, neceffarily decides his opinion and leads him to maintain, that fir William Stuart of Castelmilk, the brother of fir John Stuart of Derneley, was quite a different perfon from fir William Stuart of Jedworth; and the authority of various concurring proofs and circumftances compel him alfo to maintain, that fir William Stuart of Jedworth could not poffibly be the fon of fir Alexander, or the brother of fir John Stuart of Derneley, though it may be true, and indeed it seems highly probable, that fir William Stuart of Jedworth was defcended from the same stock with the Stuarts of Derneley; but he must have come from that ftock fome generations antecedent to the time of fir Alexander Stuart of Derneley. Various authors indeed have exprefsly faid, that fir William Stuart of Jedworth, the ancestor of the earl of Galloway, was defcended from fir John Stuart of Jedworth, a younger fon of fir John Stuart of Bonkill, which fir John laft mentioned was the ancestor likewife of the Derneley family.

With regard to the time of the death of that fir William Stuart of Jedworth, it will be found to be totally irreconcileable with the fuppofition of his having been the brother of fir John Stuart of Derneley, whose brother fir William certainly loft his life in France in the year 1429 But fir William Stuart of Jedworth had been taken prifoner by Hotfpur Percy at the battle of Homildon, on the 14th of September 1402, and was foon thereafter, at his inftigation, tried, condemned, and executed as guilty of high treafon against the king of England, upon the pretence that he was a subject of that monarch, having in his early youth belonged to the county of Teviotdale, while it was fubject to the English crown. The particulars of his trial, condemnation, and execution are minutely related in the Scotichronicon, vol. ii. p. 434; where it is mentioned, that fir William Stuart, therein defigned fir William Stuart of the Foreft, which meant the fame thing as of Jedworth, or Jedworth Foreft, had very ably pleaded his own caufe, and that he had been acquitted by the three first juries appointed to try him, but that a fourth jury was affembled, which very unjustly con

demned him.

The fame facts of fir William Stuart's being taken prifoner, tried, condemned, and executed, with further particulars, are related by Winton in his Chronicle of Scotland; where he is defcribed fir William Stuart of Teviotdale.

Winton's Chronicle, whereof the author was a canon regular of St. Andrews, and prior of the monastery of Lochleven, was com posed between the years 1408 and 1418: the latest event noticed by him is a tranfaction of the year 1418; and he died about the year 1424. The continuation of the Scotichronicon by Walter Bowmaker, abbot of St. Colomb, must have been written at some period between the year 1385, when he was born, and the year $449, when he died. Both these authors, therefore, must have been well qualified to write an account of events fo recent as those of the battle of Homildon and the trial and execution, of fir William Stuart, which had happened in their own time. There is internal evidence that the one author did not copy from the other; and further there is reason to believe, that neither of them could have had an opportunity of seeing the works of the other: they differ in fome of the circumstances, but they are both agreed, and affirm with certainty, that fir William Stuart was taken prisoner at that battle, and that he was tried, condemned, and executed foon thereafter; and that Hotspur Percy was the principal cause of his condemnation. It must have happened then in the period between the 14th of September 1402, the date of the battle of Homildon, and the 21ft of July 1403, the date of the battle of Shrewsbury, when Hotspur Percy was killed.

There can be no reliance on any hiftorical fact whatever, if credit is not due to this fact relating to fir William Stuart, afcertained as it is by contemporary authors of great reputation, who could have no inducement to falfify the fact; and who, if they had invented the story of the trial and execution of fir William Stuart, could fo eafily have been detected; which would have ruined their characters for veracity, and deftroyed the credit of the hiftories they were then giving to the public. Sir William Stuart alluded to by thefe hiftorians was a great and distinguished character in those times, and fo eminent both in Scotland and in England, that what related to him must easily have been known. If he had not been taken prifoner at the battle of Homildon, or had not been tried, condemned, and executed foon thereafter, but on the contrary, had lived many years after that period, as is stated in the said publication on the part of lord Galloway; it would have been a moft ridiculous attempt for any contemporary author to endeavour to perfuade the world that fir William Stuart, then alive, had been tried, condemned, and executed immediately after the battle of Homildon in the year 1402.

• If credit is given to this fact of fir William Stuart's being put to death in the year 1402 or 1403, as related in the Scotichronicon and by Winton; which credit cannot easily be withheld by any man of judgment and impartiality; then it is totally impoffible that he could ever have attended fir John Stuart of Derneley to France in 1420 or 1421; or that any of the actions defcribed as belonging to fir William Stuart, the brother of, fir John of Derneley, could