We rjs fAtr. 
 
 /v.j- /o 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 

THE STIRLING PEERAGE. 
 
 TRIAL 
 
 OF 
 
 ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING, 
 
 BEFORE TIIE 
 
 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY, 
 FOR FORGERY, 
 
 t 
 
 ON 29th APRIL, 1839, AND FOUR FOLLOWING DAYS. 
 
 STENOGRAPHED B V 
 
 MR SIMON MACGREGOR, 
 
 AND EDITED BY 
 
 WILLIAM TURNBULL, Esg. Advocate, F.S.A. Scot. 
 
 WITH 
 
 AN INTRODUCTORY NOTICE OF THE EARLDOM OF STIRLING, 
 AND PROCEEDINGS OF MR HUMPHRYS RELATIVE 
 TO HIS PRETENDED CLAIM. 
 
 WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, EDINBURGH; 
 AND T. CADELL, LONDON. 
 MDCCCXXXIX. 
 
LDINUU llUH : 
 
 Printed liy Andrew Suortredb, Thistle Lane. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction, ....... Page 1 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 I. Pursuer’s Proof in Reduction-Improbation, . . i 
 
 II. Defender’s Productions in do. . . . xvii 
 
 III. Interlocutor by Lord Cockburn in do. . . Ixii 
 
 IV. Minute for Earl of Stirling, . . . lxxii 
 
 V. Answers for Officers of State to do. . . xc 
 
 VI. Judicial Declaration of Earl of Stirling, . . xcv 
 
 VII. Report, and Additional Productions in Reduction, . civ 
 
 VIII. Supplemental Report and Productions, . . cix 
 
 IX. Proceedings at Elections of Scottish Peerss since 1825, cxii 
 
 Preliminary Proceedings on 3d April, 1839, ... 3 
 
 Indictment, ...... 8 
 
 List of Witnesses for the Crown, .... 38 
 
 List of Assize, ...... 40 
 
 Copies, Translations, Extracts, and Lists of some of the Documents 
 
 produced for the Prosecution, ... 44 
 
 Trial, ........95 
 
 Appendix to T rial, 
 
 I. Searches in Records, .... 1 
 
 II. Additional Defences, &c. for Earl of Stirling, . C 
 

ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 In order to account for the discrepant orthography 
 of the pseudo-claimant’s name, as it appears in the 
 succeeding pages, I may mention, that in every part of 
 the volume, except the Crown productions, I have spelt 
 it Humphrys, and not Humphreys, at the express 
 request of Mr Lockhart, agent for Mr Humphrys. 
 Although the difference is immaterial, yet, for the sake 
 of typographical accuracy, as well as from courtesy to 
 Mr Lockhart, I think it right to notice it thus specially. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TNTP nmTrTjoN. 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 
 Page 246, line 9 from the bottom—For t( excerpt with” read “ charter without." 
 
 •. uuc territory adjacent to the Gulf of St 
 Lawrence, described in said charter, thenceforward to 
 be called Nova Scotia ; and constitutes him, his heirs 
 and assignees, hereditary Lords Lieutenant, with 
 powers almost approaching to those of absolute sove¬ 
 reignty. Before this charter was ratified by the Scots 
 Parliament, his Majesty died; when, in 1625 , the 
 grant was renewed by his successor in form of a 
 Charter of Novodamus, proceeding upon the above 
 narrative, and conceding, over and above, additional 
 powers to Sir William Alexander. 
 
 * He was author of “ An Encouragement to Colonies, by Sir Wm. 
 Alexander. Knight.—Alter erit turn Tiphis, et altera quae vehat Argo— 
 dilectos Heroas. London, Printed by William Stansby, 1625.” Small 
 4to. 
 
 A 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The colonization of that extensive territory, situated 
 about the Gulf of St Lawrence, in North America, 
 was a favourite project both of Kings James VI. and 
 Charles I. Into this scheme Sir William Alexander 
 of Menstrie, afterwards Secretary of State for Scotland, 
 entered actively,* and was for his exertions rewarded 
 by James by charter, dated 12th September, 1621, 
 whereby he grants to the said Sir William, All and 
 Whole the territory adjacent to the Gulf of St 
 Lawrence, described in said charter, thenceforward to 
 be called Nova Scotia ; and constitutes him, his heirs 
 and assignees, hereditary Lords Lieutenant, with 
 powers almost approaching to those of absolute sove¬ 
 reignty. Before this charter was ratified by the Scots 
 Parliament, his Majesty died; when, in 1625, the 
 grant was renewed by his successor in form of a 
 Charter of Novodamus, proceeding upon the above 
 narrative, and conceding, over and above, additional 
 powers to Sir William Alexander. 
 
 * He was author of “ An Encouragement to Colonies, by Sir Wm. 
 Alexander, Knight.—Alter erit turn Tiphis, ct altera quae vehat Argo— 
 dilectos Heroas. London, Printed by William Stansby, 1625.” Small 
 4to. 
 
 A 
 
2 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 These charters are in the usual form of feudal con¬ 
 veyances as employed by the law of Scotland, but 
 erecting Nova Scotia into a Barony, and declaring 
 sasine at the castle of Edinburgh to be equivalent to 
 sasine on the lands themselves. In them Sir William 
 Alexander was infeft by sasine, dated 29th September, 
 and recorded in the General Register of Sasines 1st 
 October, 1625. They were all afterwards confirmed 
 by Act of the Scots Parliament 1633, c. 28. The 
 original documents are lost, but copies are preserved in 
 the Register of the Great Seal. 
 
 Sir William sent to Canada one of his sons, who 
 built forts at the mouth of the St Lawrence, and exer¬ 
 cised other acts of authority. But the work of colofii- 
 zation proceeded slowly, and King James, with a view 
 to facilitate it, fell upon the expedient of creating the 
 order of Nova Scotia Baronets, which title was to be 
 conferred on such individuals of good families who 
 should engage therein. This arrangement was carried 
 farther into effect by Charles I. who made such crea¬ 
 tions a source of revenue. The form adopted was: — 
 On receipt of a certain sum of money, to bestow a 
 grant of sixteen thousand acres of land in Canada; this 
 was erected into a barom r , and the honours of a 
 baronet of Nova Scotia appended thereto. The order 
 was subsequently extended to natives of England and 
 Ireland, provided they became naturalized Scotsmen. 
 
 Owing to his transatlantic speculations and other 
 causes, Sir William Alexander became impoverished, 
 and his property in Scotland became deeply involved. 
 The French had a small colony in Canada, and he sold 
 his entire possessions in that country to a Mons. De 
 la l our. The original Scots colony depended on the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 3 
 
 crown of Scotland ; it was ceded to France by treaty of 
 St Germains, 29th March, 1632,* was reconquered by 
 Cromwell; again surrendered by Charles II.; and in 
 1/13 became and continues a British colony, without 
 reference to any previous grants to Sir William Alex¬ 
 ander. Even if Sir William had not alienated what¬ 
 ever right he may have had in Nova Scotia, before the 
 above treaty of 1632, it was completely extinguished 
 by that and subsequent confederations. 
 
 Sir W illiam was created Earl of Stirling by Charles 
 I. by patent dated 14th June, 1633. It carries the 
 title to himself and his heirs male bearing the surname 
 and arms of Alexander. The original is not extant, 
 but is recorded in the Register of the Great Seal. 
 Subsequently, on 23d January, 1636, the Earl expede 
 a charter under the Great Seal, of his lands of Gart- 
 more, Tullibody, Tillicoultry, &c. with the destinations 
 
 * “ De la part de sa Majeste de la Grande Bretagne le dit Sieur 
 Ambassadeur, en vertu da pouvoir qu’il a, lequel sera inser en fin des 
 presentes, a promis et promet pour, et au nom de sa dite Majeste, de 
 rendre et restituer a sa Majeste tres Chretienne tous les lieux occupes en 
 la Nouvelle France la Cadie et Canada par les sujets de sa Majeste de la 
 Tjrrand Bretagne, iceux faire retirer des dits lieux, et pour cet effet, le 
 dit Sieur Ambassadeur delivrera lors de la passation et signature des 
 presentes aux Commissaires du Roi tres Chretien, en bonne forme, le 
 pouvoir qu’ il a de sa Majeste de la Grande Bretagne pour la restitution 
 des dits lieux, ensemble les commandemeus de sa dite Majeste a tous 
 ceux qui commandent dans la Port Royal, Fort de Quebec, et Cape 
 Breton, pour etre les dites places et Forts rendus et remis es mains de 
 ceux qu’il plaira a sa Majeste tres-Chretienne ordonner huit jours apres 
 que les dits commandemens auront ete notifies a ceux qui commandent 
 ou commanderont es dits lieux, le dit temps de huit jours leur etant donne 
 pour retirer cependant hors des dits lieux places et Forts leurs armes, 
 bagages, raarchandises, or, argent, ustensiles, et generalement tout ce qui 
 leur appartient: auxquels, et a tous ceux qui sont es dits lieux, est donne 
 le terme des trois semaines apres les dits huit jours expires, pour durant 
 icelles ou plutot si faire se peut, rentrer en leur navires avec leurs armes 
 et munitions, bagages, or, argent, ustensiles, marchandises, pelleteries, et 
 generalement tout ce qui leur appartient, pour de la se retirer en Angle- 
 terre, sans sejourner davantages es dits pays.” 
 
 The full instrument is printed in Rymer’s Foedcra. 
 
4 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 contained in the patent of 1633. He is said to have 
 died in 1640, and the title-deeds of the present proprie¬ 
 tors of these lands prove that they were adjudged 
 from his family for debts after that period. 
 
 The Earldom of Stirling, limited to heirs male, 
 became dormant in 1739,* and it is supposed that no 
 male descendants of Sir William Alexander now 
 exist. 
 
 On 14th December, 1761, a person born in America, 
 and designing himself William Alexander, Earl of 
 Stirling, petitioned for restoration of the title as heir- 
 male of the first earl under the patent of 1633.f The 
 petition was referred to the House of Peers, and rejec¬ 
 ted 10th March, 1762. This claimant confined his 
 claim to the honours of the patent of 1633, limited to 
 heirs-male.t 
 
 * We find in the Caledonian Mercury of October 2, 1733, this notice 
 of the last Earl of Stirling:— “On Sunday, the Right Honourable the 
 Earl of Stirling of N. Britain waited ou their Majesties at Court. It is 
 remarkable his Lordship was not at Court since the second year of 
 K. William III. choosing to live private, and is 80 years old. He was 
 introduced by Sir Robert Walpole, and graciously received.” 
 
 f Journals of House of Lords, sub annis . 
 
 J It would appear, however, that, although this individual made nQ 
 formal claim to the general estates, he assumed a right to the lands in 
 Canada, possibly from the state of affairs in America at that time. It 
 may be, that his share in the rebellion arose from the decision of the 
 House of Lords against him. See in Mr Maidment’s “ Analecta Scotica,” 
 I. p. 169, the following curious note :— 
 
 “ The earldom was assumed by William Alexander, an American, as 
 descendant of Andrew, the patentee’s uncle. Although his claim to the 
 peerage was rejected by the House of Lords, he, nevertheless, continued 
 to be styled Earl of Stirling. When the disputes arose between Great 
 Britain and America, he sided with the latter, and rose to the rank of a 
 general in the rebel service, as it was then called. He was taken pri¬ 
 soner in Long Island, and shortly after his capture, the following 
 remarks on his claim to the earldom appeared iu one of the newspapers 
 of the time :— 
 
 “‘TO THE PRINTER, &c. 
 
 “ ‘ Many of your readers are, with {Treat justice, surprised that General 
 Howe, as well as some of the American governors, should he so ill 
 acquainted with the peerage of their country, as to give the title of lord 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Not so, however, the next individual in the field 
 —Mr Humphrys. He modestly lays claim, not only 
 to the Earldom of Stirling, but also to the whole terri¬ 
 tory in Canada, besides the Scotish estates pertaining 
 
 to the rebel general Alexander, by the title of Lord Stirling. You 
 may, from good authority, inform the public, that he is not in the least 
 related to the late Earl of that name. Some years ago, this person 
 attempted to impose himself on government as the nighest akin to that 
 nobleman, and wanted to assume the title; but being unable to produce 
 any credentials, his petition was thrown out. That title has been extinct 
 ever since the death of Sir William Alexander,* created Earl of Stirling, 
 who died in the year 1641, a man of great learning and abilities, and 
 famous for his poetry. His corpse was deposited in a leaden coffin, in 
 the family aisle, in the church of Stirling, above ground, and remained 
 entire till within these thirty years. Being much involved in debt at his 
 death, and his descendants very poor, they never thought of making 
 good their title to that dignity, till a very considerable time thereafter; 
 but the mansion-house, or church, which stood upon the banks of the 
 river Devon, near Stirling, in which the records of the family descent 
 were deposited, being swept away by a rapid current of the river after 
 an uncommon fall of rain, rendered it impossible for the nearest akin to 
 the family to make good his claim to the title. Several branches of this 
 family still live at a village called Mainstry, on the above river, about 
 three miles from Stirling in Scotland, the oldest of which is the fourth 
 in descent from the earl, and is a reputable farmer, and known by all the 
 old people about that part of the country to be the real and nearest 
 descendant of the Earl of Stirling.’f 
 
 “ The American earl (whose right to the title, notwithstanding the 
 judgment of the House of Peers, seems to have been well founded) 
 claimed, as representing the first lord, a large tract of land, which he 
 advertised for sale. Upon this coming to the knowledge of Francis 
 Bernard, Esq. Governor of the province of Massachusetts, he issued the 
 following proclamation :— 
 
 “ ‘ Whereas the Earl of Stirling hath published advertisements for the 
 sale of a large tract of land, situated on the east side of Penobscot river, 
 and for leasing another large tract in the eastern parts of this province, 
 extending from St Croix to Pemaquid, to which he has laid claim by 
 virtue of a grant made in the year 1635 to William Alexander, first 
 Earl of Stirling, by the council established at Plymouth. 
 
 “ ‘ And whereas by a state of the title of this province, to the country 
 between the rivers Kenebec and St Croix, prepared by a committee of 
 the General Court, and printed in 1763, by order of the said Court, it 
 appears that the persons claiming under the said Earl of Stirling, have 
 no right or title whatever to the said country, or any part thereof; and 
 it is asserted in behalf of the province of Massachusetts Bay, hath a clear 
 and undoubted right and equitable title to the soil and jurisdiction of the 
 said country, and every part thereof, under such restrictions and limita¬ 
 tions as are expressed in the province charter. 
 
 * Mistake. 
 
 f He might have been the nearest heir-male, but he could not have been a descendant in the 
 male line of the first earl. 
 
6 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 thereto; and in order to substantiate this claim, he 
 thus, in his defences to the action of reduction-impro- 
 bation at the instance of the Officers of State, endea¬ 
 vours to make out his descent : 
 
 “ The defender is the lineal descendant of Sir William 
 Alexander of Menstrie, afterwards created Earl of Stirling, 
 and is his nearest and lawful heir. The said first Earl of 
 Stirling was great-great-great-grandfather of the defender. 
 The defender connects himself with the said Earl of Stirling, 
 through the Honourable John Alexander, sometime styled 
 John Alexander of Gartmore, fourth son of the said Earl, as 
 follows:—The said John Alexander of Gartmore had an only 
 son, John, who married Mary Hamilton at Donaghadee, in 
 Ireland, and died in 1712, leaving an only son, the Rev. 
 John Alexander, and two daughters. The Rev. John Alex¬ 
 ander married Hannah Higgs at Hartlebury, in Worcester¬ 
 shire, and died in 1743, leaving two sons, John and Benjamin, 
 and two daughters, Mary and Hannah. Of these, John died 
 in 1765. Benjamin, who was the last heir-male of the body 
 
 n ‘ And whereas the General Court of this province has granted twelve 
 townships within the tract claimed as aforesaid, which grants now lie 
 before his Majesty for his royal approbation, in consequence of which 
 grants, a great number of families have actually settled in the said town¬ 
 ships, in order to fulfill the conditions of the said grant, if the same 
 should be approved. 
 
 ‘“For the preserving the peace of the said country, and for preventing 
 any intrusion upon the said country, until his Majesty shall be pleased 
 to determine upon the same, and for providing against the tumults and 
 affrays which will unavoidably happen, if any of the grantees or lessees 
 of the said Earl of Stirling should offer to enter upon and take posses¬ 
 sion of the lands as granted, and actually settled, as aforesaid; 
 
 “ ‘ I have thought fit to issue, and do, by and with the advice and con¬ 
 sent of his Majesty’s council, issue this proclamation, hereby declaring 
 the intention of the government to protect and defend the said lands, 
 and the inhabitants thereof, against the said Earl of Stirling, and ali 
 persons claiming under him, until his Majesty’s pleasure shall be known 
 therein; and cautioning all his Majesty’s subjects against purchasing, 
 or taking leases, of any of the said lands under any person or persons 
 claiming uuder the first Earl of Stirling, as aforesaid. 
 
 “ * Given at the Council-Chamber in Boston, 
 the 7th day of September, J 768. 
 
 ‘“FRA. BERNARD.’” 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 7 
 
 of the said first Earl of Stirling, died in 1768, and Mary, the 
 eldest daughter, died in 1794, all of them unmarried, and 
 without issue. Hannah, the youngest daughter, was married 
 to William Humphrys, Esq. at Birmingham, and of this 
 marriage there was one son, the defender, and two daughters. 
 There is no other nearer lawful heir descended of the first 
 Earl of Stirling than the defender.” 
 
 The real pedigree of Mr Humphrys may go back to 
 a Rev. John Alexander, but farther is unknown, and it 
 cannot be shewn to be in any way linked with the real 
 Alexanders. 
 
 The procedure adopted by Mr Humphrys may now 
 be briefly stated. 
 
 Having, in 1824, obtained the royal licence to 
 assume the surname of Alexander,* he procured him- 
 
 * “ GEORGE R.—George the Fourth, by the Grace of God, &c.-— 
 Whereas Alexander Humphrys of Netlierton House, in the county of 
 Worcester, gentleman, hath, by his petition, humbly represented unto 
 us, That he is the only son and heir of William Humphrys of the 
 Larches, in the county of Warwick, Esq. some time since deceased, by 
 Hannah his wife, daughter of the late Reverend John Alexander, who 
 died in the year 1743, and only surviving sister, and sole-heir of her 
 two brothers, John Alexander, who died also unmarried in the year 
 1765, and Benjamin Alexander, who died also unmarried in the year 
 1768. 
 
 That he is anxious to perpetuate the family surname of his aforesaid 
 maternal grandfather, John Alexander, as well as out of grateful respect 
 to his memory, as out of consideration for the wishes oftentimes expressed 
 by his deceased mother, that the said surname might be revived in the 
 person of the petitioner. 
 
 The petitioner therefore most humbly prays our royal licence and 
 authority, that he and his issue may assume aud take the surname of 
 Alexander in addition to and after that of Humphrys. Know ye that 
 we, of our princely grace and special form, have given and granted, and, 
 by these presents, do give and grant, unto him, the said Alexander 
 Humphrys, our royal licence and authority, that he and his issue may 
 assume and take the surname of Alexander in addition to and after that 
 of Humphrys, provided this our concession and declaration be recorded 
 in our College of Arms, otherwise this our licence and permission to be 
 void and of none effect. 
 
 Our will and pleasure therefore is, &c. 
 
 Given at our Court at Carlton House the 8th day of March, 1824, in 
 the fifth year of our reign. 
 
 By his Majesty’s Command, 
 
 ROBERT PEEL.” 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 8 
 
 self to be served “ lawful and nearest heir-male in 
 general of the body of the said Hannah Alexander, 
 before the Bailies of Canongate, 7th February, 1826. 
 Immediately after this service was retoured, he as¬ 
 sumed the title of Earl of Stirling and Dovan, designa¬ 
 ted his mother “Countess,” and conferred the usual 
 styles of dignity upon his family and immediate 
 relatives. 
 
 Next, in order to connect himself with the landed 
 properties, he found it necessary to be served nearest 
 and lawful heir to the Earl of Stirling ; and accordingly, 
 with the assistance of one Mr Thomas Christopher 
 Banks,* he was, on brieve from Chancery of 21st Sep¬ 
 tember, 1830, served “lawful and nearest heir in general 
 to the said deceased William, the first Earl of Stirling, 
 my great-great-great grandfather,” 11th October, 1830. 
 
 He then took a brieve of 10th June, 1831, as heir 
 above to the North American possessions. After this 
 he managed a special service before the Sheriff of Edin¬ 
 burgh, wherein he produced the General Service, before 
 the Magistrates of Canongate, as establishing his pro¬ 
 pinquity, and the Register of Great Seal, and Register 
 of Sasines, in lieu of the principal charter and instru¬ 
 ment of sasine. Both services were in absence. On being 
 retoured, he obtained precept from Chancery, and by it, 
 on 8th July, 1831, was infeft in the North American 
 property at Edinburgh Castle, f 
 
 * This is one of those busy, meddling, troublesome, and officious indi¬ 
 viduals, professing themselves “ Genealogists,” who tend so much to per¬ 
 petuate blunders and misrepresentations in matters of general and 
 family history, if, indeed, they do not wittingly aid and abet in the 
 fabrication of impostures like the present. To give Bauks his due, how¬ 
 ever, he is the author of a very good work on the Extinct and Dormant 
 Baronage of England. 
 
 f “ He hath much land, and fertile:—’Tis a chough; but, as Isay, 
 spacious in the possession of dirt.” Hamlet , Act V. Sc. 2. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 9 
 
 As the patent of 1633 is to h<?irs-male alone, Mr 
 Humphrys * could not, on his own shelving, succeed; 
 but he adopts a bold device, and. pretends, that in 
 1639, Charles I. granted a charter of Novodamus to 
 the Earl of Stirling by way of a deed of entail of the 
 whole estates in Scotland and America, as well as the 
 honours in the patent of 1633, not limited, as in that 
 patent, to heirs-male, but as follows : 
 
 “ De Novo Damus et Concedimus in perpetuuin, ante- 
 dicto perconfiso et predilecto nostro consanguineo et consili- 
 ario Willielmo Comite de Stirling, et heredibus masculis 
 de corpore suo; quibus deficientibus heredibus femellis natu 
 maximis sine divisione ultimi talium heredum masculorum, 
 et heredibus masculis de corporibus diet, heredum femellarum 
 respective procreandis, cognomen et arma de Alexander ge- 
 rentibus; quibus omnibus deficientibus, propinquioribus legi- 
 timis heredibus quibuscunque dicti Willielmi Comitis de 
 Stirling, cum precedentia a decimo quarto die mensis Junii 
 anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo tertio, titulos, 
 honores, et dignitates Comitis de Stirling, Vicecomitis de 
 Stirling et de Canada, Domini Alexander de Tullibodie, cum 
 omnibus et singulis privilegiis, pre-eminentiis, prerogativis, 
 libertatibus et immunitatibus quibuscunque ad eosdem pertinen. 
 et spectan.” 
 
 This document has never been, and never can be, 
 produced. It is a complete fabrication. 
 
 On 12th October 1829, Mr Humphrys, or Alexander, 
 
 * Notwithstanding the royal licence to bear the surname and arms 
 of Alexander, I persist, throughout this statement, to designate him 
 by his own proper family-name of Humphrys ,— 1 st, Because I conceive 
 the aforesaid licence to have been obtained upon a specious pre¬ 
 tence ; and 2 d, because I am averse to confound the name of an old and 
 illustrious family with that of a gentleman who has been lucky enough 
 to obtain the use of it. 
 
10 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 brought an action in the Court of Session, for j^roving 
 the tenor of this alleged Novodamus of 1639, to which 
 the Officers of State were not called as parties, and 
 which was dismissed hoc statu, 4tli March, 1830. 
 (Shaw’s Reports, VIII. 634.) 
 
 On 4th September 1830, he instituted a new action 
 against the Officers of State and Mr Graham of Gart- 
 more, which was likewise dismissed, 2d March, 1833. 
 
 On 14th July 1831, Mr Humphrys, on the narrative 
 of his service, granted to Thomas Christopher Banks, * 
 aforesaid, 16,000 acres of land in Canada, and created 
 him a baronet, in terms of a clause in the charter of 
 1621 and 1625. Banks assumed the title, and applied 
 to the Lords of the Treasury for confirmation of the grant, 
 but, receiving no reply to his application, f he brought 
 a Declarator before the Court of Session, to have the 
 Resignation found valid, and calling upon the Crown to 
 grant a charter under the Great Seal conform thereto. 
 This was defended by the Officers of State, but action 
 
 * It is truly amazing, after the “ eternal friendship” sworn between 
 these parties,—after this donation of soil and presentment of orange 
 ribbon,—to find the newly created Baronet of Nova Scotia, designated by 
 his creator quoad honores, “ a malevolent and mercenary agent,” K a vin¬ 
 dictive and treacherous being,” and so forth. (Vide “ Narrative of 
 Oppressive Law Proceedings,” &c. passim.) 
 
 f Notwithstanding the non-confirmation by the Lords of the Treasury 
 of this ridiculous grant, and, as it were, in defiance of their proper con¬ 
 tempt for his impertinent application, Mr Banks prefixed to his “ Analy¬ 
 tical Statement of the Case of Alexander Earl of Stirling and Dovan,” 
 &c. London, 1832, 8vo. an “ Advertisement,” explanatory and defensive 
 of his assumption of the title of “ Baronet, N. S.” on the title-page of the 
 said “ Statement.’’ In this “ Advertisement,” he coolly remarks on the 
 creation by Mr Humphrys,— * I consider the same to be perfectly as legal 
 and as efficacious, as if it had been conferred upon me bv the Crown 
 itself.”!!!! 
 
 “ l T pon my life I am a Lord indeed , 
 
 And not a linker, nor Chnstiphcro S/y/” 
 
 Taming ofthe Shrew. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 11 
 
 was sisted in consequence of proceedings to be subse¬ 
 quently noticed. * 
 
 In June 1831, he instructed his agent, Mr Ephraim 
 Lockhart, to issue this proclamation to the Baronets of 
 Nova Scotia: 
 
 “ NOTICE TO THE BARONETS OF NOVA SCOTIA. 
 
 “ Whereas upon the institution of the order of Knights 
 Baronets of Nova Scotia, King Charles I. by his Royal 
 Charter, under the Great Seal of Scotland, dated 12th May 
 1625, was pleased to grant licence and authority to Sir 
 William Alexander, (afterwards Earl of Stirling,) his 
 Majesty’s Hereditary Locum Tenens, and Proprietary Lord 
 of the said Colony of Nova Scotia, to nominate and create 
 certain persons, at his discretion, into the honor and dignity 
 of Knights Baronet of the said country, with a descendable 
 inheritance therein ; and also to apportionate to every Baronet 
 so created a particular district of land to be erected into a 
 free barony. And whereas in virtue of such charter, many 
 persons were created baronets, and had seisin of the lands 
 assigned to them, to enjoy with the right and privilege of 
 working the mines on their respective territories, &c. (as 
 appears from the Register of Seisins.) It is hereby made 
 known to the heirs representatives of the said persons, that 
 very important interests are at this moment vested in them, of 
 which, from the lapse of time, and the mistaken idea of the 
 
 * In reference to this action, Banks, in February 1824, published a 
 most insolent and Bobadillian, as well as stupid pamphlet, entitled “ A 
 Letter to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, respecting what are called 
 « The Defences of the Officers of State,” to a certain action of declarator 
 now sisted before the Court of Session, at Edinburgh, shewing the 
 uncandid, covert, and invidious assertions therein unnecessarily intro¬ 
 duced ; which having been printed, tend, as doubtless meant, to the pre¬ 
 judice of the pursuer, in the merits of his action, and of his public char¬ 
 acter, before trial of the cause,— 
 
 Which rogue ought most to be condemned to shame, 
 
 Who steals my purse, or he who saps my name ? 
 
 Edinburgh, William Tait, 1834.” This he very prudently took care to 
 recall soon after publication. 
 
12 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 nature of their existing rights, it is apprehended they have 
 hitherto not been aware. For the better explanation of these 
 circumstances, it is intended to call a meeting very shortly of 
 the parties concerned, that a statement may be laid before 
 them of their actual claims, that their rights may be pro¬ 
 tected, and steps forthwith taken to secure them from any 
 farther prejudice from the operations of the company, called 
 the Mining Company of Nova Scotia. The Baronets of 
 Nova Scotia who may be desirous to attend the meeting, 
 are therefore requested to send their names and addresses 
 to Ephraim Lockhart, Esq. W.S. 1 Howe Street, Edinburgh, 
 or to Messrs Fisher and Rhodes, solicitors, Davies Street, 
 Grosvenor Square, London, from whom farther information 
 may be obtained.” 
 
 Almost immediately after being infeft at the castle, 
 on 12th July, 1831, Mr Humphrys issued the fol¬ 
 lowing Prospectus, setting forth his rights, and offering 
 for sale grants of land, in such quantities, and at such 
 rates as the ambition of parties might require. 
 
 “ Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Canada, Hereditary 
 Lieutenancy Office of the Lord Proprietor, for Sale, 
 Grants and Locations of Lands, 8cc. 8cc. 53, Parliament 
 Street. 
 
 “ PROSPECTUS. 
 
 “ The Earl of Stirling, Hereditary Lieutenant, and Lord 
 Proprietor of the Province of Nova Scotia, and the Lordship 
 of Canada, was, on the 2d day of July last, duly served nearest 
 and lawful heir in special to his great-great-great-grandfather, 
 Sir William Alexander, the first Earl of Stirling, under the 
 royal charters, granted by their majesties, King James and 
 Charles I. which were afterwards confirmed in Parliament, in 
 1633. (Vide Appendix to Prospectus.) This verdict of 
 
 heirship was duly retoured to the Chancery in Scotland; and 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 13 
 
 in virtue thereof by a precept from bis majesty, directed forth 
 of his Chancery to the Sheriff’ of the County of Edinburgh, 
 his Lordship was infeft in the whole country, with all its 
 parts and pertinents, the Offices of his Majesty’s hereditary 
 Lieutenant of Nova Scotia, &c. (New Brunswick and the 
 adjacent Islands included,) by sasine taken at the Castle of 
 Edinburgh, on the 8th day of the said month of July, in 
 terms of the powers, extent of territory, &c. contained in the 
 charters to his said ancestor. 
 
 “ Being thus legally seised of the ancient inheritance of his 
 family, he is now desirous that the waste lands within his 
 said territories should be settled and appropriated in certain 
 locations or portions to persons inclined to treat for the same, 
 either for absolute purchase or lease for a term of years. 
 
 “ With regard to the value of the lands, they may be 
 estimated at prices varying from 2s. to 2s. 6d. 3s. 6d. 5s. 
 7s. 6d. 10s. and in some cases as high as 20s. per acre; being 
 regulated by the quality of the soil, and by the local advan¬ 
 tages they possess. 
 
 “ In this estimate it may be observed, that a district of 
 sixteen thousand acres of the most inferior land has been 
 calculated to be worth £2000 sterling; but in noticing this 
 particular quantity of land, it is because such proportion was, 
 upon the first institution of the Order of Knights Baronets of 
 Nova Scotia, assigned as a qualification for those parties on 
 whom that distinguished order might be conferred, being 
 intended for the promotion of the colonization of the country, 
 and which was to proceed upon the previous resignation of 
 Sir William Alexander, or his heirs, of so much land into the 
 hands of the Baronet intended to be created. 
 
 « Thus, while the value of sixteen thousand acres of inferior 
 land may be reckoned at £2000, there is a material advance 
 to be applied to that of a superior nature; and a still farther 
 value to be computed, provided the quantum is to be viewed 
 with reference to the honour to which it gives qualification, 
 and which the ambition of the party might like to obtain. 
 
 « On this point, as on all the sub-grants of land made by Sir 
 
14 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 William Alexander and his heirs, the Crown is covenanted by 
 the charters to confirm them to the grantees, free of all 
 expense. 
 
 « An inspection of the charters (which, for the better infor¬ 
 mation of the public, have been translated from the original 
 Latin into English) will shew at once the extent of territory, 
 and the powers given to allot and divide that territory; or 
 what remains unallotted and unsettled, into grants to be 
 attended with greater privileges than can be obtained from 
 the Canada, or any other company, having, or assuming to 
 have charters from the British Government; but which are 
 not recognized by the Earl of Stirling, whose previous grant 
 or final confirmation of right ought to have been obtained. 
 His Lordship, by virtue of his charter, being the principal to 
 grant, and the Government merely the accessory (if required) 
 upon these occasions to confirm the same. 
 
 “ With respect to the climate of the country, its soil, its 
 productions, its agricultural capabilities, and its general features 
 to attract attention, and encourage settlers, the whole may be 
 comprised in the following observations : — 
 
 “ The heat in summer, and the cold in winter, are each 
 greater than in European countries in the same latitude. The 
 soil is extremely rich and fertile in general; and wheat, 
 barley, rye, maize, oats, and almost every species of grain, are 
 cultivated with the greatest success, the climate being well 
 calculated to bring them to maturity; also apples, pears, 
 peaches, nectarines, grapes, are produced, particularly in 
 Upper Canada, in the richest profusion. In fact, few sections 
 of the globe are so especially endowed by nature with exuber¬ 
 ance and fertility, a salubrious atmosphere, and a climate 
 calculated to ripen luxuriant fields, and mature delicious fruits. 
 There are roads adjoining, and through all the settled districts ; 
 in addition to which the numerous rivers form an important 
 means of passage and conveyance, both in summer and 
 winter; they also afford great conveniences for the erection of 
 mills, and other purposes of rural economy. 
 
 “ At this time there is a particularly fine district of 1,000,000 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 15 
 
 acres of most excellent land in New Brunswick, comprehend¬ 
 ing every attribute of climate and soil to render settlements 
 therein desirable; and this district may be treated for, either 
 in entirety or in subdivisions, according to the inclinations or 
 capabilities of persons to take the whole or only propor¬ 
 tions. 
 
 “ The Hereditary Lieutenant would have no objection to 
 encourage and give every countenance to individuals who 
 might be disposed to form a Company; and would himself 
 take one-tenth of the shares of which such company might 
 think it desirable that it should consist. 
 
 «* The lands taken by such company might then have 
 conceded, to be possessed, along with them, the exclusive 
 privilege of working the mines which may be thereon found ; 
 and other great advantages, of which a more correct idea may 
 be formed by reading the charters.* 
 
 “ N.B .—All proposals to the office are requested to be made 
 in writing, and either left there, or, if sent by post, 
 then post paid.” 
 
 This was succeeded by another of 28 th October, 
 same year, in form of an Address to the Public Autho¬ 
 rities and others in Canada. This document, like its 
 predecessor, is not the least amusing of Mr Humphrys’ 
 manifestoes. 
 
 “ ADDRESS to the Public Authorities, the Land Settlers, 
 Inhabitants, and all others whom it may concern, in the 
 Anglo-Scottish Colony of Nova Scotia, including New 
 Brunswick, and in the Lordship and Territory of Canada, 
 &c. &c. 
 
 « In my Address, dated Edinburgh, 12th July, 1831,1 made 
 known to you the verdict of the jury, by which I was found 
 to be the nearest and lawful heir in special to my great-great- 
 
 # “ Sold bv Ridgvvay, Piccadilly ; M‘Clary, St James Street; and Bigg, 
 Parliament Street.'’ 
 
1G 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 great grandfather, Sir William Alexander, the first Earl of 
 Stirling, &c. the first grantee and founder of the colony of 
 Nova Scotia, and grantee of the lordship of Canada, &c.: in 
 virtue of which verdict, by a precept from his Majesty, 
 directed forth of his chancery in Scotland, to the sheriff of the 
 county of Edinburgh, I had been infeft in the whole country, 
 with all their parts, pertinents, and high hereditary offices, 
 &c. by seisin taken at the castle of Edinburgh in terms of the 
 original grants made to my said ancestor, Sir William Alex¬ 
 ander ; and I also mentioned, that I should, as speedily as 
 possible, cause to be submitted to you copies of the various 
 charters conferring my rights, with the great privileges, 
 immunities, advantages, and prerogatives contained therein. 
 
 “ Having had these charters now printed and translated, I 
 have directed them to be sent over and circulated, for your 
 perfect information of the subjects they embrace, in which I 
 do not doubt but you will perceive that there are many points 
 of commercial interest, of local administration, and powers of 
 legislative enactment, which peculiarly deserve your attention; 
 and in relation to your most valuable rights, are of an impor¬ 
 tant nature, to be deeply considered. 
 
 “ The exercise, by the appointment of the British Govern¬ 
 ment, of the high hereditary offices conferred upon my ances¬ 
 tor, Sir William Alexander, is now legally vested in me, as 
 his nearest and lawful heir in special, with power to perform 
 them either in person, or by a sufficient deputy, nominated 
 by me to act in my room ; and I have accordingly presented 
 to the several Secretaries of State, and Prime Minister of his 
 Majesty’s Government, my claim of right to the execution of 
 the said high hereditary offices; and likewise made my protest 
 against their allotment to any person or persons whomsoever, 
 of any part or parcel of the unlocated, or at present waste 
 land, within your province or territory ; a copy of which 
 claim and protest is hereunto annexed. 
 
 “ Nova Scotians and Canadians,—I have deemed it expedient 
 thus to explain generally my connection with your country, 
 and the intention I have to adopt all legal measures which 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 17 
 
 may be necessary to assert and uphold my rights; but as I 
 before observed, that in coming forward for this purpose, I 
 mean only to be guided by a due consistency of conduct in 
 promoting, when in my power, your advantage, and by not 
 disturbing any legal interests, derived from or under any act 
 or acts of my ancestors and predecessors. 
 
 “ Persons desirous of settling on any of the waste lands, 
 either by purchase or lease, will find me ready to treat with 
 them on the most liberal terms and conditions. 
 
 “ They may make their proposals in writing, either to my 
 agents in or to my principal 
 
 agent at the Nova Scotia Lieutenancy Office, No. 53 Parlia¬ 
 ment Street, London, describing the extent, situation, and 
 locality of the land they wish to have, and upon what other 
 waste lands they may border or be near to,—with such descrip¬ 
 tion at large as may be proper for my agents to ascertain their 
 capabilities of produce and value. 
 
 “ Persons inclinable to form companies, for any particular 
 districts, with a view to the working of any mines thereon, 
 would find every encouragement from me to promote their 
 design, and to be aided, if wanted, by the junction of capi¬ 
 talists in this kingdom ; but I should rather wish, that what¬ 
 ever could be undertaken by native inhabitants of Nova Scotia 
 or Canada, should have every preference over persons emi¬ 
 grating from Great Britain ; and I should most particularly 
 wish, that in any official appointments I may have to make, 
 the persons to fill them should rather be Nova Scotians or 
 Canadians, than the strangers of England. 
 
 “ I should be glad to be furnished with every well-authenti¬ 
 cated account of the situation of all the waste lands at present 
 in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada, and the islands 
 appertaining thereto, and of those lands which, within the 
 last twenty years, have been granted out by the Crown to 
 English subjects; and in what state the latter are, and how 
 and in what manner the former might be the best improved. 
 
 (f All communications and information will be received with 
 great attention ; and I shall hope the perusal of the charters 
 
 B 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 18 
 
 will afford to you a development of powers, which, if co-ope¬ 
 rated with by your representative assemblies, may open a 
 door for a great relief to you, and may render myselt t ie 
 justice which I am entitled to require and have allowed me. 
 
 « Stirling and Dovan. 
 
 “ Proprietor and Hereditary Lieutenant of all 
 Nova Scotia, and Lord of the Dominion 
 of Canada.” 
 
 “ 53 Parliament Street, London, 
 
 28th October, 1831.” 
 
 These advertisements and addresses were circulated 
 widely throughout Great Britain and America, and 
 systematically followed up in the public prints by 
 explanatory prolusions as to his Lordships titles and 
 
 rights. 
 
 On 22d October, 1831, Mr Humphrys sent in a 
 « claim and protest to his majesty’s ministers,” in these 
 terms :— 
 
 “To the RIGHT HON BLE the EARL GREY, First 
 Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury, 
 &c. &c. &c. or to whom else it may concern. 
 
 “ Whereas I, Alexander, Earl of Stirling and Dovan, 
 Hereditary Lieutenant, and Proprietor of the Province of 
 Nova Scotia, and the Lordships of Canada, with the perti¬ 
 nents thereunto belonging in North America, on the 2d day 
 of July last, was legally found nearest and lawful heir in 
 special to my great-great-great-grandfather, Sir William 
 Alexander, Knight, first Earl of Stirling, &c. and first 
 Hereditary Lieutenant and Lord Proprietor of the territories 
 aforesaid ; which verdict of heirship was duly retoured to the 
 Chancery in Scotland, and in virtue thereof, by a precept 
 from his Majesty, directed forth of his Chancery in Scotland 
 to the Sheriff of the County of Edinburgh, I was infeft in 
 the said territories, their parts and pertinents, the Office of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 19 
 
 his Majesty’s Hereditary Lieutenant of Nova Scotia, and 
 other Hereditary Offices, by Seisin taken at the Castle of 
 Edinburgh on the 8th day of the same month of July, in 
 terms of the original Charters granted to my ancestor, the 
 said Sir W illiam Alexander, which, conformably to their 
 covenants and contents, were ratified and confirmed in 
 Parliament, and ol which Charters a printed copy, as well in 
 the original Latin as translated into English, is hereunto 
 attached. 
 
 “ ^ ow I? the said Alexander, Earl of Stirling and Dovan, 
 do hereby give notice to you, the said Earl Grey, as his 
 Majesty s principal Minister, that I claim as my legal right 
 of inheritance, (and into which I am now by law infeft,) all 
 the high and hereditary offices named, mentioned, and de¬ 
 scribed, in the aforesaid Charters, together with all the pre¬ 
 rogatives, j urisdictions, j udications, distinctions, pre-eminences, 
 powers, and privileges whatsoever, petitory as well as posses¬ 
 sory, therein set forth and granted to be inheritably holden, 
 exercised, and enjoyed, as also all the lands, country, and lord- 
 ships of Nova Scotia, and of Canada, not heretofore legally 
 granted or assigned by my ancestor, Sir William Alex¬ 
 ander, his immediate heirs or successors; with all and sundry 
 parts, pendicles, and pertinents specially and generally recited 
 in the said Charters, as w'ell in longitude as in latitude, in 
 space or in bounds, islands and arms of the sea, gulfs, rivers, 
 or lakes, with all royalties of mines, quarries, or productions 
 whatsoever, under or above ground, far and near, together 
 with all immunities and liberties expressed in the Charters 
 aforesaid. And I, the said Alexander, Earl of Stirling and 
 Dovan, do hereby protest against the possession or exercise of 
 any of the high hereditary offices to which reference has 
 herein before been made, by any person or persons whomso¬ 
 ever, other than by such person or persons, as by me may 
 have been previously nominated and appointed to act, as and 
 for my deputy therein. And I, the said Alexander, Earl of 
 Stirling and Dovan, do hereby also protest against the appro¬ 
 priations, grants, or assignations of lands, mainlands, islands, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 20 
 
 mines, parts, portions, or pertinents of the country, dominion, 
 and territories herein also before referred to, which may ha\e 
 at any time been made otherwise than by my immediate pic 
 decessors, the lawful heirs of Sir William Alexander, 
 within the legal time of prescription, to the prejudice of my 
 rifdit or rights of inheritance in the lands, islands, country, 
 dominion, and territories aforesaid. 
 
 “ And I do hereby further protest against any grant, appro¬ 
 priation, or assignation of any part, space, portion, or perti¬ 
 nent of the aforesaid country, dominion, or territories, to be 
 in future made by application for any person whomsoevei to 
 his Majesty’s Government, without the consent of myself in 
 writing first had and obtained. Dated this 22d day of 
 October, 1831. 
 
 (Signed) “ Stirling and Dovan.” 
 
 “ Signed and Sealed in the presence of 
 T. Bland, 17 Ely Place, Solicitor.” 
 
 In accordance with the preceding, on 15th June, 
 1832, a petition was presented to the House of Com¬ 
 mons, in name of the Earl of Stirling, against the 
 application for the New Brunswick Company Bill. * 
 
 “ Veneris , 15° die Junii , 1832. 
 
 “ (No. 1123.) 
 
 “ A petition of the Right Honourable the Earl of Stirling 
 was presented and read, setting forth, that, by the several 
 charters hereinafter stated, of their majesties James and 
 Charles the First to Sir William Alexander , Knight, therein 
 respectively described, the province of Nova Scotia, and other 
 territorial possessions in North America, were granted to him, 
 and his heirs or assignees whatsoever, hereditarily, to be 
 
 * Votes of the House of Commons. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 21 
 
 holdeti by the aforesaid Sir William Alexander , his heirs and 
 assignees, in free heritage, free lordship, free barony, and 
 regality for ever; that the petitioner is the nearest and lawful 
 heir in special of the said Sir William Alexander , first Earl 
 of Stirling , his great-great-great-grandfather, and as such 
 entitled to the possession of all the territories, pertinents, and 
 particulars contained in the charters before and hereinafter 
 more particularly mentioned, that is to say, the first granted 
 by King James under the Great Seal of Scotland, dated IOth 
 September, 1621, and the second by King Charles the First, 
 also under the said Great Seal, and dated the 12th day of 
 July, 1625, the third by the said King Charles, under the 
 same Great Seal, and dated the 2d day of February, 1628; 
 that these charters were afterwards confirmed in open Parlia¬ 
 ment by the king in person in 1633, the ninth of Charles the 
 First; and moreover, that Sir William Alexander, who had 
 been created Viscount Stirling in 1630, was, by patent dated 
 14th June, 1633, advanced to the dignity of Earl of Stirling 
 and Viscount Canada , the latter title being given to per¬ 
 petuate the name of the territory so granted to him ; that, on 
 the 2d day of July last, the petitioner was, before the Sheriff 
 of the county of Edinburgh, served nearest and lawful heir in 
 special of the said William, first Earl of Stirling, on which 
 occasion he (the Petitioner) was, by a Jury consisting for the 
 greater part of members of the Faculty of Advocates and 
 Writers to the Signet, (persons learned in the law,) found to 
 be the heir of his said ancestor in the degree before men¬ 
 tioned, and the verdict was duly retoured to the Chancery in 
 Scotland ; and thereupon, by a precept from the king, direc¬ 
 ted forth of the said Chancery to the Sheriff of the aforesaid 
 county of Edinburgh, the petitioner was, on the eighth day of 
 the same month of July, infeft in the whole country of Nova 
 Scotia, together with the lordship of Canada, with all their 
 parts and pertinents, by seisin, taken at the castle of Edin¬ 
 burgh, in terms of the original charters before recited; that, 
 by the same charters, the country of Nova Scotia having been 
 annexed, united to, and incorporated with, the kingdom of 
 
22 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Scotland , the petitioner was, by means thereof, and in virtue 
 of the seisin and infeftment aforesaid, as much in the posses¬ 
 sion of the same in law, as if he were actually residing in the 
 province; that the colonies then were originally founded at an 
 enormous expense by the said William , first Earl of Stirling , 
 who, in so doing, impoverished his family at home by the 
 heavy burdens charged upon the Scotch estates, which, soon 
 after his decease, were apprised to pay the same, and which 
 have ever since been suspended from the inheritance of his 
 heirs and successors: that the country of Nova Scotia , which, 
 after its foundation, was for some time overrun and usurped by 
 the French , was reclaimed by the British Government from the 
 French at the treaty of Utrecht , and on all other occasions 
 when it became the subject of dispute, was demanded upon 
 the sole ground that the occupation of the French was an 
 usurpation, the same having been so occupied after the grants 
 aforesaid, and giving the said grants in evidence of a prior 
 title, and that the claim of priority of title and occupation 
 was thereby allowed to the British Government, and con¬ 
 sequently to the petitioner, as a subject claiming protection 
 under it; that, upon the same ground exactly, the petitioner 
 alleges, that, in fact and in law, any other occupation of any 
 other party or parties, without the express sanction of the 
 petitioner or his ancestors, would be an usurpation on him 
 and his existing rights; that the petitioner hath actually 
 commenced proceedings in the Court of Chancery against the 
 company, or lessees of the company, called ‘ The Nova Scotia 
 Mining Company,’ who have possessed themselves of certain 
 portions of the territory, of right belonging to the petitioner, 
 and that the petitioner is ready and willing to bring the validity 
 of his claims to a decision before the legitimate tribunals of the 
 country; that the petitioner is further informed, notwith¬ 
 standing his aforesaid rights and privileges, a company of 
 persons, styling themselves ‘ The Neio Brunsicick and Nova 
 Scotia Land Company,’ have applied to the House for leave to 
 bring in a bill, to enable his Majesty to grant them a charter 
 of incorporation, and that such application is now pending, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 23 
 
 whereby, if permitted and sanctioned, the petitioner will be 
 grievously injured, unless compensation be provided for him 
 adequate to the portion of his property intended to be applied 
 for the purposes of the said company; that the petitioner hath 
 also heard, that other applications of a similar nature are 
 pending, or about to be made to interfere with the petitioner’s 
 said estates and lands in Nova Scotia, without any colour of 
 right or pretence whatsoever, but that the same are at present 
 waste and unlocated, which must necessarily lead to the mani¬ 
 fest wrong and injury of the said petitioner; wherefore the 
 petitioner humbly prays, that the House will order all unau¬ 
 thorized proceedings to be stayed, until a full and fair inquiry 
 be had into the truth and justice of the petitioner’s statement 
 and rights, and that he may be heard in support thereof, by 
 counsel or otherwise, at the bar of the House, or before a 
 committee to be named for the purpose, when all proper 
 parties may be also directed to attend.” 
 
 The newspapers of March, 1832, teemed with adver¬ 
 tisements, such as these :— 
 
 “ NOVA SCOTIA, NEW BRUNSWICK, AND CANADA. 
 
 « Whereas advertisements frequently appear in the news¬ 
 papers, from an intended joint-stock company, for locating 
 some of the unappropriated lands of Nova Scotia, New 
 Brunswick, and Canada :—Notice is hereby given to all whom 
 it may concern, that these lands were granted by their majes¬ 
 ties, King James and Charles the First, to Sir William 
 Alexander, the first Earl of Stirling, under royal charters 
 confirmed by the parliament of Scotland, and to his heirs and 
 assigns for ever, without any power of revocation whatsoever , 
 and also with permission to create knights baronets of Nova 
 Scotia; that the present Earl of Stirling is the hereditary 
 lieutenant and lord proprietor thereof, having been duly served 
 as lawful heir to the said first earl, and exercised his privi¬ 
 leges and rights accordingly. Thus legally invested in the 
 
24 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 said territories, his lordship deems it right to give publicity 
 to these his just and undoubted claims; and further, to inform 
 the public, and all others whom it may concern, that no 
 grants of any of the said lands (save those which have been 
 heretofore legally appropriated) can be made by any other 
 person whomsoever; and further, that his lordship is ready 
 and willing to treat for such grants, and to aid and asssist 
 liberally those who are disposed to take them, and become 
 settlers on his said territories, or who wish to obtain tracts of 
 land for former joint-stock companies, or any other individual 
 purposes whatsoever. 
 
 “ Application to be made at his lordship’s chambers, 53, 
 Parliament Street, Westminster. 
 
 “ London , 28 th March , 1832.”* 
 
 On the 19th of the same month and year, on the 
 motion of the Earl of Rosebery relating to the evils 
 arising from the practice of persons claiming dormant 
 peerages voting at elections of Scottish Representative 
 Peers, and which was so strongly felt, a select com¬ 
 mittee of the House of Lords was appointed to take 
 the subject into consideration, with the view of pre¬ 
 venting (as his lordship expressed it) “ the facility 
 with which persons can assume a title without autho- 
 
 * With reference to one of these advertisements, the following para¬ 
 graph appeared in the Globe of 4th March, 183*2:—“We observe an 
 advertisement for the sale of sixty-three thousand acres of land in the 
 province of New Brunswick, at the auction mart to-morrow, the 7th 
 instant, on behalf of the i Earl of Stirling.’ It may not be improper to 
 state, that, on inquiry at the Colonial Department, we tind that Govern¬ 
 ment do not recognize the claims which the gentleman assuming that 
 title makes to the unoccupied lands in the province; but have, on the 
 contrary, directed the local authorities to oppose any entry which may 
 be made on any such lands by persous deriving title from grants made 
 by the ‘ Earl of Stirling.’ It is very undesirable that any doubt should 
 exist upon a question of this nature which may have the effect of involv¬ 
 ing the purchasers at this proposed auction, and any settlers whom they 
 may remove to the province, in very serious embarrassments.” 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 25 
 
 rity, and thus lessen the character and respectability 
 of the peerage in the eyes of the public.” * 
 
 To the same committee was referred a petition from 
 the Marchioness Dowager of Downshire, the female 
 descendant of the fourth Earl of Stirling, complaining 
 of the undue assumption of that title by Mr Hum- 
 phrys. Her ladyship conceives, that if the new 
 patent founded on by Mr Humphrys had really been 
 issued, its effect would be to vest the peerage, not in 
 his, but in her person,—an inference very correct, so far 
 as the ordinary rules of succession apply. 
 
 These atrocious proceedings could not be permitted 
 to pass unnoticed by Mr Humphrys, who accor¬ 
 dingly favoured the committee with the following 
 protest. 
 
 “ PROTEST to the Right Hon ble the Select Committee of 
 the House of Peers, appointed to take into consideration 
 the Laws and Regulations now in force relating to the 
 Election of the Representative Peers of Scotland, and to 
 report their opinion to the House. 
 
 « My Lords, — Having learnt that a petition of the Mar¬ 
 chioness of Downshire, Baroness Sandys, lately presented to 
 the House of Lords, and complaining of my having assumed 
 the Earldom of Stirling without right or authority, has been 
 referred to your Lordships, I take leave most respectfully to 
 lay before your Lordships the following protest against the 
 said petition being entertained in any respect whatever. 
 
 « If the Marchioness of Downshire has any right to question 
 my title, the courts of Scotland, where it has been established, 
 are, I submit, the proper courts to apply to, and not at your 
 Lordships’ bar, in the first instance; for that, as a peer of 
 
 * « Mirror of Parliament,” p. 1280. ^ 
 
26 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Scotland, duly retoured in the Chancery at Edinburgh, and 
 entered upon the roll, it is there only that the Marchioness 
 could reduce the title by due course of law in Scotland. 
 
 “ Were the Marchioness to apply to such authorized and 
 competent tribunals, and a questionable judgment given, or a 
 judgment unfavourable to her wishes, then, doubtless, an 
 appeal would lie to your Lordships’ superior and appellant 
 jurisdiction; and there I, too, would have to attend your 
 Lordships, as any other suitor, in support of my just rights. 
 
 « That this exception taken to your Lordships entertaining 
 the petition at all in its present form, is founded on the well 
 known laws and customs of Scotland, their unrepealed force 
 since the union of England and Scotland, and by the articles 
 of the Union, whereby they are protected in all their integrity 
 and power, as applicable to my particular case. 
 
 “ By the laws of Scotland on precedency, a decreet was pro¬ 
 nounced in 1606 under a commission granted by King 
 James VI. to some noblemen, upon citation, that if any of 
 the noblemen therein prejudged did reclaim, they were to 
 raise a reduction of the said decreet before the session, and 
 adject a conclusion of declarator, craving it might be found 
 and declared, that they ought to have precedency from the 
 noblemen whom they therein cited. But (without) prejudice 
 always to such person or persons as should find themselves 
 in their interests prejudged by their then present ranking to 
 have recourse to the ordinary remeed of law, by reduction 
 before the Lords of Council and Session of the said decreet, 
 recovered, and of their due place and ranks, by production of 
 more ancient and authentic writs, nor (than) had been used 
 in the contrary of that process, summoning all such persons 
 thereto as should think themselves wrongously ranked, and 
 placed before them; and in the meantime, that this present 
 determination to stand in full force, See. (Sir George Macken¬ 
 zie’s Works.) 
 
 “ In addition to the aforesaid decreet, the statute 6 Anne, 
 cap. 26, sec. 22, has provided that the validity or invalidity 
 and preference of the title of the crown to any honours, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 27 
 
 manors, lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or to casualties 
 belonging to the Crown, shall continue to be heard and 
 decided in the Court of Session as was used, and of right 
 ought to have been by law and practice of Scotland at the 
 time of the Union, and not otherwise, any thing in this act 
 contained to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 “ And, moreover, the act for establishing the new Court of 
 Exchequer in Scotland leaves the determination of all civil 
 and patrimonial rights even between the king and subject, to 
 trial and decision of the Lords of the Session, as was used 
 before the Union. 
 
 “ Now my Lords, I contend that the Marchioness of Down- 
 shire ought to be required to establish her light to the 
 Stirling peerage before I am called upon to answer; and that 
 consequently she should be sent to the Court of Session to 
 dispute my right to the honours of the peerage, where she 
 would necessarily be compelled to condescend upon and 
 prove her title to sue; and that in no other cause can equal 
 justice be done to both parties, according to the laws in such 
 case made and provided. 
 
 (Signed) “ Stirling.” 
 
 From 4th April to 21st August, 1832, a series of 
 letters argumentative in Lord Stirling’s favour by 
 «A. B.” (a convenient friend, presumed to be the 
 genealogical Baronet of Nova Scotia, previously men¬ 
 tioned,) appeared in the columns of the Morning Post 
 and the Times. They resemble the other “fugitive 
 pieces ” emitted by the adherents of this “ much 
 injured nobleman,” with this exception, that they are 
 so very trashy as not to merit reprinting. 
 
 After the dissolution of Parliament, in December of 
 that year, ATr Humphrys addressed the following 
 letters to the Peers of Scotland. It is very obvious 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 28 
 
 that his absence was influenced by other reasons than 
 those stated in the epistle. 
 
 n To the Right Honourable the Peers of Scotland. 
 
 “ My Lords, —When the dissolution of Parliament took 
 place, I had at first contemplated attending personally to give 
 my vote at the ensuing election ; but having since reflected on 
 the invidious treatment I experienced from a few hostile parties 
 on the last occasion of exercising my peerage right, I have 
 changed my mind. Those among your Lordships who were 
 present, will remember how my opponents acted, and how I 
 defended myself. I have the satisfaction of knowing that my 
 conduct at the time, and my public address to your Lordships 
 afterwards, were approved by my friends in the peerage; and 
 I cannot doubt that my determination now, not to expose 
 myself unnecessarily to a repetition of such attacks, will be 
 applauded when my motives are known. 
 
 “ Be assured, my Lords, that I am not deterred from voting 
 at this election by any fear of consequences, for, as right is 
 on my side, I pursue my course without timidity. My reasons 
 for standing aloof are,— 
 
 “ 1st, Because I think it incompatible with my principles, 
 and with the proper dignity of a Peer of Scotland, to submit 
 to treatment which I consider is derogatory to both. 
 
 “ 2d, Because when I look to the motion made by the Earl 
 of Rosebery in the last Session of Parliament, on the subject 
 of the Peerage of Scotland, and recall to mind that not one 
 of the sixteen Peers chosen to represent the high and ancient 
 body of the nobility of that once renowned kingdom, rose in 
 defence of their privileges, of the usage by which their descents 
 have hitherto been governed, and of their rights of blood, (which 
 by the Act of Union were, nevertheless, preserved to them 
 independent of English control,) I am reluctantly brought to 
 consider, that if such be the estimation in which the dignity 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 29 
 
 of a Scotch Peer is appreciated by those who are our repre¬ 
 sentatives, it can little matter to me who shall be returned at 
 the ensuing election ; and as I have no political bias — no 
 hasty purpose to answer — and nothing to ask of ministers 
 excepting the dispensation of justice, which, liberal as they 
 profess themselves to be, I have as yet had no experience of— 
 I entertain no concern for the result of who may be selected 
 on the day so near at hand. 
 
 “ I hear it boldly asserted in this country, my Lords, that a 
 few steps more on the part of my opponents, if they be not 
 checked in their reckless course, may give a death-blow to the 
 privileges of all Scots Peers who have not seats in the House 
 of Lords. Those especially who are known to have followed 
 the laws and usages of Scotland in taking up (themselves or 
 their predecessors) their titles, as I have done mine, are 
 particularly pointed at as being liable to the same attacks 
 from the enemies of the Order. Some noble Lords have done 
 me the justice to applaud my fearless defence of the rights of 
 the Scotch Peerage, and I only regret that it has not yet been 
 felt how much the whole body are interested in the success of 
 my protracted struggle. As for the small number who have 
 shewn themselves hostile to my cause, and have joined in the 
 attempts to crush me, I confidently hope that a great change 
 will soon be effected in their opinions, which must have 
 originated in erroneous views, or rather should I say, in an 
 entire misunderstanding of my extraordinary case. In ancient 
 times your Lordships’ noble, valiant, high-minded, and inde¬ 
 pendent ancestors would not have brooked such interference 
 with their rights and privileges, or such contempt for the laws 
 of Scotland, as has been unblushingly exhibited in the pro¬ 
 ceedings against me by those who, to answer political pur¬ 
 poses, or to gratify private jealousy or spleen, have endeavoured 
 to subvert my rights. And can I suppose that you, my Lords, 
 who are the descendants of those illustrious Peers, will think 
 or act differently? No, I should be wanting in proper 
 respect for your Lordships if I imagined it was possible that 
 any one, after mature reflection, would give his sanction to 
 
.‘30 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 proceedings by which the honour, dignity, and independence 
 of all are attacked. When fully understood, (which has not 
 been universally the case hitherto) my cause must be warmly 
 and energetically taken up, as one affecting, and, therefore, 
 interesting the whole Peerage of Scotland ; and should preju¬ 
 dice or party influence make any noble Lord so reckless of 
 consequences as to defend the course pursued by my enemies, 
 I trust that such an example will find no imitators. 
 
 “ Meantime, under all the circumstances which afford me 
 reason for the determination 1 have come to, I will not 
 interfere to sanction by my vote one representative, either to 
 support or to oppose his majesty’s ministers. The day of 
 retribution, 1 feel, is not far off, and then I may act a part 
 which I have no doubt will cause me to be differently respected 
 and considerd by those who are now pleased to cavil about 
 straws; and who would deny me all but what they cannot 
 give nor take away, — namely, a rectitude of conscience and 
 principle, which, in point of honour, stands as high and 
 uncontaminated as that of the proudest of my opponents. — 
 I have the honour to be, my Lords, your Lordships’ most 
 faithful servant, 
 
 (Signed) “ Stirling.” 
 
 “ Richmond, 1st January, 1833.” 
 
 We now proceed to another act in this drama of 
 Perkin. 
 
 Having voted at all the elections of Scottish Peers 
 since 1825, (twice without protest,) both in person 
 and by signed lists, (Appendix, No. IX.); having 
 successfully pled in English Courts of Law his privilege 
 as peer from arrest ;* having pestilently addressed the 
 
 * See Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, on motion to set 
 aside the writ, and cancel the bail-bond, in Digby, Knight, v. Lord 
 Stirling. — Bingham’s Reports, VII. 55. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 31 
 
 ministry in character of Earl; # having deluded nume¬ 
 rous individuals by his pretensions ; and, in short, 
 
 * Against the appointment of Lord Durham to the Governorship of 
 Canada, Mr Humphrys forwarded a solemn protest to Lord Melbourne. 
 As no copy of this document can be found at the Colonial Office, the 
 following translation of it is taken from the columns of “ La France,” 
 for 22d March, 1S38. The postscript must evidently have been added 
 by Mademoiselle Le Normand, or some one of her satellites. 
 
 “ ON NOUS PRIE d’ INSERER LA PIECE SUIVANTE : 
 
 “ Traduction d* tine protestation contre les mesures du gouvernemcnt 
 
 anglais dans T affaire du Canada , envoyee le 27 janvier 1838, an vicomte 
 
 de Melbourne,premier ministre cT Angleterre. 
 
 “ Moi Alexandre, comte de Stirling, lieutenant hereditaire de Sa 
 Majeste dans la province de la Nouvelle-Ecosse (coraprenant le Nouveau- 
 Brunswick) et les provinces du Haut et du Bas-Canada, etc. etc. 
 
 “ Attendu que le gouvernement de la reine, dans la crise importante 
 ou se trouvent les affaires de la nation, se propose d’ obtenir V autorisa- 
 tion du parlement pour prendre des mesures qui porteraient atteinte 
 non-seulement a mes propres iuterets, mais aussi aux intcrets du peuple 
 habitant le territoire dont je suis le seul proprietaire legitime, — et de 
 plus que le tres honorable John George, comte de Durham, vient d’etre 
 nomme pour exercer, en qualite de gouverneur-general et grand delegue 
 de Sa Majeste dans les provinces susdites, le dictature la plus absolue, 
 faite pour causer le mecontentement universel et donner lieu aux con¬ 
 sequences les plus desastreuses, non seulement dans ces provinces, mais 
 encore dans la mere-patrie, pour ceux qui sont proprietaires de terres et 
 interesses a leur conservation. 
 
 “ Pour ces causes, moi Alexandre, comte de Stirling, je fais par les 
 presentes ma protestation solennelle : 
 
 “1° Parce que le gouvernement de Sa Majeste n’ a aucun droit de 
 proposer que des lois soient faites, ou qu’ une nouvelle constitution soit 
 refue dans les limites du territoire dont je suis le seul proprietaire, eu 
 vertu de chartes royales, confirmees par un acte du parlement; lesquelles 
 chartes m’ ont investi, en qualite d’ heritier et representant de la personne 
 de Guillaume, comte de Stirling, le premier concessionnaire de tous les 
 droits, pouvoirs et privileges que ledit gouvernement s’ est arroges et 
 qu’ il veut exercer ; 
 
 “ 2° Parce que, dans Y etat d’ excitation et de trouble ou se trouvent 
 aujourd’ hui les deux provinces du Canada, il est aussi imprudent qu 
 injuste de nommer ledit John George, comte de Durham, ou aucune 
 autre personne, au gouvernement de ces provinces, avec des pouvoirs si 
 despotiques; 
 
 “ 3° Parce que, prevoyant les consequences qui s’ ensuivront des 
 mesures proposees, je me sens imperativement appele a protester contre, 
 comme tendantes a redoubler les embarras et la confusion des affaires de 
 ces colonies deja si agitees, et a effectuer cette separation d avec la mere 
 patrie qu’ on pourrait empecher par une judicieuse et prompte recon¬ 
 naissance des pouvoirs dont je suis investi; 
 
 « 4* Parce que ces pouvoirs, confirmes par acte du parlement^ constituent 
 de fait les droits et les libertes du peuple de 1’Amerique anglaise; et 
 
3 *2 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 having all along conducted himself as the real Simon 
 Pure, a peer immaculate, sans tache, sans peur, et sans 
 
 pour cette raison tout tentative de la part du gouvernement de Sa 
 Majeste de faire des lois (encore moins des lois despotiques) en opposi¬ 
 tion a ces droits existans, est une violation dudit acte du parlement, 
 comme aussi de mes droits prives, et une infraction des libertes du 
 peuple habitant ledit territoire ; 
 
 “ 5° Parce que de grandes concessions de terre, faites depuis quelques 
 annees, au mepris de mes droits et privileges, a bien des personnes 
 attachees par interet au gouvernement, sont par la raises en peril; 
 
 “ 6° Parce que, desirant empecher une effusion de sang inutile, et qui, 
 pour ces raisons, serait inexcusable, et voulant unir sous des conditions 
 plus liberates et avantageuses les colonies a la mere patrie, j’ai souvent 
 et instamment otfert au gouvernement la consideration de T importance 
 de mes droits, comme le seul moyeu certain par lequel ces objets pour- 
 raient etre atteints; 
 
 “7° Parce qu’une vaine tentative a ete faite, par un proces lent et 
 ennuyeux d’eviter ou de retarder i* exercice de mes droits et pouvoirs 
 hereditaires, le gouvernemente de Sa Majeste n’ ignorant pas maintenant 
 qu* ils sont bien fondes et suffisamment prouves; 
 
 “8' Parce que V influence de norabreux individus, qui, pour des 
 motifs particulars ont toujours desire d’ empecher le succes de ma juste 
 cause, a eu assez de pouvoir sur P esprit des ministres de la reine pour 
 les aniraer contre moi, de maniere que mes reclamations ne sont pas 
 accueillies avec cette bonne foi et franchise que j’ ai toute raison d’ atten- 
 dre dans les circonstances actuelles; 
 
 “9 Parce qu’etant moi-meme anime par des sentimens de loyaute 
 envers Sa Majeste, comme ma souveraine, et par amour de la patrie, j’ai 
 toujours ete dispose a traiter sous les conditions les plus liberates pour 
 que mes droits soient reconnus d’ une maniere a concilier les esprits 
 generalement, assurer le bonheur et la prosperity du peuple habitant les 
 provinces sus-dites et par la etendre et renforcer le pouvoir et 1’ influence 
 de la Grande-Bretagne. 
 
 u Finaleraent, moi, Alexandre, comte de Stirling, par les presentes, fais 
 solenuellement ma protestation contre les mesures tout a la fois impru- 
 dentes et inconstitutionnelles proposee par le gouvernement de Sa 
 Majeste, pour les raisons deja donnees, et je reitere ici ma resolution de 
 maintenir, comme je suis autorise de le faire, mes droits justes et legi¬ 
 times, des droits achctes cherement par la ruine de ma faraille en 
 tentant la premiere colonisation des provinces de 1* Amerique anglaise. 
 
 Stirling.” 
 
 41 Edimbourg, ce 25 janvier 1838.” 
 
 “P.S .— Une ancieune carte du Canada, couverte d’autographes pre- 
 cieux et d’ attestations par les hommes les plus illustres, (piece parfaite- 
 rnente lcgalisee,) vient d’ etre remise dans les mains du descendant et 
 representant actuel du noble proprietaire du Canada et fondateur de la 
 Nouvelle-Ecosse, (le premier comte de Stirling en 1621.) Cette decou- 
 verte, don d* amitie, doit assurer le tiiomphe de sa juste cause devant la 
 cour superieure d’ Ecosse. Les honorables pairs du parlement anglais 
 sauront venger, sans doute. Lord Stirling, en le retablissant dans ses 
 droits.” 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 30 
 
 reproclie , — the Crown Lawyers were, on grounds of 
 public consideration, compelled to interfere and demolish 
 his assumed plumage. * 
 
 As was previously noticed, an action of Declarator 
 was instituted by Banks, which w T as defended by the 
 Officers of fetate. The proceedings in this action were 
 sisted in consequence of another of Reduction-Improba- 
 tion, which the defenders brought against Banks and 
 his fountain of honour, Mr Humphrys, in order to 
 ascertain the validity of those documents upon which 
 the latter based his right to assume the earldom. 
 
 The writs called for in this case were the brieves in 
 the general and special services, with all proceedings 
 thereon, and also the procuratory of resignation given 
 to Banks. Some of these documents had been ad¬ 
 dressed by Mr Humphrys in the action at his instance 
 for proving the tenor ; and as they had every appear¬ 
 ance of being forged, were retained in the hands of the 
 clerk of Court. 
 
 Had Mr Humphrys desired to go correctly, we 
 need not say fairly, to work, in his endeavour to make 
 out a claim, he would first, under his general service, 
 have extinguished, by legal evidence, the whole de¬ 
 scendants of the Earl of Stirling, prior to his alleged 
 ancestor, John, the fourth son. But, on all this part, 
 he implicitly relies upon, and quotes Douglas’ Peerage ;f 
 
 # “ Coraplaiue or do what you will, 
 
 Of your complaint it shall not skill ; 
 
 This is the tenor of my bil, 
 
 A daucocke ye be, and so shai be still.” 
 
 Skelton, Why come ye not to Court f 
 
 “ And make hero of a sickel or a saw, 
 
 For though ye live a hundred yere ye shall dye a daw.” 
 
 Ibid. Ware the Hawke . 
 
 f This work, even as improved by Wood, is of very doubtful authority. 
 
 It is, however, perfection when compared with his Baronage, a book so 
 execrable, that it would not even serve as the basis of a new edition. 
 
 A Scottish Peerage and Baronetage is much wanted, but there is only 
 
 C 
 
34 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and he attempts to extinguish the descendants from 
 the three elder brothers of John, by extracts from the 
 baptismal and burial registers of the parishes of Bin- 
 field, Berks, and St Anne’s, Westminster, which ex¬ 
 tracts have never yet been nor can be made evidence 
 in the case. 
 
 But, supposing he had extinguished these descendants, 
 and laid the honours and estates open to John, the 
 fourth son, his procedure would have been equally 
 erroneous. For mark how he enlightens the Canon- 
 gate Magistrates. He states, that this John married 
 Agnes, daughter of Sir Robert Graham of Gartmore, 
 by whom he had a son, John, settled at Antrim, in 
 Ireland, who had a son, the Rev. John Alexander, 
 father of Hannah Humphrys, the claimant’s mother. 
 And this he seeks to establish by such proofs as the 
 following. 
 
 First , He exhibits the deposition of his sister, Mrs 
 Pountney, (calling herself Lady Eliza,) taken on com¬ 
 mission from the Bailies of Canongate ; secondly , copy 
 of an alleged deposition by one William Trumbull, son 
 of Sir William Trumbull ;* thirdly , an alleged voluntary 
 affidavit by one Sara Lyner of Ballyrydor, in the 
 parish of Stradbally, Queen’s County, Ireland; and, 
 lastly, a similar voluntary affidavit by Henry Hovenden 
 of Ballynakill, gentleman. 
 
 By reference to these documents, (vide Appendix, 
 No. II.) it will be clearly perceived that the deposition 
 of Mrs Pountney says nothing about John of Gartmore, 
 
 on© gentleman in Scotland capable of the undertaking, and he, it is Greatly 
 to be feared, will never put bis shoulder to the profitless and unrepaying 
 task. Need I mention my friend Mr Riddell? 
 
 * Secretary of State, and the friend of Pope, who wrote his epitaph, 
 and has preserved some of his letters. See notice of him in Burnet, 
 Hist. Own Times, and Biographie UniversclU. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 35 
 
 and is objectionable on the score of relationship; that 
 Trumbull’s is also silent, quoad John of Cartmore, and 
 seems a fabrication ; that Lyner’s is entirely ex parte » 
 signed by a mark, and no account given why it was 
 taken, or how it came into Mr Humphrys’ hands; 
 and that Hovenden’s is worse than all, proving nothing 
 of the descent, and evidently a forgery. 
 
 Such was the evidence adduced by Mr Humphrys 
 in the general service—the foundation of all his subse¬ 
 quent measures ; and from it, it is plain that, even 
 had he succeeded in extinguishing the three previous 
 branches, he has not connected himself with the fourth. 
 This, by the additional proofs and productions in the 
 process, (Appendix, No. II. proof taken on commission 
 in Ireland,) he now attempts to do. 
 
 Assuming that the three branches have been extin¬ 
 guished, and that the Rev. John Alexander was the 
 . grandfather of Mr Humphrys, what evidence is there 
 that the father of this clergyman was a legitimate son 
 of John, the fourth son of the Earl of Stirling ? The 
 Officers of State admit that John of Gartmore had a 
 daughter, but deny that he had a son. Mr Humphrys 
 maintains that he had, and that he was named John, 
 was settled at Antrim, where he died in 1712, and 
 was interred at Newton Ards, with a long and lauda¬ 
 tory inscription on his monument. 
 
 To bolster up this fiction, he has recourse again to 
 the voluntary affidavits of Lyner and Hovenden; to 
 the evidence of Margaret M‘Blain, an old woman of 
 eighty ; of Mary Lewis, aged eighty-six ; and Eleanor 
 and Samuel Battersby, each about fifty; to these he 
 adds the alleged inscription on the monument, and 
 the sole evidence of its existence by the aforesaid 
 M'Blain. 
 
36 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 By reference to these evidences, (Appendix, No. II. 
 proof in Ireland, ut supra,) it is manifest that Lyner’s 
 merely attempts to shew that John of Gartmore 
 brought with him to Ireland his son, John, who after¬ 
 wards settled at Antrim, and in the service of whom 
 she lived. Mr Humphrys does not in any way touch 
 upon the history of this document, which is ex parte 
 and inadmissible, unless propped up by other testi¬ 
 mony ; it is engrossed in the nomograph of the period, 
 but that also is unsupported; and, even if it were 
 correct, it could not benefit Mr Humphrys, as it 
 neither testifies nor throws light upon the legitimacy 
 of John. It moreover seems to require interpretation 
 why this deposition should have been made in 1722, 
 when, by Mr Humphrys’ own evidence in the alleged 
 deposition of Trumbull, and the inscription on the 
 monument, the last earl died only in 1739, seventeen 
 years afterwards. 
 
 As to the deposition of Hovenden, presuming it to 
 be free from all other objection, it is merely matter of 
 hearsay. But both that and Lyner’s are sufficiently 
 proved by the chemical evidence, (Appendix, No. I.) 
 to be forgeries. 
 
 Mr Humphrys having discovered that this evidence 
 was wholly useless, took a commission for the exami¬ 
 nation of witnesses both in England and Ireland, to 
 supply the deficiency. But, although it is said that 
 John was settled in Antrim, was proprietor of consider¬ 
 able property, had founded or endowed charitable 
 institutions, and died there in 1712, Mr Humphrys 
 never went to that town in search of proof of these 
 assertions. He has adduced no evidence of John’s 
 existence, or even connection with the Earl of Stirling; 
 and all his witnesses are ignorant and illiterate peasants, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 37 
 
 unlikely to remember any such circumstances after the 
 lapse of so many years. 
 
 The evidence of M'Blain proves nothing as to the 
 source of information of Lady Mount Alexander, a 
 native of France, who, according to this witness, died 
 in 1772, at the age of sixty-five. In this case it is 
 impossible that her ladyship could have spoken from 
 her own knowledge, because, if she was sixty-five 
 years old when she died in 1772, she must have been 
 born in 1707; while John died in 1712, when her 
 ladyship was in France, an infant of five years old. 
 It seems, too, severely improbable, that she should 
 have made this youthful menial of fifteen—this ser¬ 
 vant's servant , (as is proved by her own evidence,) — 
 the confidential repository of her family annals, of dry 
 genealogical details, which were unlikely to interest or 
 be comprehended by her. Finally, it is abundantly 
 manifest that M‘Blain is unworthy of testimony, 
 having the reputation of a perjured and improper cha¬ 
 racter. (Appendix, No. I.—Irish proof.) 
 
 The evidence of Eleanor Battersby is equally absurd 
 and useless. It is the report by a girl of thirteen of 
 what her grandmother’s father had told her grand¬ 
 mother, regarding what neither could have had any 
 interest in, and which could not have taken place later 
 than thirty-eight years back.—Such is the amount of 
 the oral evidence. 
 
 As to the alleged Bible-inscription, which is printed 
 in Roman letters with a view to prevent detection of 
 pseudautograph, Mr Ilumphrys led a proof both in 
 England and Ireland. But all that is proved in 
 England is as to the signature of Abel Humphrys and 
 John Berry being genuine. That of Hannah Alex¬ 
 ander is in no way authenticated; and there is no 
 
38 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 evidence who Mr Lyttleton was, or that he ever 
 copied any inscription. Further, Mr Humphrys returns 
 to Ireland for support of the monumental inscription, 
 where his views are again promoted by the veracious 
 Mrs M‘Blain, the value of whose testimony has already 
 been disposed of. 
 
 The residue of Mr Humphrys’ evidence is on a par 
 with that which has been specially discussed. It is 
 all, as John of Antrim might have said, “ mere blar¬ 
 ney;” and the acute and perspicuous note appended 
 by Lord Cockburn to his interlocutor in the process of 
 reduction, 20th December, 1836, (Appendix, No. III.) 
 affords a distinct view of the stratum whereon these 
 Chateaux en Espagne are based. The Officers of State 
 properly maintain that the whole writings are forged, 
 and that no monument or inscription ever existed. 
 
 After the very specific judgment of the Lord Ordi¬ 
 nary, it might have been prudent had Mr Humphrys 
 either reclaimed from it, resting his case on the same 
 material, or else succumbed quietly to the decision, 
 although adverse. But that hallucination which seems 
 frequently to attend claimants to dormant titles — Sir 
 Egerton Brydges, for example — impelled him, in No¬ 
 vember, 1837, to lodge a minute in process, narrating 
 the recent “ discovery” of a variety of documents 
 “ which tend very materially to strengthen the evi¬ 
 dence of propinquity, in regard to the two descents 
 referred to by the Lord Ordinary,” and which docu¬ 
 ments he desired might be tendered as evidence in the 
 case. This minute, with relative copies of the said 
 documents, forms Appendix, No. IV. 
 
 To this minute answers were given in for the Officers 
 of State, (Appendix, No. V.) in which they denied the 
 validity of these documents, objected to their being 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 39 
 
 produced as evidence, and moved that Mr Humphrys 
 might be judicially examined relative thereto. The 
 prayer of the motion having been granted, Mr Hum¬ 
 phrys was, on the 18th December, 1838, judicially 
 examined, when he emitted the declaration, Appendix, 
 No. VI. 
 
 On 22d of same month, an order was issued by the 
 Court, directing that the original letters should be 
 exhibited to the clerk of Court, to be by him compared 
 with the excerpts of the same, produced in process, and 
 instructing him to report on such points thereanent, as 
 he should consider proper for the information of the 
 Court. This was executed accordingly, and on 3d 
 January, 1839, the report and additional productions, 
 Appendix, No. VII. were given in. These were 
 followed on 28th February, by a Supplemental Report 
 and Productions, Appendix, No. VIII. 
 
 The result of these latter proceedings was, that on 
 18th March, 1839, Mr Humphrys was served with an 
 indictment to stand trial for Forgery, before the 
 High Court of Justiciary, on the 3d day of April 
 following. On that occasion, his counsel having moved 
 for delay, the diet was continued till the 29th of the 
 same month. An accurate report of this cause celebre 
 will, it is presumed, be found in the succeeding pages. 
 From the various attendant circumstances — the com¬ 
 plex ingenuity displayed in the fabrication of the docu¬ 
 ments libelled on — the magnitude of the prisoner’s 
 pretensions, and the extensive notoriety which they 
 had procured for him — no case for many years has 
 excited more interest or attracted greater attention. 
 The trial lasted five days, during which time every 
 cranny of the Court was occupied by the rank and 
 fashion of Edinburgh. The number of ladies present 
 
40 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 gave an air of brilliancy to the assemblage, which 
 resembled the audience of a theatre rather than of a 
 hall of judgment. And all this to witness the infirmities 
 of poor human nature ! 
 
 The whole proceedings of Mr Humphrys during the 
 progress of his “ claim,” have been, to speak artistically, 
 “ in keeping; ” and he deserves credit for the manner 
 in which he has conducted himself under his assumed 
 dignities. Not even Abon Hassan, in his dream of 
 sovereignty, could have performed the part with 
 greater propriety. 
 
 Of his early history little is known, save what 
 appears from the evidence adduced on his trial. His 
 father, it seems, was a respectable merchant in Bir¬ 
 mingham, who lived in good style. He went abroad 
 in 1802, accompanied by his son, the claimant; and 
 not immediately returning upon the declaration of 
 hostilities, which succeeded the short peace, was, in 
 common with many other natives of this country, 
 arbitrarily detained by Napoleon. Mr Humphrys, 
 the elder, died at Verdun in 1807, and the son 
 remained a prisoner in France till the general peace in 
 1814. He returned in 1815, and commenced business 
 as a teacher near Worcester.* 
 
 When Mr Humphrys first bethought him of aspiring 
 to the honours of a peerage does not precisely appear ; 
 but it is not improbable that his pretensions were first 
 
 * This is spoken to in the evidence. Prior to the trial, a paragraph 
 in the Worcester Chronicle of March, 1839, mentions that “ the Earl of 
 Stirling-, who is now under prosecution iu Scotland, on a charge of 
 forging certain documents, calculated to forward his claim to the 
 peerage, formerly kept a school near Worcester, called Netherton-House 
 Academy. He then went under the name of Mr Alexander Humphrys.’’ 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 41 
 
 directed or acted upon by Mr — we beg his pardon, 
 Sir T. C. Banks, Bart. N. S. — (who, by the way, we 
 are surprised was not cited by the Crown, as he likely 
 could have thrown considerable light on the contro¬ 
 verted points.) His first step was to adopt, in 1824, 
 the name of Alexander, which he accomplished by 
 royal licence, as previously mentioned. It is remark¬ 
 able that this warrant bears no reference to his alleged* 
 descent from the family of Stirling. Iiis subsequent 
 proceedings have been already detailed ; but there 
 remain still some delicious morceaux connected with 
 his arrival in that part of her majesty’s dominions 
 called Scotland. 
 
 Having resolved, qua Earl of Stirling, to visit the 
 ancient and royal burgh of that name, we find in the 
 “ Stirling Journal” of Thursday, 9th June, 1825, that 
 “ The Right Honourable Alexander Earl of Stirling and 
 his Countess arrived at Gibb’s Inn here, yesterday even¬ 
 ing. The circumstance of his lordship’s arrival was no 
 sooner known to the magistrates, than the bells were 
 set a-ringing; and about eleven o’clock to-day they 
 waited on his lordship, to congratulate him on his visit 
 to the residence of his noble ancestors. His lordship, 
 in the course of the day, visited the castle, and every 
 part of the town worthy of notice, and seemed to take 
 peculiar interest in viewing Argyle Lodge, formerly 
 the town residence of the Earls of Stirling.” 
 
 In the same newspaper of ICth June, 1825, it is 
 mentioned, that “ On Friday the Earl and Countess of 
 Stirling left Gibb’s Inn for Glasgow, on their return to 
 Worcestershire. Iiis lordship left a donation of £ 5 
 with the treasurer of the kirk-session for the poor of 
 the parish.” 
 
 All this is very fine. So is the following certified 
 
42 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 extract from the town council records of the aforesaid 
 burgh : — 
 
 “ At Stirling, the twenty-seventh day of June, one 
 thousand eight hundred and twenty-five years. 
 
 “ Which day the magistrates and town council of 
 the burgh of Stirling being convened, they resolve to 
 elect and admit the Right Honourable Alexander Earl 
 of Stirling to be a Burgess qua Guildbrother of the 
 Burgh; and authorize the Pravost to subscribe a 
 proper ticket of admission, and transmit the same to 
 his Lordship ; the expense being to be defrayed by the 
 Town, and authorize the Chamberlain to pay the 
 same accordingly.” 
 
 “ Extracted from the records of the Town council of 
 the burgh of Stirling, by 
 
 (Signed) “ Wm. Galbraith, Town clerk.” 
 
 The preceding ceremonious deferences to Mr Hum- 
 phrys may be attributed to the circumstance of his 
 having employed one Mr James Wright, a writer in 
 Stirling—the gentleman who first introduced the titular 
 lord to Mr Lockhart, (vide Mr Lockhart’s evidence)—to 
 assist his inquiries with reference to his “ claim.” This 
 gentleman naturally desired the elevation of his client, 
 and, doubtless, failed not to impress the worthy civic 
 dignitaries with a sense of his importance. It was 
 rumoured that, having informed Mr Humphrys that 
 the burying place of the old earls of Stirling was in a 
 state of ruin and defilement, Mr Humphrys, as a mark 
 of regard for services rendered, presented Mr Wright 
 with the family aisle in the West Church, for a final 
 resting place to himself and family !!! Mr Wright 
 accordingly entered upon possession ; and, in the course 
 of time, took personal inf eft went. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 43 
 
 We have been favoured with some notes relating to 
 this affair. 
 
 “ When Bowey’s aisle” (the old name for what after¬ 
 wards belonged to the Alexanders) “ was dismantled, 
 the monument erected by the Countess of Stirling, to 
 the memory of Sir William Erskine and his wife,* whose 
 only child she was, was in a state of perfect preserva¬ 
 tion in the side of one of the buttresses of the church, 
 which projected a little into the aisle ; and as the but¬ 
 tress was not taken down, this monument remained, 
 till it was removed a few years ago by the family of 
 Mr James Wright, writer, in order to make way for a 
 monument erected by them, to the memory of that 
 gentleman, on the very spot in which it stood.” 
 
 The memoranda farther bear :—“ The aisle does not 
 seem to have been carried off by the creditors of the 
 
 * Sir William Erskine was parson of Campsie, Commendator of the 
 Bishopric of Glasgow, a younger brother of the family of Balgony, and 
 cousin-german of the Regent Mar. (Vide Crawfurd’s Peerage, voce 
 Alexander Earl of Stirling.) The following is the inscription on the 
 monument above referred to, erected by Janet Countess of Stirling, to 
 the memory of her parents : — 
 
 “ Hie jacet in spe resurrectionis 
 Gulielmus JEreskinus Equestris 
 Ordinis, cum Joanna Conjnge, 
 
 Illustri et communi jEreskinorum 
 Familia orta, singulari virtute 
 Foemina, uuica filia superstite, 
 
 Quce postea Gulielmo Alexandro 
 Equite egregio, Jacobi Regi a 
 Supplicibus libellis, Carolo 
 Regi ab Epistolis, et utriusque 
 Regni a consiliis, nupsit, Faiuili- 
 Amque ejus numerosa sobole auxit, 
 
 Et hoc monumentum 
 Parentibus Pie 
 Posuit.” 
 
 1 have deemed it right to preserve this inscription, as the monument 
 has been removed, and very possibly may be broken up. It was pulled 
 down by Mr Wright, and thrown aside into an outhouse, to which 
 access could only be obtained by the interference of the public authori- 
 ' ties, when on a recent occasion inspection of the monument was 
 required. 
 
44 
 
 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 family, like the palace, but remains at this moment in 
 the hereditas jacens of the earl. Mr Wright obtained 
 possession of it before it was pulled down, buried his 
 wife and son in it, and was latterly interred in it him¬ 
 self. The site of it is now enclosed with a stone wall 
 and iron railings, erected when the West Church was 
 repaired.” “The aisle is remembered to have been 
 occupied as a joiner’s shop, or place for holding the 
 wood of a joiner in the neighbourhood, before the late 
 Mr Wright began to bury in it.” 
 
 Mr Humphrys managed to inlist a large portion of 
 the periodical press in his favour ; and, accordingly, the 
 public has, for a series of years, been enlightened by 
 occasional puffs of trashy publications relating to his 
 “ claims,” of indignant Jeremiads and incidental para¬ 
 graphs, all tending to mystify “ the many,” and inlist 
 their sympathies in his favour. Every now and then 
 advertisements similar to this appeared. 
 
 “INTIMATION. 
 
 “ Lord Stirling respects the motives which have induced 
 T. W. C. to withhold his own name and address; and having 
 ascertained, by the reference to Sir G. M. the perfect truth 
 and correctness of T. W. C.’s information, he feels hound in 
 gratitude for so generous and well-timed a disclosure of im¬ 
 portant facts on the part of a stranger, to comply with his 
 request of a ‘ short acknowledgment in either the Edinburgh 
 or London newspapers.’ Lord S. begs to assure T. W. C. 
 that all his statements respecting the amissing charter of 1639 
 have been verified by the search, and will soon completely 
 effect its discovery. The information sent, respecting dark 
 intrigues of the opposite party, will be useful; but T. W. C. 
 will be glad to hear that, as might have been expected, those 
 men who seek the overthrow of a family by treachery—whose 
 plans are supported by fabricated papers and defamatory state- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 45 
 
 ments —have traitors in their own camp , to whose revelations 
 Lord S. is indebted for ample means of exposing and punish¬ 
 ing the chief conspirators. 
 
 (Edinburgh Advertiser.) 
 
 “20th September, 1836.” 
 
 The marriage of his daughter, Miss Angela Ilum- 
 phrys, afforded another opportunity for “ tickling the 
 trout;” and in the newspapers of April, 1835, it was 
 thus noticed, care being taken to preserve the usual 
 inaccuracy of rumour in like cases. 
 
 “ Runaway Match in High Life .—The gossips of Edinburgh 
 have experienced considerable excitement from the circum¬ 
 stance of an Englishman having eloped with the fair daughter 
 of a Scotch Peer. The young lady is the beautiful Lady 
 
 A[ngel]a A[lexande]r, only daughter of the Earl of S-g, 
 
 (who has recently claimed the title,) and the bridegroom is 
 
 W-e P-n, Esq. a person of good property in Cheshire.* 
 
 The parties were married yesterday, at St James’s, by the 
 gentleman’s brother, and instantly departed for Paris.”— 
 London Paper. 
 
 The deposition of Mr Tyrrell throw's some light on 
 the mode in which funds were raised for support of his 
 claims. 
 
 In the “Narrative of the Oppressive Law Pro¬ 
 ceedings, &e. against the Earl of Stirling,” (Edinburgh, 
 1836, 4to.) there is a curious invention about a design 
 to entrap this “ much injured nobleman ” by Lord 
 Goderich’s private secretary. This is apt to startle 
 the unwary reader, and may perhaps afford matter of 
 future speculation as to the cause of this deep laid 
 
 * Scraptoft Hall, the residence of Mr Pearson, is situated in 
 Leicestershire , a few miles from tie town of Leicester. See an 
 eno-ravino- of it in Throsby’s Views, vol. L and a more enlarged 
 description in Nichols’ Leicester, vol. II. It was originally the seat of 
 the family of Wigley. 
 
4G 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 scheme of tyranny, and the inquisitorial practices 
 resorted to by the British Cabinet. We would ven¬ 
 ture to propose a solution of the enigma. Might it not 
 be a trait of the professional tact of a bailiff employed 
 by some long deferred and disappointed creditor—Sir 
 Henry Digby for example—whose cause against the 
 “ Earl ” might then be pending ? 
 
 With reference to Mr Humphrys’ dealings with 
 Mademoiselle Le Normand, this paragraph occurs in 
 one of the Times of April, 1838 :—“ Extract of a letter 
 Paris, April 26 :—The Emperors Napoleon and Alex¬ 
 ander, and dozens of individuals (after them) of the 
 first distinction, with thousands of the common file, 
 have, from time to time, consulted the famous Parisian 
 fortune teller, Mademoiselle Le Normand. Are you 
 aware that the wise and grave elderly gentlemen, who 
 constitute the present Cabinet of Great Britain, have, 
 through Earl Granville, been dealing lately with that 
 celebrated tireuse des cartes ? To be serious, however, 
 the following comes from an unquestionable source :— 
 The British Government has called upon that of 
 France to institute inquiries respecting certain deeds 
 which a soi-disant or a real Lord (Alexander) Stirling 
 has produced, and on which he grounds a claim to the 
 inheritance of the whole of Canada. His lordship has, 
 moreover, protested against the mission of Earl 
 Durham. It appears that when lately in Paris, his 
 lordship obtained from Mile. Le Normand certain 
 documents, on which he rests the claim just men¬ 
 tioned, and copies, or a description of which he has 
 laid before the British Government. In consequence 
 of an application of Earl Granville, Mile. Le Normand 
 was yesterday summoned to the Prefecture of Police, 
 when she was called upon to state in what way the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 47 
 
 documents in question had come into her possession. 
 She replied that they had been left with her en depot 
 by a party respecting whom she either would not or 
 could not give any account. All that could be obtained 
 from her in addition, was an admission that she had 
 received money for the papers.” 
 
 At the same time, and in connection with the above, 
 the Standard remarks :—“ Lord (Alexander) Stirling, 
 if Lord he be, seems to be a fortune hunter, and there¬ 
 fore sought a fortune teller in the celebrated Mile. Le 
 Normand; of course his lordship’s wishes were soon 
 complied with, and upon the payment of the required 
 fee, Mile, produced a bundle of papers, authorizing his 
 lordship to put in his claim for ‘ the whole ’ of 
 Canada.” 
 
 With reference to the criminal prosecution, we cannot 
 help thinking that it was very inexpedient, as the 
 excerpt charter, which was the basis of any claim Mr 
 Humphrys could set up, might, if such a step were 
 really necessary, have been set aside at a compara¬ 
 tively trifling expense by a process of reduction-impro- 
 bation in the Court of Session. Indeed, we should have 
 thought that the reduction of the service and infeft- 
 ment would, of itself, have answered every useful pur¬ 
 pose ; as it is, the country has been put to an enormous 
 expense without any corresponding benefit, as the Jury 
 have only decided that which the Judges of the Court 
 of Session could have done, namely, that the writs by 
 which Mr Humphrys endeavoured to support his ima¬ 
 ginary claims are false and fabricated. In conclusion, 
 we may express an opinion in conformity with that of 
 the majority of the Jury, for we think it exceedingly 
 
48 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 possible that this unfortunate gentleman has been the 
 'victim of an hallucination which has rendered him, as 
 his counsel states him to have been, “ the dupe of the 
 designing, and the prey of the unworthy.” However 
 strongly we reprobate his absurd and preposterous 
 pretensions, we can, with difficulty, bring ourselves 
 to believe that one whose character stood so high in 
 the opinion of gentlemen of undoubted and unble¬ 
 mished reputation could ever have perpetrated the 
 criminal actions laid to his charge. 
 
 The following note, which refers to the claimant of 
 1762, could not be conveniently introduced at page 4, 
 without overloading it:— 
 
 “ The present Earl of Stirling* received from a relation an old box of 
 neglected writings, among which he found the original commission of 
 Charles I. appointing his lordship’s predecessor, Alexander, Earl of 
 Stirling, commander-in-chief of Nova Scotia, with the confirmation of 
 the grant of that province made by James I. In the initial letters are 
 the portraits of the king sitting on the throne delivering the patent to 
 the Earl, and round the border representations, in miniature, of the cus¬ 
 toms, huntings, fishings, and productions of the country, all in the highest 
 preservation, and so admirably executed, that it was believed of the 
 pencil of Vandyck ; but as I know no instance of that master having 
 painted in this manner, I cannot doubt but it was the work of Norgate, 
 allowed the best illuminator of that age, and generally employed, says 
 Fuller, to make the initial letters in the patents of peers, and commis¬ 
 sions of ambassadors.”—Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting, edited by 
 Dallaway, vol. ii. p. 45. Norgate was Windsor herald, and clerk of the 
 signet. Vide Master’s Hist, of Corpus Christi Coll. Cambridge, p. 118. 
 
 Banks, in his “ Analytical Statement,” p. 62, wishes to make out that 
 the above was the pretended charter of 1639, because, saith he, “ He 
 was appointed Windsor herald in 1633, and soon after illuminator of 
 royal patents ergo , " the charter mentioned by Walpole could not be 
 before 1633, but must have been one after that time.” Where Mr 
 Banks discovered grounds for “ soon after ” we know not. He was not 
 appointed “illuminator of royal patents,” but \vas merely employed on 
 them from his excellence as a limner, and this probably led to his obtain¬ 
 ing admission into the college. How readily some men can torture facts 
 to suit their own views ! 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 
 November 12, 1836. 
 
 PURSUERS’ PROOF, 
 
 IN CAUSA, 
 
 THE OFFICERS OF STATE 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 HUMPHREYS OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 CALLING HIMSELF EaRL OF STIRLING. 
 
 “ Edinburgh , July 4, 1835—The Lords, on report of Lord Cockburn, 
 Ordinary, having considered the state of the process, and heard counsel on 
 the question as to the mode of procedure referred to in the Lord Ordinary’s 
 Interlocutor, are of opinion, that if, after hearing parties, any farther proof 
 in this cause shall be allowed, such proof ought to be taken on commission ; 
 and remit to the Lord Ordinary to proceed accordingly. 
 
 (Signed) “D. BOYLE, I.P.D." 
 
 “ 8th July , 1835—The Lord Ordinary allows to both parties a proof of 
 their respective averments as contained in the Record: Grants diligence, at 
 the instance of both parties, for citing witnesses and havers accordingly : 
 Remits to Mr Handyside, Advocate, to take the Depositions, and receive the 
 exhibits of such of the witnesses and havers as may be examined in this 
 country; and grants commission to him accordingly for that purpose, if 
 necessary : Farther, grants Commission to any of his Majesty’s Justices of 
 the Peace in Ireland to take the Depositions, and receive the exhibits of such 
 of the witnesses and havers as may be examined in Ireland,—to be reported 
 on or before the third sederunt day in November next; and dispenses with the 
 Minute-book. 
 
 (Signed) “ H. COCKBURN.” 
 
 “ 1st June , 1836_The Lord Ordinary, of consent, prorogates the time for 
 
 the Defender reporting the diligence and commission formerly granted to him 
 for fourteen days; also grants diligence, at the pursuers’ and defenders’ 
 
 2 A 
 
\\ APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 instance, for citing such witnesses and havers as reside within the counties of 
 Warwick and Worcester; and grants Commission to any of his ^lajestys 
 Justices of the Peace for said counties to take the depositions of said wit¬ 
 nesses and havers, and receive their exhibits ; and dispenses with the Minute- 
 book,—to be reported within fourteen days. Also prorogates the time for 
 the pursuers reporting the diligence and commission now and foimerly granted 
 to them for fourteen days, after the expiry of said fourteen days prorogated to 
 
 the defender. (Signed) « H. COCKBURN.” 
 
 “ 6th July , 1836_The Lord Ordinary prorogates the time for the pursuers 
 
 reporting the diligence formerly granted to them till the third sederunt day in 
 November next. 
 
 (Signed) « H. COCKBURN.” 
 
 PURSUERS’ PROOF, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 ACTION of REDUCTION IMPROBATION, at the 
 instance of THE OFFICERS OF STATE, Pursuers; 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 ALEXANDER HUMPHREYS or ALEXANDER, 
 calling; himself Earl of Stirling ; and THOMAS 
 CHRISTOPHER BANKS, Defenders. 
 
 At Edinburgh, the 1st day of June, 1836, in the Action of Reduction and 
 Improbation, at the instance of the Officers of State, against Alexander 
 Humphreys or Alexander, and Thomas Christopher Banks, there was 
 produced an interlocutor by Lord Cockburn, Ordinary, allowing to both 
 parties a proof of their respective averments, as contained in the Record, 
 and granting diligence, for citing witnesses and havers, and remitting to 
 Mr Robert Handyside, advocate, to take the depositions, and receive the 
 exhibits of such of the witnesses and havers, as may be examined in this 
 country, which he accepted of; and having chosen James Keddie, writer 
 in Edinburgh, to be his clerk, to whom be administered the oath de 
 fideli , 
 
 Appeared Mr Cosmo Innes, advocate 3 and Mr Roderick 
 MacKenzie, W.S. counsel and agent for the pursuers; and 
 Mr Adam Anderson, advocate, and Mr Ephraim Lock¬ 
 hart, W.S. counsel and agent for the defenders. 
 
 Compeared Andrew Fyfe, M.D. Fellow of the Royal 
 College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, a witness cited for the pur¬ 
 suers; who, being solemnly sworn, purged of partial counsel, 
 examined and interrogated, depones, That he is, and has been 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ill 
 
 for about sixteen years, a lecturer on chemistry in Edin¬ 
 burgh ; that he lias turned his attention a good deal to practi¬ 
 cal chemistry, and has taught a class of practical chemistry 
 for about the same period. Being requested to examine one 
 of the documents contained in No. 25 of process, and bearing 
 to be an affidavit of Henry Hovenden, and to be sworn on the 
 16th day of July, 1723, and which is marked by the deponent, 
 commissioner, and clerk, as relative hereto, depones, that he 
 has seen the document before in the hands of the clerk of 
 process, and that it appears to him that some parts of the 
 paper of that document have been injured, anti the texture 
 destroyed, by the application of some substance, probably an 
 acid; and adds, that the hardness which he observes on some 
 parts of the paper may have been occasioned by the cautious 
 application of heat after the use of the acid, if such substance 
 had been applied ; and adds farther, that the application of 
 chlorine or chloride of lime would produce a similar change 
 on the texture of the paper, as the acid would. Depones, 
 that he observes that the top and bottom margins, and part 
 of the side margins, have not been subjected to the action of 
 the same substance which has injured the rest. Depones, 
 that the ink is of a dusky colour, and of an appearance like 
 what he would expect in writing upon paper previously 
 affected with acid, and that the paper is penetrated by the 
 ink in a manner such as would have been produced by 
 repeated washings with water or diluted acid. Depones, that 
 it is possible that there may have been writing on the leaf of 
 paper in question, previous to its having been subjected to 
 the action of the acid or other substances, which have injured 
 its texture, and that such writing may have been discharged 
 by the application of those substances. Depones, that the 
 acid, or other substance by which the document has been 
 injured, must have been applied before the present writing of 
 the document was written, otherwise the ink must have been 
 more injured by that application than it appears to be. 
 Depones, that there are deeper stains on some parts of the 
 paper than on others; but that he cannot say that he sees any 
 appearance of the acid, or other substances, being applied in 
 lines. Depones, that the appearance of the paper cannot be 
 accounted for by damp, otherwise it would shew an appear¬ 
 ance of the action of damp all over, and the texture of it 
 would not be injured so much more in one place than another. 
 Depones, that the application of the same substances to both 
 sides of the paper, may account for the greater decay of one 
 
IV 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 part of the paper than of the rest, and that the greatest decay 
 is at the top of the paper, where he sees on the one side the 
 commencement of the affidavit, and on the other the notary’s 
 docquet. Depones, that the certificate, signed Thomas 
 Conyers, is also on the back of the paper, and that it is not 
 so much decayed at that part. Depones, that the paper of 
 the top margin, on which are three stamps, and the paper of 
 the bottom margin, on which is the subscription of J. Pock- 
 lington, are quite entire, and apparently not touched by the 
 substances which have injured the rest of the paper. Depones, 
 that by the application of chemical re-agents, indications may 
 be given on the paper, by which it may be ascertained 
 whether there had been previously any writing ; but the 
 absence of these indications would not necessarily prove that 
 there had been no writing. Depones, that he has at present 
 in his possession such re-agents, and that he is ready to apply 
 them, if permitted ; and that they will not destroy the texture 
 of the paper, or efface the present writing. Whereupon the 
 clerk to the process declared, that he could not permit this 
 without the authority of the Court; and being interrogated, 
 Whether, in his opinion, the paper has been tampered with, 
 and the writing on it altered or deleted? Depones, that he 
 cannot answer that question farther than he has already done; 
 but adds, that the appearance of the paper is such, that the 
 injury can have hardly happened by accident. Cross-exa¬ 
 mined for the defenders , and interrogated, Whether he has 
 been much in the habit of examining old manuscripts ? De¬ 
 pones, that he has not been much in the habit of examining 
 them, but that he has done so occasionally. All which he 
 declares to be truth. Fifteen words delete before signing. 
 
 (Signed) And. Fyfe. 
 
 R. Handyside, Comr. 
 James Keddie, CIL 
 
 Ac Edinburgh the 4th day of June, 1836. 
 
 Appeared parties by their counsel and agents above named. 
 
 Compeared William Gregory, M.D. Fellow of the 
 Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh, a witness cited for 
 the pursuers; who, being solemnly sworn,"purged of partial 
 counsel, examined and interrogated, depones, That he is, and 
 has been seven years, a lecturer on chemistry in Edinburgh. 
 
APPENDIX TO IN ’PRODUCTION. 
 
 V 
 
 Depones, that, in his experience as a chemist, he has very 
 frequently had occasion to observe the operation of acids and 
 other chemical agents upon paper, in destroying or partially 
 injuring its texture, changing its colour, &c. Being shewn 
 the document contained in No. 25 of process, and referred to 
 by the last witness, and which is marked by the deponent as 
 relative hereto, depones, that, to the best of his judgment, 
 the texture of the paper has been injured by a chemical agent, 
 and not by damp. Depones, that he considers the top mar¬ 
 gin, on which are the three stamps, the bottom margin, on 
 which there are two signatures, and the lower part of the 
 side margin, to be uninjured, and not to have been subjected 
 to the agency of the substance which has injured the body of 
 the paper. Depones, that he perceives the upper part of the 
 side margin bears writing on its back. Depones, that, to the 
 best of his belief, the injury to the paper could not have 
 arisen from accident. Depones, that he accounts for the 
 greater decay of the upper part of the paper, by supposing 
 that the destructive agent has been applied to both sides, and 
 that the injury to the top of the margin may be accounted 
 for by the destructive agent having been applied to the writ¬ 
 ing at the top of the reverse of the leaf where the writing is 
 partly on the back of the said margin. Depones, that from 
 what he has seen, and from every experiment he has made, 
 he is quite satisfied that the writing of the body of the deed, 
 as it now stands, and of the docquet on the top of the reverse, 
 must have been written subsequently to the application of the 
 destructive agent, though before the paper had reached its 
 present state of decay. Depones, that, in his judgment, the 
 document is not one which can be considered trust-worthy, 
 as proving the facts set forth in it, and of the date it bears. 
 Depones, that he has frequently seen writing completely dis¬ 
 charged from paper by the application of an acid; and that 
 he has done so himself where the writing was of six years’ 
 standing; and adds, that he has found writing of a few years’ 
 standing more difficult to discharge than what has been re- 
 cently written. Depones, that he conceives it quite possible 
 that "writing previously existing upon the paper in question, 
 and occupying the same space with the present writing, may 
 have been discharged so as to make way for what is written 
 both on the front of the leaf, and on the top of the reverse, 
 without interfering with the signatures. Cross-examined for 
 the defenders, and interrogated, Whether he has been much 
 in the habit of examining old manuscripts Depones, that 
 
VI 
 
 APPENDIX TU INTRODUCTION. 
 
 he has not. All which he declares to be truth, l’ive words 
 delete before signing. (Signed) William Gregory. 
 
 R. Handyside, Comr. 
 
 James Keddie, Clk . 
 
 Compeared Donald Gregory, Esq. Joint-Secretary to the 
 Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, a witness cited for the 
 pursuers; who being solemnly sworn, purged of partial coun¬ 
 sel, examined and interrogated, depones, that he has been in 
 the habit of examining old manuscripts for the last fourteen 
 years, and has turned his attention very much to the exami¬ 
 nation of manuscripts, both in the public records and in 
 private repositories, in the course of his historical and genea¬ 
 logical inquiries. Depones, that he is acquainted with the 
 distinguishing character of hand-writing during the last 400 
 years. Being shewn the document referred to in the deposi¬ 
 tion of the last witness, and which is marked by the deponent 
 as relative hereto, he observes, that it bears date in 1723, 
 and declares, that in so far as his experience goes, he has no 
 hesitation in stating, that the character of the*writing in the 
 body of the document is of a considerably later period than 
 the date above specified ; and the chief grounds of his 
 opinion, are the want of the contractions which, in deeds of 
 that period, are usually met with in legal hand-writing, and 
 the peculiar shape of the letter e. Depones, that the general 
 style of the document, as well as the character of the hand¬ 
 writing, and farther, the mode in which the date ‘7th De¬ 
 cember 1639’ is written, lead him to the opinion that the 
 writing is of the early part of the reign of George III. De¬ 
 pones, that the signature ‘ Hen. Hovenden,’ appears to be 
 that of an old man in the year 1723, judging from the cha¬ 
 racter of the hand-writing, and corresponds with the age 
 mentioned in the commencement of the affidavit; and the 
 signature of ‘ J. Pocklington,’ appears to be that of a younger 
 man, and in its character corresponds with the date of the 
 affidavit. Depones, that he perceives certain words contained 
 in the docquet on the back of the deed, which are of a differ¬ 
 ent character from the rest of the docquet, and correspond 
 with the date 1723, and he points out these words, as ‘— neble. 
 Jno. Pocklington, Esq. one of ye. Baron. ( torn ) Excheqr. 
 in Ireld.’ Depones, that the signature to the docquet appears 
 to be of the period corresponding with the date of the docquet, 
 and ot a considerably earlier period than the writing of the 
 docquet itself, with the exception of the words above quoted: 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Vll 
 
 And being shewn the deposition of Sara Lyner, dated 17th 
 January, 17*22, and contained in number 25 of process, and 
 which is marked by the deponent, commissioner, and clerk 
 as relative hereto, depones, that the character of the writing 
 is of the period which it professes to be, and of a totally 
 different character from the affidavit of Hovenden. Depones, 
 that in the deponent’s opinion, the document first referred to, 
 bearing to be the affidavit of Hovenden, is not a genuine 
 document of the date it professes to be, with the exception of 
 the signatures, and the few words above quoted, contained in 
 the docquet appended thereto. Depones, that the decay of 
 the paper of the document above referred to, has not, in his 
 opinion, proceeded from the effects of damp ; and that, if it 
 had proceeded from this cause, it would have borne the appea¬ 
 rance of a document which he now produces, and which is 
 marked by the deponent, commissioner, and clerk, as relative 
 hereto. Depones, that he has never perceived the appearance 
 presented in the above-mentioned affidavit of Hovenden, of 
 the running of the ink, in any instance where the paper has 
 been exposed to damp, and that the writing remains quite 
 sharp notwithstanding the damp. Cross-examined , and re¬ 
 quired to examine the signature, Thomas Merefield, which he 
 has already deponed to be a genuine signature, and to say, 
 whether the letter e is of the character of writing of the period 
 1723 ? Depones, that it is not of the general character of 
 that period, but of a character which then had begun to be 
 introduced, and which is the same with the writing of that 
 letter in the present time. And being required to examine 
 the certificate, bearing to be signed ‘ Thos. Conyers,’ under¬ 
 neath the notary’s docquet, and interrogated, whether it is of 
 the hand-writing of the period 1723? Depones, that it is of 
 that period, and contains the letter e as usually written at that 
 period. Depones, that the paper of the document produced 
 by him is of a thinner texture than that of the paper on which 
 the affidavit is written, and that it would, on this account, 
 become more easily affected by damp ; but that the latter, if 
 exposed to damp, would have also become soft, and would not 
 have presented the hard appearance of Hovenden’s affidavit. 
 Re-examined and interrogated, Whether the docquet signed 
 by ‘ Thos. Conyers,’ is written by a person taught to write at 
 the date it bears? Depones, that in his belief it was written by 
 Thomas Conyers at that date, and that he must have been a 
 younger man than Henry Hovenden, and taught to write at a 
 later date. Depones, that he believes that the words contained 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 via 
 
 in the docquet, and which have been quoted above, as differing 
 in character from the rest of the docquet are the writing ot 
 Merefield, who signs the docquet. All which is truth, &c. 
 Sixteen words delete before signing. 
 
 (Signed) Donald Gregory. 
 
 R. Handyside, Comr. 
 James Keddie, Clk. 
 
 What is contained in this and the 21 preceding pages, is 
 the report of the proof allowed by the interlocutor referred to 
 in the first page hereof. 
 
 (Signed) R. Handyside, Comr. 
 
 James Keddie, Clk. 
 
 At Newtonards, in the county of Down, the 24th day of October, 1836 : — 
 Which day there was produced to me, Richard Bailie Blackiston, Esq. 
 one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the county of Down, in 
 Ireland, an act and commission, dated the 26th day of November, 1835, 
 with continuations and prorogations thereof, dated 10th February, and 
 1st day of June last, granted by Lord Cockburn, one of the Judges of 
 the Court of Session in Scotland, in an Action of Reduction and Impro- 
 bation, depending in that Court, in which the Officers of State for 
 Scotland are pursuers , and Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, calling 
 himself Earl of Stirling, and others, are defenders . Of which Commis¬ 
 sion I accepted, and made choice of William Loughe of Comber, in the 
 said county of Down, to be my clerk, to whom I administered the oath 
 de fideli } as use is. 
 
 Thereafter appeared Roderick MacKenzie, W.S. as agent 
 for the pursuers, and Ephraim Lockhart, W.S. as agent for 
 the defender. 
 
 Thereafter compeared The Reverend Mark Cassidy, 
 Perpetual Curate of and residing in Newtonards, and one of 
 his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said county, aged 
 59 years and upwards; who being solemnly sworn, purged of 
 malice and partial counsel, and examined and interrogated 
 by and in the presence of the said Commissioner, depones, 
 that there is still in existence, in Newtonards, an old building 
 now converted into a Sessions-house, which he has heard was 
 formerly used as a place of worship, but has not been used as 
 such, so far as the deponent knows, for the last hundred years 
 and upwards; and was known by the name of the Old Church : 
 That there was in connection with this place, and immediately 
 adjacent to it, a building used as a private chapel, and said to 
 have been originally built or repaired by the family of Mont¬ 
 gomerys, and afterwards used as a chapel by the families of 
 Colvill and Stewarts, who became after them proprietors of 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 IX 
 
 Newtown Estate : That the Old Church formed the vestibule 
 of the Chapel: That the deponent has resided in Newtonards 
 as the parish minister constantly for the last 27 years : That 
 until the year 1817, he performed public worship in the said 
 chapel, when a parish church was built in another part of 
 Newtonards; and the said chapel was afterwards taken down, 
 and the said vestibule converted into a Sessions-house: That 
 in the chapel there were no grave-stones or inscriptions, so 
 far as the deponent recollects, relative to persons buried 
 there: That in particular, there were no grave-stones bear¬ 
 ing the names of the last Countess of Mount Alexander, or of 
 a John Alexander : That there were tombs and grave-stones 
 in the vestibule or Old Church : That he has had frequent 
 occasions to examine these tombs and grave-stones; but never 
 saw, that he recollects, any grave-stones or monuments of the 
 said countess, or any person of the name of Alexander; and 
 being shewn the inscription alleged to be a copy of that on 
 the tomb-stone of John Alexander, is quite positive that no 
 grave-stone in the vestibule or chapel bore any such inscrip¬ 
 tion : That in the vestibule, at the earliest period he recollects 
 of, there was no appearance of pavement or flagging, except 
 an occasional grave-stone; and indeed the place had no 
 appearance of ever having been regularly flagged : That he 
 knows a woman of the name of Margaret M‘Blain, widow 
 of James M c Blain, in Newtonards, and also knew her hus¬ 
 band : That while he knew him, the said James M‘Blain 
 was not extensively employed in the line of a mason, and an 
 undertaker of building generally, having a considerable num¬ 
 ber of workmen under him : That he was merely a good 
 common workman : That Margaret M‘Blain is a woman of 
 such general character, that she could not in his opinion be 
 believed on oath where her interest was affected; and if she 
 appeared before him as a magistrate, from her general charac¬ 
 ter, he would not be disposed to give her credit on oath where 
 her interest was in opposition. Interrogated for the defender , 
 depones, that he is positive there was not, in the Old Chapel, 
 any grave-stone bearing the name of the Countess of Mount 
 Alexander, inscribed upon it, visible to the naked eye; and 
 he has no recollection of any grave-stone, or part of a grave¬ 
 stone, with the name John Alexander upon it. Depones, 
 that the deponent does not know that Margaret M‘Blain, 
 before mentioned, has ever had a conviction against her in 
 any Court for any offence, and does not know any thing in 
 particular to the prejudice of her character, except t he general 
 
X 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 reputation of the place. Being interrogated, Whether the 
 said Margaret M‘Blain received parochial relief in this parish ? 
 Depones, that he does not know, of his own knowledge, 
 whether she is in the receipt of such relief; but rather sup¬ 
 poses that she is. All which is truth, as the deponent shall 
 answer to God. Twenty-one words delete before signing. 
 (Signed) Mark Cassidy. 
 
 Rich. B. Blackiston, Comr . 
 
 Wjm. Loughe, Clk. 
 
 All which is reported by 
 
 (Signed) Rich. B. Blackiston, Comr. 
 
 Wm. Loughe, Clk. 
 
 At Nevvlonards, in the county of Down, the 24th day of October, 1836, 
 which day there was produced to me, the Reverend Mark Cassidy, one 
 of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the county of Down, in 
 Ireland, an act and commission, dated the 26th day of November, 1833, 
 with continuations and prorogations thereof, dated 10th February and 1st 
 day of June last, granted by Lord Cockburn, one of the Judges of the 
 Court of Session in Scotland, in an action of Reduction and Improbation 
 depending in that Court, in which the Officers of State for Scotland are 
 pursuers, and Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, calling himself Earl 
 of Stirling, and others, are defenders ; of which commission I accepted, 
 and made choice of William Loughe of Comber, in the said county of 
 Down, to be my clerk, to whom I administered the oath de Jideli, as 
 use is. 
 
 Thereafter appeared Roderick MacKenzie, W.S. agent for 
 the pursuers; and 
 
 Ephraim Lockhart, W.S. agent for the defender. 
 
 Thereafter compeared Margaret M‘Cully, of New- 
 tonards, widow of the deceased John M‘Cully, bailiff to Lord 
 Londonderry, aged 71 years and upwards, being born on the 
 2*2d of October, 1765; who being solemnly sworn, purged of 
 malice and partial counsel, and examined and interrogated, 
 depones, that she recollects the funeral of the last Countess 
 of Mount Alexander, and of the mourners attending the 
 funeral stopping, going and returning from Donaghadee, at 
 her grandmother’s public-house, adjoining the town of New- 
 tonards : That she does not know, of her own knowledge, the 
 identical spot where her remains were interred; but knows 
 that it was either in the Old Church or Chapel in Newton- 
 ards. Depones, that she heard the now deceased Robert 
 Or ram, stone-cutter, tell her grandmother that the Countess 
 was buried in a vault under the altar of the Chapel; and what 
 has impressed the circumstance on her memory was, Orram 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XI 
 
 stating to her grandmother, that the masons working with 
 him had entered the vault, and wished to take from it a 
 considerable quantity of the ornaments of the coffin, which 
 he had prevented, and made them restore. Has frequently 
 been in the habit of going to the Chapel and Old Church, 
 which was used as a vestibule to the Chapel. Depones, that 
 the Old Church was never flagged to her knowledge: That 
 she never saw any tomb-stone relative to the last Countess of 
 Mount Alexander, or a John Alexander: and being shewn a 
 copy of the alleged inscription on John Alexander’s tomb, 
 depones, that she never saw any such tomb-stone bearing such 
 inscription; and is certain, if any such existed, she must have 
 seen it. Depones, that she is herself a Montgomery, and 
 curious about the family history; and is certain that a stone 
 of such size, as to bear so long an inscription relating to any 
 member of the Alexander family, would have attracted 
 her notice. Depones, that she has resided all her life in 
 Newtonards. Interrogated for the defender , depones, that 
 the floor of the Old Chapel was partly flagged and and partly 
 boarded, — being flagged in the aisle to the communion 
 table with ordinary flagging, but no grave-stones. All which 
 is truth, as the deponent shall answer to God. Eight words 
 delete before signing. 
 
 O O 
 
 (Signed) M. M‘Cully. 
 
 Mark Cassidy. 
 Wm. Louche. 
 
 Thereafter compeared Samuel Corry of Newtonards, clerk 
 of the Mendicity Society of that place ; who, being solemnly 
 sworn, &c. ut antea , depones, that in the capacity of clerk 
 and superintendent of the Mendicity Society, he knows that 
 Margaret M‘Blain, widow of James M‘131ain, mason, receives 
 aid from the said society as a pauper, and has done so for a 
 considerable time : That some of her daughters live with her : 
 That she bears a very indifferent character; and depones, that 
 as a juryman he would not believe her upon oath, if her interest 
 was affected by it: That he knows that upon one occasion, she 
 swore to a fact upon a coroner’s inquest, of which he was a 
 juryman, which was contradicted by two respectable witnesses. 
 Interrogated for the defender , Whether, on the occasion 
 deponed to, the coroner passed any censure or remark on 
 what she swore to ■ Depones, that he did. not, nor did any 
 of the jury do so: that it was the deponent’s private opinion 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xii 
 
 that she gave false evidence. All which is truth, as he shall 
 answer to God. Four words delete before signing. 
 
 (Signed) Samuel Corry. 
 
 Mark Cassidy. 
 
 Wm. Loughe, Clk. 
 
 Thereafter compeared James Dalziel, stone-cutter of 
 Newtonards ; aged 46 years and upwards, who, being 
 solemnly sworn ut antea , depones, that some time in the year 
 1830, he was employed by Charles Campbell, in flagging the 
 old church of Newtonards, when converted into a sessions- 
 house: that in the old church there was no flagging; but a 
 few scattered tomb-stones lay on the floor : that on that occa¬ 
 sion, several tomb-stones were sunk in the flooring, and covered 
 with flagging; and that although he saw the whole of the 
 tomb-stones, to the best of his recollection, he saw none 
 bearing the name of John Alexander; and being shewn a 
 copy of the alleged inscription on the tomb of John Alexander, 
 depones, that he never saw any such stone, which, he thinks, 
 would not have escaped him if it had been there; and no 
 tomb-stones were chisselled and used as flagging. All which 
 is truth, as he shall answer to God. One word delete before 
 signing. 
 
 (Signed) James Dalziel. 
 
 Mark Cassidy. 
 Wm. Loughe. 
 
 Thereafter compeared David Dalziel, stone-cutter of 
 Newtonards, aged 35 years and upwards; who, being solemnly 
 sworn ut antea, depones, that some time, four or five years 
 ago, he was employed by his brother James Dalziel, in flag¬ 
 ging the sessions-house of Newtonards, then the old church : 
 that in the old church, there was no flagging; but a few 
 scattered tomb-stones lay on the floor: That the tomb-stones 
 on the floor were sunk, and covered with new flagging. 
 Depones, that so far as he saw, none of the tomb-stones were 
 dressed up and used as flagging, being generally broken and 
 unfit for the purpose : That he never saw any tomb-stone 
 bearing the name of John Alexander, or part of a tomb-stone 
 having that name inscribed on it, used in any part of the 
 flagging; and the deponent wrought the new flagging. 
 Interrogated for the defender , depones, that he performed no 
 work respecting the pulling down and raising the flags of the 
 old chapel: That all that was done before he was employed in 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Xlll 
 
 flagging the sessions-house. All which is truth, as he shall 
 answer to God. One word delete before signing, 
 
 (Signed) David Dalziel. 
 
 Mark Cassidy, Comr. 
 Wm. Loughe. 
 
 Thereafter compeared Charles Campbell, architect, of 
 Newtonards, who refused to be sworn. 
 
 (Signed) Mark Cassidy, Comr. 
 
 Wm. Loughe, Clk. 
 
 All which is reported by 
 
 (Signed) Mark Cassidy, Comr. 
 
 Wm. Lougiie, Clk. 
 
 At Rockport, in the county of Down, the 24th day of October, 1836:_ 
 
 Which day there was produced to me, Arthur Forbes, Esq. one of his 
 Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the county of Down, in Ireland, an 
 act and commission, dated the 26th day of November, 1835, with conti¬ 
 nuation and prorogations, granted by Lord Cockburn, one of the Judges 
 of the Court of Session in Scotland, in an action of reduction and 
 Improbation depending in that Court, in which the Officers of State for 
 Scotland are pursuers, and Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, calling 
 himself Earl of Stirling, and others, are defenders. Of which Commis¬ 
 sion I accepted, and made choice of Alexander Montgomery of Belmont, 
 in the said county of Down, to be my clerk, to whom I administered the 
 oath de fideli , as use is. 
 
 Thereafter appeared Roderick MacKenzie, W.S. as agent 
 for the pursuers, and Ephraim Lockhart, W.S. as agent for 
 the defender. 
 
 Thereafter compeared John Turnly, of Rockport, in the 
 county of Down, Esq. one of his Majesty’s Justices of the 
 Peace for said county of Down, aged 71 years and upwards ; 
 who, being solemnly sworn, purged of malice and partial 
 counsel, depones, That he knows that there were in Newton¬ 
 ards an old building called the Old Church, and a building 
 adjoining to it called the Chapel; the Old Church being a 
 vestibule or entrance to the Chapel or New Church. De¬ 
 pones, that he was born in Newtonards, and lived there till he 
 was about 30 years of age, and was in the constant habit of 
 attending divine service in the Chapel: That he never saw a 
 gravestone or inscription within the Chapel, but thinks he 
 has heard that persons have been buried there : there were 
 a number of tombstones and gravestones in the Old Church, 
 which never appeared to have been flagged, and was on that 
 
XIV 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 account very difficult to walk along: Remembers the Old 
 Church for 50 years, and knows that within that period it was 
 not flagged. The New Church or Chapel appeared always 
 within his recollection flagged, and does not remember that 
 it was reflagged within the last 50 years. Being shewn a 
 copy of the alleged inscription on the tombstone of John 
 Alexander, depones, that he never saw any tombstone, to the 
 best of his recollection, bearing such an inscription, though 
 he has an indistinct recollection of some inscription, either in 
 the Old Church or Chapel, regarding the Mount Alexander 
 family; but is not positive. All which is truth, as he shall 
 answer to God. Seven words delete before signing. 
 
 (Signed) John Tuunly. 
 
 Arthur Forbes, Comr. 
 
 Alex. Montgomery, Clk. 
 
 Reported by (Signed) Arthur Forbes, Comr. 
 
 Alex. Montgomery, Clk. 
 
 EXTRACT APPRISING Robert Keith, 
 ^Allowances W.S. against Janet Alexander, lawfully 
 
 of Apprys- charged to enter heir to Gilbert Grahame of 
 
 mgs, vol. 3. ° . 
 
 Gartmuir, her uncle. 
 
 xiiij July 1646. 
 
 Compeirit George Gordone, messr. and in name and 
 behalff of Robert Keithe, wreitter to his Ma/teis Signet, and 
 gave in ye apprysing led and deducit at his instance againes 
 Janet Alexr. vnder designit, desyring the samyne to be allowit 
 and recordit qlkis allovit and recordit in maner following:— 
 The Lords of Counsall has seine and considerit ye. process of 
 appryssing within written, and findis ye. samyne ordourlie 
 proceidit: And yairfoir ordanes L/res to be direct to comand 
 and charge James Erie of Callender, Lord Almond, &c. to 
 infeft and seas Robert Keithe, wreitter to his Ma/teis Signet, 
 his aires and assis. herellie, In all and haill ye. towne and 
 landis of Saltcoitties, with liouss. laggings, pairties, pendicles, 
 and pertinentis thairof, Lyand w t in the regalitie of Falkirk, 
 and Srefdom of Stirling. Togidder with the right of all takkis 
 of teyndes of the saidis landis, with all a/rentis, reversiones, 
 alsweill c/ditionall as legal!, and legall upon legall discharges, 
 dispo/nes, contractis, bandis, obliganes, charto r s, Infefty, wyr. 
 richtis, tittillies, and securitees within wreitten pertenut of 
 Befoir to Jonet Alexr. sister, doucht and air, and lawllie. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XV 
 
 chairget to enter air to umqlle. Gilbert Grahame of Gartmuir, 
 hir vncle ind apprysit fra her as sister dochter, and lawllie. 
 chairgit to enter air foirsaid to her said umqllie. vncle and fra 
 Jon Alexr. of Gartmuir, heir Fayr. as tutor, gyder, and admr. 
 to hir of ye. law: And alsr. fra her tutor and curators gif 
 schoe any lies for yair Enteresse, and fra all wtheris haifand, 
 or pu/dand to haif, entres in forme and maner as is within 
 c/teinit, at the instance of ye. said Robert Keitlie ass’ney 
 within namet, In satisfaction to him off the sowme of Tua 
 thowsand nvne hundredthe thiescoir thrie pundis sax schillings 
 aucht pennis vsuall money of yis realme of prinll. hygane 
 a/rentis, and liquidat expenss r ' and liquidat expenss r ' rexive 
 conteinit in ye decretes of rgratioune ohliganes. ass’natione, 
 translatioune, and hires, within mentionat, Togidder with the 
 sowme of J c xlviij 1 ' iij s iiij d moe. foirsaid of S/reffie To he 
 balden of the said James Erie of Callender, Lord Almond, 
 See, his airis and ass/is. or ony wyrs immediat lawll. superiors 
 thairof, Siclyk and in ye samyne forme and maner of holding, 
 and alsr. freille in all respectis as the said Wmqll. Gilbert 
 Grahame, hir vncle, held ye. samyne himselff befoir his deceis, 
 or as the said Jonet Alexr. his sister dochter, lioldis. or may 
 hold ye. samen hir self!', gif schoe war enterit air to hir said 
 Wmqll. vncle befoir yis appryssing efter ye. forme and tenor 
 tenor thereof, And act of Parliament made anent appryssing 
 oflandisand wyrs for debtis in all poyntis, Sic subscribitur, 
 Cranstoun Riddell, J. Craighall. Qlk appryssing abooue 
 mentionat wes led and deducit within the Tollboothe or 
 Session lious of the Burgh of Edr. vpon the twantie day off 
 May last by past 1645 years. Befoir George Gordown, 
 Messr. and Judge in ye. said appryssing, Quha wpone the 
 xviij day of Aprill, the year of God foirsaid past to zat lodging 
 and dwelling-hous, lvand in his Ma/teies Palace of Halyruid- 
 hous, within the bak clois of ye. said Palace, qubair the said 
 Jonet Alexr. hade hir actuall residence for ye. time with 
 Dame Countess of Stirling, her guidame; and yair 
 
 within ye. said ludging and dwelling hous, and within the 
 haill Chalmeris houss and biggingis yrof, quhairin he could 
 get entres, he diligentlie searchit and soght ye. mo/1, guids 
 and geir poyndabill perteining to hir, But could get nane, 
 this he did befoir yir witnesss. Johne Henrie and Johne 
 Houstoune, indwellers in Edr. And siclyke vpone the xxviij 
 and last dayes rexive of the said monethe of Apryll, Andrew 
 Burne ane wver Messr. lykwayes c/teint in the said Appryssing 
 past to the ground of the saides towne and landes of Saltcottis, 
 
XVI 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 with the pertinentis yairof. And thairvpon, and within the 
 houss" and biggingis yairof, quhairin he could get entres, he 
 diligentlie seachit and socht the moveabill guidis and geir 
 being yr. vpone and within ye. samyne, pteining to the said 
 Jonet Alexr. Bot could get nane. Thairfoir vpon ye. said 
 ttwantie aught day of Apryll he lawllie. denwcit the said 
 towne and landis of Saltcoitts wt. ye. pertinentis yr.of above- 
 wreitten, with ye. takis of teyndis of ye. samyne a/rentis, 
 reversiones, and wyrs, rights, rexue, aboove mentionat, 
 oppenlie vpone the ground and groundis thairof, and at ye. 
 m/cat croce of Falkirk, lieid Burghe of ye. Regalitie, quhair 
 denunciationes within ye. said Regalitie, ar in vse to be done 
 and execuit, and also at the m/cat croce of Stirling, heid 
 burghe of the S/refdome yairof, within the qlk the samyne 
 landis and wyrs foirs-ds lyes rexue, and successiue. Lykas 
 yen vpone the ground of the saidis landis, and at the saidis 
 mercat croces of Falkirk and Stirling, rexue and successiue, 
 the said Messenger openlie warnit the said Jonet Alexr. and 
 her tutors and curators, gif schoe ony hes for thair entrests, 
 and all wtheris haif and or pudand to haif entres. Befoir 
 thir witness rexiue, vizt. at the ground of the saidis landis 
 vpone the said xxviij day of April, James Kincaid and 
 Williame Gavin, abboistgrange, and Robert M‘Lellane, 
 ssruitor to David Bruce in Saltcoittes. And at the mercat 
 croce of Falkirk, upone the samen xxviij day of Apryll, John 
 Burne, Alexr. Wat, Duncane Ker, and Wa. Muirheid, mer- 
 chandes thair, and at the said m/cat croce of Stirling vpone 
 ye. said last day of Apryll, John Rankyq, of Southhous of 
 Balmulzer, John Robenie, Notar in Stirling, and James 
 Seatone, Notar and Messr. thair. And also vpone the third 
 day of ve. said monethe of May, ye. said George Gordoune, 
 Messr. lawlii. warnit the said Jonet Alexr. and the said Johne 
 Alexr. hir father, hir tutor of law, for his entres at the said 
 Countes of Stirling, hir dwelling-place foirsd. Because he 
 could not apprehend yame personallie, and immediatlie thair- 
 efter he passed to the mercat croces of Edr. and ca/ngat, 
 rex/ue, and successive, and thair at aither of the saids mercat 
 croces be opene proclama/ne he lawlie. warnit ye. said, and 
 hir saidis tutoris and curators gif schoe any hes for thair 
 interests, and all wtheris, haif and or pudand to haif entres, 
 be leaving copies at all ye. foirnamet places successive. Befoir 
 yir witness, the saidis Johne Houstoune, John Hendrie, and 
 Edmond Reidpithe, Messrs. To compeir day and place 
 aboue speit. To the effect aboue mentionat. To the qlk 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XVll 
 
 appryssing, Mr Alexr. Forbes, wreitter to bis Ma/teis Signet, 
 Is Clerk. — Extracted from the records in bis Majesties 
 General Register House, upon this and the seven preceding 
 pages of stamped paper, by me, one of the keepers of these 
 records, having commission for that effect from the Lord 
 Clerk Register. 
 
 (Signed) Wjllm. Robertson. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 
 December 7 , 1836 . 
 
 DEFENDER’S PRODUCTIONS, 
 
 IN CAUSA, 
 
 THE OFFICERS OF STATE 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 ALEXANDER, EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 Proceedings in the Service of Alexander, Earl or Stir¬ 
 ling, as Heir in General of William, Earl of Stirling. 
 
 Canongate, 1 \th October, 1830. 
 
 In pursuance of the brieve, directed forth of his Majesty’s 
 Chancery to this Court, dated the 21st, and executed upon 
 the 22d days of September last, for serving of Alexander, 
 Earl of Stirling, Viscount of Stirling and Canada, Lord Alex¬ 
 ander of Tullibodie, &c. only surviving son of the deceased 
 Hannah Alexander, otherwise Humphrys, who was wife of 
 William Humphrys of Birmingham and the Larches, both 
 in the county of Warwick, Esquire, and sister-german, and 
 last surviving heir-female of the deceased Benjamin Alexan¬ 
 der of Basinghall Street, London, great-great-grandson, and 
 last heir-male of the body of the deceased William, the first 
 Earl of Stirling, as lawful and nearest heir-in-general to the 
 , 2 B 
 
XV111 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 said deceased William, the first Earl of Stirling, his great- 
 great-great grandfather,—Appeared the claimant, by his agent, 
 who for him produced a claim of service, signed by Ephraim 
 Lockhart, writer to the signet, and craved that the points of 
 the brieve and claim might be remitted to the following per¬ 
 sons of Inquest, viz.:— 
 
 Alexander Monypenny, "1 
 
 James Dalgliesh, and > Esquires, writers to the Signet. 
 
 William Fraser, J 
 
 John M‘Cliesh of Maryfield, Esq. 
 
 Philip Crow, 
 
 Archibald Douglas, 
 
 John Mason, and 
 Robert Oliphant, 
 
 James Simpson, writer in Leith. 
 
 James Gardner, apothecary in Edinburgh. 
 
 Walter Marshall, painter there. 
 
 Robert Latta, collector of customs there. 
 
 Thomas Workman, merchant, Canongate. 
 
 John Sutherland, residing there, and 
 Alexander Brodie, merchant, Leith. 
 
 The said Inquest being all solemnly sworn, made choice of 
 the said Alexander Monypenny, Esquire, to be their Chan¬ 
 cellor ; and having considered the aforesaid brieve, and execu¬ 
 tion thereof, together with the claim of service, writs produced, 
 read and explained to the Jury, they, in respect thereof, and 
 that no person appeared to object thereto, served and cog¬ 
 nosced the claimant, Alexander, Earl of Stirling, Viscount 
 of Stirling and Canada, Lord Alexander of Tuliibodie, &c. 
 only surviving son of the deceased Hannah Alexander, other¬ 
 wise Humphrys, who was wife of William Humphrys of 
 Birmingham and the Larches, both in the county of Warwick, 
 Esquire, and sister-german, and last surviving heir-female 
 of the deceased Benjamin Alexander of Basinghall Street, 
 London, great-great grandson and last heir-male of the body 
 of the said deceased William, Earl of Stirling, lawful and 
 nearest heir-in-general to the said deceased William, the first 
 Earl of Stirling, his great-great-great grandfather. And to 
 this verdict the Bailies interpone their authority. Where¬ 
 upon instruments were taken in the clerk’s hands. 
 
 (Signed) Alex. Monypenny, C/i\ 
 Jn°. Robertson, B. 
 
 ^ writers in Edinburgh. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xix 
 
 The points of the brieve, and claim, proved by written evi¬ 
 dence, read, produced, and explained to the Jury, conform to 
 inventory thereof, signed by the Chancellor, and put up with 
 the claim of service as part of the record. 
 
 (Signed) Jn°. Robertson, B. 
 
 Documents produced, per Inventory, in the Service of Alex¬ 
 ander, Earl of Stirling, as Heir in general of William,, 
 Earl of Stirling. 
 
 Douglas’s Peerage. 
 
 Sir William Alexander of Menstrie was raised to the 
 dignity of Earl of Stirling, Viscount of Canada, and Lord 
 Alexander of Tullibodie, by patent, dated at Dalkeith, 14th 
 June, 1633. He died at London in February, 1640, and 
 was buried at Stirling on the 12th of April following. His 
 Lordship married Janet, daughter and co-heiress of Sir 
 William Erskine, Knight, Parson of Campsie, Commendator 
 of the Bishoprick of Glasgow, by whom he had issue, 
 
 1. William , Viscount Canada. 
 
 2. Hon. Sir Anthony Alexander, Master of the King’s 
 Works in Scotland, who married a daughter of Sir Henry 
 Wardlaw of Pitreavie; and dying without issue, at London, 
 in August (17th September) 1637, was buried at Stirling. 
 
 3. Henry , third Earl of Stirling. 
 
 4. Hon. John Alexander, who married a daughter of Sir 
 John (Robert) Graham of Gartmore. 
 
 5. Hon. Charles Alexander, who had a charter to Charles 
 Alexander, son of the deceased William, Earl of Stirling, of 
 the lands of Tullibodie, 27th June, 1642; he left a son, 
 Charles, who died without issue. 
 
 6. Hon. Ludovich Alexander, died without issue. 
 
 7. Hon. James Alexander. In the Edinburgh Register, 
 James Alexander, son of the deceased William, Earl of Stir¬ 
 ling, and Grisel Hay, had a daughter, Margaret, 23d June, 
 1669. 
 
 1. Lady Jean , married at Kensington, 20th July, 1620, to 
 Hugh, Viscount Montgomery of Great Ards, in the county 
 
XX 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of Down in Ireland; their son, Hugh, was created Dari of 
 Mount Alexander, (a title in honour of his mother’s surname,) 
 in 1661. 
 
 !2. Lady Mary. 
 
 William, Viscount of Canada, and Lord Alexander, the 
 eldest son, was appointed an extraordinary Lord of Session, 
 in room of his father, 27th January, 1635. He was a young 
 nobleman of great expectations ; went to America ; spent the 
 greatest part of his fortune in establishing a colony on the 
 river St Lawrence, where he suffered great hardships, and 
 dying of the effects thereof, at London, in March (18th May) 
 1638, was buried at Stirling. He married Lady Margaret 
 Douglas, eldest daughter of William, first Marquis of 
 Douglas, and by her had a son, 
 
 William , second Earl of Stirling, and three daughters. 
 
 William, second Earl of Stirling, the only son, succeeded 
 his grandfather, in February, 1640, but did not enjoy the 
 title more than three months, when he died, and was suc¬ 
 ceeded by his uncle, 
 
 Henry, third Earl of Stirling. 
 
 Extracts from the Registers of Baptisms and Burials 
 of the Parish of Binfield. 
 
 Extract from the Register for Burials of the Parish 
 of St Anne, Westminster. 
 
 Extract Proceedings, in the Service of William Alex¬ 
 ander to the deceased Henry, Earl of Stirling. 
 
 1664. 
 
 The son of Henry Alexander, Earle of Stearling, born 
 November the 7th. ■ 
 
 Henry, the son of the Erell of Sterling, baptized November 14. 
 
 1665. 
 
 William, son of Earl of Stearling, baptized January the 9th. 
 1665. 
 
 William, the second son of the Earl of Sterling, born Decem¬ 
 ber the 28th, 1665. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XXI 
 
 1673. 
 
 Robert, the son ot the Right Honourable Henry Alexander, 
 Erleof Stearling, was baptized September the 9th. 
 
 1677. 
 
 Peter, the son of the Right Honourable Henry Alexander, 
 Earle of Starling, was baptized May the 10th. 
 
 1679. 
 
 Peter, the sonn of the Right Honourable Henry Alexander, 
 Earle of Starling, baptized March the 23. 
 
 I certify that the preceding Extracts from the Regis¬ 
 ter of Binfield Church, in the diocese of Sarum, 
 and county of Berks, are true copies of the entries 
 of baptism. Henry Dison Gabell, 
 
 Rector of Binfield. 
 
 30 th October , 1825. 
 
 1665. 
 
 William, son of the Earl of Starling, was buried March the 7th. 
 1678. 
 
 Peter, the sonn of the Right Honourable Alexander, Earl of 
 Stirling, was buried November the 30th. 
 
 1710. 
 
 Robert Alexander, Esquire, buried October y e 10th. 
 
 1690. 
 
 The Right Honourable Henery, Earl of Sterling, hurried 
 February y e 11th. 
 
 1739. 
 
 Henry Alexander, Earl of Sterlin, December y e 18th. 
 
 I certify that the above Extracts are faithfully copied 
 from the Register of Burials of the Parish of Bin- 
 field. Henry Dison Gabell, 
 
 Rector of Binfield. 
 
 30 th October , 1825. 
 
 St Anne, Westminster. 
 
 Register for Burials. 
 
 November, 1729. 
 
 5. Peter Alexander, Esq. 
 
 This is to certify, that the above Extract is a true 
 
xxn 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 copy of the Register for Burials belonging to the 
 Parish of St Anne, within the liberty of West¬ 
 minster, and the county of Middlesex. Witness 
 my hand, this 25th day of January, 1828. 
 
 Jos. Davies, Registrar. 
 
 Extract Proceedings in the Service of William Alexander. 
 1667. 
 
 William, the third son of the Earle of Sterling, was baptized 
 
 June the 6th. 
 
 William Alexander, Esq. of Turvill, was buried here, at Bin- 
 
 field, Octob r 24, 1699. 
 
 At London , the \&th day of July , 1758. 
 
 Compeared William Trumbull, Esquire, of East Hamp¬ 
 stead Park, in the county of Berks, aged about fifty years; 
 who, being solemnly sworn and interrogated, depones as 
 follows : — He is only son of the late Sir William Trumbull, 
 by the Lady Judith Alexander, daughter of Henry, Earl of 
 Stirling, who died in or about the year 1690; And further 
 depones and says, That he has been informed, and verily 
 believes, that his grandfather, the said Henry Earl of Stirling, 
 was buried at the parish church of Binfield, in the said county 
 of Berks, and left issue four sons, namely, Henry, William, 
 Robert, and Peter, and also three daughters, namely, Mary, 
 Jane, and Judith, the mother of this deponent; And further 
 depones and says, That he hath been informed that his said 
 uncle, Henry, succeeded his said grandfather in his estate and 
 title of Earl of Stirling, and died in or about the year 1739, 
 and was buried in the aforesaid parish church of Binfield, 
 leaving no male issue ; And further depones and says, That his 
 said uncle Henry was, as he verily believes, the last person 
 who enjoyed the dignity of Earl of Stirling, and that his 
 three other uncles, the said William, Robert, and Peter, died 
 in the lifetime of the said Henry, his uncle, leaving no male 
 issue; And further depones and says, That he verily believes 
 that his great grandfather, Henry, Earl of Stirling, lsad no 
 other son besides the said Henry, his grandfather, for that he, 
 this deponent, has often heard his mother talk of the family, 
 but never heard her mention any such other son, which he 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XX11I 
 
 verily believes she would have done if there had been any 
 such other son. And this is the truth, as he shall answer to 
 God. (Signed) W. Trumbull. 
 
 Henry Dagge, Comr. 
 Ja. Whiting, CJk. 
 
 Affidavit of Sara Lyner. 
 
 Sara Lyner of Ballyrydor, in the parish of Stradbally, 
 and Queen’s county, widow, aged eightie-fbure years or 
 therab'% came this day before me, and made oath on the Holy 
 Evangelysts, That she was borne in the cittye of Coventry, 
 in Warwickshire, but came over with her mother to Ireland 
 at an earlie age, and lived many years at Antrim : That her 
 said mother was sometime in service at my Lord Mont¬ 
 gomery’s, in the county of Downe, and while there, Mr Jn° 
 Alexander of Garthmore, a son of the Lord Sterline in Scot¬ 
 land, came to see my Lord, and bro‘ with him his ounely son. 
 And this deponent further saith, That Mr Jn° Alexander of 
 Antrim, in whose service she afterward lived upwards of 
 twenty years, was the same ounely son of the said John of 
 Garthmore. This deponent further deposeth, that she was 
 present when her said meister, John Alexander of Antrim, 
 was maryed at Donaghady, in May, 1682, to Miss Mary 
 Hamilton : That the issue of the said maryge was one sone 
 and two daughters : That deponent nursed her mistress at 
 the time her said ounely son was borne, which was the last 
 day of Septemb 1 , 1686, and that the Rev d Mr Liveingston 
 baptised him a few days after, by the name of John : And this 
 deponent further deposeth, That the present Rev d Minister, 
 John Alexander, now or late dwelling in Stratford-upon- 
 Avon, in Warwickshire, is the said ounely sone of the afore¬ 
 said John Alexander of Antrim. 
 
 Sara + Lyner 
 marke. 
 
 George Stone. 
 
 Capt. et jurat, apud Ballintemple, in Com. Regis, 17° 
 die Januarii, 1722, cor. me un. Commis. Extraor- 
 dinar. in Alt. Cur. Cancellar. in Hibernia, virtute 
 commissionis Dni Regis mihi direct, p. caus. pdic. 
 
 Jonas Percy. 
 
 I know the above voucher, 
 George Stone. 
 
 Jonas Percy. 
 
XXIV 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Affidavit of’ Henry Hovenden. 
 
 Henry Hovenden of Ballynakill, in the Queen’s county, 
 gent., aged sixty years or thereabouts, came this day before 
 me and made oath, That he is intimately acquainted with the 
 Rev d Minister, John Alexander, grandson and only male 
 representative of John Alexander of Garttnore, the fourth son 
 of William first Earl of Stirling, in Scotland ; which said 
 John Alexander was formerly of Antrim, but is now dwelling 
 in Warwickshire, in Great Britain : And this dep‘ further 
 deposeth, That having lately received information from the 
 said Rev' 1 John Alexander, that the original charter of the 
 earldom and estates of the aforesaid William, Earl of Stirling, 
 was in the possession of Thomas Conyers of Carlow, in the 
 county of Catherlogh, gent., he, this dep‘, in pursuance thereof, 
 and by the said Rev d John Alexander’s particular desire, did 
 go to the house of the said Thomas Conyers, on the 10th of 
 this instant July, and, after some discourse, was permitted to 
 see the aforesaid original charter : Whereupon this dep‘ did 
 most minutely examine the contents : And dep‘ further depo¬ 
 seth, That the said charter written in Latin, is dated 7th 
 December, 1639, and contains a novodamus of the titles and 
 dignities of Earl of Stirling, Viscount of Stirling and Canada, 
 &c. &c. and of the lands of the earldom, consisting as therein 
 described, of the Earl’s whole estate in Scotland, and the 
 extensive possessions granted to his Lordship in New England 
 and other parts of America; and this dep* saith, the following 
 clause, (copied from a paper produced,) is a faithful transla¬ 
 tion of the original in the charter, which limits the descent 
 of the Earl’s estates and titles, ‘ to him and the heirs-male of 
 his bodye; which failing, to the eldest heirs-female, without 
 division, of the last of such heirs-male hereafter succeeding 
 to the titles, honours and dignities aforesaid, and to the heirs- 
 male to be procreated of the bodys of such heirs-female 
 respectively, bearing the sirname and armes of y e familye of 
 Alexander, which they shall be holden and obliged to assume; 
 which all failing, to the nearest legitimate heirs whatsoever of 
 the said William, Earl of Stirling, with precedency from the 
 14th June, 1633.’ 
 
 Jurat, coram me 16". die Julij, 1723. 
 
 J. PoCKLINGTON. 
 
 IIen. Hovenden. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XXV 
 
 I, Thomas Merefield, public notary, dwelling in the city of 
 Dublin, in the kingdom of Ireland, do hereby attest and cer- 
 tifye all whom it may concern, That I was personally present, 
 and saw the within-named Henry Hovenden subscribe and 
 swear to the within affidavit, before the IIon b,e Jn°. Pock- 
 lington, Esq. one of y e Barons of his Ma ,ies Court of Excheq r 
 in IreP Witnesse my hand & seal of office, this ICth day of 
 July, 1723, twenty-three. 
 
 (L. S.) Tho. Merefield, Not.-Pub. 
 
 I willingly bear testimony to the truth of the statement 
 made in the within affid 1 ' Lord Sterling’s charter was trusted 
 to my late father, in troublesome times, by y* dec d Mary, 
 Countesse of M Alexander. 1 cannot therefore give it up to 
 the Rev d Mr Alexander, without the present Earl’s consent. 
 
 Carloio, 20 th July , 1723. 
 
 Tho 8, Conyers. 
 
 Memoranda in the Reverend John Alexander’s 
 hand-writing. 
 
 An. D. 
 
 1'tt O n the 7th of Jan. my second sister Elizabeth, wife to 
 John M ce Skinner, dyed of a fever, leaving 3 children, 
 a boy and 2 girls. She was an early convert; and 
 her example, by the blessing of God, was useful to me. 
 She lived and dyed an understanding and eminent 
 Xtian, and left a savoury memory behind her. 
 
 1712. On of April, my Hon d Father left this present 
 
 evil world : tho’ he had for some time longed lor this 
 happy release, yet his death was not only a great loss 
 to his family, but to the interest of religion in the 
 place where he lived. 
 
 Of him the Rev d Mr Livingston, the min r of the 
 place, says, in a letter to me upon the melancholy 
 occasion, ‘ I reckon myself the sufferer, next to your 
 family: He was my wise, tender, affectionate and 
 faithful friend, whom I could trust for judgin' and 
 integrity in all things relating to me,’ &c. 
 
XXVI 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 An. 1724. 
 
 Jul. 2. To day I had the first account of my mother’s death, 
 who, on 1st of June last, peacefully resigned her sp* 
 and fell asleep in Jesus. 
 
 I believe she dyed in the year of her age that is 
 commonly called the grand climacterick. 
 
 Extract from the Register of the Parish Church of 
 Hartlebury. 
 
 Weddings in 1732. 
 
 John Alexander of Dublin, and Hannah Higgs of Old 
 Swinford, by licence, August 8th. 
 
 The above is a true copy of the Register of the parish 
 church of Hartlebury, in the county and diocese of 
 Worcester, made this 28th day of January, 1824, by me, 
 Sam 1 " Picart, Rector of Hartlebury. 
 
 Extract from the Minute-Book of the Sessions of the Con¬ 
 gregation of Plunket Street, Meeting-house, Dublin, 
 (page 296.) 
 
 Nov r 1. 1743. 
 
 This morning our Reverend Minister, Mr John Alexander, 
 departed this life. This evening, our officers and a few of 
 the congregation meet, and agreed that the congregation be 
 applied to for the charge of the funnerell of our late minister, 
 and that it shall not be a charge on Mrs Alexander. 
 
 A true copy. 
 
 John Stewart. 
 
 Inscription on the Tombstone of the Reverend John 
 Alexander, Dublin. 
 
 Here lyeth the body of the Rev d Mr John Alexander, 
 late Minister of the Presbyterian Church in Plunket Street, 
 who departed this life, Nov r the first, 1743, aged 57 years; 
 and his daughter Hannah Alexander. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XXVll 
 
 MS. of the Reverend John Alexander, Dublin, of the 
 Births of his Children. 
 
 Mary, mv eldest daughter, was born in Dublin, Earl Street, 
 Oct. 1. A. D. 1733. 
 
 Hannah, my second daughter, was born Dec. 5. 1734, dy’d 
 Sept. 17. being the L' ls ‘ day, an. 1738, of the small-pox. 
 
 John, my third child, was born Jan. 26, being Monday, A.D. 
 1735—6. 
 
 Elizabeth, my fourth child, was born Mar. 11, and Benjamin, 
 my fifth child, at the same time, A. D. 1736—7. Elizabeth 
 dy’d Oct. an. 1737. 
 
 Hannah, my sixth child, was born Jan. 8, being Thursday, 
 an. 1740—1. 
 
 Excerpts from the Plunket Street Church Baptismal 
 Register, Dublin. 
 
 Oct. 1733. 
 
 15. Alary, to John and Hannah Alexander, Earl Street, 
 baptis d by Air Jo" Leland. 
 
 Dec. * 1734. 
 
 15. Han. to the Rev d Air John Alexander and Hannah his 
 wife, baptis d by the Rev d Air John Leland. 
 
 Feb. 1735, Baptized. 
 
 1. Jo" to the Rev d Air Jo" Alexander, and Hannah his wife, 
 baptis d by the Rev d Air Francis Iredel. 
 
 Alarch 1736. 
 
 17. Ben. and Elis, twins, to the Rev d Mr John Alexander, 
 and Hannah, baptis d by the Rev d Air Francis 
 Iredel, 1737. 
 
 Jan. 1740. 
 
 9. Hannah, to the Rev d Air John Alexander, baptis d by Mr 
 Rob rt Alacmaster. 
 
xxviii 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Inscription on the Tombstone of the Reverend John 
 Alexander, Birmingham. 
 
 Sacred to the Memory of 
 The Rev d Mr Jn° Alexander, 
 who was eminently distinguished 
 for a Christian Scholar and Divine, 
 though cut off in his thirtieth year. 
 
 He was born Jan y 26. 1736. 
 
 Died Dec r 29. 1765. 
 
 Learn, Reader, That 
 Honourable age is not 
 that which standeth in length 
 of time, nor that is measured 
 by number of years : 
 
 But wisdom is the grey hair, 
 and an unspotted life 
 is old age. 
 
 Also in memory of 
 Hannah Alexander, who died 
 Oct, 5. 1768, aged 63 years. 
 
 Extract from the Register of Burials in Bunhill Fields 
 Burying Ground. 
 
 Original Letter to Mrs Ellen Teverill, Birmingham, also 
 
 produced. 
 
 1768. 
 
 April 21. Dr Alexander from Baisinhall Street in a grave. 
 
 The above is a true copy of the said Register, taken this 
 15th day of Dec. 1825, 
 
 Letitia Mountague, for 
 S. Mountague, Keeper. 
 
 London , April , 19th 1768. 
 
 Dear Sister, ’Tis probable y* before you receive y s * you 
 will have heard y* Dr Alexander died yesterday morning 
 about one o’clock. It was a very great surprise to us all. 
 He had called once at my uncle’s since his other illness, and 
 seemed purely recovered. We heard no more of him till 
 yesterday, w" my uncle’s barber coming to shave him, said he 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XXIX 
 
 heard y* Dr Alexander was dead. My uncle went imme¬ 
 diately to his house and found it true. He had been extremely 
 ill of a fever four or five days. It was a wonder they had not 
 sent my uncle word of his illness. I was out all day, and did 
 not hear of it till evening. I had intended calling to lelt 
 him know that I was returned from Ware. This event has 
 greatly affected us all, and none more y n myself. I am indeed 
 very much concerned for Mrs Alexander, and our young 
 friends. Miss Hannah’s ill health will render her less able to 
 bear such a shock. I am afraid it should be too much for 
 her. I wish it was in my power to administer consolation ; 
 you, I know, will endeavour it. The comforts of religion are 
 theirs, and I trust and hope will be sufficient for their support 
 under this trying affliction. They have shewn a noble forti¬ 
 tude, a distinguishing submission and resignation, and done 
 great honour to y m selves and Christianity. May y e same God 
 be their support now. He will, for he has said, I will never 
 leave thee nor forsake thee. You may assure y ra of my love 
 and sympathy ; I feel for their distress. Pray send me word 
 how they do when you write. The Dr has left two Mr 
 Cooks his executors. I tremble for the rest of her little ones. 
 Our stay here being so very uncertain, let us, my dear sister, 
 be daily endeavouring after a preparedness for a future and 
 better state, where y e visicitudes of y s will be known no more. 
 I am obliged to conclude in haste. Give my duty to mamma, 
 and accept my love. I am my dear sister’s most affectionate, 
 (Signed) M. N. Pickard. 
 
 The joint respects of our friends attend you. 
 
 Inscription on a flat stone by the side of the Tombstone of 
 the Reverend John Alexander, Birmingham. 
 
 Sacred to the Memory 
 of the Rev d Mr Benj" Higgs, 
 who died 30, Jan y 1770, 
 aged 60 years. 
 
 Also in Memory of 
 Mary Alexander, who died 
 April 1794, aged 60. 
 
 Also in Memory of 
 5 children of W M and Hannah 
 Humphrys, who died 
 in their infancy. 
 
XXX 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Deposition of Eliza Pountney, commonly called Lady 
 
 Eliza Pountney, taken in the service of Alexander, 
 
 Earl of Stirling, to his Mother. 
 
 At the Town of Manchester, in the County-Palatine of 
 Lancaster, the 27th day of January 1826. 
 
 Mrs Eliza Pountney, commonly called Lady Eliza 
 Pountney, wife of Charles Pountney, of Manchester, aforesaid, 
 Esq. aged 44 years or thereabouts, deposeth, That she is the 
 youngest daughter of the late William Humphrys of Birming¬ 
 ham and of the Larches in the county of Warwick, Esq. some 
 time since deceased, and is sister to Alexander Humphrys 
 Alexander, Earl of Stirling, 8cc. being, along with her sister 
 Hannah, the wife of William Horsley of Manchester aforesaid, 
 Esq. the three only surviving children of the said William 
 Humphrys, by Hannah Alexander, his wife, who died in 
 1814, and in her lifetime was entitled to be Countess of Stir¬ 
 ling; and this deponent saith, That her said late mother being 
 a person of great humility, and perfectly unostentatious, did 
 not take upon herself the title of Countess, though this depo¬ 
 nent saith she well remembers to have heard her mother often 
 say to her children that they had noble blood in their veins; 
 and this deponent saith, that her late father, the aforesaid 
 William Humphrys, Esq. frequently used to call her mother 
 his Countess; and this deponent saith, that she has repea¬ 
 tedly heard her mother, when alive, mention that she had seen 
 in her mother’s (this deponent’s grandmother) possession 
 an emblazoned pedigree of the Earls of Stirling, setting 
 forth their marriages, issue, and descent; but which pedigree 
 her mother stated had been in some manner or other lost, 
 or surreptitiously stolen away, together with divers other 
 family papers, and valuable documents respecting the title and 
 descent of the Earldom of Stirling to her family : And this 
 deponent saith, That she also remembers to have heard her 
 mother aforesaid relate that she had two brothers, John and 
 Benjamin Alexander, and that it had been their full intention 
 to have assumed their peerage honours, had not early death 
 cut them off in the prime of life ; also that they died unmar¬ 
 ried, as did her elder sister Mary, whereby she (this depo¬ 
 nent’s mother) said she believed herself to be the last of her 
 family of the Alexanders who were entitled to be Earls of 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XXXI 
 
 Stirling: And this deponent saith, That she considers the 
 before mentioned particulars were all matters of noto¬ 
 riety in the then circle of her mother’s friends; but she 
 does not know of any of those friends who are now alive : 
 And this deponent saith, That her mother died at her house 
 in the College Green, in or near Worcester, and was interred 
 in the Presbyterian burying ground in that city: Lastly, this 
 deponent saith, That she better, and more particularly 
 remembers all to which she has deponed, because she was 
 more constantly with her said mother, than either her elder 
 sister Hannah, the wife of William Horsley, Esq. aforesaid, 
 or her brother, Alexander, now Earl of Stirling : And all 
 this is truth, as she shall answer to God. 
 
 Eliza Pountney. 
 
 Aldcroft Phillips, Commissioner. 
 
 Alexander Horsley, Clerk. 
 
 General Retour of the Service of Alexander Earl of 
 Stirling, to his Mother. 
 
 Ilaec Inquisitio facta fuit in curia regalitatis burgi vici 
 Canonicorum septimo die mensis Februarii anno Domini 
 millesimo octingentesimo et vigesimo sexto coram honorabili 
 viro Gulielmo Bailey armigero uno balivorum dicti burgi per 
 hos probos et fideles patriae homines, viz. Thomarn Christo- 
 pherum Banks, honorabilis societatis Interioris Templi 
 Londini armigerum, Ephraim Lockhart armigerum, scribam 
 signeto regio, Henricum Wharton, Joannem Stewart Mein, 
 Georgium Stewart Jack et Joannem Mason scribas in Edin- 
 burgo, Alexandrum Adam, Robertum Renton White, Jacobum 
 Smith et Davidem Kirk mercatores ibidem Joannem Brett 
 fabrum lignarium ibid. Gulielmum Muir, Archibaldum Craig, 
 Duncanum Mackenzie et Allanum M‘Gill mercatores in vico 
 Caonicorum, Qui jurati dicunt magno Sacramento interve- 
 niente Quod quondam Hanna Alexander alias Humphrys, 
 mater Alexandri Humphrys Alexander de Netherton House 
 in comitatu de Worcester, Comitis de Stirling, Vicecomitis de 
 Stirling et Canada, Domini Alexander de Tullibodie, &c. 
 latoris prassentium unici surviven. filii diet, quond. Hannae 
 Alexander alias Humphrys quae uxor fuit Gulielini Hum¬ 
 phrys de Birmingham et lie The Larches ambobus in comi¬ 
 tatu de Warwick armigeri et ultima surviven. hoeres femella 
 
XXX11 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Benjaminis Alexander ex Basinghall Street Londini ejus 
 fratris germani idtimi haeredis masculi e corpore Gulielmi 
 Alexander de Menstrie militis Baronetti primi Comitis de 
 Stirling abavi ejus succeden. titulis honoribus et dignitatibus 
 limitat. dicto Gulielmo Comiti de Stirling et haeredibus 
 masculis ex ejus corpore &c. per literas patentes seu cartam 
 de novodamus sub sigillo magno Scotiae de data septimo die 
 Decembris anno millesimo sexcentesimo et trigesimo nono 
 obiit ad fidem et paceni S. D. N. regis; et quod diet. Alex¬ 
 ander Humphrys Alexander Comes de Stirling, Yicecomes de 
 Stirling et Canada, Dominus Alexander de Tullibodie, &c. 
 lator praesentium est propinquior et legitimus haeres masculus 
 ex corpore diet, quond. Hannae Alexander alias Humphrys 
 ejus matris; et quod est legitimae aetatis. In cujus rei testi¬ 
 monium sigilla eorum qui dictae inquisitioni intererant sunt 
 appensa nee uon cum subscriptioni clerici diet, burgi sub 
 inclusione sigilli diet, balivi cum brevi regio incluso loco die 
 mensis et anno proedictis. 
 
 (Sicsubscribitur) John Macritchie, Clerk. 
 
 Hcec est vera copia principalis retornatus super prae- 
 missis in Cancellaria S.D.N. Regis remanen. ext. 
 copiat. et collat. per me Thomam Miller substitu- 
 tum Jacobi Dundas deputati praehonorabilis Jacobi 
 St Clair Erskine Comitis de Rosslyn ejusd. cancel- 
 lariae directoris sub hac mea subscriptione. 
 
 Thomas Miller, Sub. 
 
 II. 
 
 Proceedings in the service of Alexander, Earl of Stir¬ 
 ling, as Heir in special of William, Earl of Stirling. 
 
 Court of the service of the brieve issued forth of his 
 Majesty’s Chancery, at the instance of Alexander, Earl 
 of Stirling and Dovan, Viscount of Stirling and 
 Canada, Lord Alexander of Tullibodie, &c. for serving 
 him nearest and lawful heir of the deceased Sir William, 
 Alexander of Menstrie, Miles, the first Earl of Stirling, 
 his great-great-great grandfather, in all and sundry 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 x.xxiii 
 
 lands and others in the fee of which the said William, 
 Earl of Stirling, died last vest and seised, at the faith 
 and peace of our Sovereign Lord the King then 
 reigning, holden within the Parliament or new Session 
 House of Edinburgh, in manner after specified. 
 
 At Edinburgh, the 2d day of July, in the year 1831 , and 
 within the Parliament or new Session House there, in the 
 Court-room of the First Division of the Court of Session, in 
 presence of George Tait, Esq. Sheriff-substitute of the sheriff¬ 
 dom of Edinburgh, as Sheriff of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, 
 specially constituted to the effect after mentioned, compeared 
 Thomas Christopher Banks, Esq. residing at No. 19, Duke 
 Street, Edinburgh, as procurator and mandatary for and in 
 name of the said Alexander, Earl of Stirling, &c. according 
 to mandate dated the 28th day of June last past, and thereby 
 specially empowered to purchase a brieve forth of Chancery, 
 and to obtain the said Alexander, Earl of Stirling, &c. served 
 nearest and lawful heir of the said deceased William, Earl of 
 Stirling, his great-great-great grandfather, in the lands and 
 others after mentioned, and to procure such service retoured 
 to Chancery, and produced his Majesty’s commission, by 
 deliverance of the Lords of Council and Session, passed under 
 the quarter-seal, otherwise called the testimonial of the seal 
 appointed by the treaty of Union to be made use of within 
 Scotland, in place of the great seal thereof, making, constitut¬ 
 ing and appointing the Sheriff-depute of the said sheriffdom 
 of Edinburgh, or his substitute, Sheriff of the said sheriffdom 
 of Edinburgh, for serving the brieve to be issued forth of his 
 Majesty’s Chancery for cognoscing the said Alexander, Earl 
 of Stirling, &c. nearest and lawful heir of the said deceased 
 William, Earl of Stirling, his great-great-great grandfather, 
 in all and sundry lands and others in which the said William, 
 Earl of Stirling, died last vest and seised as of fee, at the faith 
 and peace of our Sovereign Lord the King then reigning, and 
 which commission contains a dispensation with the place and 
 time of vacance, and is dated the 10th and sealed the 15th 
 days of June last past: And the said Thomas Christopher 
 Banks, Esq. procurator and mandatary foresaid, having de¬ 
 sired the said Sheriff-substitute of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, 
 to proceed to the execution of the office of Sheriff thereby 
 committed to him, the said Sheriff made choice of Ephraim 
 Lockhart, writer to his Majesty’s Signet, and notary-public, 
 to be clerk for the service of the said Alexander, Earl of 
 
 2 C 
 
XX.MV 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Stirling, &c. as heir foresaid, and of Lindsay Rae, gown- 
 keeper to the society of writers to the said Signet, to the 
 officer for the Court of die said service; and who being both 
 solemnly sworn, made oath de fideli administratione, and there¬ 
 after the said Court was fenced in the name and authority of 
 his Majesty, and by order and in the name and authority of 
 the said Sheriff-substitute of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, 
 as Judge appointed by the said commission ; and the Court 
 being so fenced, compeared the several honourable and worthy 
 persons after named, who had been all lawfully summoned 
 before, to pass upon the Inquest of the said brieve, as being 
 most proper and least suspected, and who best knew the 
 verity of the matter. They are to say, Patrick Robertson 
 and James Welsh, Esqrs. advocates, David Johnston, Esq. 
 doctor of medicine, in Edinburgh, John Renton, James 
 Balfour, James Macdonell, John Dickie, Henry Ingli s, junior, 
 and James Souter, Esqrs. writers to his Majesty’s Signet, John 
 Stirling, Esq. accountant in Edinburgh, John Adams, John 
 Phillips and Thomas Ranken, solicitors of the Supreme Courts 
 of Scotland, William Wallace Sibbald, Esq. residing in 
 Edinburgh, and Joseph Low, writer there. Whereupon the 
 said Thomas Christopher Banks, Esq. procurator and manda¬ 
 tary foresaid, produced a brieve issued forth of his Majesty’s 
 Chancery, dated the 10th day of June last past, directed to the 
 Sheriff-depute of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, or his substi¬ 
 tute, Sheriff of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, specially consti¬ 
 tuted as aforesaid, at the instance of the said Alexander, Earl 
 of Stirling, &c. for cognoscing him nearest and lawful heir of 
 the said deceased William, Earl of Stirling, his great-great- 
 great grandfather, in all and sundry lands and others in which 
 the said William, Earl of Stirling, died last vest and seised as 
 of fee, at the faith and peace of our said Sovereign Lord, 
 together with an execution of the said brieve under the hands 
 of William Swanston, officer of the Sheriff of the sheriffdom 
 of Edinburgh, and of James Calder and Donald Macleod, both 
 residenters in Edinburgh, as witnesses, bearing the said 
 William Swanston to have passed to the market-cross of the 
 burgh of Edinburgh, head borough of the said sheriffdom of 
 Edinburgh, upon the 15th day of June last past, being a 
 market day within the saicl burgh of Edinburgh, and in open 
 market time, and to have duly and openly proclaimed and 
 executed the brieve in due form of law; and which brieve, 
 with the execution thereof, being audibly and publicly read, 
 the said Judge found that the said brieve was duly and law- 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 fully executed : Thereafter the said Thomas Christopher 
 Banks, Esq. procurator and mandatary foresaid, exhibited 
 and produced a claim for the said Alexander, Earl of Stirling, 
 &c. praying that lie should be served and cognosced nearest 
 and lawful heir of the said deceased William Earl of Stirling, 
 his great-great-great grandfather, in all and sundry the lands, 
 continents and islands situate and lying in America, and others 
 therein particularly described; and for verifying the several 
 heads of the said claim, the above-named Thomas Christopher 
 Banks, Esq. procurator and mandatary foresaid, produced the 
 writs after mentioned, viz. Book the 51st of the Register of 
 the Great Seal, containing the record of a charter of novo- 
 damus under the said seal, of date the 12th day of July in 
 the year 1625, made, given and granted by his Majesty, Charles 
 I. in favour of the said William, Earl of Stirling, (then and 
 therein named Sir William Alexander,) of the lands, barony 
 and lordship of Nova Scotia, in America: Secundo , Extract 
 registered instrument of seisin, following upon the precept in 
 the said charter, in favour of the said William, Earl of Stirling, 
 of date the 29th day of September, in the said year 1625, 
 recorded in the General Register of seisins, &c. kept at Edin¬ 
 burgh, the 1st day of October, and year foresaid : And lastly , 
 General retour of the service, expede before the bailies of the 
 burgh of Canongate, of the said Alexander, Earl of Stirling, 
 as heir of the said deceased William, Earl of Stirling, his 
 great-great-great grandfather, which retour is dated the 11th 
 day of October, 1830, and duly retoured to Chancery; and 
 for instructing the old and new extent of the lands and others 
 contained in the said claim, and in which the said William, 
 Earl of Stirling, died last infeft, there was produced a charter 
 under the great seal, of date the 10th day of September in the 
 year 1621, made, given, and granted bv his majesty James 
 the Sixth, in favour of the said William Earl of Stirling, then 
 Sir William Alexander, of the lordship and barony of Nova 
 Scotia in America, which charter was written to the said seal 
 the 29th day of the said month of September and year fore¬ 
 said, and sealed the same day. After production of which 
 claim, and writs before mentioned, the said Sheriff-substitute 
 of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, as Judge foresaid, caused the 
 said Lindsay Rae, officer of court, call peremptorily and 
 openly in judgment, all parties having or pretending to have 
 interest; which being accordingly done, and none compearing 
 to object against the service of the said brieve, and lawful 
 time of day being waited, the said procurator and mandatary 
 
XXXV! 
 
 APPKNDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 protested contra omnes non comparentes, that theyshould be silent 
 for ever after; and also desired that the said claim, and writs 
 produced for verifying the said claim, might he referred and 
 admitted to the knowledge of the Inquest before named ; and 
 the said Sheriff-substitute of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, as 
 Judge foresaid, finding the said desire to be just and reason¬ 
 able, he admitted thereof, and remitted the said matter to the 
 knowledge of the Inquest; and who being all solemnly sworn 
 by the said Judge, they made faith de Jideli administration?, 
 and then elected the said Patrick Robertson, Esq. advocate, 
 to be their chancellor; and thereupon the said claim was 
 openly and publicly read, and compared with the foresaid 
 writings, produced for vouching and verifying thereof: And 
 thereafter the said Sheriff-substitute of the sheriffdom of Edin¬ 
 burgh, as Judge foresaid, caused the said Lindsay Rae, officer 
 of Court, call again thrice peremptorily in judgment, at the 
 most patent door of the said new Session House, all parties 
 having, or pretending to have interest; which being accord¬ 
 ingly done, and none compearing to object, the said procura¬ 
 tor and mandatary again protested contra omnes non compa¬ 
 rentes•, that they should be ever thereafter silent; and then 
 they, the said worthy persons of Inquest, all in one voice, and 
 without variance, by the mouth of their said chancellor, found 
 the foresaid claim sufficiently instructed and proven, and 
 therefore served and cognosced the said Alexander, Earl of 
 Stirling, &c. nearest and lawful heir in special of the said 
 deceased William Earl of Stirling, his great-great-great grand¬ 
 father, in all and sundry the lands and others contained in 
 the said claim, in which the said William, Earl of Stirling, 
 died last vest and seised, and that conform to the said claim, 
 and the verdict of the said Inquest, subjoined thereto, and 
 signed by their said chancellor in all points; and ordained the 
 said service, under the hand of the Clerk of Court, with the 
 said brieve, to be retoured to his Majesty’s Chancery; and to 
 which verdict and service, the said Sheriff-substitute, of the 
 sheriffdom of Edinburgh, as Judge foresaid, adhibited his 
 authority, and ordained the same to be retoured in manner 
 foresaid: Whereupon, and upon all and sundry the premises, 
 the said procurator and mandatary asked acts of Court, and 
 asked and took instruments in the hands of the Clerk of Court 
 aforesaid, and the Sheriff interponed his authority to the pre¬ 
 mises. 
 
 (Signed) G. Tait. 
 
 Eph. Lockhart, N. P. and C. D . 
 
APPENDIX to introduction. 
 
 XXXV11 
 
 Documents produced in the Service of Alexander, Earl of 
 Stirling, as Heir in special of William, Earl of Stirling. 
 
 Charter of the Lordship and Barony of Nova Scotia, in 
 America, under the Great Seal, in favour of Sir William 
 Alexander, dated 10th, and sealed 29th September, 1621. 
 
 Register ot the Great Seal, Book the fifty-first, containing the 
 Record of Charter of Novodamus of the Lands, Barony, 
 and Lordship of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander, 
 dated 12th July, 1625. 
 
 Extract Registered Instrument of Sasine, following upon the 
 precept in the said Charter, in favour of Sir William 
 Alexander, dated 29th September, and recorded 1st 
 October, 1625, in the General Register of Sasines, &c. 
 kept at Edinburgh. 
 
 General Re tour of the Service of Alexander, Earl of Stirling, 
 to William, Earl of Stirling. 
 
 Haec Inquisitio facta fuit in curia regalitatis burgi vici Ca- 
 nonicorum undecimo die mensis Octobris anno Domini mille- 
 simo octingentesimo et trigesimo coram honorabili viro Joanne 
 Robertson armigero uuo balivorum dicti burgi per hos probos 
 et fideles patriae homines viz. Alexandrum Monypenny, Jaco- 
 bum Dalgliesh et Gulielmum Fraser armigeros, scribassigneto 
 regio, Joannem M‘Liesh de Maryfield armigerum, Philippum 
 Crow, Archibaldum Douglas, Joannem Mason et Ilobertum 
 Oliphant scribas in Edinburgo, Jacobum Simpson scribam in 
 Leith, Jacobum Gardner pharmacopolam in Edinburgo, Gual- 
 terum Marshall pictorem ibidem, Robertum Latta exactorem 
 custumarum ibidem, Thomam Workman mercatorem in vico 
 Canonicorum, Joannem Sutherland residentem ibidem, et 
 Alexandrum Brodie mercatorem in Leith, Qui jurati dicunt 
 magno Sacramento interveniente, Quod quondam Gulielmus 
 primus Comes de Stirling atavus Alexandri Comitis de 
 Stirling Vicecomitis de Stirling et Canada Domini Alexander 
 de Tullibodie &c. unici surviventis filii decessae Hannae 
 Alexander alias Humphrys quae uxor fuit Gulielmi Hum¬ 
 ph rys de Birmingham et lie the Larches ambobus in comitatu 
 de- Warwick Armigeri et soror germana et ultima survivens 
 haeres fern ella demortui BenjaminiAlexander ex Basinghall 
 
xxxviii APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Street Londini abnepotis et ultimi haeredis masculi de corpore 
 dicti quondam Gulielmi Comitis de Stirling obiit ad fidem et 
 pacem S. D. N. Regis ; Et quod dictus Alexander Comes de 
 Stirling lator proesentium est propinquior et legitimus haeres 
 in generali dicti quondam Gulielmi Comitis de Stirling sui 
 atavi; Et quod est legitimae aetatis. In cujus rei testimonium 
 sigilla eorum qui dictae inquisitioni intererant sunt appensa 
 nec non cum subscriptione clerici dicti burgi sub inclusione 
 sigilli dicti balivi cum brevi regio incluso loco die mensis et 
 anno praedictis. 
 
 (Sic subscribitur) William Fraser, Jan. Clerk. 
 
 Haec est vera copia principalis retornatus super prae- 
 missis in Cancellaria S. D. N. Regis remanen. ext. 
 copiat. et collat. per me Joannem Dundas substi- 
 tutum Jacobi Dundas deputati praehonorabilis Ja¬ 
 cobi St Clair Erskine Comitis de Rosslyn ejusdem 
 Cancellariae directoris sub hac mea subscriptione. 
 
 John Dundas, Sub 1 . 
 
 Bond of Corroboration by John Alexander and Others, 
 to Sir Thomas Hope of Kerse, dated 9th June, 20th 
 July, and 2d September, 1638, and Registered in the 
 Books of Session 28th January, 1640. 
 
 Be it kend till all men be thir present letteris, ws, Williame, 
 Erie of Stirling, Lord Alexander of Tulliebodie, forsamekill 
 as vmq le Williame, Lord Alexander, our eldest laufull sone, as 
 principally and vmq le Sir Antonie Alexander, our sone, and 
 Mr James Gordoun, keipar of the Signet, as cautionaris for 
 him, be their band and obligatioun, subscrvuit with thair 
 handis, of the dait, the fourtene day of December, Jmvjc. 36 
 yeirs, grantit tharne to be addettit and awaud to Sir Thomas 
 Hope of Kerss, knicht, all and haill, &c. as the said band and 
 obligatioun, of the dait foirsaid, in itselfF at mair lentil beiris: 
 And now seing it lies pleisit God to call the said vmq lc 
 Williame, Lord Alexander, our sone, out of this mortall lyffe, 
 and that we ar willing to secure the said Sir Thomas, and his 
 foirsaidis, for payment of the foirsaidis sowmes: Thairfoir witt 
 ye ws, the said Williame, Erie of Stirling, as principal!, and 
 with ws, Joline Alexander of Graitmure, Charles Alexander, 
 our sones, &c. as cautionaris, souerties, and full dettouris for 
 ws, but preiudice of the foirsaid obligatioun, maid to the said 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 X-X.MX 
 
 Sir Thomas, and his foirsaidis, of the foirsaid principall sovvme, 
 annuel rentis, and expenses yairof, hot in larder corrobora- 
 tioun of the samvn, accumulando jura juribus, to be bund and 
 oblist, lykeas we, be the tennour heirof, bind is and obliss ws, 
 conjuncilie and seueralie, our airis and executouris, to content 
 and pay to the said Sir Thomas Hope, and his foirsaidis, the 
 foirsaid principall sowme, &c. 
 
 (Sic subscribitur) Johne Alexander. 
 
 Charles Alexander. 
 
 Mr J. Gordoun. 
 
 Andro Alexander. 
 
 Henrie Alexander. 
 
 Heritable Bond of Corroboration to Sir Thomas Hope 
 of Kerse, dated 10th January, 1639, and registered ut 
 supra, executed by William, Earl of Stirling. 
 
 Charter under the Great Seal in favour of William, Earl 
 of Stirling, of the Lands and Barony of Gartmore, dated 
 23d January, 1636. 
 
 Carolus, &c. Sciatis nos, &c. dedisse, 8cc. preedilecto nostro 
 consanguineo et consiliaro Willielmo Comiti de Stirling Vice- 
 comiti de Canada Domino Alexander de Tullibodie, &c. 
 omnes et singulas duodecim mercatas terrarum antiqui extentus 
 de Gairtmoir, &c. Quaequidem omnes et singulae praeno- 
 minate terrae &c. ad Agnetam Grahame filiam et haeredem 
 quondam Roberti Grahame de Gairtmoir et ad Joannem 
 Alexander ejus maritum de nobis superiore earundem imme¬ 
 diate tent, perprius pertinuerunt et quaequidem per diet. 
 Agnetam Grahame cum express, consensu dicti Joannis 
 Alexander ejus sponsi pro suo interesse et per diet. Joannem 
 Alexander pro seipso ac onus in se suscipien. pro dicta Agneta 
 Grahame ejus sponsa ac etiam cum express, consensu ac 
 assensu Magistri Jacobi Gordoun nostri signeti custodis pro 
 suo interesse et per diet. Magistrum Jacobum pro seipso, &c. 
 resignatae renunciatae et per fustim et baculum ut moris est 
 pure et simpliciter extradonatae fuerunt, &c. 
 
 Inscription on the Tombstone of Henry, Earl of Stirli n g> 
 Binfield Church, county of Berks. 
 
 Here lieth the body’of the Right Honourable Henry Alex¬ 
 ander, Lord Alexander, Viscount Canada, and Earl of Stirline, 
 
x] 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of the kingdom of Scotland. He married Elizabeth Hobby, 
 widow of John Hobby, Esq. of Bisham Abbey, in this county, 
 and died without issue, on the 4th day of December, 1739, 
 aged 75 years. 
 
 Extract from the Register of Marriages of the Parish of St 
 Martin, Birmingham. 
 
 William Humphrys of this parish, bachelor, merchant, and 
 Hannah Alexander of the parish of St Philip in Birmingham, 
 spinster, were married in this church, by licence, this 26th 
 day of September, in the year 1769, 
 
 By me, John Gaunt, Lecturer. 
 
 This marriage was solemnised ( William Humphrys. 
 between us, \ Hannah Alexander. 
 
 T i c f John Kettle. 
 
 In the presence of j M(Jry Alexanier _ 
 
 I certify that the above is a true copy of the Register, 
 taken from the Register Book of Marriages, belong¬ 
 ing to the parish of St Martin in Birmingham, in 
 the county of Warwick. 
 
 Jn°. Moore, Lecturer. 
 
 24 th Jan y , 1824. 
 
 Inscription on the Tombstone of Mrs Hannah Humphrys, 
 formerly Alexander, Worcester. 
 
 In a vault beneath this stone 
 lie the mortal remains of 
 Hannah Humphrys, 
 who departed this life 12th Sept r 1814, 
 aged 72. 
 
 She was the relict of 
 William Humphrys, Esquire, 
 
 (formerly of Birmingham,) 
 who died at Verdun in France, 
 
 May 1st 1807, aged 65. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xli 
 
 Memorandum by William Humphrys, Esq. of the Births of 
 
 his Children. 
 
 John 
 
 1. My first child (a boy) was born 6. July, 1770.— Died 
 26. Nov. 1772. 
 
 Patty 
 
 2. My sec d child (a girl) 4. Sept. 1771. —Died 13. Feb. 
 1773. 
 
 Hannah 
 
 3. My third child (a girl) 29. March, 1773. 
 
 not baptized. 
 
 4. My fourth child (a boy) 8. June, 1774. — Died 26. same 
 month. 
 
 Sarah 
 
 5. My 5th child (a girl) was born 1st Octob r 1775. — Died 
 22. March, 1780. 
 
 Polly 
 
 6. My 6th child (a girl) 16. Nov r 1776. — Died 13. March, 
 1788. 
 
 Eliz. 
 
 7. My 7th child (a girl) 12. Feb. 1779. 
 
 / Alexander 
 
 8. My 8th child (a boy) 21. June, 1783. 
 
 Procuratory of Resignation, Alexander, Earl of Stirling, 
 in favour of Thomas Christopher Banks, Esq. 
 
 I, Alexander, Earl of Stirling and Dovan, considering that, 
 by a precept of seisin from his Majesty, issued out of his 
 Chancery in Scotland, dated the 7th day of July, in the year 
 1831, following upon the retour of my special service, as 
 nearest and lawful heir of the deceased Sir William Alexan¬ 
 der of Menstrie, the first Earl of Stirling, my great-great- 
 great grandfather, in the province, lands, country, and lord- 
 ship of Nova Scotia in America, and in virtue of my infeft- 
 ment therein, I, my heirs or assignees, or our deputies, are 
 his Majesty’s hereditary lieutenants of the said country and 
 lordship of Nova Scotia, and plenary power is granted to me, 
 my heirs or assignees, of conferring honours and bestowing 
 titles, as shall appear necessary, upon those who reside in the 
 said province, or who employ their means for the advantage 
 
xlii 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and improvement thereof; as also of giving, granting, and 
 disponing any parts or portions of the said lands, country, and 
 lordship of Nova Scotia, heritably belonging to us, to and in 
 favour of whatsoever persons, their heirs and assignees, heri¬ 
 tably, (only that they be his Majesty’s subjects,) to be holden 
 either of me or of his Majesty, and his royal successors : By 
 which precept it is declared, that the said dispositions shall be 
 approved and confirmed by his Majesty, or his aforesaid, 
 freely, without any composition to be paid therefor; and 
 moreover, that his Majesty, and his royal successors, shall 
 receive whatsoever resignations shall be made by me, and my 
 heirs and assignees, of the foresaid lands and lordship of Nova 
 Scotia, or of any part thereof, in the hands of his Majesty, 
 and his successors and commissioners, having power to receive 
 resignations, in favour of whatsoever person or persons, (only 
 that they be his Majesty’s subjects, and live under his obe¬ 
 dience,) and for new infeftments, to be holden of his Majesty, 
 his heirs and successors, in manner therein mentioned, freely, 
 without any composition, and whereby all places, privileges, 
 prerogatives, and precedencies whatsoever, given, granted, 
 and reserved to me and my successors, lieutenants of the said 
 country and lordship of Nova Scotia, on behalf of the 
 knights, baronets, and remanent portioners and associates of 
 the plantation thereof, are ratified and confirmed tp me, my 
 heirs and assignees; as the instrument of seisin in my favour 
 in the said lands and lordship of Nova Scotia, dated the 8th 
 day of July, and year foresaid, and duly recorded in the 
 General Register of Seisins kept at Edinburgh, will testify: 
 And further, considering that I have good experience of the 
 worth and sufficiency of Thomas Christopher Banks, Esq. 
 and of his great affection to his Majesty, and understand his 
 willingness to promote the advantage and improvement of the 
 said plantation, therefore I do, by these presents, bind and 
 oblige myself, and my heirs and assignees, to make due and 
 lawful resignation of all and whole that part or portion of the 
 foresaid lands and lordship, extending to 16,000 acres of land, 
 situate within such boundaries, and limits therein, as shall 
 have been previously determined and agreed upon, with 
 houses, buildings, &c. together with all mines and minerals 
 whatsoever, with the power of digging, purifying, and refin¬ 
 ing the same, and using them likeas, and as freely as I, my 
 heirs and assignees, can do; the whole of the said subjects to 
 be united, annexed, and incorporated into one entire and free 
 barony, called, and to be called, in all time coming, the 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xliii 
 
 barony of St Maur, together with the heritable state, degree, 
 order, name, dignity, and style of Baronet, with all and 
 sundry prerogatives, privileges, precedencies, and condi¬ 
 tions, such as any other baronets, within the kingdom of 
 Scotland and the country of Nova Scotia, or their heirs-male 
 whatsoever, had or have by their charters or patents; which 
 prerogatives and others, and every one of them, shall be 
 equally sufficient and valid, as if each were particularly gran¬ 
 ted and expressed in these presents: And to that effect, I do 
 hereby constitute and appoint 
 
 and each 
 
 of them, conjunctly and severally, my lawful and irrevocable 
 procurators, giving, granting, and committing to them, full 
 power and warrant for me, and in my name, to resign and 
 surrender, as I do hereby resign, surrender, upgive, and over¬ 
 give, all and whole the said part or portion of the foresaid 
 lands and lordship of Nova Scotia, and others above men¬ 
 tioned, in the hands of my immediate lawful superiors of the 
 same, or of their commissioners in their name, having power 
 to receive resignations, and to grant new infeftments there¬ 
 upon, in favour and for new infeftment of the same, to be 
 made, given, and granted to the said Thomas Christopher 
 Banks, Esquire, his heirs-male and assignees whatsoever, 
 heritably, in legal and competent form ; acts, instruments, 
 and documents in the premises to ask and take, and generally 
 every other thing concerning the premises to do, which I 
 could do myself if personally present, or which to the office of 
 procuratory in such cases is known to appertain, promising 
 hereby to ratify and confirm whatsoever my said procurators 
 shall lawfully do, or cause to be done, in the premises: And 
 consenting to the registration hereof in the books of Council 
 and Session, in Scotland, or others competent and proper for 
 preservation, and that all necessary execution may pass here¬ 
 on, in common form, I hereto constitute 
 
 my procurators, &c. In wit¬ 
 
 ness whereof, See. 
 
 Dated 14 th July , 1831. 
 
xliv 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 DEFENDER’S PROOF, in the Action of Reduction 
 Improbation the Officers of State against Alexander, 
 Earl of Stirling. 
 
 At RathgarJ, in the County of Down, 
 the 9th day of January, in the year 1836. 
 
 Which day there was produced to me, James Clealand, 
 Esq. one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the county 
 of Down, in Ireland, an act and commission, dated the 26th 
 day of November, 1835, granted by Lord Cockburn, one of 
 the Judges of the Court of Session in Scotland, in an action 
 of reduction and improbation depending in that Court, in 
 which the officers of State for Scotland are pursuers, and 
 Alexander, Earl of Stirling, and others, are defenders; of 
 which commission I accepted, and made choice of Alexander 
 Montgomery of Belmont, in the said county of Down, soli¬ 
 citor, to be my clerk, to whom I administered the oath de 
 fideli, as use is. 
 
 Thereafter appeared Ephraim Lockhart, W.S. as agent for 
 the defenders, and Roderick Mackenzie, W.S. as agent for 
 the pursuers, who protested that the defender had no right to 
 design himself Earl of Stirling. 
 
 Thereafter compeared Margaret M‘Blain, widow of 
 James M‘Blain in Newton Ards, aged eighty years or there¬ 
 abouts ; who being solemnly sworn, purged of malice and 
 partial counsel, and examined and interrogated by and in the 
 presence of the said Commissioner, depones. That she remem¬ 
 bers the last Countess of Mount Alexander, who resided in 
 Donaghadee, and died sixty-four years past last April : That 
 the deponent was ten years and upwards in Lady Mount 
 Alexander’s service down to the time of her death : That she 
 has often heard Lady Mount Alexander speak of a John 
 Alexander, who had a son, also called John Alexander, who 
 married Mary Hamilton : That said John the second, and 
 Mar}' Hamilton, had a son, who was the Reverend John 
 Alexander : That John the first was called of Gartmore, and 
 John the second lived in Antrim; and the Reverend John 
 Alexander was a minister in Dublin, and died there; all 
 which she heard from Lady Mount Alexander on various 
 occasions, who moreover added, that all these persons of the 
 name of John Alexander lived in Antrim : That she has 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xlv 
 
 further heard Lady Mount Alexander say, that Mary Hamil¬ 
 ton, before mentioned, was sister to Sir .Tames Hamilton, who 
 was a general in the English army, and lived and died, and 
 was buried in Bangor; and that the said Mary Hamilton had 
 two sisters, Jane, who was married to the Reverend Mr 
 Livingston of Donaghadee, and Anne, who was married to 
 Mr Dalrymple of Ballymacruse, but neither of her said sisters 
 had any issue. Being interrogated for the pursuers , depones, 
 That her maiden name is M‘Clune, and that her father and 
 mother and she always resided in Donaghadee, where she was 
 born : That she was about four or five years of age when she 
 went into the service of Lady Mount Alexander: That her 
 duty in her Ladyship’s service was to run on errands for the 
 servants and for her Ladyship : was never employed as her 
 Ladyship’s waiting-maid, nor was she employed about her 
 person : To the best of her recollection she was about four¬ 
 teen or fifteen years of age when her Ladyship died : That 
 her Ladyship, to thfe best of her recollection, was about sixty- 
 five years of age when she died : That during the latter years 
 of her Ladyship’s life she has heard her relate the matters 
 above deponed to to her waiting-maid and herself, when in 
 attendance on her : That her Ladyship’s maiden name was 
 Delacherois ; she was a Frenchwoman and a Huguenot: That 
 her husband was Thomas Montgomery, Earl of Mount 
 Alexander: That she heard her Ladyship say, that the first 
 John above deponed to was called John of Gartrnore, which 
 she supposes to be a place near Antrim, and that he w r as a 
 long time a widower, and built alms-houses for widows in 
 Antrim. She never heard her Ladyship say what country¬ 
 man John of Gartrnore was, or that he was a Scotchman, but 
 that he was a great gentleman near Antrim, and had great 
 estates there. Her Ladyship never mentioned the date of the 
 second John’s marriage, or where they were married, but has 
 heard her say that Mr Livingston christened their son : That 
 she never heard her Ladyship say that John of Gartrnore was 
 an Irishman. Reinterrogated for the defender, depones, That 
 her occupation in her Ladyship’s service, as she grew up, was 
 to attend in cleaning the furniture and assisting the cook. 
 All which is truth as she shall answer to God. Depones that 
 she cannot write. 
 
 Mary Lewis, formerly Hamilton, widow of Robert 
 Lewis, in Newton Ards; who, being solemnly sworn and 
 interrogated, as aforesaid, depones, That she does not know 
 her age exactly, but believes she is eighty-six years old: That 
 
xlvi 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 she has heard of a person of the name of Alexander, who 
 married a woman called Mary Hamilton: That she does not 
 know whether that Mary Hamilton was any relation of hers 
 or not: That from old age and infirmity she cannot depone 
 farther, and cannot write. All which is truth, &c. 
 
 Eleanor Battersby, formerly Lewis, wife of Samuel 
 Battersby, residing in Newton Ards, aged fifty-one years; 
 who, being solemnly sworn and interrogated, as aforesaid, 
 depones, That she is daughter of Mary Lewis, the preceding 
 witness, and that witness’s grandmother was Sophia Monk, 
 whom she remembers. Has heard her speaking of Mary 
 Hamilton, who was a near friend of James Hamilton of 
 Bangor, Esq. who was the son of Hans Hamilton, a clergyman 
 in Bangor: That Mary Hamilton was a lister of James 
 Hamilton of Bangor, and was married to John Alexander of 
 Antrim, and had to him one son, called John, who afterwards 
 became a clergyman in Dublin. Has heard her grandmother 
 say, that she heard her father say, that the said John of 
 Antrim was come of the Alexanders from Scotland, and was 
 nearly related to the Earl of Mount Alexander of Ireland: 
 Heard her grandmother also say, that she had heard from her 
 father, that John of Gartmore was the Honourable John 
 Alexander, and was the father of John of Antrim. Interro¬ 
 gated for the pursuers, depones, That she was between twelve 
 and thirteen years of age when her grandmother died, and 
 that her grandmother was ninety years of age when she died : 
 That she was not very infirm in her old age for her time of 
 life: Has not had any conversation with any person except 
 her mother relative to these matters since the death of her 
 grandmother: That witness’s husband is a weaver. Interro¬ 
 gated for the defender , Whether she has ever heard her 
 mother speak of the persons of the name of Alexander, whom 
 she has mentioned in her deposition; to which question the 
 pursuer's agent objected, in respect the witness’s mother was 
 alive. The Commissioner having heard the parties, repels 
 the objection, and allows the examination to proceed, but to. 
 be written on a paper apart, to be sealed up, subject to the 
 orders of the Lord Ordinary. Against which decision the 
 pursuer’s agent appealed to his Lordship. 
 
 (Signed) Rod. Mackenzie. 
 
 Jas. Clealand. 
 
 All which is truth, $cc. Depones farther, that she cannot 
 write. 
 
APPENDIX I'O INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xlvii 
 
 Samuel Battersby, weaver in Newton Ards, aged fifty 
 years ; who, being solemnly sworn and interrogated, as afore¬ 
 said, depones, That he heard from John Pew, clerk of the 
 church at Newton Ards, some time since deceased, that the 
 ancient parish registers of that parish were destroyed : That 
 said John Pew told him so about twenty-six years ago. 
 Interrogated, Whether he has ever heard his mother-in-law, 
 Mrs Lewis, speak of John Alexander of Antrim ? To which 
 question the pursuer's agent objected as incompetent, in respect 
 the witness’s mother-in-law was alive. The Commissioner 
 having heard the parties, allows the examination to proceed, 
 and repels the objection, but to be taken on a paper apart, 
 and sealed up, subject to the orders of the Lord Ordinary*. 
 Against which decision the pursuers’ agent appealed to his 
 Lordship. 
 
 (Signed) Rod. Mackenzie. 
 
 Jas. Clealand. 
 
 All which is truth, &c. 
 
 (Signed) Samuel Battersby. 
 
 What is contained on the eight preceding pages is the 
 report of the commission mentioned in the first page 
 hereof, so far as taken at Rathgael aforesaid. Humbly 
 reported by 
 
 (Signed) Jas. Clealand, Comr. 
 
 Alex. Montgomery, Clerk. 
 
 At Belfast, the l*2th day of January, in the year 1836. 
 
 Which day there was produced to me, Cortland Macgregor 
 Skinner, Esq. one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for 
 the county of Antrim in Ireland, the act and commission 
 mentioned in the first page hereof, and diligence against wit¬ 
 nesses and havers, dated the 26th day of November last; 
 which commission I accepted of, and made choice of Alexander 
 Montgomery, herein-before-named, to be my clerk, to whom 
 I administered the oath de Jideli , as use is, 
 
 Thereafter compeared parties’ agents, ut antea. 
 
 Compeared the Reverend James Seaton Reid, doctor of 
 divinity, of Carrickfergus, in the county of the town or Car- 
 rickfero-us; who, being solemnly sworn and examined as before, 
 depones, That he is clerk of the Synod of Ulster, and as such, 
 
xlviii 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 has the custody of all the records of the said Synod. Depones, 
 and produces as a haver, volume first of the Records of the 
 General Synod for 1691, 1692, and 1694, and from 1697 to 
 1710; and under the date, the 5th day of June, 1694, there 
 occurs t he following entry: “ Roll called after prayer. From 
 Down Presbytery, Mr Archibald Hamilton, moderator in 
 Mr Legat’s absence, Alexander Hutcheson, John Gawdy, 
 John Hutcheson, Tho. Maxwell, John Mail’s, John M‘Bride, 
 James Bruce, James Ramsay, Thomas Cobham, Henry 
 Livingston, Alex. Gordon. Absent, Mr Geo. Lang, Mr 
 Thomas Kennedy, Mr James Heron, Alex. Bruce, William 
 Ambrose, Jo" Hamilton.” And being further examined as a 
 witness in causa , depones, That he copied from a tombstone 
 in the burying-ground of Drumbo, in the county of Down, 
 the following inscription : “ Here rests in the Lord, the body 
 of that faithful and eminent servant of Christ, Mr Henry 
 Livingston, who, after forty-two years’ labour in the ministry 
 of the Gospel in this place, did enter into the joy of his 
 Lord, the 7th of April, 1697, and of his age the 66th year.” 
 And being further examined, depones, and reproduces as a 
 haver the aforesaid volume of the Records of the Synod of 
 Ulster, in which is the following entry, under date of the 1st 
 day of June, in the year 1709 : “ Antrim Presbytery ordained 
 Mr William Livingstone, at Templepatrick, March 30, Mr 
 James Creighton, at Glenarm, May, 24, 1709 :” And under 
 date the 17th day of June, 1712, in a sederunt of Synod of 
 that date, inter alia occurs the name of Will. Livingston, 
 among the ministers of the Presbytery of Antrim : And under 
 date the 27th day of June, 1759, there appears the following 
 entry; “ Templepatrick Presbytery report, inter alia, that 
 Mr Livingston died the 1st day of Sep r 1758.” Depones, 
 That on examination of the whole Synod records, the witness 
 has not found the name of any other presbyterian minister of 
 the name of Livingston in the county of Antrim, except Mr 
 Livingston of Templepatrick above mentioned. All which is 
 truth, &c. 
 
 (Signed) James Seaton Reid. 
 
 What is contained on this and the two preceding pages is 
 the report of the commission before mentioned, so far as exe¬ 
 cuted at Belfast aforesaid. Humbly reported by 
 
 (Signed) C. M. Skinner, Comr. 
 
 Alex. Montgomery, Clerk. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xlix 
 
 At Dnfclic, the 2tkk day of January, in the jw 1636. 
 
 Which day there was produced to me, Robert Hitchcock, 
 Esq. one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the county 
 of the city of Dublin, the act and commission mentioned in 
 the first page hereof; which commission I accepted of, and 
 made choice ot Oliver Caton Sherwood to be mv clerk, to 
 whom I administered the oath de fideli , as use is. 
 
 Thereafter compeared Ephraim Lockhart before mentioned, 
 agent for the defender. 
 
 Compeared W iluiam Madden, apothecary of James’s 
 Street, Dublin : who, being solemnly sworn and examined, ut 
 supra , depones. That be is aD elder of the Presbyterian con¬ 
 gregation of Usher’s Quay, Dublin : That he is one of four 
 members ot the said congregation who have the ioint custody 
 of the books and papers belonging thereto. Depones, That 
 having got entire access to the said books and papers, he pro¬ 
 duces as a hayer a small quarto manuscript book, tided " The 
 Minuett Book belonging to the Session of the Congregadon 
 of Plunket Street Meedng House.” Depones, That he has 
 heard that the congregadon of Plunket Street, Dublin, united, 
 upwards of sixty years since, with the congregation of Usher’s 
 Quay aforesaid ; and that the said book, which is deposited 
 with the papers of the congregation of Usher’s Quay, contains 
 the following entries : 
 
 “ J larch 29. 
 
 “ Lord’s day. Notice being given to the members of the 
 congregadon to attend to signe the call to Mr Alexander, 
 they came into the vestrie and signed it in the presence of Mr 
 Iredell. 
 
 “ A copy of the Call. 
 
 “ To the Rev. Mr Jo 11 Alexander, at Stratford-upon-Avon, 
 
 in England. 
 
 “ We, the eiders and members of the congregation in 
 P.unket Street in Dublin, being, partly from our own know¬ 
 ledge, and partly from the information of others, satisfied of 
 your ministerial abilities, good conversation, and qualifications 
 
 2 D 
 
} 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 for being eminently usefull in this place, do hereby invite and 
 call you to take the pastoral charge of us, and do promise you 
 support, incouragement, and subjection in the Lord. 
 
 “ It was certified by Mr Irdell, that this call w r as signed 
 in an orderly manner, March 29, 1730. 
 
 “ AW. 12, 1730. 
 
 “ The Rev. Mr Alexander was installed. Mr Hemphill 
 preached the sermon. Mr Iredell gave the charge, and the 
 ministers of Dublin being desired to concurr with our Pres¬ 
 bytery, were present and joined in the instalment.” 
 
 “ AW. 1, 1743. » 
 
 “ This morning our Rev. Minister, Mr John Alexander, 
 departed this life. This evening our officers and a few of the 
 congregation meet, and agreed that the congregation be 
 applied to for the charge of the funnerell of our late minister, 
 and that it shall not be a charge on Mrs Alexander.” 
 
 All which is truth, &c. 
 
 (Signed) Will. Madden. 
 
 What is contained upon this and the three preceding pages 
 is the report of the said commission, so far as executed at 
 Dublin aforesaid. Humbly reported by 
 
 (Signed) R. Hitchcock, Comr. 
 
 Oliver Caton Sherwood, Ck. 
 
 At the House of Thomas Lee, Esquire, in Edgbaston, in the counter 
 of Warwick, the 16th day of June, in the year 1836. 
 
 Which day there was produced to me, Edward Lloyd 
 Williams, Esq. one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for 
 the counties of Warwick, Worcester, and Stafford, a princi¬ 
 pal interlocutory judgment, dated the 1st day of June instant, 
 pronounced by Lord Cockburn, one of the Judges of the 
 Court of Session in Scotland, granting commission to any of 
 his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the counties of War¬ 
 wick and Worcester, in an action of reduction and improba- 
 tion depending in the court aforesaid, in which the Officers 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. jj 
 
 ot State tor Scotland are pursuers, and Alexander, Earl of 
 Stirling, and others, are defenders; of which commission I 
 accepted, and made choice of Richard Peyton of Birmingham 
 in the county of Warwick, gentleman, to be my clerk, to 
 'whom I administered the oath deJideli , as use is. 
 
 And appeared Josiah Corrie of Birmingham, solicitor, as 
 agent for the defender, and Roderick Mackenzie of Edin¬ 
 burgh, W.s. as agent for the pursuers. 
 
 Thereafter appeared the said Thomas Lee of Edgbaston, 
 near Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, Esquire, one of 
 his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the county of War¬ 
 wick, and for many years practising as an attorney and soli- 
 citoi in Birmingham aforesaid, aged seventy-six years; who 
 being solemnly sworn, &c. depones, That he has a perfect 
 recollection of Abel Humphrys, formerly of Birmingham, 
 deceased, and that he is acquainted with the character or 
 manner of writing of the said Abel Humphrys, and has seen 
 
 ak‘ ™ fret l uentl y> and lie verily believes that the signature, 
 Abel Humphrys, appearing at the foot of a paper writing 
 shewn to the deponent, bearing to be the copy of a tombstone 
 inscription on John Alexander, Esquire, is of the proper 
 hand-writing of the said Abel Humphrys. Depones, That he 
 also well recollects John Berry, formerly of Birmingham 
 aforesaid, and is acquainted with his character or manner of 
 writing, and has seen him write, and he verily believes that 
 the signature, John Berry, appearing at the foot of the paper 
 writing before specified, is of the proper handwriting of the 
 said John Berry. Depones, That he knew Mr Humphry 
 Lyttleton, who is stated to have copied the said inscription, 
 and that he was an eminent attorney and solicitor, residing at 
 Hales Owen, distant about seven miles from Birmingham. 
 And all this is truth, &c. 
 
 (Signed) Thos. Lee. 
 
 Thereafter appeared Thomas Hornblower, of Birming¬ 
 ham, in the county of Warwick, gentleman, aged seventy- 
 eight years or thereabouts; who being solemnly sworn, &c. 
 depones, -That he was well acquainted with Abel Humphrys, 
 formerly of Birmingham, deceased; and being shewn the 
 paper writing specified in the immediately foregoing deposi¬ 
 tion, at the foot of which appears subscribed the signature of 
 the said Abel Humphrys, he believes and has no doubt that 
 
lii 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the said Abel Humphrys, who was the deponent’s uncle, was 
 the identical person whose signature appears on the said paper 
 writing, having seen him write. Depones, That Ann was the 
 christened name of the wife of the said Abel Humphrys and 
 the deponent’s aunt-in-law, and her name before marriage 
 was Ann Zouch. And all this is truth, &c. 
 
 (Signed) Thos. Hornblower. 
 
 What is written on this and the two preceding pages is 
 humbly reported as taken by the said Commissioner, and 
 executed at the time and place first before written, by 
 (Signed) E. L. Williams, Com r . 
 
 Richard Peyton, Clerk. 
 
 At Birmingham, eo. die. 
 
 Present, the aforesaid parties, doers for the pursuers and 
 defender, and aforesaid Commissioner and Clerk. 
 
 Thereafter compeared John Berry of Birmingham, afore¬ 
 said, late glass manufacturer, aged fifty-six years or there¬ 
 abouts ; who being solemnly sworn, &c. depones, That he 
 was well acquainted with John Berry, formerly of Birming¬ 
 ham, deceased; and being shewn the paper writing specified 
 in the foregoing depositions, at the foot of which appears 
 subscribed the signature John Berry, depones, That such 
 signature is of the proper handwriting of the said John Berry, 
 who was this deponent’s grandfather, and formerly kept his, 
 deponent’s books at his glass manufactory; and that he, the 
 deponent, was constantly in the habit of seeing the hand¬ 
 writing of the said John Berry, deceased. And all this is 
 truth, &c. 
 
 (Signed) John Berry. 
 
 The above deposition of John Berry is also humbly reported 
 by the said Commissioner, and executed at Birmingham 
 aforesaid, on the day aforesaid. 
 
 (Signed) E. L. Williams, Com r . 
 
 Richard Peyton, Clerk. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 liii 
 
 Inscription on my Grandfather's Tomb at Newton , copyd for 
 me by Mr Hum. Lyttleton. 
 
 Here lieth the Body of 
 Iohn Alexander, Esquire, 
 
 Late of Antrim, 
 
 The only Son of the Honourable Iohn Alexander, 
 
 Who was the fourth Son of that most Illustrious 
 And famous Statesman, 
 
 William Earl of Sterline, 
 
 Principal Secretary for Scotland : 
 
 Who had the singular merit of planting at his 
 Sole expense, the first Colonie in 
 Nova Scotia. 
 
 He married Mary, Eldest Daughter of the 
 Rev. Mr Hamilton of Bangor, 
 
 By whom he had issue one son, Iohn, who 
 At this present time is the Presbyterian Minister 
 At Stratford-on-Avon, in England, 
 
 And two Daughters, 
 
 Mary, who survives, and Elizabeth, Wife of 
 Iohn M. Skinner, Esquire, who died 7th Jan. 17y^, 
 Leaving three Children. 
 
 He was a Man of such endowments as added 
 Lustre to his noble descent, and was universally 
 Respected for his Piety and Benevolence. 
 
 He was the best of Husbands: 
 
 As a Father, most Indulgent: As a Friend, 
 
 Warm, Sincere and Faithfull. 
 
 He departed this Life 
 
 At Templepatrick, in the County of Antrim, 
 
 On the 19th day of April, 1712. 
 
 This leaf, taken out of poor John’s Bible, is put up with the 
 other Family Papers for my Son Benjamin. 
 
 Done this sixteenth day of December, A 
 1776, in the Presance of my Friends and f Hannah 
 Mr John Berry, who, at my request, have f Alexander. 
 Subscribed their names as Wittnesses. J 
 
 Abel Humphrys. Ann Humphrys. John Berry. 
 
 At the house of Thomas Lee, Esq. in Edgbaston, in the 
 county of Warwick, the 16th day of .June, in the year 1836. 
 
liv 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 This is the document referred to in our depositions of the 
 above mentioned date. 
 
 (Signed) Tho 8 Lee. 
 
 Tho 3 IIornblower. 
 
 This is the document referred to in my deposition, taken 
 at Birmingham the 16th day of June 1836. 
 
 (Signed) John Berry. 
 
 At Newtown Ards, in the County of Down, 
 the 29th day of June, in the year 1836. 
 
 Which clay there was produced to me, John Andrews, Esq. 
 one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the aforesaid 
 county, an act and commission, dated 26th November, 1835, 
 since renewed, granted by Lord Cockburn, one of the Judges 
 of the Court of Session in Scotland, in an action of reduction 
 and improbation depending in that Court, in which the 
 Officers of State for Scotland are pursuers, and Alexander, 
 Earl of Stirling, and others, are defenders ; of which commis¬ 
 sion I accepted, and made choice of James Burns, writing- 
 clerk in Belfast, to be my clerk, to whom I administered the 
 oath de Jideli, as use is. 
 
 Compeared Ephraim Lockhart, writer to the Signet, as 
 agent of the defenders. 
 
 O 
 
 Thereafter compeared Margaret M‘Blain, a witness for¬ 
 merly examined for the defenders; who being solemnly 
 sworn and interrogated by and in the presence of the said 
 Commissioner, depones, That her husband, James M £ Blain, 
 was a mason to his business, and while he was able for work, 
 was extensively employed in the line of a mason and an un¬ 
 dertaker of building generally, having a considerable number 
 of workmen under him : That her said husband died six 
 years past last February, but for almost ten years previously he 
 had, by ill health and infirmities, been unable for work: 
 That the deponent remembers that her husband, in particular, 
 was employed in new flagging the floor of the old church 
 at the east end of Newtown House here, and that after that 
 work was finished, he stated to the deponent that he had 
 been that day upon various graves, and he particularly men¬ 
 tioned the grave of Lady Mount Alexander, with whom the 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Iv 
 
 deponent had lived several years in her youth : That the de¬ 
 ponent’s husband further stated to her, that there was a tomb¬ 
 stone just alongside of the tombstone of Lady Mount Alex¬ 
 ander, with tho name, John Alexander, Esq. Antrim, upon 
 it: That it was a part rather of a tombstone, which was 
 broken in two or three parts, and upon the different parts 
 there appeared the remains of an inscription of some length, 
 and she understood from her said husband, that the part hav¬ 
 ing the words, John Alexander, Esq. upon it, was the head, 
 or upper part of the stone : That her said husband also told 
 the deponent, that Alexander Patterson, one of the church¬ 
 wardens of the aforesaid church, some time since deceased, 
 suggested to him to have the said upper part of the stone 
 raised from the floor, and built into one of the walls of the 
 church, for its better preservation, and it was built into the 
 wall accordingly. Being interrogated, How long, according 
 to the best of the deponent’s recollection, it is since the new 
 flagging of the church floor above mentioned took place, de¬ 
 pones, That it is upwards of forty, and not more than forty- 
 four vears since. Interrogated, Whether she remembers the 
 name of Lady Mount Alexander, with whom she lived at 
 Donaghadee? depones in the affirmative, and that it was 
 Mary Angelica Delacherois, otherwise Greuber, having heard 
 her Ladyship tell it many a time. All which is truth, &c. 
 Depones that she cannot write. 
 
 Eleanor Battersby, formerly Lewis, also a witness ex¬ 
 amined before for the defenders; who being solemnly sworn 
 and interrogated as aforesaid, depones, That she knew the 
 now deceased Andrew Kelly, coachman to the first Marquis 
 of Londonderry, and he told the deponent that he heard 
 Richard Monk in Newtown Ards say, that he attended the 
 funeral of Mr John Alexander of Antrim, in Newtown Ards 
 church : That the said Richard Monk was grandfather by 
 the mother’s side of the deponent’s mother, Mary Lewis, 
 formerly Hamilton, who is still alive, but, from old age, is 
 incapable of attending the Commissioner, and giving evidence 
 before him. And all this is truth, &c. and depones she can¬ 
 not write. 
 
 Samuel Battersby, a witness also examined before for the 
 defenders; who being solemnly sworn and interrogated, and 
 being desired to look at a writing, bearing to be a letter ad¬ 
 dressed to the defender’s agent, and dated ‘ Newtown Ards, 
 
lvi 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ‘ 9th June 1836,’ depones, That the signature at the bottom 
 of the letter, ‘ Charles Campbell,’ is of the proper handwrit¬ 
 ing of Charles Campbell, architect in Newtown Ards, the de¬ 
 ponent having seen him, the said Charles Campbell, sign the 
 said letter: That the Commissioner observes a blot or era¬ 
 sure of what appears to have been a word interlined between 
 the 5th and 6th lines from the bottom of the letter; and the 
 deponent being interrogated if he knows that there was a 
 word there inserted, and now delete, he depones, That there 
 was, and the word was * think,’ thereby reading, ‘ think I 
 ‘ recollect:’ That upon the occasion of a conversation be¬ 
 tween the said Charles Campbell and the defender’s agent, 
 upon the evening of the 24th June instant, in the presence of 
 the deponent, the said Charles Campbell, alluding to the in¬ 
 terlined word, * think,’ observed, * What I think I recollect I 
 ‘ do recollect,’ and there was no occasion for him inserting 
 * think I recollect.’ 
 
 (Signed) Samuel Battersby. 
 
 William Herdman, teacher in Newtown Ards; who 
 being solemnly sworn ut supra, and interrogated, depones, That 
 he knows Charles Campbell, named in the foregoing deposi¬ 
 tion, and was present likewise at the conversation therein 
 specified, and concurs in omnibus w'ith the immediately pre¬ 
 ceding witness, so far as regards the observations which the 
 said Charles Campbell made upon the occasion of the conver¬ 
 sation referred to. All which is truth, &c. 
 
 (Signed) W M . Herdman. 
 
 What is contained on this and the five preceding pages is 
 the report of the commission mentioned on the first page 
 hereof, so far as taken at Newtown Ards aforesaid. 
 Humbly reported by (Signed) John Andrews, C. 
 
 James Burns, Clerk . 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 lvii 
 
 Certificate of Matriculation of John Alexander. 
 
 “ Nomina Discipulorum Tertioe Classis, qui hoc anno 
 Academiam ingressi fuerant sub praesidio Magistri 
 Gerschomi Carmichael, Mart. 3. 1701.” 
 
 (Inter alios.) 
 
 Benjamin Smith, 
 David Uri, 
 
 William Glen, 
 Henricus Batty, 
 
 Jac. Lawrie, 
 
 Jac. Stewart, 
 Johannes Alexander, 
 
 Ang. Hib. 
 Sc. Hib. 
 Scot. Hib. 
 Angl. Hib. 
 Sc. 
 
 Scot. Hib. 
 Scot. Hib. 
 
 That the above is a true extract of an entry and names 
 contained in a volume entitled, “ Album Universitatis Glas- 
 guensis,” is certified at Glasgow College, this twenty-third 
 day of January, 1836, by me, 
 
 William Meikleham J r . Cler. Coll. 
 
 Statement by William Gordon. 
 
 In the Genealogical Essay, No. 1, I have shewn y® descent 
 of the noble family of Alexander of Menstry, from Alexander 
 Macdonald, second son of Donald, King of y e Isles; which 
 Donald was the grandson of Somerled, the first of his race 
 who assumed the regal dignity anno 1156. In the Synoptical 
 Review of Property, No. 2, I have distinguished the estates 
 acquir’d by y e marriage of the present Earl’s grandfather with 
 y e heiress of Sir Peter Vanlore, from y® antient estates, w h , 
 by the charter of 1639, are made to descend with the Earl¬ 
 dom. I now come to mention those particulars w h I have 
 collected from y® publick records and other sources in this 
 country, touching patents and charters of creation to y® titles 
 confer’d on Sir William Alexander. 
 
 1°. Sir William was created Baronet of Nova Scotia, w‘!’ t 'a 
 particular clause of precedency, from 21st May, 1625, by 
 patent “ to him, heredibus suis et assignatis quibuscunque,” 
 
Iviii 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and obtained a grant in the same terms of y e Lands and 
 Barony of Nova Scotia, 12th July, 1625. 
 
 2°. 'He was created Viscount of the Town of Stirling, and 
 Lord Alexander of Tullyebodie, by patent, dated Sept r . 4, 
 1630, “sibi et heredibus suis masculis cognomen et arma de 
 Alexander gerentibus.” 
 
 3°. He was raised to y e dignity of Earl of Stirling, Viscount 
 of Canada, and Lord Alexander of Tullyebodie, by patent, 
 dated 14th June, 1633, “sibi suisque heredibus masculis im- 
 perpeluum cognomen et arma de Alexander gerentibus.” 
 
 4°. Being under great dejection of spirit after losing three 
 of his sons, who had given him the brightest hopes, and fear¬ 
 ing, from the declining state of health of two of y e survivors, 
 that his honours might, at no dist 4 period, pass to a collateral 
 branch of his family, the noble Earl did make a resignation 
 of his titles and estates, into the King’s hands, who, by char¬ 
 ter under the G 4 Seal, bearing date 7th December, 1639, was 
 graciously pleased to confer them de novo “ upon him and the 
 heirs-male of his bodye; which failing, to y e eldest heirs- 
 female, without division of y e last of such heirs-male hereafter 
 succeeding to the titles, honours, and dignities aforesaid, and 
 to the heirs-male to be procreated of the bodys of such heirs- 
 female respectively, bearing the sirname and arms of y e family 
 of Alexander, which they shall be holden and obliged to 
 assume; which all failing, to the nearest legitimate heirs what¬ 
 soever of the said William, Earl of Stirling, with the former 
 precedency.” 
 
 [ Note .—I have not met with this charter in our publick 
 records, but from a marginal reference to y e 57 volume 
 of y e Reg r of the G 4 Seal, w h I noticed while I was 
 taking the foregoing clause of limitation from Mr Ja 9 
 Hay’s transcript, I am led to conclude that the charter 
 was entered in a part of that vol. where several leaves 
 now are wanting. Be my conjecture true or false little 
 imported) however, since the original charter is at this 
 time in the possession of Tho s Conyers, Esq. of Cather- 
 lough, in y® kingdom of Ireland, who will no doubt let 
 you have inspection thereof, and, for aught we know, 
 may further be willing to give it up to you, as it can be 
 of no use to him.] 
 
 To what is herein written I have now only to add the 
 style of y° present Earl, as followed): 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 lix 
 
 1 he most noble and puissant Lord, Henry Alexander, 
 Earl of Stirling, Viscount of Stirling and Canada, Lord 
 Alexander ot 1 ullyebodie, and Baronet of Nova Scotia. 
 
 For description of the arms, see No. 4. 
 
 W. G. 
 
 Editib. Jan. 14, 17*23. 
 
 (Quoted on the back, in the handwriting of the Rev. John 
 Alexander.) 
 
 Ao. 3, from J\Ir JV. Gordon. 
 
 Edin. 14. Jan. 17*23. 
 
 Rec d 27th. 
 
 1 have compared the limitations copy’d on the other side in 
 English by Mr W m Gordon, with those contained in the 
 original charter of 7th Dec. 1639, at present in my keeping; 
 and for Mr Alexander’s satisfaction 1 do hereby certifie, that 
 the said W“ Gordon has given a true and faithful translation 
 of the clause by which the estates and titles of Lord Stirling 
 are limited, in the aforesaid charter, to descend to the heirs 
 therein mentioned. 
 
 Witnesse my hand, this 10th day of July, 1723, 
 
 Tho s Conyers. 
 
 Original Letters, the Reverend John Alexander and Mrs 
 Hannah Alexander, his Wife, to Mr Benjamin Higgs, at 
 the Reverend Mr Cole’s, near the Southgate in Glocester. 
 
 DearBro", 
 
 It is with great satisfaction that I can now call you bro r , 
 upon another account than our common Xtianity and minis¬ 
 terial character; for I am now to let you know, that your 
 sister and I have at last accomplish’d the affair that was so 
 long in dependence, and were marry’d privately at Hartle- 
 bury, last Tuesday, being the 8th instant. I am very sensible 
 of my great happiness in having such a relative every way 
 desirable; and I adore the kind providence of God that has 
 favour’d this design, and bro’t us thro’ some difficulties that 
 lay in the way. We both desir’d your company, but tho’t 
 best, for the sake of greater privacy, to defer requesting that 
 
lx 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 favor ’till the ceremony was over: and now my dear spouse 
 joins with me in requesting a visit, as soon as may consist 
 with convenience. If it should happen to be inconvenient 
 next week, we shall write to you again, as soon as we can fix 
 a time for settling some affairs between you and my dear; 
 and you’ll have less fatigue if you give us the meeting at 
 Evesham, and allow yourself time to return hither with us, 
 that we may enjoy your company a while. I bless God we 
 are both in good health, and desire you w d assist us with your 
 prayers, that God would vouchsafe his blessing to us in our 
 new relation, and grant us his presence and favor in all our 
 motions. May the good Sp* of God rest upon you, and the 
 blessing of God attend you in all your studies and labors. I 
 remain, with all due resp*, D r . Bro r , your affectionate Bro r and 
 humble servt., 
 
 Jo. Alexander. 
 
 Stourbridge , Aug. 11. 1732. 
 
 My service to Mr Cole, whose prayers I request, and to 
 his spouse, with all fr* 13 there. 
 
 Dear Bro., 
 
 I could not be easy without adding two or three words to 
 excuse for not answering your kind letter sooner. I began 
 more y n once to write, but being so thoughtfull about entering 
 into this new relation, it much disordered me; but I bless 
 God am better, and hope it will be to all our satisfaction, if 
 God afford his blessing. If you dont come soon, give us a 
 line. I wish for your company to Dublin. Shall say more 
 when I see you. I am your affectionate sister, 
 
 Han. Alexander. 
 
 Service to y c family. 
 
SKETCH OF DESCENTS FROM WILLIAM, FIRST EARL OF STIRLING 
 
 Andrew A lex tinder 
 of Menstrie. 
 
 I 
 
 Alexander Alexander 
 of Menstrie, dated 1594. 
 
 Sir William Alexander, 
 1st Earl of Stirling, 
 died Feb. 1640. 
 
 John Alexander 
 of Gogar, from whom 
 William Alexander 
 claimed, in 1762, to be 
 lineally descended. 
 
 William Lord 
 Alexander, 
 d. May, 1638. 
 
 William, 
 
 2d Earl, 
 d. May, 1640. 
 
 Anthony Henry, 
 Alexander, 3d Earl, 
 d. Sep. 1637. d. Aug-. 1644. 
 
 Henry, 
 4th Earl, 
 d. Feb. 1690. 
 
 I 
 
 Jolin 
 
 Alexander, 
 railed of 
 Gartmore , 
 d. 1666 
 
 Charles 
 
 Alexander. 
 
 Ludovick 
 Alexander, 
 d. bef. 1640. 
 
 James 
 Alexander, 
 d. bef. 1678. 
 
 Henry, William William Rolert Peter Peter 
 5th Earl, Alexander, Alexander, Alexander, Alexander, Alexander, 
 d.Dec. 1739. d.Mar.1666. d.Oct.1699. d.Oet.1710. d.Nov.1678. d.Nov.1729. 
 
 Rev. John 
 Alexander, 
 Birmingham, 
 d. Dec. 1765. 
 
 Benjamin 
 Alexander, 
 d. Apr. 1769. 
 
 Rev. John 
 Alexander, 
 Dublin, 
 d. Nov. 1743. 
 
 I 
 
 John Charles 
 
 Alexander, Alexander. 
 called of 
 Antrim , 
 d. Apr. 1712. 
 
 X 
 
 Margaret Jean 
 
 Alexander, Alexander, 
 d. bef. 1678. or Seryingeor 
 
 Mary 
 
 Alexander. 
 
 Elizabeth 
 Alexander, 
 or Skinner, 
 d. Jan. 1711. 
 
 Jean, 
 
 mar. to Hugh, 
 2d Viscount 
 Montgomery, 
 of Ards, 
 d. 1670. 
 
 I 
 
 Hugh, 
 
 1st Earl of 
 Mount 
 Alexander, 
 d. Sep. 166a 
 I 
 
 Mary Elizabeth 
 Alexander, Alexander, 
 or Murray, d. bef. 1643. 
 
 Hugh, 
 
 2d Earl of 
 Mt. Alexander, 
 d. Feb. 1717. 
 
 Mary 
 
 Alexander, 
 d. Apr. 1794. 
 
 Hannah 
 Alexander, 
 d. Sep. 1738. 
 
 Elizabeth 
 Alexander, 
 d. Oct. 1737. 
 
 Hannah 
 Alexander, 
 or Humphreys, 
 d. Sep. 1814. 
 
 I 
 
 Henry, 
 
 3d Earl of 
 Mt. Alexander, 
 d. 1731. 
 
 I 
 
 Hugh, 
 
 4th Earl of 
 Mt. Alexander, 
 d. Feb. 1745u 
 
 Thomas, 
 
 5th Earl of 
 Mt Alexander, 
 d. 1757. 
 
 John, 
 
 d. Nov. 1772. 
 
 (Son,) 
 
 d. Juue, 1774. 
 
 AlexIndbb. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Ixii 
 
 No. ill. 
 
 INTERLOCUTOR 
 
 BY 
 
 LORD COCKBURN, ORDINARY, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 PROCESS OF REDUCTION IMPROBATION, 
 
 THE OFFICERS OF STATE 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 CALLING HIMSELF “ EaRL OF STIRLING,” &C. 
 
 The Lord Ordinary having considered ihe Record, proof 
 adduced, and whole process, and heard parties’ procurators 
 thereon, as betwixt the pursuers and the defender Alexander 
 Humphrys or Alexander; Finds, that the question put by 
 the defender to Eleanor Battersby, and objected to by the 
 pursuers, is incompetent: Finds, that the question put by the 
 said defender to Samuel Battersby, and objected to by the 
 pursuers, is incompetent: Finds, that the letter dated, “ New- 
 tonards, 9th June, 1836,” addressed to “ Ephraim Lockhart, 
 W.S. Edinburgh,” signed “ Charles Campbell,” is inadmis¬ 
 sible, and directs it to be withdrawn from the process : Finds, 
 that the said defender has not established that the character 
 of lawful and nearest heir in general or in special to William, 
 first Earl of Stirling, belongs to him, or that his services as 
 such are warranted by the evidence produced either before the 
 jury, or in this action : Therefore reduces the said two 
 services, general and special, and the retours proceeding 
 thereon, and decerns. Further, with regard to the defender 
 Thomas Christopher Banks, for whom defences were lodged 
 in this cause, hut for whom no appearance has since been, or 
 is now made, Repels the said defences: and in so far as the 
 conclusions of the action are applicable to him, Reduces, 
 Improves, Finds, Decerns, and Declares accordingly; 
 and finds no expenses due to either party, and decerns. 
 
 (Signed) *H. COCKBURN. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Ixiii 
 
 Note. — The object of the action is to set aside two services 
 — one general and the other special, which have been obtained 
 by the defender, designed in the defences as Earl of Stirling, 
 and to have it found and declared that this person is not the 
 nearest and lawful heir, either in general or in special, to 
 William, the first earl of Stirling, who died in February 1640. 
 The discussion before the Lord Ordinary was restricted hoc 
 statu to the reduction of these services, without following this 
 out to all the consequences which the summons asserts that 
 this reduction ultimately leads to. 
 
 The defender states that he is the great-great-great-grand¬ 
 son of the first Earl of Stirling; and he explains the successive 
 steps of his descent to be, that he is the son of Hannah 
 Alexander; who was the daughter of the Reverend John 
 Alexander; who was the son of John Alexander, called of 
 Antrim, in Ireland, because he at one time lived there; who 
 was the son of John Alexander, called of Gartmore, in Scot¬ 
 land, because he married the heiress of this estate; who was 
 the son of the first Earl. In stating this pedigree he assumes, 
 and the pursuers concede, that in a question of service, under 
 the law of Scotland, he is not bound to prove the failure of 
 all intermediate heirs; but that unless the existence of some 
 prior heir be established, or at least pointed out, by the pur¬ 
 suers, it is enough for him to shew such a relationship as, in the 
 absence of such known or indicated heir, leaves the right in 
 him. 
 
 The pursuers do not question that he is the lawful son of 
 Hannah Alexander, nor that this lady was the daughter of the 
 Reverend John Alexander, who is said to have died in 1743. 
 But there are two descents between this last person and the 
 first Earl, and they maintain that neither of these is established. 
 They deny it to be proved that the Rev. John Alexander was 
 the son of John of Antrim, who is said to have died in 1712; 
 or that this John of Antrim was the son of John of Gartmore, 
 who is said to have died in 1666. The whole of the defender's 
 case depends upon the genuineness of these two descents. 
 
 The evidence as to both may be taken together, for it is 
 much interwoven, and its force or its weakness depends upon 
 the same principles. 
 
 The pursuers refer to a charter, which shews Jan 0>j ^ 
 that the first John Alexander had married Agnes 
 Graham, “filiam et litercdeni quondam Robertl Graham de 
 Gartmore.” It was in consequence of this that he was some¬ 
 times called John of Gartmore. They also produce an 
 
lxiv 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 appraising, which shews that a daughter called 
 Janet was the heir of this marriage; because her 
 deceased uncle Gilbert Graham, having got into debt, she had 
 been charged to enter heir to him; and the lands “ are 
 aprysit fra her as sister dochter , and lawlie charyit to enter air 
 foresaid, to her said umquhile uncle , and fra Jon Alexander of 
 Gartmore, her fayr, as tuter, gyder, and admr. to her of ye 
 law.” She could not be the heir in heritage of her uncle if 
 she had a brother. 
 
 This fact, viz. that the heir of the first John Alexander's 
 marriage with Agnes Graham of Gartmore was a daughter , 
 renders it even more necessary than it was from his position 
 in the cause, that the defender should establish, that although 
 he had no son in 1646, the date of this appraising, he had 
 one afterwards; and accordingly, he does maintain that this 
 person contracted a second marriage, and became the father 
 of John Alexander, called of Antrim, who, in his turn, became 
 the father of the Rev. John Alexander. 
 
 It is a very serious defect in the defender’s case, that of this 
 alleged second marriage there is no proof whatever , except that 
 which is implied in the evidence of his afterwards having a 
 son. He was in a station of life which made any marriage of 
 his not obscure ; yet the fact of his being married for a second 
 time, is not even attempted to be established by any direct or 
 separate evidence, but is made a mere inference from the 
 supposed circumstance of his appearing as the father of a 
 male child. 
 
 The proof of the filiation of the two Johns, consists chiefly 
 of the following three articles: — Is/, Two affidavits, one by 
 Sara Lyner, and one by Henry Hovenden. 2 d, Of an 
 alleged inscription on a tombstone, in Newtonards, in Ireland. 
 3d, Of the examination of certain witnesses, chiefly Margaret 
 M‘Blain and Eleanor Battersby. 
 
 First, As to the Affidavits, one of which is dated in 
 1722, and the other in 1723. The Lord Ordinary is very 
 strongly inclined to think, that even assuming them both to 
 be genuine, they are altogether inadmissible. 
 
 They are not alleged to contain the statements of any 
 member of the family, who must have known the facts, but 
 proceed from mere strangers , of whose cause of knowledge we 
 know nothing. They were not taken in this cause; neither 
 were they taken in any known judicial proceeding; or before 
 any party opposing, or entitled to oppose; or in any circum¬ 
 stances with which we are in the slightest degree acquainted. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 lxv 
 
 Every thing shows that they were taken, not post litem , but 
 post controversiam, motam. So far as now known, they may 
 be voluntary affidavits, concocted either for the purpose of 
 sustaining this pedigree, or for some other purpose interesting 
 to the person who devised them. 
 
 It has been argued, that they are at least as admissible as 
 evidence of what those who made them, or any other dead 
 person, said, would be; or as clauses in deeds, inscriptions 
 on rings, entries in books, family pedigrees, and such things, 
 are. But it is not so. These, and all the other things to 
 which affidavits such as these are compared, are received, 
 because when honest, they form parts of real and known pro¬ 
 ceedings,—or occur where opposite interests probably arise,— 
 or record natural feelings and events, in a natural way, and 
 on natural occasions. These things owe their credit to their 
 simplicity, — to their accordance with the general course of 
 life, — to the absence of any preparation, or of any motive to 
 prepare, for a future object. But the prospective manufacture 
 of evidence, in the form of written statements, calculated to 
 establish particular facts, are only rendered the more suspi¬ 
 cious by their being made to assume a judicial appearance. 
 Fractures in links of descent are better known, and their con¬ 
 sequences are generally better foreseen, by the party interested, 
 at the time they occur, than they can be long afterwards; and 
 to w’hat danger w T ould the law and future families be exposed, 
 if this party were allowed to obtain and store up ex parte 
 affidavits, or other artful written statements, on these subjects, 
 and Courts were obliged to receive them after every possibility 
 of checking them was extinguished ? These documents, and 
 much of the other evidence in this case, shew that somebody 
 w r as uneasy about this pedigree even in 1722, and was trying 
 to correct its defects. 
 
 But the Lord Ordinary has not absolutely rejected these 
 affidavits, partly because, after all, there may be some doubt 
 of their competency in a question of pedigree, and partly 
 because their admission makes no difference in his view of the 
 result; and he is unwilling to rest his judgment on a ground 
 which may be removed. For the question, as to their credit 
 and efficacy, remains. 
 
 The affidavit of Sara Lyner bears to have been taken 
 before a person called Jonas Percy, described, but not 
 proved , to have been an officer of Chancery in Ireland ; it is 
 only subscribed by the alleged deponent’s mark. A person 
 called George Stone also subscribes; but it scarcely appears 
 
 2 E 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Jxvi 
 
 in what capacity ; for Percy merely attests, “ I know the above 
 voucher, George Stone but his happening to be an acquain¬ 
 tance of this Mr Percy is very unimportant, and he does not 
 himself say that he intended to vouch any thing. It is difficult 
 to imagine any document introduced into a cause with fewer 
 recommendations. 
 
 The affidavit of Henry Hovenden is a little better in 
 one respect, and a great deal worse in another. It bears 
 to have been taken before a person of the name of Pockling- 
 ton, who, (though it be not otherwise proved,) was admitted 
 by the pursuers, at the debate, to have been a Baron of 
 Exchequer in Ireland at the time. It is signed by Hovenden, 
 whose signature bears to be attested by a notary public. All 
 this is respectable enough. 
 
 But it is said by the pursuers, that the paper on which the 
 body of the affidavit is written, had previously been covered 
 by some other writing; that it was this original writing which 
 w'as sworn to before Baron Pocklington ; and that that origi¬ 
 nal has been removed chemically, and the existing affidavit 
 inserted in its place above the signature. 
 
 The evidence of this charge of fabrication, (which is not 
 directed against the defender personally,) consists of the 
 appearance of the paper, and of the uncontradicted testimony 
 of Dr Fyfe and Dr Gregory, two chemical gentlemen 
 of undoubted character and skill. The Lord Ordinary 
 is very unwilling to hold this painful charge to be legally 
 established; and therefore, he carries the result no farther 
 than this, that the paper is exposed to a degree of suspicion 
 which makes it unsafe to rely on this document. 
 
 However, let the genuineness of both affidavits be assumed, 
 —what do they establish ? 
 
 Lyner was 84 years old when she deponed. She states, 
 that the Rev. John Alexander was the son of John of Antrim ; 
 and this part of her statement rests on rational grounds; be¬ 
 cause she says, that she was twenty years in the family of 
 the latter, and was present at his marriage, and nursed his 
 wife after the Rev. John was born. But her testimony as to 
 Antrim , being the son of Gartmore, is by no means so satisfac¬ 
 tory. All that she says on this subject, is that her mother 
 was for some time in the service of Lord Mongomery, in the 
 county of Down, ‘ and while there, (no date given,) Mr John 
 * Alexander of Gartmore, a son of the Lord Sterline in 
 ‘ Scotland, came to see my Lord, and brought with him 
 ‘ his ounely son' She then says, that this only son was John of 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 lxvii 
 
 Antrim. Now, the whole of this statement depends upon the 
 facts, that John of Gartmore took a person with him to Ireland, 
 and that this person was his son. But on these points, there is 
 nothing beyond the mere unexplained assertion, or conjecture, 
 of this solitary witness, ‘ that he brought ivitli him his only son' As 
 the alleged son, if he ever existed, was obviously born in Scot¬ 
 land, where this woman does not say that she ever was, it does 
 not appear on what authority he was held to be a son of the 
 person who appeared with him. It rests entirely upon the 
 witness calling him so. 
 
 Hovenden’s affidavit is chiefly occupied by an account 
 of a translation made by him of an alleged charter; and 
 all that he says about the pedigree is, in the following intro¬ 
 ductory sentence : ‘ That he is intimately acquainted with the 
 ‘ Rev. minister John Alexander, grandson, and only male re- 
 ‘ presentative of John Alexander of Gartmore, the fourth son of 
 ‘ William, first Earl of Stirling, in Scotland ; which said John 
 ‘ Alexander teas formerly of Antrim* This is liable to the 
 same observation with the last document. It merely contains 
 the general assertion of the deponent; who no doubt describes 
 the pedigree agreeably to the washes of those who made him 
 take the affidavit, but states no circumstance to warrant his 
 opinion. 
 
 Second, Tombstones have sometimes gone far to decide 
 pedigrees; but probably none was ever founded on in circum¬ 
 stances like the one relied on by the defender. 
 
 The stone itself confessedly does not exist. But a copy of 
 the inscription which is said to have been upon it is alleged to 
 have been inserted in a Bible. But the Bible confessedly does 
 not exist. All that is produced is, a piece of paper, which is 
 said to have been a page of the Bible on which a copy had been 
 made. 
 
 Now, the only evidence of this page having been a part of 
 the Bible, consists of the signatures of four persons,—one a 
 member of this family—one an attorney—the third, his wife, 
 and the fourth, the clerk of a glass manufacturer. These 
 persons attest, that i this leaf, taken out of poor John's Bible, is 
 ‘ put up with the other family papers for my son Benjamin. Done 
 ‘ this 16th day of December 1766, in the presence of my 
 ‘ friends, and Mr John Berry, who, at my request, have sub- 
 ‘ scribed their names as witnesses.’ 
 
 The inscription thus copied into the book, and thus cut out 
 of it, is very strong in the defender’s favour: as strong as if it 
 
lxviii 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 had been composed for this very case. But as a piece of 
 evidence it is liable to great objections. 
 
 The alleged entry was confessedly not in the hand-writing 
 of the person to whom the Bible belonged. It bears to have 
 been copied for him by a stranger. Then there is no evidence 
 whatever of the accuracy of the transcription from the tomb. 
 The leaf begins with these words ‘ Inscription on my grand¬ 
 father’s tomb at Newton, copied for me by Mr Hum. 
 Lyttleton.’ But this Mr Humphrey Lyttleton attests nothing. 
 Neither is there any person who professes to have any 
 knowledge as to the accuracy of this copy ; for even Lyttleton's 
 hand-writing is not proved. Moreover, there is no proof, 
 except by the signatures of those four persons, that the writing 
 on the leaf was of the tenor now exhibited, or that it was truly 
 taken from that book. 
 
 If all this had been the ordinary course of such domestic 
 records, these signatures might have been satisfactory. But 
 it is no part of the usual Uses of a Bible to receive copies of 
 inscriptions. Entries in family Bibles are admitted as evidence, 
 because they record solemn incidents, unsuspiciously, in an 
 usual way. But is any respect due to an extraordinary pro¬ 
 ceeding like this, when the original book, with all its memo¬ 
 randa, is not exhibited — when the detached page, said to 
 have been taken from it, is accompanied by signatures and 
 attestations which shew that those engaged in cutting it out 
 were aware that its separation from the book would deprive it 
 of the credit due an original writing in a book belonging to 
 the family, and where no good reason has been assigned for 
 its excision ; for if the object had really been to preserve this 
 inscription with the other family papers, it is difficult to under¬ 
 stand why the original and unmutilated book itself was not 
 put up with them. 
 
 All this is stated on the assumption, that the words of the 
 proof warrant no inference except that the leaf originally 
 formed part of the Bible, and was cut from it If, however, 
 the fact be supposed to be, that it never formed part of it, but 
 was only a loose bit of paper put within the leaves ; it is obvious 
 that this would present a still harder case for the defender to 
 grapple with. 
 
 The defender attempts to corroborate the copy, by proving 
 that there really was such a tombstone. But his evidence on 
 this point consists merely of the testimony of Margaret M‘Blain, 
 a pauper aged 80. And the substance of what this person 
 says is merely, that her deceased husband, who was a mason, 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 lxix 
 
 told her, about forty or forty-four years previous to the time at 
 which she was examined, that when he was new flagging the 
 floor of the Old Church, lie had seen the grave of a Lady 
 Mount Alexander, and ‘ that the deponent's husband farther 
 stated to her, that there was a tombstone just along side of the 
 tombstone of Lady Mount Alexander, with the name “ John 
 Alexander, Esq. Antrim, upon it.” That this stone was 
 broken, and that he built it into one of the icalls of the church 
 for its better preservation .’ According to this, the stone was 
 visible and safe in the wall iti the year 1792. If so, the fact 
 could surely have been better established than by the hearsay 
 evidence of this solitary witness. And, after all, she speaks 
 merely of a stone with the mere name of John Alexander, Esq. 
 of Antrim, upon it, which certainly does not identify it with the 
 John Alexander in question. 
 
 But this evidence is disproved. James Dalziel and 
 David Dalziel, stone cutters employed about this very 
 church, say that they never saw such a stone. Mr Cassidy, the 
 clergyman, who has been constantly there for the last twenty- 
 seven years, not only never saw it, but “ being shewn the 
 inscription alleged to be a copy of that on the tombstone of 
 John Alexander, is quite positive that no grave-stone in the 
 vestibule, or chapel, bore any such inscription.’ It is true, 
 that his twenty-seven years only carry us back to the year 
 1808, and that M‘Blain spoke of part of the stone as standing 
 in 1792. But Mr John Turnly and Margaret M‘Cully 
 go back each to the year 1765, when they were born ; 
 and though they were in the constant habit of being about this 
 church, they are both positive that no such inscription ever 
 was there. M‘Cully ‘ being shewn a copy of the alleged 
 inscription on John Alexander’s tomb, depones, that she never 
 saw any such tombstone bearing such inscription, and is 
 certain, that if any such existed, she must have seen it. 
 Depones, that she is herself a Montgomery, and curious about the 
 family history ; and is certain, that a stone of such size, as to bear 
 so long an inscription relating to any member of the Alexander 
 family, would have attracted her notice. Depones, that she has 
 resided all her life in Newtonards.' 
 
 Third, the defender’s object in examining Margaret M‘Blain 
 and Eleanor Battersby was to shew, that independently of the 
 affidavits, and of the tombstone, the filiation of the two John 
 Alexanders was known and believed upon other grounds. 
 Both of-their statements are certainly to this effect; but con- 
 
Ixx APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fined as this branch of evidence is to these two witnesses, it is 
 any thing but strong. 
 
 For M‘Blain, who was born in 1755, does not profess to 
 know any thing of the facts herself. She merely repeats what 
 she says, that the last Countess of Mount Alexander told her. 
 Now, when these statements were made by the Countess, the 
 witness says, that she herself could not have been older than 
 fourteen or fifteen ; and as she was eighty when she was exa¬ 
 mined, they must have been made about sixty-six years before. 
 What reliance can be placed on the recollection of a child, as 
 to names and relationships, uttered casually in her presence 
 sixty-six years ago ? Then the person from whom she gets 
 this hearsay, was born, according to this deposition, in 1707 ; 
 yet she speaks of John of Gartmore, who, the defender says, 
 died in 1666, and of his alleged son, John of Antrim, who is 
 said to have died in 1712. This lady, moreover, was a 
 foreigner, and probably never heard of these families till she 
 grew up, which increases the distance between her and the 
 facts. No wonder that all that is got from the witness, in 
 these circumstances, is the abstract fact, that the pedigree is 
 as the defender states it. 
 
 Battersby’s source of knowledge is still more remote. 
 She was fifty-one when she was examined, and was 
 twelve or thirteen when her grandmother died; so that she 
 could learn nothing from her grandmother short of thirty- 
 eight years before, and when she was almost a child. Nothing 
 that her grandmother could have said, even of her own know¬ 
 ledge, could be well authenticated by such a witness. But 
 her grandmother said nothing of her own knowledge. All 
 that the witness states, is, that she “ has heard her grand¬ 
 mother sag that she heard her father say , that the said John 
 of Antrim teas COME of the Alexanders from Scotland, and 
 was NEARLY related to the Earl of Mount Alexander in 
 Ireland. Heard her grandmother also say, that she had 
 heard from her father, that John of Gartmore was the 
 Honourable John Alexander, and was the father of John of 
 Antrim.” It is needless to consider what would be the 
 weight due to the father’s bare assertion ; for this hearsay of a 
 hearsay does not admit of being weighed. 
 
 On the whole, the Lord Ordinary is of opinion that the 
 evidence, whether considered in its separate parts, or as a 
 whole, is utterly insufficient to sustain the verdicts. And it is 
 impossible not to be struck with the number of collateral facts, 
 by which, if the claim be well founded, the proof might have 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. J xx i 
 
 been strengthened, but in which there is a total absence of 
 evidence. 
 
 The defender maintained, upon the authority of the case 
 of Bell, as reported by Mr Murray, (vol. 2, p. 130,) that he 
 being in possession of the service, and not opposed by any 
 competitor for the character of heir, had nothing to do but to 
 exhibit his retour, unless a case was made out against him, by 
 positive evidence on the part of the pursuers; or in other 
 words, that the mere insufficiency of the defender's proof was 
 no ground for setting the verdict aside. The Lord Ordinary 
 does not recognize this doctrine. Bell’s was the only case, 
 he is aware of, in which the reduction of a service was referred 
 by this Court to a jury, as an ordinary action of reduction. 
 Happening to be dealt with in this zvay, the doctrine ascribed 
 to the Judges who tried it may have been proper. But when 
 verdicts in services, and especially in ex parte services , are 
 reviewed by this Court itself, the Lord Ordinary understands 
 the principle to be, that the Judges must themselves be satis¬ 
 fied of the validity of the evidence, and that its inadequacy to 
 support the verdict is of itself a legal ground for reducing it. 
 
 H. C. 
 
XXII 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 
 November 27, 1837. 
 
 MINUTE, 
 
 ALEXANDER, EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 OFFICERS OF STATE 
 
 Edinburgh, 1 5th November, 1837_Tbe Lords allow the Minute to be given 
 
 in as craved. 
 
 (Signed) D. Boyle, I.P.D. 
 
 MINUTE 
 
 FOR 
 
 ALEXANDER, EARL OF STIRLING, Defender ; 
 In the Process of Reduction Improbation at the Instance of 
 THE OFFICERS OF STATE, Pursuers. 
 
 In this case, which is a process instituted by the Officers of 
 State, for the purpose of reducing the services of the defender 
 to his great-great-great grandfather, William, the first Earl 
 of Stirling, a proof was allowed to both parties. The term 
 was circumduced of this date; and the Lord Ordi- 
 Nov.23, me. nar y } a f ter hearing parties, decerned in terms of 
 the reductive conclusions of the summons. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 lxxiii 
 
 In a note subjoined to that interlocutor, his Lordship 
 stated, that “ there are two descents in the defender’s pedi¬ 
 gree, and the pursuers maintain that neither of these is esta¬ 
 blished. They deny it to be proved, that the Rev. John 
 Alexander was the son of John of Antrim, who is said to 
 have died in 1712, or that this John of Antrim was the 
 son of John of Gartmore, who is said to have died in 1666.” 
 His Lordship was pleased to add, that “ the whole of 
 the defender’s case depends upon the genuineness of these 
 two descents.” 
 
 The defender has lately come to the knowledge of various 
 documents, which tend very materially to strengthen the evi¬ 
 dence of propinquity, in regard to the two descents referred 
 to by the Lord Ordinary. By these newly discovered docu¬ 
 ments, he trusts he will be able to establish, that John Alex¬ 
 ander of Gartmore, after he lost his wife, Agnes Graham, 
 heiress of Gartmore, married, as his second wife, Elizabeth 
 Maxwell of Londonderry, by whom he had an only son, 
 John, and' that he died at Derry in 1665-1666 : That this 
 John Alexander, the son of John of Gartmore, received his 
 early education at Londonderry: That he was afterwards 
 sent to a German university, and that after living many years 
 abroad, he settled at Antrim : That he married Mary Hamil¬ 
 ton of Bangor, by whom he had one son, named John, and 
 two daughters; and that he died at Templepatrick, 19th 
 April, 1712, and was buried at Newtown: That Mr Living¬ 
 ston, an old friend of the family, wrote the inscription to his 
 memory which was on the tombstone at Newtown-Ards, and 
 that Mr Littleton’s copy of it was known in 1765: That the 
 said John Alexander of Antrim had encouraged the taste of 
 his son for the ministry of the Church of Scotland, and that 
 the said son, who was the Rev. John Alexander, died at 
 Dublin, 1st November, 1743. 
 
 With reference to the evidence by which these facts can be 
 instructed, the defender has to submit the following state¬ 
 ment :— 
 
 1. That, of this date, a paper packet, addressed 
 to Messrs De Porquet and Cooper, booksellers, Apn121, 1837 ’ 
 11, Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, London, who are 
 employed by the defender as his publishers, w r as received by 
 them by the twopenny post, accompanied by a card in the 
 following terms: — “Mrs Innes Smyth’s compliments to 
 Messrs De Porquet and Co. She had fully intended calling 
 
Ixxiv 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in Tavistock Street when she arrived in town yesterday from 
 Staffordshire; but another commission she had to execute 
 having prevented her, she is induced to send the enclosed 
 packet to them by the twopenny post, with her particular 
 request that they will forward it instantly to the Earl of 
 Stirling, or any member of his Lordship’s family whose resi¬ 
 dence may be known to them. Hackney, April 19<A.” 
 
 2. That Messrs De Porquetand Co., on receipt of this par¬ 
 cel, forwarded it to one of the defender’s sons then in London, 
 who, in the defender’s absence, resolved to have it opened in 
 the presence of a notary-public: That it was accordingly 
 
 opened in presence of a notary, of this date, and 
 
 April 22. 1837. r r , r 
 
 was found to contain a parchment cover or 
 packet, sealed with three seals, and enclosed in an envelope, 
 containing the note, No. I. of the Appendix. 
 
 3. That this parchment cover or packet had the following 
 marking on the outside : 
 
 “ Some of my Wife’s 
 Family Papers.” 
 
 That it was opened in presence of Thomas Blake, Esq. proctor 
 of Doctors Commons, and other witnesses, and was found to 
 contain the five documents, Nos. II. III. IV. V. VI. of the 
 Appendix. 
 
 4. That the above-mentioned marking on the outside of the 
 parchment packet is in the handwriting of the defender’s late 
 father, Mr Humphrys, and that the pedigree or genealogical 
 tree, No. II. is supposed to have been reduced and written by 
 Thomas Campbell. 
 
 5. That the documents, Nos. III. and V. are letters from 
 Dr Benjamin Alexander, son of the Rev. John Alexander, 
 who died at Dublin in 1743, to his brother, the Rev. John 
 Alexander, Birmingham, and to his mother, and that they are 
 in his handwriting, as can be easily instructed by other letters 
 written by him : That the document, No. IV. is a letter from 
 Mr A. E. Baillie to the Rev. John Alexander, Birmingham, 
 bearing that he had attended the funeral of Mr Alexander’s 
 grandfather, (Mr John Alexander of Antrim,) and containing 
 other information connected with the family. The defender 
 has hitherto been unable to discover the history of Mr Baillie, 
 the writer of this letter. There is, however, a Mr Baillie 
 referred to as a friend of the family, in some of the correspon¬ 
 dence about this period. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 l.XXV 
 
 6. That the seal with which this parchment packet was 
 sealed is precisely the same with that upon another docu¬ 
 ment, already in process, viz. the original letter from the 
 Rev. John Alexander, the defender’s grandfather : That the 
 impressions on both must have been made with the same 
 seal. 
 
 7. That in consequence of the cession, as is alleged, of 
 Nova Scotia to France, by the Treaty of Breda, in 1667, and 
 its subsequent recovery by Great Britain in 1690, and in 
 consequence of the stipulations in regard to it in the Treaty 
 of Ryswick, in 1697, every thing connected with the posses¬ 
 sion of that country became a matter of much interest at the 
 Court of France. The grants to the Earl of Stirling thus 
 came to be well known, and the effect of them much canvassed. 
 That, influenced by these considerations, the defender was 
 induced to direct anxious searches to be made in France for 
 any documents that might throw light on the history of the 
 family of Stirling: That in the course of the last summer, the 
 defender acquired knowledge of an ancient map of Canada, 
 containing: on the back of it certain documents concerning: his 
 family: That the map is dated in 1703, and that all the 
 documents, Nos. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. 
 annexed in the Appendix, are either written or pasted upon 
 the back of it: That the defender, of this date, July 12> m7i 
 received information of the existence of this map 
 
 from Mad Uc Marie Anne Le Normand, an authoress of some 
 note, who keeps a library in Paris, and possesses a consider¬ 
 able collection of unpublished manuscripts. 
 
 8. That it appears from these documents, that a Monsieur 
 Mallet wished to obtain information in England as to the 
 actual state of the descendants of William, Earl of Stirling; 
 but that having died suddenly, one of his friends, a Monsieur 
 Brossette, applied to Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, for 
 the wished-for information ; and that the Archbishop, knowing 
 the intimacy that subsisted between the Marchioness de 
 Lambert and Mr John Alexander of Antrim, applied to her 
 on the subject: That the Marchioness accordingly wrote to 
 Mr John Alexander, who, in return, sent to her a full com¬ 
 munication as to the family history : That this letter was 
 transmitted by her to the Archbishop, who forwarded it to 
 Monsieur Brossette : That these several documents (the 
 originals of which are on the said map) are subjoined in the 
 Appendix. 
 
Ixxvi 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 9. That the document, No. VII. is in the handwriting of 
 Monsieur Mallet. 
 
 10. That the document, No. VIII. appears to have been 
 written at Lyons by a person of the name of Caron St 
 Estienne, of whom the defender cannot find any trace: That 
 the document, No. IX. is in the handwriting of Flechier, 
 Bishop of Nismes, a person of well-known celebrity. 
 
 11. That the document, No. X. is the letter holograph of 
 Mr John Alexander of Antrim to the Marchioness de Lam¬ 
 bert, above referred to : That part of the letter and the seal 
 still remain, and that the .impression of the seal is the same 
 with that on the parchment cover above referred to. 
 
 12. That the document, No. XI. is a marginal note in the 
 handwriting of Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, and authen¬ 
 ticates Mr Alexander’s letter. 
 
 13. That the document, No. XII. is a copy of the inscrip¬ 
 tion on the tombstone of Mr John Alexander. It bears to 
 have been made by W. C. Gordon, junior, who is supposed 
 to have been a son or other relative of Mr William Gordon, 
 the agent in Scotland of the Rev. John Alexander, sometime 
 of Stratford-upon-Avon; but the defender has as yet been 
 unable to obtain any satisfactory information on this point. 
 
 14. That the short memorandum, No. XIV. is in the hand¬ 
 writing of Louis XV. King of France. 
 
 15. That the defender avers, and is prepared to instruct by 
 proof, that the above-mentioned documents are in the hand¬ 
 writing of the individuals above mentioned ; and he further 
 avers and states, that he never knew of the existence of any 
 of these documents until he was informed of them by Made¬ 
 moiselle Le Normand, in the manner above set forth. 
 
 In respect whereof, $-c. 
 
 John Hope. 
 
 Adam Anderson. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Ixxvii 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 Anonymous Note to the Defender. 
 
 The enclosed was in a small cash-box, which was stolen 
 from the late William Humphreys, Esq. at the time of his 
 removal from Digbeth-house, Birmingham, to Fair Hill. 
 The person who committed the theft was a young man in a 
 situation in trade which placed him above suspicion. Fear of 
 detection, and other circumstances, caused the box to be 
 carefully put away, and it was forgot that the packet of papers 
 was left in it. This discovery has been made since the death 
 of the person alluded to, which took place last month. His 
 family being now certain that the son of Mr Humphreys is 
 the Lord Stirling who has lately published a narrative of his 
 case, they have requested a lady, going to London, to leave 
 the packet at his Lordship’s publishers, a channel for its con¬ 
 veyance pointed out by the book itself, and which they hope 
 is quite safe. His Lordship will perceive that the seals have 
 never been broken. The family of the deceased, for obvious 
 reasons, must remain unknown. They make this reparation, 
 but cannot be expected to court disgrace and infamy. 
 
 April 17, 1837. 
 
 This note was opened in my presence, and found to contain 
 the packet superscribed, 
 
 “ Some of my Wife’s 
 Family Papers,” 
 
 sealed with three black seals bearing the same impression. 
 London, 22 d April, 1837. W M Scorer, 
 
 Public Notary. 
 
 Witness, 
 
 Edw. Francis Fennell, 
 
 Sol r , 
 
 32. Bedford llow, 
 
 London. 
 
XXV1U 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION 
 
 No. II. 
 
 Reduced Emblazoned Pedigree of the Earls of Stirling. 
 
 No. 35. 
 
 Part 
 
 of the Genealogical Tree 
 of the 
 
 Alexanders of Menstry, 
 Earls or Stirling in Scotland, 
 shewing 
 
 only the fourth aud now existing 
 Branch. 
 
 Reduced to Pocket size from the 
 large emblazoned Tree in the 
 possession of Mrs Alexander, 
 of King Street, Birin. 
 
 By me, 
 
 Thos. Campbell, 
 
 John, 
 
 Benjamin, 
 
 April 15, 1750. 
 
 Mary, Hannah, 
 
 Eldest Son, Born, 
 
 2d Son, 
 
 Eldest 
 
 2d Daur. 
 
 at Dublin, in 1736, 
 
 Born at 
 
 Daur. 
 
 Bom at 
 
 heir 
 
 Dublin 
 
 Born at 
 
 Dublin 
 
 to the 
 
 in 1737. 
 
 Dublin 
 
 in 1741. 
 
 Titles & Estates. 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 in 1733. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 John 
 
 6th Earl of Stirling, 
 (De Jure,) 
 
 M d Hannah Higgs 
 of Old Swinford. 
 Died at Dublin, 
 Nov. 1, 1743. 
 
 Aged 57. 
 
 Bur<* there. 
 
 I 
 
 Mary, 
 Eldest Da fir. 
 Born in 1G83. 
 Died 
 unmar’d. 
 
 Elizabeth, 
 Born 1G85, 
 
 M d J. M. Skinner, 
 died 1711. 
 leaving 
 Issue. 
 
 I 
 
 JuIlN 
 Marry’d 
 Mary Hamilton 
 of Bangor. 
 Settled at Antrim, 
 after living many 
 years in Germany. 
 
 Died 1712. 
 
 Bur d at Newtown. 
 
 i 
 
 Janet 
 
 only 
 
 Surviving 
 Child 
 of the 
 heiress of 
 Gar tm ore 
 
 _ I 
 
 John, 
 
 4th Son — Marry’d 
 1. Agnes Graham, 
 heiress of Gartmore. 
 
 2. Elizabeth Maxwell 
 of Londonderry. 
 
 Settled in Ireland 
 in 1646. 
 
 Died 1665. 
 
 William. 
 
 1st Earl of Stirling 
 B. 1580. 
 
 M. Janet Erskine. 
 
 Had issue, 
 
 7 Sons & 3 DaQrs. 
 
 Died 1640. 
 
 Bun* at 
 Stirling. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 lxxix 
 
 No. III. 
 
 LETT. ER, Dr Benjamin Alexander to Rev. John Alexander 
 
 of Birmingham. 
 
 Rev d Mr Alexander, 
 
 Birmingham. 
 
 Dear Bro r , 
 
 Mr Palmer is not at home; but I will take 
 care of the letter. I have but little time to write at present; 
 yet, as Mr Solly is going to-night, and offers to take this, I 
 must tell you, Campbell has written to me. The report we 
 heard last year about the agents of W. A. is too true. No 
 other copy of the inscription can be had at Newtown. The 
 country people say, they managed one night to get the slab 
 down, and ’tis thought they bury’d it. However, C. does not 
 think you need mind this loss, as Mr Lyttleton’s copy can be 
 proved. Mr Denison tells Campbell, his copy of grandfather 
 A.’s portrait will be very like when finished. At the back of 
 the original, old Mr Denison pasted a curious mem. from 
 which it appears, that our grandfather rec d his early education 
 at Londonderry, under ‘ the watchful eye of Mr Maxwell, his 
 ‘ maternal grandsire.’ At the age of sixteen, the Dowager- 
 Countess wished him to be sent to Glasgow College; but at 
 last it was thought better for him to go to a German univer¬ 
 sity. He attained high distinction as a scholar, remained 
 many years abroad, and visited foreign courts. Please to give 
 duty and love to Mamma, love to sisters, and be yourself 
 healthy and content. 
 
 Y r affectionate Bro r , 
 
 B. Alexander. 
 
 Lond. Aug 1 20. 1765. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 LETTER, A. E. Baillie to Rev. John Alexander of 
 Birmingham. 
 
 For 
 
 Rev. Mr Jn° Alexander. 
 
 Dublin, Sept. 16. 1765. 
 
 Rev d Sir, 
 
 I was sorry to hear of y e lawless act at New¬ 
 ton, but as I tell Mr Denison, I shall be ready to come forward 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I xxx 
 
 if you want me. I was about twenty-one when I attended y r 
 grandfather’s funerall. He was taken ill while visitting a 
 friend at Templepatrick, and dyed y re , for he cou’d not be 
 removed. Mr Livingstone, a verry old friend of y r family, 
 wrote y® inscription, w h y e claimant from America got de¬ 
 stroyed. I always heard y‘ y r great gr.father, y e Hono ble Mr 
 Alexander, (who was known in the country as Mr Alexander 
 of Gartmoir,) dyed at Derry: but for y e destruction of y e 
 parish registers in the north by y e Papists, during y e civil 
 war from 1689 to 1692, you mit have got y e certificates you 
 want. 
 
 I am w th Friend Denison till October; so if you have more 
 questions to put to me, please to direct to his care. Till 
 then, 
 
 I remain, Rev d Sir, 
 
 Y™ respectfully, 
 
 A. E. Baillie. 
 
 No. V. 
 
 LETTER, Dr Benjamin Alexander to Mrs Alexander 
 King Street , Birmingham. 
 
 To 
 
 Mrs Alexander, 
 
 King Street, 
 
 Birmingham. 
 
 Hon d and D r Mamma, 
 
 Received y r letter yesterday by Mr Kettle. I write 
 instantly to prevent more mischief. Take no physic any body 
 —foolish practice to weaken constitutions for a foolish rash — 
 let it go off as it will — don’t you see how it has hurt Mary ? 
 Let sister Hannah take antimonial wine, thirty or forty drops 
 twice a-day. This will carry off the rash by perspiration, and 
 safely. I send you the portrait of gr.father Alexander, which 
 Campbell did for Bro r . Sisters never saw it. C. says we 
 can’t recover Gartmo 
 The other Scottish property went to 
 half sister to my gr d father, but w 
 succeeded in Ireland if we begin soon 
 
 It will be now necessary to pay Campbell’s bill. It comes to 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION, ixxxi 
 
 two and twenty pounds thirteen shill 9 . Let me know in yo r 
 next how you propose furnishing the money. 
 
 I am, in great haste, and with 
 love to sisters, y r dutifi and 
 
 affec 1 Son, 
 
 B. Alexander. 
 
 Bond. July 26. 1766, 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 NOTE on Back of Copy Portrait of Mr John Alexander of 
 
 Antrim. 
 
 JOHN ALEXANDER, Esq. 
 of Antrim, 
 
 Died April 19, 1712. 
 
 From the Original Painting, 
 Done at Versailles in his fortieth 
 year: now in the possession of 
 P. Denison, Esq. of Dublin. 
 
 THOS. C 4.UPBELL, pitUC. 
 
 (On the back.) 
 
 Note. 
 
 Mr Denison believes my g* gr.father lost his first 
 wife, Agnes, in 1637, and that he met Miss Maxwell at Com¬ 
 ber, and was marr d to her in 1639. If so, and my gr.father 
 the next year made his appearance in this world, we may 
 suppose the original portrait was painted in 1679. 
 
 B. A. 
 
lxxxii 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 [The following writings are some of them written and the 
 rest pasted upon the back of a map of Canada or New 
 France, by Guillaume de l’lsle, Paris, 1703*3 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 NOTE by M. Ph. Mallet , rcspectiny Charter in favour of 
 William , Earl of Stirling. 
 
 A Lyon , ce 4 Aoust 1706. 
 
 Pendant mon sejour en Acadie en 1702, ma curio- 
 site fut piquee par ce que Y on me disoit d’ une 
 ' ancienne cbarte, qui est conservee dans les archives de 
 cette province. C’est la charte de confirmation, ou “ de nouo- 
 damus,” en datte du 7. Decembre 1639, par laquelle le Roy 
 Charle I er d’ Angleterre, renouuella en faveur de Guillaume, 
 Comte de Stirling, les titres et dignitez qu’il luy avoit prece- 
 demment accordes, et toutes Its concessions de terres qu’il 
 luy avoit faites depuis 1621 en Ecosse et en Amerique. Mon 
 amy Lacroix in’en fit donner une copie, que j’ eus la precau¬ 
 tion avant de partir de faire duement attester. De cette 
 piece authentique ie vais presenter icy quelques extraits, (tra- 
 Heg it ( ^ u ‘ ts en Francois pour l’intelligence de ceux qui ne 
 ft>:as.' s^avent pas le Latin, Jafinqui toute personne, en ouurant 
 cette carte de nos possessions d’ Amerique, puisse se 
 faire une idee de la vaste estendue de territoire qui fut concede 
 par le Roy d’ Angletterre a un de ses sujets. Si le sort de la 
 j. Man guerre, ou quelque autre evenement, faisoit rentrer 
 1710 ‘ la Nouvelle France et 1’Acadie sous la domination 
 des Anglois, la famille de Stirling possederoit ces deux pro¬ 
 vinces, ainsi que la Nouvelle Angleterre, “ et egalement la 
 totalite des passages et limites taut sur les eaux que sur les 
 terres depuis la source de la riuiere du Canada, en quelqu’ 
 endroit qu’on puisse la trouver, jusqu’ a la baye de Californie, 
 avec cinquante lieues de terres de chaque costc du dit passage, 
 et de plus toutes les autres terres, limites, lacs, riuieres, 
 detroits, bois, forets et autres, qui pourront estre a l’auenir 
 trouues, conquis ou decouuerts par le dit Compte ou ses heri- 
 tiers.” Voicy enfin l’ordre de succession a cet heritagy. 1 
 Aux titres de noblesse, (“de nouodamus,” etc.) “au susdit 
 Guillaume, Comte de Stirling, et aux heritiers-males descen¬ 
 dant de sa personne ; a leur clefaut, aux ainees des heritieres” 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 x.xxi U 
 
 (haeredibus femellis natu maximis) “ sans diuision du dernier 
 des susdits heritiers-males, et aux heritiers-males descendant 
 de la personne des dites heritieres respectivement, portant le 
 surnom et les armes d’Alexander, et au defaut de tous ces 
 heritiers, aux plus proches heritiers quelconques du dit Guil¬ 
 laume Comte de Stirliug, (Icy suivent les titres,” etc.) 2°. 
 Aux possessions territoriales, (“de nouodamus concedimus, 
 disponimus, proque nobis et successoribus nostris, pro perpe- 
 tuo confirmamus,”) “ au susdit Guillaume, Comte de Stirling, 
 et aux heritiers-males descendant de sa personne; a leur 
 defaut, aux ainees des heritieres sans diuision du dernier des 
 susdits males qui succedera cy-apres aux susdits titres, hon- 
 neurs et dignitez, et aux heritiers-males descendant de la 
 personne des susdites heritieres respectivement, portant le 
 surnom et les armes de la famille Alexander, qu’ils seront 
 tenus et obliges de prendre,” etc. etc. Ainsi, le Roy d’ Anglet- 
 terre a donneu a Comte, et a asseure a ses descendants en 
 perpetuite, assez de terres pour fonder un puissant empire en 
 Amerique. 
 
 Pit. Mallet.; 
 
 No. VIII. 
 
 NOTE by M. Caron St Esticnne, Canadien. 
 
 La notte cy-dessus est precieuse. Je puis asseurer qu’elle 
 donne en peu de mots une idee extremement juste de la 
 marveilleuse charte dont il est question. Quant a la copie de 
 cette charte, el le est attestee par l’archciviste et les temoins 
 Acadiens, et doit estre entierement conforme au registre du 
 Port Royal. J’avois entendu parler a Quebec des concessions 
 au Comte de Stirling, mais mon amy M. Mallet fut le premier 
 qui me procura lecture de la charte. Ce document extraor¬ 
 dinaire s’estend a pres de cinquante pages d’escriture et le 
 Latin l ien moins que classique: Cependant, comme Canadien 
 un peu interesse en ce qu’il y avoit dedans, je dois dire, que je 
 l’ay leu d’un bout a 1’autre avec autant de curiosite que de 
 satisfaction. Feu Mr Mallet estoit un homme, dont les 
 bonnes qualitez et la rare intelligence font regretter que la mort 
 l’a enleve si subitementa ses amis. II avoit bien prevu que la 
 copie ne feroit point connoistre la charte en France. Voyla, 
 done, pourquoy il consceut le project d’escrire sur une de ces 
 belles cartes de Guillaume de l’Isle une notte, que tout le 
 
Jxxxiv 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 inonde pust lire avec interest. S’il avoit vescu assez longtemps, 
 il auroit adjouste a cet interest, car il vouloit s’informer en 
 Angleterre de l’estat actuel des descendants de Comte qui 
 obtint les concessions, et tout ce qu’on luy auroit mande a 
 leur egard auroit este escrit sur cette mesme carte. Au surplus 
 avec les deux documents qu’il nous a laisses, personne en 
 France ne pourra revoquer en doute Pexistence dune telle 
 charte. 
 
 Caron Saint Estienne. 
 
 A Lyon , le 6. Avril 1707. 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 ATTESTATION by Esprit Flechier, Bishop of Nismes. 
 
 J’ay lu dernierement, chez Monsieur Sartre a Caveirac, la 
 copie de la charte du Comte de Stirling. J’y ay remarque 
 beaucoup de particularites curieuses, entremeslees d’un grand 
 nombre de details peu interessants. Je pense done qu’ondoit 
 avoir de grandes obligations a Monsieur Mallet, d’avoir mis le 
 public Francois en estat de juger, par la note cy-dessus, de 
 1’estendue et de l’importance des concessions faites a ce 
 Seigneur Ecossois. Je trouve aussi qu’il a extrait les clauses 
 les plus essentielles de la charte, et en les traduisant en Fran¬ 
 cois les a tres-bien rendues. Monsieur Caron Saint Estienne 
 m’a prie de rendre ce temoignage. Je le fais avec le plus 
 grand plaisir. 
 
 Esprit, Ev. de Nismes. 
 
 A Nismes, ce 3. Juin 1707. 
 
 Cette attestation est de la main d’Esprit Flechier, Eveque 
 de Nismes. 
 
 Paris, 2. A out. 1837. 
 
 VlLLENAVE. 
 
 Vu par nous Maire du onzieme arrondissement de Paris, pour 
 legalisation de la signature de Mr Villenave pere apposee 
 ci-dessus, et encore au haut de cette marge. 
 
 A Paris, le deuze Aoiit 1837. 
 
 (L. S.) Desgranges. 
 
 Vu pour legalisation de la signature de Mr Desgranges 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1X X X V 
 
 npposee ci-contre, par nous juge pour l’empech* de Monsieur 
 Ic President du tribunal de l ere instance de la Seine. 
 
 Paris, le trois Aoiit 1837. 
 
 (L. S.) Salmon. 
 
 Vu pour legal 0 " de la signature de M r Salmon, juge du trib 1 
 civil de la Seine. 
 
 Paris, 2. 8 bre 1837. 
 
 Par deleg 0 ", Le chef de Bureau du min re de la justice. 
 
 ( L.S .) Poret. 
 
 Le Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres certifie veritable la sig¬ 
 nature ci-contre de M r Poret. 
 
 Paris, le 2. 8 bre 1837. 
 
 Par automation du Ministre, Le Chef du B" de la Chancel- 
 lerie. 
 
 (L. S.) De Lamar re. 
 
 Vu pour legalisation de la signature ci-contre de M r De 
 
 Lamarre, Chef du Bureau de la Chancellerie au departe- 
 
 ment des Affaires Etrangeres. 
 
 © 
 
 Paris, ce quatre Octobre 1837, 
 
 Le Consul de sa Majeste Britannique a Paris. 
 
 (L. S.J Thomas Pickford. 
 
 No X. 
 
 HOLOGRAPH LETTER, Mr John Alexander to the 
 Marchioness de Lambert . 
 
 Lettre Autographe de M. John Alexander, (petit fils du 
 celebre Compte de Stirling,) a Mad me la Marquise de 
 Lambert. 
 
 (L. S. o f the Records.) 
 
 ■% 
 
 iyAntrim, le 25 me Aoust 1707. 
 
 Je ne s<jaurois vous dire, Madame, combien ie suis sensible 
 a I’honneur de vostre souvenir. Je dois aussi de sinceres 
 remerciemens a Monsieur de Cambray, puisque c’est luy qui 
 a facilite le voyage de mon amy Monsieur Hovendeti, et par 
 
ixxxvi 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 la a este cause que vostre lettre et la copie que vous avez eli 
 la bonte tie m’ envoier de la notte sur la charte de mon ayeul 
 m’ont este rendues si vite. Je vais repondre de mon mieux 
 aux questions que vous me faites. Je ne suis pas, comme vous 
 avez pense, l’heritier ties titres tie ma famille. Nostre chef a 
 present est Henri, 5 me Comte de Stirling, descendu du 3”“ fils 
 de mon ayeul. 11 demeure a quelques milles de Londres—n’a 
 point d’enfans, mais il a des freres, dont l’aine est son heritier 
 presomptif. Du l er fils il ne reste que des descendans de ses 
 filles. Le 2 d n’a point laisse d’enfans. Mon pere estoit le 
 4 mc fils—il epousa en premieres noces une heritiere de la 
 mai'son de Gartmore en Ecosse. Ma mere, de la famille de 
 Maxwell, estoit sa secontle femme. Mais quoyqu’il ait e’u des 
 filles par la premiere il n’eiit jamais d’autre fils que moy. Pour 
 achever cette genealogie de famille, il faut, Madame, que ie vous 
 dise que ma femme est une cadette de celle tl’ Hamilton, maison 
 ducale en Ecosse, et qu’elle m’a donne un fils, nomme John, 
 apres mon pere et moy, et deux filles. J’ay si peu d’idee a 
 present que les titres et les biens de Stirling puissent echoir a 
 mes enfans, que j’ay encourage le goust de mon fils pour la 
 ministere de nostre Eglise d’Ecosse, et il s’y prepare en 
 Hollande, a PUniversite tie Leyde. Je conserveray 1’ interes- 
 sante notte de Monsieur Mallet avec soin: la charte estoit 
 enregistree a une epoque en Ecosse, aussi bien qu’en Acadie; 
 mais pendant la guerre civile, et sous l’usurpation de Cromwell, 
 des caisses contenants une partie ties archives de ce royaume 
 furent perdues en mer pendant un orage, et selon l’ancienne 
 tradistion de nostre famille, le registre sur lequel cette charte 
 avoit este inscriste fut au nombre de ceux que estoient perdus. 
 
 Voyla, Madame, tout ce que ie puis dire en response a vos 
 
 a uestions, car c’est impossible dans ce pays d’ Irlande d’obtenir 
 ’autres renseignemens a l’egard de la charte enregistree. Je 
 cry que ma grandmere avoit donne la charte originale 
 (qu’elle aporta d’Ecosse en venant sestablis en Irlande,) a 
 son gendre le Lord Montgomerie, pour qu’il la gardat avec 
 soin dans Chateau Comber, ou il demeuroit. Je m’informeray 
 tie ce que cette famille en a pu faire, et si ie fais quelque 
 decouverte, j’auray l’honneur tie vous en prevenir. 
 
 Je n’oublierajt jamais, Madame, vos bontez pour moy, ni 
 les charmes de la societe que ie trouvay tousjours chez vous. 
 Tant que je vivray, ie vous seray attach^ avec le plus respec- 
 tueux devoiiement. 
 
 John Alexander. 
 
 [Cachet de M. John Alexandre, 
 et portion tie 1’enveloppe de sa lettre.3 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Ixxxvii 
 
 No. XI. 
 
 NOTE by Francis de la Motte Fenelon, Archbishop of Cam- 
 bray, written on the margin of No. X. 
 
 Les amis de feu M. Ph. Mallet liront sans doute avec un 
 grand interet cette lettre d’un petit fils du Comte de Sterling. 
 M. Cholet de Lyon partant aujourd’hui, 16. Octobre 1707, 
 pour s’en retourner chez lui, aura l’honneur de la remetter a 
 M. Brossette, de la part de Madame de Lambert. 
 
 Pour Pauthentiquer, j’ai ecrit et signe cette apostille. 
 
 Fr. Ar. Due de Cambray. 
 
 Vu par nous Garde General des Archives du Royaume, pour 
 la verification de la signature, Fr. Ar. Due de Cambray 
 et de Pecriture des six lignes qui la precedent, lesquelles 
 lignes sont placces, savoir les trois premieres sur la marge, 
 et les trois dernieres au bas, d’une lettre signee John Alex¬ 
 ander, et en date du 25. Aout 1707 : 
 
 Nous avons reconnu que Pecriture de ces six lignes et la 
 signature qui les suit sont conformes a Pecriture et a la sig¬ 
 nature d’une lettre de Fenelon, Archeveque de Cambray, 
 en date du 21. Decernbre 1703, et deposee a la section 
 historique des Archives du Royaume, serie M. No. 928. 
 
 En foi de quoi, nous avons signe et fait apposer le sceau 
 des dites Archives, d’une part sur la piece qui renferme 
 Pecriture de Fenelon, et de l’autre sur le revers de la carte 
 du Canada, a laquelle cette piece a ete collee. 
 
 Paris, le vingt sept Juillet Mil huit cent trente sept. 
 
 (L. S.) Daunou. 
 
 Vu par nous Maire du 7 me arrond 1 pour legalisation de la 
 signature de M. Daunou, (ci-dessus apposee,) garde gene¬ 
 ral des Archives du Royaume. 
 
 Paris, ce 4. Aout 1837. 
 
 (L. S.J Lecoq. 
 
 Vu pour legalisation de la signature de M. Lecoq. adj* au 
 Maire du 7“ e arrond 1 par nous juge pour l’empech 1 de 
 Monsieur le President du tribunal de l erc instance de la 
 Seine. 
 
 Paris , le quatre Aout 1837. 
 
 CL. S.) 
 
 II. de St Ai.bin. 
 
Ixxxvin 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Vu pour legal" de la signature de M r de St Albin,jtige da 
 trib' civil de la Seine. 
 
 Paris , 2. 8*™ 1837. 
 
 Par deleg on , Le Chef de Bureau du Min re de la Justice. 
 
 (L . S.) Poret. 
 
 Le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres certifie veritable la sig¬ 
 nature ci-contre de M r Poret. 
 
 Paris , le 2. Q bre 1837. 
 
 Par autorisation du Ministre, Le Chef du B au de la Chancel¬ 
 leries 
 
 (L. S.) De Lamarre. 
 
 Vu pour legalisation de la signature ci-contre de M r De 
 Lamarre, Chef du Bureau de la Chancellerie au Departe- 
 ment des Affaires Etrangeres. 
 
 Paris , ce quatre Octobre 1837. 
 
 Le Consul de sa Majeste Britannique a Paris. 
 
 ( L . S .) Thomas Pickford. 
 
 No. XII. 
 
 Copy INSCRIPTION at Newton-Ards, to the memory of 
 Mr John Alexander of Antrim. 
 
 [This copy is word for word the same as Mr Lvttleton’s 
 copy, already in process, and at the foot of it are these 
 words : ] 
 
 This is a faithfull copy of the Inscription to the memory of 
 John Alexander, Esquire, upon the tablet over his tomb 
 at Newtown-Ardes, Co. of Down, Ireland. 
 
 Stratford upon Avon, 
 
 Oct. 6. 1723. 
 
 W. C. Gordon, Jun r . 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODI'CTTOX. 
 
 Ixxxix 
 
 No. XIII. 
 
 NOTE underneath No. XII. 
 
 Cette Inscription a este communiquee par Mad c de Lam¬ 
 bert. Depuis la mort de Monsieur Alexander, en 1712, 
 cette dame n’a pas cesse de donner des marques dc sa bienueil- 
 lance et de son amitie au fils de cet liomme distingue. Ce 
 fils est connu avantageusement en Angleterre, comme minis- 
 tre du culte Protestant, et comme scavant philologue. Dans 
 la connoissance des langues de l’Orient il est presque sans 
 competiteurs. II est a la teste du College pour l’education 
 des ieunes ministres etabli a Stratfort, dans le comte de Var- 
 vick. 
 
 No. XIV. 
 
 MEMORANDUM by his Majesty, Louis XV. written on 
 the margin of No. XIV. 
 
 Cette note est digne 
 
 de quelque attention dans 
 
 les circonstances presentes : mais 
 
 qu’on m’envoie la copie de la charte originale. 
 
 J’atteste que les quatre lignes ci-dessus sont de la main 
 de Louis XV. et parfaitement conformes a l’ecriture 
 de ce Roi, dont je possede plusieurs pieces et lettres 
 autographes. 
 
 Paris, ce 2. Aout 1837. 
 
 Villenave. 
 
xc 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 No. V. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 
 May 21, 1838. 
 
 ANSWERS. 
 
 OFFICERS OF STATE, Pursuers. 
 
 TO 
 
 MIN. HUMPHREYS OR ALEXANDER, Defender. 
 
 “ Edinburgh , November 28, 1837—The Lords allow the productions now 
 tendered to be lodged and seen, reserving all competent objections thereto. 
 
 (Signed) “ D. BOYLE, 7.P.D.” 
 
 “December 19, 1837.—The Lords having heard this Note, allow a facsimile 
 of the documents therein referred to, to be made, under the direction and con¬ 
 trol of Mr Mark Napier, Advocate. 
 
 (Signed) “D. BOYLE, 7P.Z>.” 
 
 “ March 2, 1838_The Lords having heard this Note, appoint Answers to 
 
 the said Minute, to be lodged by the second Box-day of the ensuing vaca¬ 
 tion. 
 
 (Signed) “D. BOYLE, /.P.D.” 
 
 “ May 12, 1838. — The Lords prorogate the time for lodging the Answers 
 to Defender’s Minute for eight days from this date. 
 
 (Signed) “ D. BOYLE, 7P.D.” 
 
 ANSWERS 
 
 FOR 
 
 THE OFFICERS OF STATE, Pursuers. 
 
 TO THE 
 
 MINUTE for ALEXANDER HUMPHREYS or 
 ALEXANDER, calling himself “ Earl of Stirling,” &c. 
 Defender. 
 
 This action of reduction has been in Court since January, 
 1833. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XCl 
 
 On the 20th December, 1836, the Lord Ordinary pro¬ 
 nounced an interlocutor, reducing two services of the defender, 
 bv which he proposes to take up the succession to a Scotch 
 Earldom, and certain territories, comprising Canada and part 
 of Nova Scotia. 
 
 The Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor was accompanied by a 
 long Note, setting forth the grounds of his Lordship’s deci¬ 
 sion, and pointing out very minutely the steps of the defen¬ 
 der’s pedigree, which were not proved, and the defective 
 .nature and suspicious character of certain parts of the 
 evidence. 
 
 The defender reclaimed against the Lord Ordinary’s inter¬ 
 locutor on the 5th January, 1837. 
 
 The case was put to the roll for advising on the 31st May, 
 1837. 
 
 On the previous day, the 30th May, 1837, the defender 
 lodged a note, stating that he had lately recovered certain 
 family papers, which rendered it desirable to apply to other 
 sources of confirmation, which are now opened to him, and 
 craving time to make the requisite inquiries, and to strengthen 
 his case, if possible, by farther evidence. 
 
 The defender obtained the delay he sought for, interlocutor, 
 and afterwards a farther prorogation, till the first June20,11137. 
 sederunt day of November, 1837. 
 
 At that time the defender obtained leave to put 
 in a “ minute, stating more fully the nature of the Nov ‘ Ij ’ 183/ ' 
 documents, the circumstances connected with their being dis¬ 
 covered by him, and the points of evidence arising out of 
 them.” 
 
 On the 27th November, the minute for the defender, and 
 accompanying documents, were lodged ; and on the following 
 day the Court “ allowed the productions now i nter i ocutori 
 tendered to be lodged and seen, reserving ail com- Nov - 28 * 183 '- 
 petent objections thereto.” 
 
 The Court afterwards authorized a facsimile of 
 the documents to be made, under the direction ec ' 1!> ’ l83 '' 
 and control of Mr Mark Napier. 
 
 It is now the duty of the pursuers to bring under the notice 
 of the Court the minute of the defender of 26th November 
 last, as containing an account of the documents lodged; the 
 circumstances connected with their alleged discovery by the 
 defender; and the points of evidence arising out of them. 
 
 These documents are said to be derived from two distinct 
 sources, the one in England, the other in Paris. 
 
Xcii APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I. The first packet is connected with a remarkable history. 
 It appears that Messrs De Porquet and Cooper, booksellers, 
 received by the twopenny post a note, bearing to be written 
 by a Mrs Innes Smyth, and enclosed in a packet which she 
 requested should be instantly forwarded to the Earl of Stir¬ 
 ling or any member of his family. This note was dated 
 “Hackney, April 19,” and it mentioned that the writer had 
 recently arrived in town from Staffordshire; but unfortunately, 
 no more information is afforded bv the defender, as to who 
 this lady may be, or how she became the means of communi¬ 
 cating the mysterious packet. 
 
 The packet thus communicated, was handed by the book¬ 
 sellers to a son of the defender, then in London, who did not 
 suffer himself to be led away by any impatient and imprudent 
 curiosity to inspect the mysterious enclosure, but used the 
 precaution to keep it unopened, until he was enabled to break 
 the seal in presence of a notary public, and another famous 
 witness. 
 
 When so opened, the outer cover was found to consist of 
 an anonymous note, stating, that the enclosed packet had 
 been stolen from the house of Mr Humphreys, the father 
 of the defendant it is presumed; that the theft was dis¬ 
 covered after the death of the thief, by his relations, and 
 that they having perused a published narrative of the defen¬ 
 der’s case, requested a lady going to London, the mysterious 
 Mrs Innes Smyth of course, to leave the packet at his Lord¬ 
 ship’s booksellers. The note concludes with the following 
 words :—“ His Lordship will perceive that the seals have never 
 been broken. The family of the deceased, for obvious reasons, 
 must remain unknown. They make this reparation, but cannot 
 be expected to court disgrace and infamy.” This note is sur¬ 
 rounded by a a lugubrious broad border of black, evidently in 
 sign of mourning for the deceased, who had thus stolen a 
 packet so carefully sealed, and had been too honourable to 
 break the seals, or to pry into its contents. 
 
 The packet enclosed was a small case of parchment, 
 marked on the outside, “ Some of my wife’s family papers,” 
 and sealed with three seals. It was considered too important 
 to be opened even in presence of the notary and witness 
 assisting, and it was accordingly, with all solemnity, opened 
 in the presence of a proctor of Doctors Commons. Its con¬ 
 tents form the first class of documents now tendered. 
 
 II. The French discovery is of a scarcely less singular 
 
 * * O 
 
APPENDIX Tu INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xem 
 
 history. The defender sets forth, that, on the 12th of July, 
 1837, he received information of the existence of an old map 
 of Canada, containing certain documents concerning his 
 family, partly written, partly pasted on its back, from Made¬ 
 moiselle Marie Anne Le Normand, whom he is pleased to 
 style “ An authoress of some note, who keeps a library in 
 Paris, and possesses a considerable collection of unpublished 
 MSS.” 
 
 Mademoiselle Le Normand is undoubtedly a person “ of 
 some note,” since she turns out to be no other than the per¬ 
 son who acquired such questionable celebrity under the 
 Empire, as a Sibyl and Diviner, mixed up in many of the 
 intrigues of the Court of Napoleon, and the Empress Jose¬ 
 phine. She appears now to have fallen somewhat in station, 
 though she still practises the arts of divination for hire. 
 
 The documents thus furnished are not traced bv the defen- 
 
 •/ 
 
 der to anv higher source than that of Mademoiselle Le Nor- 
 mand. What they want, however, in extrinsic or historical 
 evidence, is supplied by a profusion of attestations of their 
 genuineness by persons of high contemporary celebrity. 
 
 These papers, the most important of which purport to be a 
 private and confidential letter from a supposed ancestor of the 
 defender, and a copy of an inscription on a tomb in Ireland, 
 which cannot, upon any theory, be supposed to have inte¬ 
 rested any human being except the defender or the family 
 with which he claims to be connected, and the succession to 
 which did not open by the failure of the direct line till long 
 after, are yet actually authenticated by the alleged holograph 
 attestations of such persons as Flechier, Bishop of Nistnes, and 
 the illustrious Fenelon. They are farther dignified by a note 
 which is gravely said to be in the hand-writing of Louis XV. 
 a prince who is believed to have written only two words in 
 his reign,—his own name Louis li. and the word “ bon,” as 
 an approval of any document submitted to him. His disap¬ 
 proval was marked by a line deleting the proposal, to save 
 the fatigue of further penmanship, which indeed he so care¬ 
 fully eschewed, that even his notes to his mistresses were 
 written by a secretary. 
 
 It may perhaps be considered superfluous to say that these 
 documents, coming from such opposite channels, united in 
 filling up the chasms in the evidence ot the defender’s pedi¬ 
 gree, and supplied— precisely the two links which were pointed 
 out by the Lord Ordinary as wanting. 
 
XOIV 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 A difficulty had occurred in the defender’s case from the 
 pursuers having proved that a certain John Alexander, who 
 was married to the daughter and heiress of Graham of Gart- 
 more, and whose son the defender claimed as an ancestor, had 
 no son by that marriage. The defender had not discovered 
 nor alleged any other marriage : but in the argument at the 
 bar, he took it for granted that John Alexander was twice 
 married, as the only solution of the difficulty. 
 
 The present documents furnish the name of John Alex¬ 
 ander’s second wife, the date of the marriage, and all other 
 necessary particulars. 
 
 The Lord Ordinary had set aside as inadmissible or impro- 
 bative, an alleged copy of a tomb-stone inscription. 
 
 The same inscription, copied word for word, is among the 
 documents furnished by Mademoiselle Le Normand, and it 
 has the advantage of an attestation by an unknown W. C. 
 Gordon , junr. 
 
 These extraordinary coincidences, and the singularity of 
 such important evidence coming to light from two quarters, 
 exactly in time to stay the advising of the action, require ex¬ 
 planation. 
 
 It is unnecessary to point out how much importance attaches 
 to the custody of documents, thus tendered in evidence more 
 than a century after their apparent date. That is felt in all 
 cases of this nature, and certainly not less forcibly felt, when, 
 as in the present case, the documents appear recently to have 
 passed through the hands of an unknown thief—his anonymous 
 relatives—an undiscovered lady of Staffordshire—and a French 
 juggling intriguante. In seeking for some information of their 
 previous custody and history, the pursuers are met by diffi¬ 
 culties at the outset, which only the defender can remove—not 
 by the guarded statements of his law advisers, but by under¬ 
 going a full and searching personal examination. 
 
 The pursuers submit, that they might in strict law go to 
 issue with the defender, on the admissibility of the documents 
 he tenders. They do not, however, demand that they be 
 withdrawn. On the contrary, they hold it of great impor¬ 
 tance, that they should be detained in the hands of the Court, 
 and they submit, that it is not only necessary for the proper 
 investigation of this important case, but also essential to the 
 ends of justice, that the defender should be examined judi¬ 
 cially, in the presence or under the authority of the Court, 
 with regard to the whole circumstances of the alleged disco¬ 
 very of the documents tendered by him in evidence. 
 
APPENDIX To INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XCV 
 
 \our Lordships are therefore moved to refuse hoc statu the 
 desire of the defender, that lie may produce the documents 
 tendered, as evidence in causa ; and farther, to appoint the 
 defender to be judicially examined, relative to these docu¬ 
 ments ; or to do otherwise in the premises as to your Lordships 
 shall seem just. 
 
 In respect whereof, $’c. 
 
 C. INNES. 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 
 Dec. 18 , 1838 . 
 
 DECLAR. RED. — OFFICERS OF STATE, 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 ALEXANDER. 
 
 JUDICIAL DECLARATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DEFENDER in the Action of REDUCTION-IMPRO- 
 BATION, &c. The OFFICERS OF STATE, 
 
 ALEXANDER, calling himself Earl of Stirling. 
 
 At Edinburgh, in the Second Division of the Court of 
 Session, on the 18th day of December, 1838, in pursuance of 
 an interlocutory order of the Lords made on the 11th day of 
 December current, Compeared Alexander Earl of Stirling, 
 and interrogated by the Lord Advocate, If he had read the 
 
XCV1 
 
 A1TKND1X TO INTRODUCTION, 
 
 condescendence given in in his name ? Declares, That he 
 has. Interrogated, If he desires to make any additions or 
 alterations on that condescendence ? Declares, That he is 
 ready to make any further explanations that may be asked. 
 Interrogated, When he was first made acquainted with the 
 note issued by Lord Cockburn, December 10th, 1836 ? 
 Declares, That he was not made acquainted with that, or 
 any part of his Lordship’s judgment or proceedings, till the 
 month of March or April following, except as to their general 
 import, which he had learned from the letters addressed to 
 him by his own family. Interrogated, If in the month of 
 December he had not been made acquainted with the note 
 of December 10th, accompanying the draught of an interlo¬ 
 cutor which Lord Cockburn intended to pronounce ? Declares, 
 That he was not; and even now knows not any thing of the 
 particulars of that note. Interrogated, If he did not receive 
 in the course of the month of December, some information 
 touching the interlocutor which Lord Cockburn, on the 10th 
 of that month, had intimated his intention to pronounce? 
 Declares, Certainly not. Interrogated, If it is to be under¬ 
 stood, that during that month of December he had received 
 no communication of the judgment which on the 10th Lord 
 Cockburn had intimated his purpose of issuing? Declares, 
 None whatever; and for this best of reasons, that he was 
 then travelling. Interrogated, If there was any professional 
 person in this Court, or resident at Edinburgh, who usually 
 informed him of the course of proceedings in this cause? 
 Declares, No professional person; but generally he received 
 such information from members of his own family. Inter¬ 
 rogated, If in the said month of December any member of 
 his family, or any other person, gave him any information 
 relative to what had been done by Lord Cockburn on the 
 10th of December ? Declares, None whatever: Declares, 
 That he set out on the 18th of December, 1836, to go to 
 France. Interrogated, Under what name he travelled into 
 France? Declines to answer on a point entirely private, 
 further than that he did travel incognito, for economical 
 reasons; the name by which he did travel appeared in his 
 passport. No person travelled along with him : Declares, 
 That a letter was written to Madlle. Le Normand, by Lady 
 Stirling, some time before he set out for Paris; about nine or 
 ten months before: That the reason for this correspondence 
 arose from the previous proceedings in this Court for proving 
 the tenour of a certain charter; and the evidence having been 
 
APPENDIX TO 1NTROD CTIOX. 
 
 xcvii 
 
 -thought insufficient, he had become desirous of having the re¬ 
 cords of Annapolis examined, in the view of obtaining further 
 proofs on that matter ; and in consequence of the extensive ac¬ 
 quaintance of Madlle. Le Normand with literary persons, and 
 her known facilities of communication with persons high in 
 office, he was induced to communicate through Lady Stirling 
 with her on that subject; and particularly to request her to 
 bend all her endeavours to find out any documents or charters 
 relative to the possessions of the family of Stirling in that 
 country : That he had never dreamed of seeking in France 
 for documents illustrative of his own pedigree; and it was 
 with the greatest surprise that he afterwards learned that 
 those documents, since produced, had been discovered, and 
 were calculated to throw light on that pedigree; and, in fact, 
 no one was more surprised. Interrogated, Where he had 
 obtained his passport? Declines to answer, being private, — 
 and being then in pecuniary difficulties, and unwilling to com¬ 
 promise his friends. He arrived in Paris on the 21st of 
 December—Did not see Madlle. Le Normand for some time ; 
 and did not approach her house unless on very particular 
 occasions, when requested by his family. Interrogated, If there 
 was any one week, from his arrival in Paris till the month of 
 June thereafter, that he did not see Madlle. Le Normand? 
 Declares, That for many weeks he did not see her, and only 
 saw her occasionally as above stated. Declares, That he met 
 at Madlle. Le Normand’s with a person of the name of Triboul, 
 her private secretary or amanuensis; and this only once or twice 
 for a very short time, and after the discovery of the document. 
 Interrogated, If he did not meet Triboul frequently at Madlle. 
 Le Norrnand’s, and remain in conference with him for hours, 
 and this prior to the discovery of the document? Declares, 
 Certainly not; and never saw him or heard of his name till 
 after the document had been discovered,—when at the decla¬ 
 rant’s request a copy was made by Triboul, he being a medical 
 student employed by her as an amanuensis, as he understands : 
 and this was for him to bring over to England, to be laid 
 before his counsel ; which he did accordingly. Interrogated, 
 Did he grant Madlle. Le Normand any obligation for 400,000 
 francs, or any other sum in case he should succeed in these 
 proceedings ? Declares, That lie had received advances of 
 money from Madlle. Le Normand long before the time in 
 question, and more than twenty years ago, and owed her a great 
 deal of money : That she had besides been at great expense in 
 making researches in France, in Germany, and in Holland, for 
 
xeviii 
 
 APPENDIX. TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fifteen months, on the subject in question, in the view of bene¬ 
 fiting his family: That for this debt and those outlays, includ¬ 
 ing interest, he does owe her the sum stated ; but of that not 
 one farthing was intended as any remuneration for her services, 
 she being far above receiving any return of that kind. Declares, 
 That the payment of that sum is not made contingent on hb 
 success in these proceedings, but at certain fixed periods. 
 Declares, that Madlle. Le Normand requested him to call on 
 her a few days after she had discovered the document, but 
 without apprising him why she did so : That she had not given 
 him any intimation previously, of her hope of recovering such 
 a document, nor had he the least idea of any thing of the sort. 
 Interrogated, If Madlle. Le Normand ever informed him from 
 whom she had received the document in question ? Declares, 
 That she had done so no further than by telling him that two 
 ladies, very fashionably dressed, had called at her house and 
 left it. She did not inform him who these ladies were; but she 
 stated to him her suspicion who the person was that had sent 
 the document, and the declarant also had his own suspicion. 
 Madlle. Le Normand told him she did not know who the ladies 
 were: That she received a letter along with the document, 
 in which the writer describes himself as holding a high situa- 
 tion, but in such circumstances as made it absolutely impossible 
 for him to come forward ; and that he had made the communi¬ 
 cation from grateful feeling of obligation to Madlle. Le Nor¬ 
 mand and in consequence of applications that had been made to 
 him by her friends. Madlle. Le Normand did not tell him what 
 the ladies had said when they delivered the documents: That 
 Madlle. Le Normand retained the original letter, but that a 
 copy was taken, which is now in the hands of his agent: That 
 Madlle. Le Normand did not name the person she suspected 
 to have sent the document; and she has never done so to him. 
 Interrogated by the Court, Who he himself suspects to be the 
 person by whom the document was sent ? Declares, That he 
 cannot venture to name that person, being of such exalted rank 
 as to make such a declaration, on his part, unsafe and improper, 
 without positive proof: That he neither can nor dare do more, 
 having only strong suspicions on the subject. Interrogated by 
 the Lord Advocate, If he has any objections to produce the 
 copy of the letter in question ? Declares, he has none, and 
 can have none, and a copy shall be produced. Interrogated, 
 What is the date of his obligation to Madlle. Le Normand for 
 the sum of 400,000 francs ? Declares, That this is a private 
 matter, and he declines answering ; and further, cannot 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XC1X 
 
 recollect it at present, not expecting to he examined on such a 
 subject entirely private. Interrogated, If that obligation was 
 not granted bv him in the period from December 1836 to July 
 1837? Declares, he cannot recollect — not having his notes, 
 and not expecting the question. It was long before the dis¬ 
 covery of the document, and was merely a settlement of old 
 accounts,—nothing else,— and entirely unconnected with any 
 thing of the kind. Interrogated, If he has any objection to 
 state where he resided, while in Paris ? Declares, lie has, as 
 it might compromise friends. Interrogated, If, while in Paris, 
 he recollects having gone to the shop of a person named 
 Legouix, on the Quai D’Orsay, No. I ? Declares, he never 
 heard of any such person. Interrogated, if he recollects of 
 having purchased at that shop a map of Canada, by De Lisle, 
 of the date of 1703? Declares, Certainly not, nor ever 
 employed any person to purchase or receive such a map: That 
 he was very differently employed, and can account for every 
 hour of his time. Interrogated, Declares, That none of his 
 family were ever with him in Paris, excepting Lady Stirling 
 in 18*2*2. Interrogated, What is Madlle. Le Normand’s pro¬ 
 fession ? Declares, That he has the highest respect for 
 Madlle. Le Normand, but has nothing to say as to her peculiar 
 talents : That she is Auteur Libraire , and publishes and sells 
 her own works. Interrogated, If he does not know whether 
 she has any other occupation or employment ? Declares, 
 That he can only say that she has been consulted by persons 
 of the highest rank—sovereigns and others. He has nothing 
 to do with her in any other way than he has explained. And 
 Reinterrogated, and desired to answer the question,—He can 
 only say that on her door is inscribed, Bureau de Correspon¬ 
 dence ; more than this he cannot say: That she is consulted 
 by all sorts of persons. Interrogated, If she is not generally 
 known in Paris as a fortune-teller, and is consulted as such ? 
 Declares, That in the common acceptation he believes she is 
 so considered. Believes she tells fortunes by means of cards. 
 Specially Interrogated, If he has seen her tell fortunes by means 
 of cards ? Declares That being advised by his counsel to answer 
 the question, he says that he has seen her do so. Believes that 
 she is paid by those who consult her, to tell their fortunes. Inter¬ 
 rogated, Did she tell him his own fortune, on the cards or other¬ 
 wise ? Declares, She certainly did at one period, as thousands 
 have had the same curiosity : That he then paid her five 
 Napoleons : That this was a long time ago ; and he has no dates 
 to assist his recollection. The first consultation he had as to his 
 
c 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fortune, was through Lady Stirling about 24 years ago: That 
 the consultation, when he paid down the five Napoleons, was 
 when he himself was present; but the time he cannot specify. 
 Interrogated, When his acquaintance with her commenced ? 
 Declares, That he thinks the first time he ever saw her was 
 in 1814. He was then married. He was introduced to her 
 by Lady Stirling. They had been on terms of intimate 
 acquaintance before : That Lady Stirling accompanied him to 
 England in 1814: That at this period he saw Madlle. Le 
 Normand not more than twice: That Lady Stirling continued 
 to correspond with Madlle. Le Normand, though not very 
 frequently, some years occasionally intervening? Declares, 
 That he, with Lady Stirling, was in Paris for a few days in 
 1822. None of his family had been in France after leaving 
 it in 1814. He was also, in 1833 or 1834, on the coast of France 
 for a short period: That he did not himself see Madlle. Le 
 Normand in 1822; but Lady Stirling had seen her; but not 
 in 1833 or 1834. Interrogated : as the declarant’s only visit 
 to Paris, between 1814 and 1836, was in 1822, and as he did 
 not see Madlle. Le Normand on his visit in 1822, On what 
 occasion it could be that she told him his fortune at a personal 
 interview? Declares, That it must have been early in 1837. 
 Interrogated, If he himself personally delivered the obligation 
 to Madlle. Le Normand ? Declares, He did so when the 
 accounts were arranged. Interrogated, When that settlement 
 took place ? Declares, He cannot state the time. Interro¬ 
 gated, Was it prior to 1836 ? Declares, It was not prior to 
 
 1836. Reinterrogated, Believes it was in 1837. Several 
 applications had been made to him by Madlle. Le Normand 
 for a settlement of their accounts; and it must have been in 
 
 1837. He left Paris on the 13th of August, and had granted 
 the obligation before he left Paris, but cannot recollect the 
 precise time ? Declares, He had seen her, not frequently, but 
 occasionally: That at their first interview, she had requested 
 him to settle their accounts. Has no recollection how often 
 he had seen her before the accounts were settled, or at what 
 time the settlement was actually made: That obligation is 
 payable at certain periods, none of which are yet come, and 
 he cannot recollect what the fixed periods of payment are. 
 None of his family were with him in Paris in the year 1837. 
 Interrogated, Declares, It was when in Paris that he received 
 information of Lord Cockburn’s judgment, in March or April 
 1837. Interrogated, Declares, That he had been in France 
 from 1802 to 1814, detained as a prisoner of war. He was 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Cl 
 
 married in the year 1812. Declares, that on his return from 
 Paris in August 1837, he came direct to Edinburgh, to attend 
 the election of Peers : That he came back under the same 
 passport, and in the same name, as he had gone abroad. 
 Interrogated, Declares, That Madlle. Le Normand is the 
 author of many books, one of which is the 66 Memoirs of the 
 Empress Josephine.” Interrogated, When he was first 
 informed of a certain packet having been sent to Messrs De 
 Porquet and Cooper by the Twopenny post? Declares, He 
 first learned this by a letter from his third son Eugene 
 Alexander; but of what date he does not recollect; but it was 
 soon after the packet had been received. He docs not know 
 that he has preserved that letter; and has no objection, if he 
 finds it, to give an excerpt so far as the letter relates to that 
 packet. Interrogated, Whether he had ever heard before this 
 time that a cash box had been stolen from the late William 
 Humphries at the time of his removal from Digby House to 
 Fairhill ? Declares, That he has heard his father mention 
 that he had lost a cash box containing some hundred pounds; 
 but never heard him say any thing of papers: That it was in 
 1793 or 1794 that this took place. Interrogated, whether he 
 ever heard, before the reception of that packet, that John 
 Alexander, fourth son of the first Earl of Stirling, had been 
 married a second time, after having been first married to a 
 daughter of Graham of Gartmore ? Declares, He never had; 
 but he suspected it, as a general conclusion drawn by him 
 and his friends from other facts in the case. He had never 
 before heard that John Alexander had been married to 
 a lady of the name of Maxwell; nor had heard of any persons 
 of the name of Maxwell as connected with his family. Inter¬ 
 rogated, If he has examined the seals upon the packet above 
 mentioned ? Declares, That he has not, and is not certain 
 that he ever saw them : And the cover of the Packet No. 83 
 of process, being shewn him, Declares, He does not think he 
 ever saw it before ; but he now recognizes the indorsement 
 as in his father’s hand-writing; and that the seal attached is 
 an impression of his grandfather’s seal. The words he so 
 recognizes are 6 Some of my wife’s family papers’ He had 
 seen that seal many years ago, not later than 1825. It is in 
 the possession of his sister, Lady Elizabeth Pountney. Inter¬ 
 rogated, Is any person, under the designation of Mrs Innes 
 Smith, known to reside in any part of Great Britain ? 
 Declares, That every pains has been taken, by advertisements 
 and otherwise, to discover where she resides, but hitherto 
 
Cll 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTKODI CTIOX. 
 
 without any success. Interrogated, Does he believe that 
 designation to be real or fictitious? Declares, That he cannot 
 tell, having no idea or information on the subject. He cannot 
 say what means were taken to recover the money lost by his 
 father in 1793 or 4, having been then a boy at school; and 
 can only remember the general fact as stated to him by his 
 father, and does not recollect of any person having been sus¬ 
 pected of the theft. And being shewn No. 68 of process, and 
 the map of Canada produced, and interrogated, Whether the 
 seals appearing on those two productions are, in the declarant’s 
 opinion, impressions of the same seal with those attached to 
 the document No. 83 of process? Declares, That he thinks 
 they are the same. Interrogated, When he sent his son to 
 Paris for the document ? Declares, As in the condescendence, 
 that it was in October 1837. And declares, That after com¬ 
 municating to his agents and lawyers in London the discovery 
 of the document, they suggested to him the propriety of 
 getting the signatures and writings on the map duly verified 
 in France. And on this declaration being read over to him, 
 the declarant is satisfied that the settlement of his accounts, 
 and the date of his obligation to Madlle. Le Normand, could 
 not have been long before the discovery of the document, and 
 must have been in 1837. 
 
 (Signed) STIRLING. 
 
 D. BOYLE, I. P. D. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Copy LETTER produced by the Declarant, referred to in 
 the foregoing Declaration. 
 
 Je viens d’apprendre Mademoiselle que vous vous interes- 
 sez vivement au succes d’un Anglais qui reclame comme 
 descendant du Comte de Stirling [’heritage de son ancetre en 
 Amerique. Si les autographes que j’ai l’honneur de vous 
 envoyer peuvent le faire reussir, je serai enchante d’avoir pu 
 trouver une occasion de vous faire plaisir en lui rendant ser¬ 
 vice, et de m’acquitter en meme temps tin peu des obligations 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 CJ1I 
 
 que je vous ai. Je suis fach6 cependant que les devoirs d’une 
 place que j’occupe aujourd’hui ne me permcttent pas de me 
 faire connaitre dans cette affaire du Lord de Stirling. Vous 
 qui en savez beaucoup ne serez point surprise qu’un homme 
 en place n’ose pas y intervenir ouvertement. 
 
 J’ai cleja dit que je vous ai des obligations. Oui, Mademoi¬ 
 selle, j’en ai et j’ai eu l’avantage plus d’une fois de vous con- 
 suiter; ineme a une epoque lorsque j’etais menace d’une 
 grande disgrace ce fut vous qui mesauvates parun eclaircisse- 
 nient utile donne a propos. Vous n’avez pas oblige un ingrat. 
 Je rends en toute occasion justice a vos talens, et je vous serai 
 toute ma vie devoue et reconnaissant. 
 
 Vous pensez bien que je n’ai aclieie cette vieille carte du 
 Canada que pour les autographes qui sont fort curieux. 
 L’apostille en marge de la Note de Mallet (dans le coin a 
 droit) est dit-on de Louis XV. Les autographes de Fenelon 
 et de Flechier ne sont pas moins precieux, et le marchand qui 
 me vendit la carte in 1819 m’assura qu’elle avait appartenue 
 a Louis XVI. ce que parait assez probable d’apres ce que je 
 viens de dire de l’apostille de son ayeul. Le marchand 
 demeurait en 1819 sur le quai Voltaire, mais depuis tant 
 d’annees il s’est fait bien des cliangemens et son nom m’a 
 echappe. 
 
 Agreez, Mademoiselle, l’hommage des sentimens distingues 
 que je vous ai voues et que vous meritez si bien. 
 
 M. 
 
 Versailles, le 10 Juillet 1837. 
 
 Je charge des personnes de confiance de ce paquet. Elies 
 iront vous consulter : Ne soyez done pas etonnee de le trouver 
 sur quelque table ou chaise dans votre cabinet. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 civ 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 
 Jan. 3, 1839. 
 
 REPORT AND ADDITIONAL PRODUCTIONS 
 
 IN CAUSA 
 
 THE OFFICERS OF STATE 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 ALEXANDER. 
 
 “ Edinburgh , December 22, 1838. — The preceding Excerpts having been 
 produced in process, the Lords, on the motion of the Lord Advocate, 
 Appoint the original letters to be exhibited to the Clerk of Court, and direct 
 him to compare the same with these Excerpts, and to report on such points 
 thereanent as he shall find proper for the information of the Court: And 
 Appoint the Excerpts, with the report thereon, to be printed and boxed quam 
 vrimum. 
 
 1 (Signed) • «I>. BOYLE, I.P.D” 
 
 REPORT AND ADDITIONAL PRODUCTIONS 
 
 IN CAUSA 
 
 THE OFFICERS OF STATE 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 ALEXANDER, calling himself Earl of Stirling. 
 
 In pursuance of the above order of the Court, the original 
 letters from Mr Eugene John Alexander to his father, of 
 which excerpts had been produced in process, have been 
 exhibited to me, and compared with the excerpts, and I have 
 to report as follows : 
 
 The first of the two letters dated “ London, April 22d, > ’ is 
 written on a half sheet of common post paper ; the address on 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 CV 
 
 the back is partly obliterated, and entirely covered over with 
 slips of paper, with the exception of the words, “ A Paris.” 
 
 On the contents of this letter I have only to observe, that 
 between the words “ that I have received,” and the words, 
 “ new evidence yesterday,” one word, of three or four letters, 
 has been lost, in consequence of a perforation made by tearing 
 or rubbing out the substance of the paper at that spot. 
 
 The second letter, dated “ London, April 23d, 1837,” 
 consists of two sheets of post paper. On the three first pages 
 of the first sheet is contained the letter from which excerpts 
 have been produced. The second sheet contains copies, in a 
 different hand, of the five documents therein referred to. 
 These occupy three pages; and on the fourth page the address 
 has been written, but is now obliterated and covered over, 
 except the words, “ A Paris.” 
 
 The first and second of these sheets are of different kinds 
 of paper, and that the first was enclosed in the second there 
 is no evidence, but their general correspondence in size. It 
 is only from the first sheet that excerpts have been produced, 
 the contents of the second being the five documents produced 
 in process, and already printed. 
 
 Of the letter itself, a great many lines and passages have 
 been either obliterated or covered by slips of paper. The 
 places and extent of these omissions will be best understood 
 by the annexed transcript of the excerpts, in which corres¬ 
 ponding spaces have been left. A few words, not given in 
 the excerpts, but which are not obliterated on the original, 
 have been given in this transcript. 
 
 In examining the post marks on these letters, I have availed 
 myself of the skill of Mr Bokenham, superintending president 
 of the inland department of the London Post Office, and of 
 Mr Joseph Moule, president of the general sorting office in 
 Edinburgh, both of whom have been intimately conversant in 
 the business of their departments. On their authority I am 
 warranted in reporting, that the Post Office stamps impressed 
 on these letters are genuine, and correspond with the dates of 
 the letters. But on examining the postages marked on the 
 second of these letters, they have expressed a confident opinion 
 that it must have passed through the London Post Offices as 
 a single letter; and that the second sheet, above described, 
 could not have contained within it the other sheet on which 
 the letter of April 23, 1837, is written. 
 
 (Signed) Tho. Thomson. 
 
CIV 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 EXCERPTS from Letters from Mr Eugene John Alex¬ 
 ander, Son of the Earl of Stirling, to his Father. 
 
 London , April 22 d. 
 
 26. I have your 24. 
 
 My Dear Father, 
 
 At \ to seven to-night, I write a few hasty 
 
 lines to say, that I received . new evidence yesterday, and 
 
 ever since have so occupied as not to be able to do any thing 
 —not write a letter. It contained 4 documents, and a beau¬ 
 tiful portrait of John of Antrim .haste. 
 
 1 will write on Monday full particulars. 
 
 Your affectionate Son, 
 
 E. 
 
 I opened this letter again 
 from the misdirection. 
 
 (R. 24th.) 
 
 No. 27. London, April 23 d, 1837. 
 
 My Dear Father, 
 
 You will receive my 26 of yesterday with 
 the great news of the new evidence. I now proceed to give 
 you full particulars. I received your last (24,) on Friday 
 morning, and went to Golden Square to see W. Pearson and 
 Angela. It was on my return home that I called at De Por- 
 quet and Co. about 2 o’clock, when the young man at the 
 counter said, that they had received a packet by the 2d post 
 about an hour before I called, which he put into mv hands. 
 It was directed to Messrs De Porquet and Co. 11, Tavistock 
 St. Covent Garden, London. They had opened it, and found 
 the following note with another packet, addressed “ The 
 Right Honble. the Earl of Stirling.” The note was as 
 follows, in a lady’s hand, without disguise, “ Mrs Innes 
 Smyth’s compliments,” &c. (here the note is copied.) I took 
 the packet with the cover and note to De Porquet just as they 
 received it. 
 
 in my pocket upon my getting home, 
 
 and taking off the cover to De Porquet, I 
 read again the note, and examined the packet addressed 
 to you 
 
 I sat to consider what I would do. It all at once struck 
 me, that 1 would go before a magistrate, or some other public 
 
AP1»EN1)1X TO INTRODUCTION. cv jJ 
 
 functionary, to have his testimony of being present at the 
 breaking of the seal. I then went to Lockhart, (who is living 
 close by me, having taken lodgings in Surrey St.) 
 
 To resume and consulted 
 with him. He highly approved of my idea, and advised me 
 to go to our solicitors, Fennell and Vaux, and ask them, as 
 English lawyers, whether it was the proper mode of proceed¬ 
 ing to go to a magistrate. I saw Fennell, and after long 
 debating, he said that never having had any thing similar to it 
 before, he really did not know what to advise. It was too late 
 that night to get any thing done. We then fixed 10 o’clock 
 yesterday morning for Lockhart and all of us to meet at their 
 office. We decided at last when we met, that a public notary 
 was the proper person to open the packet. Fennell and I 
 then got into a cab, and to the great notaries of the Royal 
 Exchange. The packet was then opened, and within it 
 another packet cased in parchment, was discovered with the 
 following words upon it, “ Some of my wife’s family papers.” 
 In an instant, I exclaimed, “ That is my grandfather’s hand¬ 
 writing !” The parchment packet was sealed with three 
 black seals—all the same impression, evidently my grand¬ 
 father’s seals,—not like those we have. I cannot describe 
 them. We then examined the cover—it was addressed to 
 you as before mentioned, and inside are the following remark¬ 
 able words:—“ The enclosed was in a small cash box,” &c. 
 (here copied at length.) Here follows the notary’s certificate 
 upon the same paper, “ This note was opened in my presence,” 
 &c. (here the certificate is copied.) The sheet of paper is a 
 mourning one, with a deep black edge round, owing to the 
 death of the thief. The notary then said his duty ended there; 
 as he could not venture to witness the parchment packet, he 
 said we must go to Doctors’ Commons before a Proctor. We 
 then went to the Proctor, Thomas Blake. Here we were 
 five hours. I cut the parchment, and four persons as wit¬ 
 nesses watched me. I cut over the middle black seal, and 
 was then able to draw out the contents. I refer you now to 
 the copies of the documents accompanying this letter; they 
 have all been numbered by the Proctor,-1, 2, 3, 4, 5. No. 4, 
 Lockhart tells me, we need not produce in Court, because it 
 
cviii APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 is only a beautiful miniature painting of John of Antrim, 
 which I had better perhaps get framed, that it may not be 
 spoiled. There is also the pedigree beautifully executed both 
 by the same person, Mr Thomas Campbell, and dated 1759. 
 
 The con¬ 
 tents of the parchment packet must, I suppose, have remained 
 untouched, if it was put up just before the removal to Fair 
 Hill, 50 years — which accounts for the admirable state of pre¬ 
 servation it is in. The thief never dared break the seals. 
 The Proctor and the other three witnesses have put their 
 initials upon every document, and a formal paper has been 
 drawn up and signed by all 4, to prove that they all saw the 
 packet opened. 
 
 The Proctor also made verbatim copies of every document, 
 which have been compared with the originals, and signed by 
 the examiners. 
 
 You will see that the inscription is now made a good docu¬ 
 ment, being confirmed by the letters of B. Alexander, and 
 A. E. Baillie. 
 
 The cause is enrolled to be heard on the 31st of May. 
 
 Seventeen lines covered. 
 
 Good news to-day that reassure her. I must close for want 
 of room. 
 
 In haste your affectionate son, 
 
 (R. 26.) E. I. A, 
 
 On page 4th, a P.S. of six lines, covered over. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 CJX 
 
 No. VIII. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 
 February 28, 1839. 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND PRODUCTIONS 
 
 IN CAUSA 
 
 THE OFFICERS OF STATE 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 ALEXANDER, EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 “Edinburgh, December 22, 1838. — The preceding Excerpts having been 
 produced in process, the Lords, on the motion of the Lord Advocate, appoint 
 the original letters to be exhibited to the Clerk of Court, and direct him to 
 compare the same with these Excerpts, and to report on such points thereanent 
 as he shall find proper, for the information of the Court; and appoint the 
 Excerpts, with the Report thereon, to be printed and boxed qunm primum. 
 
 (Signed) “D. BOYLE, I.P.D." 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND PRODUCTIONS 
 
 IN CAUSA, 
 
 THE OFFICERS OF STATE, Pursuers, 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 Alexander, Earl of Stirling, Defender. 
 
 Edinburgh, February 12, 1839. — Since the date of the 
 foregoing Report, there has been transmitted to me a letter, 
 addressed by the solicitors in London for Lord Stirling, to 
 Lieut.-Col. Maberly, with a certificate indorsed thereon by 
 one of the officers in the foreign department of the Post-Office, 
 relative to the post-marks on the letter of the 24th April, 
 
cx 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1837 ; as also a letter from W. W. Pearson, Esq. the gentle¬ 
 man who is stated to have transcribed the copy of the docu¬ 
 ments sent to France to Lord Stirling, dated January 25, 
 1839, of which letters and certificate copies are annexed. 
 
 (Signed) Tho. Thomson. 
 
 LETTER from Messrs Tennant , Harrison , and Tennant, 
 Solicitors, London, to Lieut.-Col. IV. L. Maberly. 
 
 Sin, Gray’s Inn, 14 th Jan. 1839. 
 
 The enclosed letter contained a document of great im¬ 
 portance, which was produced* by the Earl of Stirling on his 
 examination in the Court of Session at Edinburgh. His 
 Lordship was afterwards requested to produce the letter 
 containing the document. And on producing the enclosed, 
 an objection was taken that the enclosed, being charged a 
 single postage in London, could not contain the document 
 produced in Court. It appears, however, that the French 
 postage is for a double letter; and we have to request you 
 will please to direct a certificate to be granted, that although 
 a single postage only was charged in London, yet that, from 
 the French post-mark, it is believed the enclosed letter did 
 contain an enclosure. We remain, Sir, your very obedient 
 servants, 
 
 (Signed) Tennant, Harrison, and Tennant. 
 
 Order of Reference to Mr Wagstaff. 
 
 Mr Wagstaff will have the goodness to explain the post¬ 
 marks on the accompanying letter to the gentleman who 
 brings this letter. 
 
 By order of Col. Maberly, 
 
 (Signed) F. Abbott. 
 
 CERTIFICATE by Mr Wagstaff, President of the Foreign 
 Department of the General Post- Office , London. 
 
 The figure 10 on the right hand upper corner of the letter is 
 the postage charged by this office against that of France, 
 (lOd.) — the 30 is the postage charged in France to the party 
 to whom .the letter is addressed, (30 decimes,) which is the 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. cx j 
 
 postage usually charged for a double letter in that country, 
 (France.) 
 
 It is not improbable, then, a double letter may have been 
 passed in this office as single. 
 
 Foreign Post-Office , (Signed) C. D. Wagstaff. 
 
 14t/t Jan. 1839. 
 
 The letter bears the London stamp of the 24th April, 1837. 
 
 (Signed) C. D. W. 
 
 LETTER from William Wilberforce Pearson, Esq. to Mr 
 Charles Alexander , Son of the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 Scraptoft Hall , near Leicester, 
 My Dear Alexander, 2 otk January , 1839.' 
 
 You request me to write word of all that I remember 
 respecting a copy which I once made of some evidence which 
 came through M. De Porquet; and also if I recollect any 
 thing respecting the paper which I used for the purpose. 
 
 Your brother Eugene called upon me in Golden Square 
 one Saturday evening in April, two years ago, informed me 
 of having obtained some new evidence, and requested me to 
 call upon him the following morning, in order that he might 
 shew it to me. I did so. The packet was a small one, 
 enclosed in a case of vellum, having “ Some of my wife’s 
 family papers” inscribed on it. I offered to assist him in 
 making copies of it, and perfectly remember making him 
 hunt about every where to find me the largest sheet of paper 
 he could, in order that I might get the whole of it in without 
 difficulty. When I had completed it, I saw your brother 
 Eugene write a letter to your father, and putting up the two 
 letters together, (viz. my copy, and his letter,) seal them, and 
 direct them to your father at Paris. I can swear to this, 
 because I remarked to him at the time the great expense of 
 sending such a double letter to Paris. He sealed at the same 
 time some other letters to Scotland, 8cc. and we left his lodg¬ 
 ings together, with the letters, in order that he might put 
 them into the post. I once more repeat, that I saw him put 
 up together and seal my copy of the evidence and his letter to 
 Lord Stirling. 
 
 I fear I should have a bad chance in Edinburgh if engaged 
 in a law-suit, for I have now in this portfolio four different 
 
cx ii APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 kinds of writing paper, and two different kinds of foreign 
 letter paper in my closet of two different sizes. 
 
 If my statement can be of any service to you, I shall be 
 very glad ; but I trust it will not force me to come to Scotland 
 at such a season, leaving Angela and the children quite unpro¬ 
 tected and alone. Believe me, yours very sincerely'} 
 
 (Signed) W. W. Pearson. 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 Copy of the Minutes of Election * of James, Viscount of 
 Strathal/an, as one of the Sixteen Peers of Scotland, in the 
 room of the deceased Alexander, Earl of Balcarres. 
 
 At the Palace of Holyrood House, in Edinburgh, the 2nd 
 day of June, 1825,* in obedience to His Majesty’s royal pro¬ 
 clamation, of date, at Carlton House, the 20th day of April 
 last, commanding all the Peers of Scotland to assemble and 
 meet, at this place, this day, between the hours of twelve and 
 two in the afternoon, to nominate and choose a Peer of Scot¬ 
 land, to sit and vote in the House of Peers of this present 
 Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
 Ireland, in the room of Alexander, Earl of Balcarres, deceased ; 
 the Peers of Scotland did assemble between the hours of 
 twelve and two in the afternoon, and the meeting was opened 
 with prayer. 
 
 The said proclamation, and certificate of publication thereof 
 at the market-cross of Edinburgh, the 6th day of May last, 
 were read ; after which the Lord Register’s commission, nomi¬ 
 nating Sir Walter Scott, Baronet, and Colin Mackenzie, 
 Esquire, two of the principal Clerks of Session, and in case of 
 their absence, any other two of the said principal Clerks of 
 Session, to be Clerks of the Meeting, dated the 21st, and re¬ 
 gistered in the books of Session the 24th day of May last, was 
 produced. The long or great roll of the Peers of Scotland 
 was called over, except those that stand attainted of high 
 
 Register of Elections of Peers, Vol. If. fol. 2*28. 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 c.\m 
 
 treason. Upon the title of Earl of Mar being called, Lord 
 Nairne protested in the same terms as at the election of Lord 
 Napier, on the 8th of July, 18*24, respecting the place of the 
 Earl of Mar on the roll. 
 
 Upon the title of Earl of Stirling being called, Alexander 
 Humphrys Alexander claimed to vote as Earl of Stirling, 
 as being heir male of the body of Hannah, Countess of 
 Stirling, who was lineally descended from William, First 
 Earl of Stirling, and who died on the 20th day of Sep¬ 
 tember, 1814, and thereby, under the destination of a royal 
 charter or letters patent of Novo-Damus, under the Great 
 Seal of Scotland, dated 7th December, 1639, granted by Ilis 
 Majesty King Charles the First, in favour of William, Earl 
 of Stirling, entitled to the honours and dignity of Earl of 
 Stirling ; and his vote was received bv the clerks. 
 
 The Peers who answered to their titles, were the 
 Earls of Stirling, 
 
 -of Leven, 
 
 -of Glasgow, 
 
 Viscount of Strathallan, 
 
 Lords Forbes, 
 
 - Elibank, 
 
 - Rollo, 
 
 -Nairne. 
 
 The oathsand declarations required by law were administered 
 to, and subscribed by, the Peers present. 
 
 There was produced a proxy by the Earl of Mar to Lord 
 Nairne. 
 
 There were produced signed lists by the Peers following, 
 directed to the Lord Clerk Register, or Clerks officiating at 
 the meeting; and with these lists,*the documents and instruc¬ 
 tions of the Peers subscribing, being qualified as by law 
 directed. 
 
 Signed lists by the Duke of Athol, 
 
 Earls of Moray, 
 
 -of Kellie, 
 
 -of Elgin, 
 
 -of Aboyne, 
 
 - of Dun more, 
 
 -of Rosebery, 
 
 Viscounts of Kenmure, 
 
 -of Arbuthnott, 
 
 Lords Gray, 
 
 - Cathcart. 
 
 2 II 
 
CX1V 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 There was made out a list of the Peers present, of the 
 proxy, and signed lists; and the votes of the Peers present 
 being called for, they all voted for James, Viscount of Strath- 
 allan. Lord Nairne, as proxy for the Earl of Mar, voted for 
 James, Viscount of Strathallan. And the signed lists, having 
 been examined, were all found to name James, Viscount of 
 Strathallan. Thereafter, the Clerks officiating having collected 
 the votes of the Peers present, and of the proxy, and votes 
 given in the lists, they made the certificate or return of the 
 election, which they signed and sealed in the presence of the 
 Peers electors, in favour of James, Viscount of Strathallan, to 
 sit and vote as one of the sixteen Peers of Scotland in the 
 present Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, in the room of Alexander, Earl of Balcarres, 
 deceased; and of the said return the Clerks officiating signed 
 two duplicates on parchment, one to be immediately trans¬ 
 mitted to the Clerk of the Crown, directed to him at his office, 
 Chancery-lane, London ; and the other, to guard against any 
 accident happening to the first, and in the mean time, to be 
 placed among the records in His Majesty’s General Register 
 House, to manifest this election. 
 
 The meeting then dissolved with prayer. 
 
 (Signed) WALTER SCOTT. 
 
 COLIN MACKENZIE. 
 
 Extracted from the Records in His Majesty’s General 
 Register House, upon this and the six preceding pages of 
 stamped paper, by me, one of the keepers of these records, 
 having commission for that effect from the Lord Clerk 
 Register. 
 
 WILLIAM ROBERTSON. 
 
 The election is thus certified by the Clerks of Session to 
 the Court of Chancery, viz. 
 
 “ At Holy rood House , in Edinburgh, the second day of 
 June, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five years, in 
 obedience to Ilis Majesty’s Royal proclamation, of the date at 
 Carlton-house, the twentieth day of April last, commanding 
 all the Peers of Scotland to assemble and meet at this place 
 this day, between the hours of twelve and two in the afternoon, 
 to nominate and choose a Peer of Scotland, to sit and vote in 
 the House of Peers of this present Parliament of the United 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 cxv 
 
 Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the room of Alex¬ 
 ander, Earl of Balcarres, deceased, We, Sir Walter Scott, 
 Baronet, and Colin Mackenzie, Esq. two of the principal 
 Clerks of Session, by virtue of a commission granted to us, 
 the said Sir Walter Scott, and Colin Mackenzie, or, in case 
 of absence, any other two of the said principal Clerks of 
 Session, by the Right Honourable William Dundas, Lord 
 Clerk Register of Scotland, dated the twenty-first, and regis¬ 
 tered in the Books of Session the twenty-fourth day of May 
 last, appointing us to officiate in his name at the said meeting 
 of the Peers, do hereby certify and attest, that after the oaths 
 and declarations required by law to be taken by the Peers 
 present, were administered to them, and their votes, with 
 those of the proxies and signed lists of the absent Peers, col¬ 
 lected and examined, James, Viscount of Strathallan, was 
 elected and chosen to sit and vote in the House of Peers of 
 this present Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland, in the room of the said Alexander, Earl 
 of Balcarres, deceased. In witness whereof, we have signed 
 and sealed these presents with our hands, in presence of the 
 Peers electors, place and time above-mentioned. 
 
 “WALTER SCOTT. (L.S.) 
 
 “COLIN MACKENZIE. (L.S.)” 
 
 Copy of the Minutes of Election of the Sixteen Peers of 
 Scotland , 2nd September , 1830. 
 
 At the Palace of Holyrood House, in Edinburgh, the 
 second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and 
 thirty years : — In obedience to His Majesty’s Royal procla¬ 
 mation of the date at Westminster, the twenty-fourth day of 
 July last, commanding all the Peers of Scotland to assemble 
 and meet at this place this day, between the hours of twelve 
 and two in the afternoon, to nominate and choose the Sixteen 
 Peers of Scotland to sit and vote in the House of Peers in the 
 ensuing Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, — the Peers of Scotland did assemble between 
 the hours of twelve and two in the afternoon, and the meeting 
 was opened with prayer. — The proclamation, and certificate 
 
CXVl 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of publication thereof at the Market-cross of Edinburgh, upon 
 the twenty-ninth day of July last, was read. After which, 
 the Lord Clerk Register’s commission, nominating Thomas 
 Thomson and Adam Rolland, Esquires, two of the principal 
 Clerks of Session, and in case of absence, any other two of the 
 said principal Clerks of Session, to be Clerks of the meeting, 
 dated the nineteenth, and registered in the books of Session 
 the twentieth days of August last, was produced. 
 
 The long or great roll of the Peers of Scotland was called 
 over, except those who stand attainted of high treason. The 
 peers who answered to their titles were, 
 
 [Here follow the names of the Peers present.] 
 
 On the name of the Earl of Stirling being called, the 
 Earl of Rosebery stated, “ He should not oppose the reception 
 of the list signed by the gentleman who had assumed the title 
 of Earl of Stirling, particularly as his vote had been 
 admitted on a former occasion. But at the same time, he was 
 desirous of expressing an opinion, that it would be far more 
 consistent with regularity and propriety, were those individuals 
 who conceived they were entitled to dormant Peerages, to 
 make good their claims to them before the House of Lords, 
 previous to taking the titles, and exercising the privileges 
 attached to them.” — To which it was answered by the Clerks, 
 that his Lordship’s statement should be entered in the 
 Minutes. 
 
 The oaths required by law were administered to, and sub¬ 
 scribed by, the Peers present. — There were produced proxies 
 for the Peers after-named, with the documents and instruc¬ 
 tions of their having qualified as by law directed, viz. by the 
 
 [Here follow the names.] 
 
 There were produced signed lists sent by the Peers follow¬ 
 ing, together with the documents and instructions of the Peers 
 subscribing being qualified as by law directed, viz. by the 
 
 [Here follow the names, and among them] 
 
 14 . Earl of Stirling. 
 
 There was made out a roll of the Peers present, and of the 
 proxies and signed lists; and the votes of the Peers present 
 being called for, 
 
 [Here follow the names.] 
 
appendix to introduction. 
 
 CXV11 
 
 And the signed lists, having been examined, were found to 
 name as follows, viz. 
 
 [Here follow the names, and among them,] 
 
 The signed list of the Earl of Stirling named 
 
 The Marquesses of Queensberry, 
 
 -Tweeddale; 
 
 Earls of Erroll, 
 
 - Morton, 
 
 - Home, 
 
 -Elgin, 
 
 - Northesk; 
 
 Viscounts of Arbuthnott, 
 
 -Strathallan ; 
 
 Lords Forbes, 
 
 - Saltoun, 
 
 - Gray, 
 
 - Sinclair, 
 
 - Colville, 
 
 -Napier, 
 
 -Belhaven, 
 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
 Thereafter, the Clerks officiating having collected the votes 
 of the Peers present, and of the proxies and signed lists, they 
 made the certificate or return of the election in favour of the 
 Marquesses of Queensberry, 
 
 -Tweeddale; 
 
 Earls of Errol, 
 
 - Morton, 
 
 - Home, 
 
 -Elgin, 
 
 -Northesk; 
 
 Viscounts of Arbuthnott, 
 
 ---Strathallan ; 
 
 Lords Forbes, 
 
 - Saltoun, 
 
 - Gray, 
 
 - Sinclair, 
 
 - Colville, 
 
 - Napier, 
 
 - Belhaven; 
 
 To sit and vote as the sixteen Peers of Scotland in the 
 ensuing Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
 
CXV111 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and Ireland ; and of the foresaid return, the Clerks officiating, 
 in presence of the Peers electors, signed and sealed two dupli¬ 
 cates on parchment, one duplicate to be immediately trans¬ 
 mitted to the Clerk of the Crown, directed to him at his 
 office, Chancery-lane, London, and the other duplicate in 
 order to guard against any accident happening to the first, 
 being in the mean time lodged with the Lord Clerk Register’s 
 deputies for keeping the Records, to be by them placed 
 among the Records in his Majesty’s General Register House, 
 to manifest this election : and then the meeting dissolved with 
 prayer. 
 
 (Signed) THOS. THOMSON. 
 
 AD. ROLLAND. 
 
 After the preceding Minutes had been drawn up, the Agent 
 for Alexander, Earl of Stirling, tendered a written 
 statement, entitled a Protest, and intended as an answer to the 
 observations of the Earl of Rosebery, above recorded. That 
 statement is now put up with the other papers relative to this 
 election, and is docqueted as relative hereto. 
 
 (Signed) THOS. THOMSON. 
 AD. ROLLAND. 
 
 Extracted from the Records, in his Majesty’s General 
 Register House, upon this and the fifty-nine preceding pages 
 of stamped paper, by me, one of the Keepers of these Records, 
 having commission for that effect from the Lord Clerk 
 Register. 
 
 GEO. ROBERTSON. 
 
 Protest for the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 I, Ephraim Lockhart, Writer to His Majesty’s Signet, 
 specially authorized by Alexander, Earl of Stirling, to 
 do all and every matter and thing necessary and pertaining in 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 CXIX 
 
 and to the asserting and maintaining of his right of voting at 
 the then ensuing election meeting, for choosing the Peers to 
 represent the whole Peers of Scotland in Parliament, consider¬ 
 ing that the said Alexander, Earl of Stirling, is a Peer of 
 Scotland, and as such has, by a signed list, named sixteen peers 
 of Scotland to sit and vote in the House of Peers of the ensuing 
 Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
 Ireland, upon the calling of the great roll, and the production 
 of which signed list, the Earl of Rosebery stated, he should 
 not oppose the reception of the list signed by the gentleman 
 who had assumed the title of Earl of Stirling, particularly 
 as his vote had been admitted on a former occasion ; but at 
 the same time, he was desirous of expressing an opinion that 
 it would be far more consistent with regularity and propriety, 
 were those individuals who conceived they were entitled to 
 dormant Peerages, to make good their claims to them before 
 the House of Lords, previous to taking the titles, and exer¬ 
 cising the privileges attached to them : and considering that 
 the said statement, while it admitted the right of the said 
 Alexander, Earl of Stirling, to have his signed list 
 received, and give his vote thereby, contained matter irregu¬ 
 larly expressive of the opinion of an individual Peer, and 
 although received by the deputies of the Lord Clerk Register, 
 officiating at the election meeting, was nevertheless invidious 
 towards the person to whose case it referred, as well as dero¬ 
 gatory to the dignity of the Peers of Scotland generally, in 
 assuming to dictate to them that they ought to submit the jus 
 sanguinis for their honorial successions, to previous determi¬ 
 nation before a tribunal which is invested with no original 
 right of jurisdiction either by the law or by the constitution : 
 — Wherefore, I, the said Ephraim Lockhart, specially autho¬ 
 rized as aforesaid, do hereby protest against the opinion of the 
 said Earl of Rosebery, expressed in the said statement, and 
 maintain that the said Alexander, Earl of Stirling, 
 ought not to make good his claim of Peerage before the House 
 of Lords, which to do, would be to confess a doubt of his own 
 character, do what in him lay to surrender the rights of the 
 Peers of Scotland, and concede a jurisdiction, which, in any 
 case of Scottish Peerage, is not recognized by the Act of 
 Union, or made imperative by any other statute of the Legis¬ 
 lature : — Whereupon I, specially authorized as aforesaid, 
 take instruments in the hands of Mr George Robertson, 
 Deputy Keeper of the Records of Scotland, at Holyrood 
 
cxx 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 House, this second day of September, one thousand eight 
 hundred and thirty years. 
 
 (Signed) EPH. LOCKHART. 
 
 A true copy of the original Protest tendered by me to the 
 Deputies of the Lord Clerk Register, written on these three 
 pages. 
 
 EPII. LOCKHART. 
 
 Copy of the Protest against the officiating Clerks at the Peers' 
 Election , 3 d June, 1831, by the Puke of Buccleuch and 
 the Earl of Lauderdale ; with the Eari. of Stirling’s 
 Answer thereto. 
 
 COPY of the Protest against the officiating Clerks receiving 
 and giving efficacy to the Votes of a person claiming to 
 be Earl of Stirling, at this Election. 
 
 First, Because, when we reflect that the House of Lords, 
 in the case of a former claimant to the title of Earl of 
 Stirling, ‘resolved, that it is the opinion of this House that 
 ‘ the said William Alexander ought, to all intents and pur- 
 ‘ poses, to be considered as having no right to the said title bv 
 ‘ him assumed, until he shall have made out his said claim, and 
 ‘ procured the same to be allowed in the legal course of deter- 
 
 * mination ; and that in the mean time, until the same shall be 
 ‘ so allowed, the said William Alexander, or any person 
 ‘claiming under him, shall not be admitted to vote by virtue 
 ‘ of the said title at the election of any Peer of Scotland 
 
 * to sit and vote in this House pursuant to the Articles of 
 ‘ Union.’ 
 
 It appears to us evident that the same principle applies to 
 the case of the present claimant of that Earldom, and ought to 
 have guided the Clerks officiating under a commission from 
 the Lord Register, in rejecting his votes, until the same be 
 allowed in the legal course of determination. 
 
 Secondly, Because to us it appears that if the claim of the 
 person who voted at this election, under the title of Earl of 
 Stirling, is founded on an alleged patent to heirs male, it 
 was his duty to have proved before tendering his votes, that 
 he did not claim as descended from or connected with the 
 said V illiam Alexander; and that without satisfactory evidence 
 
APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 C.XX1 
 
 to establish this fact, the Clerks of Session, under the resolu¬ 
 tion of the House of Lords, cannot be justified in receiving 
 and giving efficacy to his votes. 
 
 Thirdly, Because if the claim of the person who on this 
 occasion has assumed the title of Earl of Stirling, is 
 founded on an alleged patent to heirs general of the original 
 patentee, we know that under these circumstances there are 
 others who have a preferable claim to that dignity. Besides, 
 we have great reason to suspect the authenticity of the docu¬ 
 ments, such as they are, on which the claimant is said to rest 
 his assumption of that title. 
 
 (Signed) BUCCLEUCH and QUEENSBERRY. 
 LAUDERDALE. 
 
 Copy of the Earl of Stirling’s Answer to the above 
 
 Protest. 
 
 Alexander, Earl of Stirling, answered to the Protest 
 of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry and the Earl of 
 Lauderdale, 
 
 First, That the first reason of Protest is without application, 
 and wilfully perverted in its statement, for the purpose of mis¬ 
 representation — inasmuch as the resolution of the House of 
 Lords there cited, that William Alexander, assuming the title 
 of Earl of Stirling, should not be admitted to vote by 
 virtue of the said title until it was allowed by law, proceeded 
 from the cause that he was at that very time claiming the 
 same title by petition before the House, and as such, until the 
 House had" decided upon his petition, he could not be war¬ 
 ranted in its assumption, or in exercising any of its privileges. 
 The principle, therefore, acted upon with reference to the 
 said William Alexander, is foreign to the case of the respon¬ 
 dent, who has no claim depending for the judgment of the 
 House of Lords. Farther, the respondent is lineally descended 
 of a son of the First Earl of Stirling, while the said 
 William Alexander only claimed as an heir-male by a dubious 
 collateral descent. 
 
 Secondly, That the allegation that the Cleiks, undei the 
 said Resolution of the House of Lords, could not be justified 
 
CXX11 
 
 APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in receiving and giving efficacy to the respondent’s vote, is 
 contrary to the facts which were particularly stated when the 
 respondent first claimed to vote, on which occasion the said 
 Resolution was publicly read, and explained to have no refe¬ 
 rence to the respondent. And the respondent having already 
 done all that is required by the law of Scotland, to prove his 
 descent from the First Earl of Stirling, is not bound to 
 prove further the line of descent from any collateral presump¬ 
 tive heir to the said Earl. 
 
 Thirdly, The noble protesters were much mistaken in sup¬ 
 posing, in the third reason of protest, that the respondent 
 claimed as heir general of the original patentee. He claimed 
 in quite another character; and the unfair and unwarrantable 
 inference there made with reference to the authenticity of the 
 documents in support of that character, is irregular and irre¬ 
 levant, as well as false, groundless, and malicious; and their 
 selection of the respondent’s case for an invidious attack, while 
 there were several cases of Peerages within the late resolution 
 of the House of Lords, as to which no objection was offered 
 to the votes given, was evidently vexatious, and compatible 
 only with a disposition to go any length to answer particular 
 private and political purposes. The interference of the noble 
 protesters on the occasion in question, was inconsistent with 
 their previous approbation of the respondent’s right of voting, 
 both of them having been personally present at the general 
 election that took place at Holyrood House on the 2nd day 
 of September last past, as well as other Peers, who all, by 
 their silence, then gave their unqualified sanction to the legal 
 principle of the respondent’s right in pursuance of his former 
 admission to vote causa corjnita. 
 
 Separately, The respondent takes leave to submit, that the 
 mere announcement of a protest, for reasons to be afterwards 
 assigned, as his Grace the Duke of Buccleuch stated at the 
 time, was in itself null and inefficacious, as the reasons ought to 
 have been set forth before the Parliamentary meeting had 
 been dissolved, when His Majesty’s commission was terminated, 
 and all the privileges of the Peers, as to the business of the 
 election, w T ere virtually at an end. 
 
 (Signed) STIRLING. 
 
 Edinburgh, 4th June, 1831. 
 
ALEXANDER HUMPHRY S, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 STYLING HIMSELF 
 
 EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIA RY. 
 
 Tuesday, April 3, 1839. 
 
 THE COURT MET AT TEN O’CLOCK'. 
 
 PRESENT. 
 
 Lords Meadowbank, M‘Kenzie, Moncreiff, Medwyn. 
 
 Counsel for the Crown. — Andrew Rutherfurd, Esq. 
 Solicitor General; Cosmo Innes, Robert Handyside, and 
 Archibald Davidson, Esquires, Advocates Depute; David 
 Cleghorn, Esq. W.S. Agent. 
 
 Counsel for the Pannel. — Patrick Robertson, and Adam 
 Anderson, Esqs.; Agent absent. 
 
 The pannel took his place at the bar, accompanied by 
 Ephraim Lockhart, Esq. W.S. his agent in the civil actions. 
 
 After the usual forms had been gone through, Lord 
 Meadowbank thus addressed the pannel: — Alexander Hum- 
 phrys or Alexander, calling yourself the Earl of Stirling, you 
 have been served with a copy of the libel, charging you with 
 the crime of forgery, and of fabricating certain documents, 
 knowing them to be forged. Are you guilty or not guilty of 
 this offence ? 
 
 Pannel. — Not guilty, my Lord. 
 
 The defence of the prisoner was then read, which denied 
 that he had the slightest ground to suspect that the documents 
 were forged or fabricated, and set forth that he had produced 
 them under legal advice. It stated that he was not in a con¬ 
 dition to go to trial, as one of his counsel and his agent had 
 gone to Paris to prepare evidence for his defence, — that he 
 was unable to furnish any list of witnesses, and moved the 
 Court for delay, after determining upon the relevancy of the 
 indictment, and that additional defences would be lodged in 
 due time. 
 
4 
 
 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Mr Patrick Robertson. — My Lords, I have now to move 
 the Court to delay the trial. There is no objection to the 
 relevancy on the part of the prisoner : and before the interlo¬ 
 cutor on the relevancy is pronounced, I move the Court not to 
 proceed at present with the trial, on grounds which appear to 
 us essential for the ends of justice. In the indictment, the 
 forgery is said to have been committed between the 21st of 
 December, 1836, and the 27th of July, 1837, a considerable 
 period of time; then in all, there are thirty-eight witnesses for 
 the prosecution, and fifty-three productions. Of the witnesses 
 two of them are described as resident in London ; five of them 
 are French witnesses, three of whom are stated to have come 
 to Edinburgh lately, and other two have arrived only within 
 the last two or three days. As soon as the indictment was 
 served, the Counsel for the Earl of Stirling directed their 
 attention to the proceedings. We looked at such productions 
 as were made, as soon as they came into our hands, (and some 
 of them were not made till yesterday,) and after full considera¬ 
 tion, it appeared to us essential that one of our junior Counsel 
 and agent, should proceed to London and Paris, to make 
 inquiries necessary for the defence. They have been in 
 London some time, exclusively employed in the investigation, 
 and left London for Paris on Monday last. We are of 
 opinion that we cannot proceed to trial before the first week 
 in May. Your Lordships will see from the extent of the 
 inquiry, and the distance between this and Paris, that we ask 
 for no unjustifiable delay on the part of the prisoner. 
 
 Lord Meadowbank. — The Sacrament is dispensed in Edin¬ 
 burgh on the first week in May. If it were to be taken in the 
 first week in May we would be interrupted by the fast day. 
 We can therefore neither take the Thursday nor the Friday. 
 If we were to take the Monday after, from the number of 
 witnesses to be examined, the trial may be continued till 
 Friday or Saturday; and Monday the 6th May, is the middle 
 of the Glasgow Circuit. 
 
 The Solicitor General. — My Lords, I have no objections 
 to offer to the motion for delay generally; but I beg to state, 
 in reference to one of the grounds stated, namely, that we were 
 late in making the productions, that my learned friend is aware 
 that the greater part of the productions were made at an un¬ 
 usually early period. One of them, of great consequence in 
 the case, was not lodged so soon, because it was not in our 
 hands till yesterday, or the day before yesterday, and it 
 was put into the hands of the prisoner’s Counsel, as soon 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 5 
 
 as we got it, for the purpose of enabling them to facilitate their 
 preparation. Though they had not the production itself, they 
 had a copy of it, which gave them all the requisite informa¬ 
 tion ; and accordingly they did use some despatch in sending 
 one of the Counsel, and the agent, to Paris. Now in 
 regard to the day of trial, I have to say that it cannot be 
 delayed beyond the 29th instant. There is no desire on the 
 part of the Crown to hurry it on ; but the interval is perfectly 
 sufficient to enable them to be prepared with their defence. 
 
 I state that day, not for the convenience of myself or the 
 Court, but from the necessities of the Court. For myself per¬ 
 sonally, it might be more convenient to put off the trial till 
 the 6th of May, as fixing it for the 29th instant will force me 
 to return to Edinburgh to attend at the trial earlier than I 
 could wish; but the necessities of the Court require that it 
 should come on on the 29th; and I have therefore to move 
 that day for the trial. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — In regard to the document, which is a 
 most important one, I wished merely to state the fact that we 
 did not see it till we went to the Justiciary Office 3 T esterday. 
 I have no right to dictate the day, but I do not see that there 
 can be any objection to the motion I have submitted. 
 
 Lord MeadoicbaJik. — Monday the 6th May is in the 
 middle of the Glasgow circuit, and there is a great deal of 
 business there to be got through, which must render it impos¬ 
 sible for any of us to come here on that day. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — We are anxious to have the day so fixed 
 that there can be no farther pretence for delay on the part of 
 the prisoner. 
 
 Solicitor General. — The Prisoner’s Counsel may be per¬ 
 fectly prepared by the 29th. I will take their chance. We 
 are obliged to fix it for that day, in consequence of the neces¬ 
 sities of the Court. It will be for my learned friend to shew 
 ^rounds for continuing the diet. The Counsel and agent 
 
 O O 
 
 have been in Paris for ten days. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — They left London for Paris on Monday. 
 They had inquiries to make in London which they conducted 
 with all speed and anxiety, and they have important inquiries 
 to make in Paris. I have a letter from Mr Inghs giving me 
 an account of what they have done. 
 
 Lord M l Kenzie. — There is an immense deal of business 
 before the Glasgow circuit, and Lord Meadowbank cannot 
 possibly leave it. 
 
6 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPH RYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Lord Meadowbank. — The 29th of the month is the only 
 day which the Court, consistently with its duties, can fix. 
 
 Solicitor General. —There are but six Judges in the Court, 
 and I can only have such a Court as there is now, and we must 
 make some allowance in case of accidents. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff. —You have sufficient time for.preparation,— 
 three weeks from the time your counsel and agent left London 
 for Paris. 
 
 Lord Meadowbank. — Well, delay it till the 29th. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — I do not mean to press the right, if I have 
 the right, for a landed Jury. I shall take a common Jury. 
 
 Solicitor General. — Your Lordship will pronounce the 
 interlocutor with respect to the relevancy of the indictment, in 
 respect of the prisoner having w'aived his privilege as a landed 
 man. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — I do not know if I have the privilege. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff. — Counsel declares that he does not mean 
 to ask for a landed Jury. 
 
 Solicitor General. — The time of this delay, being created 
 by the prisoner, is to be deducted from the time allowed for 
 the running of the letters. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — Certainly. 
 
 Lord Meadowbank. — There are a multiplicity of documents 
 referred to, and it may be necessary for the Counsel for the 
 prisoner to have copies made for themselves at the office; or 
 it may be necessary for the Judges to attend at the office to 
 make themselves masters of the purport of the documents 
 before the trial. The Crown will have no objections, I pre¬ 
 sume, to furnish for the prisoner’s Counsel whatever copies of 
 the documents they may deem necessary. I mean to ask for 
 copies of those papers, and it is proper that this should be done 
 with the knowledge of the prisoner’s Counsel, or to go to the 
 office to inspect them. There can be no objections, I pre¬ 
 sume, to that ? 
 
 Mr Robertson. — No certainly. The most of them are 
 printed, a great many of them were printed for the civil case. 
 Perhaps the Crown may make a reprint of the whole. 
 
 Solicitor General. — I have no objections to make a reprint 
 of whatever may be deemed necessary. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — A minute ought to be lodged on the 
 part of the Crown, in regard to documents in the Register 
 office, which we cannot bring here. 
 
 Lord M'Kenzie. — And also to give access to such docu- 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 7 
 
 ments to the prisoner’s Counsel and agents at all convenient 
 times. 
 
 The following additions to the ordinary interlocutor wei'e 
 then read : 
 
 3 d April , 1839. — Thereafter, and in relation to the motion 
 of adjournment made in the defences, to which the Public Pro¬ 
 secutor states no objection, the Lords continue the diet against 
 the Pannel till the 29th day of April current, at 10 o’clock 
 forenoon, and ordain all concerned then to attend, each under 
 the pains of law, it being expressly declared, on the motion of 
 the Solicitor General, and with the consent of the Pannel and 
 his Counsel, that, as the motion for delay proceeded from the 
 Prisoner, and was granted for his accommodation, the period of 
 adjournment shall not be reckoned in the running of the 
 letters of intimation. Farther, the said Lords ordain the 
 Pannel, in the meantime, to be carried to and detained in the 
 Tolbooth of Edinburgh. 
 
 (Signed) A. MACONOCHIE. 
 
 The names of the common Jurymen were called over, to 
 prevent any mistake, and were summoned apud acta to attend 
 on the 29th April. 
 
8 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 INDICTMENT. 
 
 ALEXANDER HUMPHREYS or ALEXANDER, pretending to 
 be Earl of Stirling’, present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, you 
 are Indicted and Accused at the instance of John Archibald Murray, 
 Esquire, her Majesty’s Advocate, for her Majesty’s interest: THAT 
 ALBEIT, by the laws of thisand of every other well governed realm, FOR¬ 
 GERY; as also the wickedly and feloniously USING and UTTERING as 
 genuine, any FORGED DOCUMENT, knowing the same to be Forged; 
 as also the wickedly and feloniously FABRICATING FALSE and 
 SIMULATE WRITINGS, to be Used as Evidence in Courts of Law, 
 and so using the same as genuine; as also the wickedly and feloniously 
 USING and UTTERING as genuine FABRICATED, FALSE, and 
 SIMULATE WRITINGS, knowing them to be Fabricated, False, and 
 Simulate, by producing the same as Evidence in Courts of Law ; are 
 crimes of an heinous nature and severely punishable : YET TRUE IT 
 IS AND OF VERITY, that you, the said Alexander Humphreys or 
 Alexander, are guilty of the said crimes, or of one or more of them, actor, 
 or art and part: IN SO FAR AS you, the said Alexander Humphreys 
 or Alexander, having formed the fraudulent design of procuring yourself 
 to be recognized as Earl of Stirling in Scotland, and of obtaining certain 
 great estates or territories in North America and Scotland, with the 
 pretended right of conferring the honours and bestowing the titles of 
 Baronets of Nova Scotia, as being the representative, and entitled to the 
 honours, privileges, and estates of William First Earl of Stirling, and of 
 procuring loans or advances of money from ignorant and credulous 
 persons, on the faith of your being entitled to those estates and privi¬ 
 leges, as you falsely represented, (I.) you the said Alexander Hum¬ 
 phreys or Alexander did, in pursuance of the said fraudulent desigus, 
 
 At some time and place to the Prosecutor unknown, 
 
 wickedly and feloniously forge, fabricate, and simulate, or cause and 
 procure to be forged, fabricated, and simulated, a document or writing in 
 the terms set forth in the Appendix No. I. hereto annexed, or in similar 
 terms; and which, being translated into English, is of the same or 
 similar tenor, import, and effect, as the translation set forth in the 
 Appendix No. II. hereto annexed, which forged, fabricated, and simulate 
 document or writing was intended by you to pass for, and be received 
 as, an ancient and authentic excerpt, or abridged copy or abstract, of an 
 alleged charter of novo damns by King Charles the First, in favour of 
 the said William First Earl of Stirling; and you did, then and there, 
 forge and fabricate, or cause and procure to be forged and fabricated, on 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 9 
 
 the back of the said document or writing, a certificate or docquet in the 
 following or similar terms:—Excerpt from the original charter to 
 William Earl of Stirling, 7 Dec. 1639 and you did, then and there, 
 wickedly and feloniously forge and adhibit, or cause and procure to be 
 forged and adhibited to the said certificate or docquet, the letters T. C. 
 meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, the genuine subscrip¬ 
 tion ot Thomas Conyers of Catherlough in Ireland, or of some person 
 to the Prosecutor unknown, or of a fictitious person : FURTHER, you, 
 the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, having, on or about the 
 12th day of October, 1829, raised an action in the Court of Session 
 against Dr John Watts and William Alexander Duer, in which compear¬ 
 ance was afterwards made for His Majesty’s Advocate for His Majesty’s 
 interest, for proving the tenor of the said alleged charter of novo damus ; 
 you did, within the Register House of Edinburgh, or within the Parlia¬ 
 ment House of Edinburgh, on the 
 
 18th day of January, 1830, 
 
 or on one or other of the days of that month, or of December imme¬ 
 diately preceding, or of February immediately following, wickedly and 
 feloniously use and utter as genuine the said forged, fabricated, and 
 simulate document or writing, having thereon the said forged and 
 fabricated certificate or docquet and subscription, you well knowing the 
 said document or writing, and certificate or docquet, and subscription, or 
 one or other of them, to be forged, fabricated, and simulate, by then and 
 there delivering the same, or causing the same to be delivered by the 
 hands of Ephraim Lockhart, writer to the signet in Edinburgh, your 
 ageut, or some other person to the Prosecutor unknown, to John 
 Morrison, then and now or lately Assistant-Clerk of Session at Edin¬ 
 burgh, or to some other person in the offices of the Clerks of Sessiou to 
 the Prosecutor unknown, in order to its being produced as an adminicle 
 of evidence in the said action of proving the tenor; and it w as so pro¬ 
 duced accordingly : LIKEAS, (2.) the said action of proving the tenor 
 having thereafter been dismissed by decree, dated on or about the 
 4th day of March, 1830; and you having, on or about the 1st day of 
 September, 1830, raised an action of reduction-improbation and declarator 
 in the Court of Session against William Cuningham Cuningham Graham 
 of Gartmore; and you having thereafter, on or about the 2d day of 
 September, 1830, raised in the said Court another action of proving of 
 the tenor of the same alleged charter of novo damus against the said 
 William Cuningham Cuningham Graham of Gartmore, and the Officers 
 of State, and others, you did, within the said Register House or said 
 Parliament House of Edinburgh, on the 
 
 17th day of November, 1830, 
 
 or on one or other of the days of that month, or of October immediately 
 preceding, or of December immediately following, wickedly and feloni¬ 
 ously use and utter as genuine, the said forged, fabricated, and simulate 
 document or writing, having thereon the said forged and fabricated 
 certificate or docquet and subscription, you well knowing the said 
 document or writing, and certificate or docquet and subscription, or one 
 or other of them, to be forged, fabricated, and simulate, by then and 
 there delivering the same, or causing the same to be delivered by the 
 hands of the said Ephraim Lockhart, or some other person to the 
 Prosecutor unknown, to the said John Morrison, or to some other person in 
 
10 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPITRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 the offices of the Clerks of Session, to the Prosecutor unknown, in order 
 to its being 1 produced as an adminicle of evidence in the said last 
 mentioned action of proving of the tenor ; and it was so produced accor¬ 
 dingly : And the said last mentioned action of proving the tenor was 
 also dismissed by decreet, dated on or about the 2d day of March, and 
 2d day of July, 1833: L1KEAS, (3.) you, the said Alexander Hum¬ 
 phreys or Alexander having, in pursuance of your said fraudulent 
 designs, procured yourself to be served heir in general of William the 
 First Earl of Stirling, by a service expede in the Court of the Bailies of 
 the Canongate, and retoured on or about the Jlth October, 1830, and 
 likewise to be served heir in special of the said William Earl of Stirling, 
 in certain lands, continents, and islands in North America, by a service 
 expede in the Court of the Sheriff of Edinburghshire, and retoured on 
 or about the 2d day of July, 1831, and likewise to be infeft in the said 
 lands, continents, and islands, by a sasine taken at the Castle of Edin¬ 
 burgh, on or about the 8th day of July, 1831, in virtue of a precept 
 issued from the Chancery, proceeding on the retour of the said special 
 service ; and an action of reduction-improbation having been raised 
 against you and Thomas Christopher Banks, on or about the 16th day 
 oV January, 1833, at the instance of the Officers of State for Scotland, 
 for reducing, inter alia, the brieves and retours of the said general 
 service, and special service, and the precept of Chancery and infeftment 
 following thereon ; and the record having been closed, and the said last 
 mentioned action of reduction-improbation having come on to be 
 debated before Lord Cockburn, Lord Ordinary; and his Lordship having, 
 on or about the 10th December, 1836, pronounced an interlocutor 
 appointing the cause to be enrolled, which was accompanied by a note, 
 intimating his Lordship’s intention of decerning against you in the said 
 last mentioned action of reduction-improbation, in terms of an interlocu¬ 
 tor, the draft of which was lodged with the clerk along with the draft of 
 a relative note, which intention so intimated was subsequently carried 
 into effect by interlocutor pronounced on or about the 20th December, 
 1836, to which w f as affixed a note of the same date; and having stated 
 in the said draft note, as also in the note affixed to the interlocutor of 
 20th December, 1836, that the evidence for proving your alleged pedigree 
 was unsatisfactory, defective, and insufficient, especially as to two 
 descents there specified; you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alex¬ 
 ander, having formed the fraudulent design of fabricating and producing 
 forged, false, and simulate documents or writings, which might be 
 received as evidence in the said last mentioned action of reduction- 
 improbation, and might supply the defects pointed out by the Lord 
 Ordinary, and otherwise support the allegations made by you in your 
 defence; and having proceeded to Paris, you did, within the house situ¬ 
 ated in the Rue de Tournon, at Paris, then and now or lately occupied 
 by Marie Anne Le Normand, bookseller or fortune-teller there, at some 
 time or times between the 
 
 21st day of December, 1836, and 
 
 The 27th day of July, 1837, 
 
 the particular time or times being to the Prosecutor unknown, or at 
 some other time and place to the Prosecutor unknow n, wickedly and 
 feloniously forge and fabricate, or cause and procure to be forged and 
 fabricated, upon the back of an ancient map of Canada, a w riting in the 
 following or similar terms : — 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 II 
 
 A Lyon ce 4. Aoust , 1706. 
 
 * Pendaut mon sejour cn Acadie en 1702, ma curiosite fut 1 Z ,R9 - & 
 
 * piquee par ce que 1’ on me disoit d’ une ancienne charte qui Rcg°H. 
 
 * est conservee dans les archives de cette province. —C’est la to. y. r >. E. d. 
 
 4 charte de confirmation, on 4 de nouodamus,’ en datte du 
 
 4 7 Decembre, 1639, par laquelle le Roy Charle I er d’Angle- 1 Marsl/, °* 
 
 * 4 terre renouvella en faveur de Guillaume Comte de Stirling les titres 
 4 et dignitez qu'il luy avoit precedemment acordes et toutes les conces- 
 4 sions de terres qu’il luy avoit faites depuis 1621 en Ecosse et en Ame- 
 
 * rique. Mon amy Lacroix m’en fit donner une copie que j’eus la 
 4 precaution avaut de partir de faire diiement attester. De cette piece 
 4 aulhentique ie vais presenter icy quelques extraits, (traduits en Francois 
 4 pour I* intelligence de ceux qui ne scavent pas le Latin,) afin que toute 
 4 personne en ouurant cette carte de nos possessions d’Amerique puisse se 
 4 faire une idee de la vaste estendue de territoire qui fut concede par le 
 4 Roy d’Angleterre a un de ses sujets. Si le sort de la guerre ou quelque 
 c autre evenement faisoit rentrer la Nouvelle France et l’Acadie sous la 
 4 domination des Anglois la famille de Stirling possederoit ces deux pro- 
 4 viuces ainsi que la Nouvelle Angleterre 4 et egalement la totalite des 
 4 passages et limites tant sur les eaux que sur les terres depuis la source de 
 4 la riuiere du Canada en quelqu’ endroit qu’on puisse la trouver, jusqu’ a 
 4 la baye de Californie, avec cinquante lieues de terres de chaque coste du 
 4 dit passage —et de plus toutes les autres terres, limites, lacs, riuieres, 
 
 4 detroits, bois, forets et autres qui pourront estre a l’auenir trouues, 
 
 4 conquis, ou decouuerts par le dit Comte, ou ses Rentiers.’ — Voicy enfin 
 4 l’ordre de succession a cet heritage. —1°.— Aux titres de noblesse ( 4 de 
 
 4 nouodamus, etc) 4 .au susdit Guillaume Comte de Stirling et aux 
 
 4 heritiers-males descendant de sa personne— a leur defaut aux ainees des 
 4 heritieres’ (heredibus femellis natu maximis) sans diuision du dernier 
 4 des susdits heritiers-males, et aux heritiers-males, descendant de la per- 
 4 sonne des dites heritieres respectivement, portant le surnom et les armes 
 4 d’Alexander, etau defaut de tous ces heritiers aux plus proches heritiers 
 4 quelconques du dit Guillaume Corate de Stirling’— (Icy suiventles titres, 
 
 4 etc) 2°. Aux possessions territoriales, ( 4 de nouodamus, concedimus, 
 
 4 disponimus, proque nobis et successoribus nostris, pro perpetuo confir- 
 4 mamus’) ‘au susdit Guillaume Comte de Stirling et aux heritiers-males 
 4 descendant de sa personne,—a leur defaut aux ainees des heritieres, sans 
 4 diuision du dernier des susdits males qui succedera cy-apres aux susdits 
 4 titres, honneurs, et dignitez, et aux heritiers-males descendant de la per- 
 4 sonne des susdites heritieres respectivement, portant le surnom et les 
 4 armes de la famille Alexander, qu’ils seront tenus et obliges de prendre’ 
 4 etc. etc. Ainsi le Roy d’Angletterre a donne au Comte et a asseure a 
 4 ses descendants, en perpetuite, assez de terres pour fonder un puissant 
 4 empire en Amerique.’ 
 
 And you did, then and there, wickedly and feloniously forge and adhibit, 
 or cause and procure to be forged and adhibited, thereto, the words 
 4 Ph. Mallet,’ meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, the 
 genuine subscription of some person to the Prosecutor unknown, or of a 
 fictitious person ; which writing, to which the said subscription was so 
 adhibited, being translated into English, is of the following or similar 
 tenor, import, and effect : 
 
12 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 4 Lyons , 4. August , 1706. 
 
 * During' my residence in Acadia in 1702, my curiosity was excited 
 4 by what 1 was told of an ancient charter, which is preserved in the 
 4 archives of that province; it is the charter of confirmation, or, ( de novo - 
 4 damns ,) of date 7th December, 1639, by which Charles the First of 
 4 England renewed in favour of William Earl of Stirling, the titles and 
 4 dignities which he had previously conferred on him, and all the grants 
 4 of land which he had made to him from 1621, in Scotland and in America. 
 4 My friend Lacroix gave me a copy of it, which, before my departure, 
 4 I took the precaution of having duly attested. From this authentic 
 4 document 1 am about to present some extracts, (translated into French 
 4 for the benefit of such as do not understand Latin,) in order that every 
 * person who opens this map of our American possessions may form an 
 4 idea of the vast extent of territory which w r as granted by the King of 
 4 England to one of his subjects, if the fate of war, or any other event, 
 4 should replace New France and Acadia under the dominion of the 
 4 English, the family of Stirling would possess these two provinces as 
 4 well as New England, 4 and in like manner the whole of the passages 
 4 and boundaries on land and on water from the source of the river of 
 4 Canada, wherever it may be found, to the Bay of California, with fifty 
 4 leagues of land on each side of the said passage, and besides, all the 
 4 others, lands, boundaries, lakes, rivers, straits, woods, forests, and others, 
 4 which may be in future found, conquered, or discovered by the said Earl 
 4 or his heirs.’ The order of succession to this inheritance is as follows: 
 4 —1°. To the titles of nobility, (de novodamus , &c ) to the said William 
 4 Earl of Stirling, and to the heirs-male of his body; w hom failing, to the 
 4 eldest heirs-female (haredibus femellis natu maximis) without division, 
 4 of the last of the said heirs-male, and to the heirs-male of the body of 
 4 the said heirs-female respectively, bearing the surname and the arms of 
 4 Alexander; aud failing all these heirs, to the nearest heirs whatsoever of 
 4 the said William Earl of Stirling, (here follow the titles, &c.) 2 d0 . To 
 
 4 the territorial possessions (de novodamus concedimus disponimus progue 
 4 nobis et successoribus nostris, pro perpetuo conjirmamus ) 4 to the said 
 4 William Earl of Stirling, and to the heirs-male of his body ; w horn failing, 
 4 to the eldest heirs-female w ithout division, of the last of the said males 
 4 who shall succeed hereafter to the said titles, honours, and dignities, and 
 4 to the heirs-male of the body of the said heirs-female respectively, bearing 
 4 the surname and the arms of the Alexander family, w hich they shall be 
 4 bound and obliged to take,’ &c. &c. Thus the King of England has 
 4 given to the Earl, and has secured to his descendants in perpetuity, 
 4 enough of land to found a powerful empire in America:’ AND, 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and 
 feloniously forge and fabricate, or cause and procure to be forged and 
 fabricated, on tbe back of the said map of Canada, a writing in the fol¬ 
 lowing or similar terms :— 
 
 4 La notte cy-dessns est precieuse. Je puis asseurer qu’elle donne en 
 4 peu de mots une idee extremement juste de la merveilleuse charte dont 
 4 il est question. Quant a la copie de cette charte, elle est attestec par 
 4 1’archiviste et les temoins Acadiens et doit estre entierenient conforme 
 4 au registre du Port Royal. J’avois entendu parler a Quebec des con- 
 4 cessions au Comte de Stirling, mais mon amy M. Mallet fut le premier 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 13 
 
 * qui me procura lecture de la cbarte. Ce document extraordinaire 
 
 * s’ estend a pres de cinquante pages d* escriture, et le Latin rien moins 
 ‘ que classique : Cependant comine Canadien un peu iuteresse en ce 
 c qu"il y avoit dedans je dois dire que je Fay leu d’ un bout a F autre 
 4 avec autant de curiosite que de satisfaction. Feu M. Mallet estoit un 
 4 homine dunt ies bonnes qualitez et la rare intelligence font regretter 
 4 que la iuort F a enleve si subitemcnt a ses amis. 11 avoit bien prevu que 
 4 la copie ne feroit point connoistre la charte en France. Voyla done 
 4 pourquoy il consceut le project d’ escrire sur line des ces belles cartes 
 4 de Guillaume de F Isle uue notte que tout le monde pnst lire avec 
 ‘interest. S’ il avoit vescu assez longtemps il auroit ajouste a cet 
 4 interest, car il vouloit s’informer en Angleterre de F estat actuel des 
 4 descendants du Comte qui obtint les concessions et tout ce qu’ on luy 
 4 auroit mande a leur egard auroit este escrit sur cette mesnie carte. Au 
 4 surplus avec les deux documents qu’ il nous a laisses, personne en 
 « France ne pourra revoquer en doute F existence d’ uue telle charte. 
 
 4 A Lyon, le 6 . Avril , 1707.’ 
 
 and you did, then and there, wickedly and feloniously forge and adhibit, 
 or cause and procure to be forged and adhibited thereto, the words 
 4 Caron Saint Estienne,’ meaning the same to pass for, and be received 
 as, the genuine subscription of some person to the Prosecutor unknown, 
 or of a fictitious person ; which writing, last above libelled, to which the 
 said subscription was so adhibited, being translated into English, is of 
 the following or similar tenor, import, and effect :— 
 
 4 The above note is precious. I can certify that it gives in few words 
 4 an extremely correct idea of the wonderful charter in question. As to 
 4 the copy of this charter, it is attested hy the Keeper of the Records 
 4 (F archiviste) and the Acadian witnesses, and must be in entire confor- 
 4 mity with the Register of Port Royal. While at Quebec I had heard 
 4 of the grants to the Earl of Stirling, but my friend M. Mallet was the 
 4 first who procured me a perusal of the charter. This extraordinary 
 4 document extends over fifty pages of writing, and the Latin any thing 
 4 but classical; still, as a Canadian, somewhat interested in its contents, 
 4 I am bound to say, that 1 read it from end to end with as much curio- 
 4 sity as satisfaction. The late M. Mallet was a man whose good qualities 
 4 aud rare understanding make us regret a death which snatched him so 
 4 suddenly from his friends. He had foreseen that the copy ivould not 
 4 make the charter know r n in France. Hence he conceived the idea of 
 4 writing, on one of the beautiful maps of Guillaume de F Isle, a note 
 4 which all the w'orld might read w ith interest. Had he lived long 
 4 enough, he w'ould have added to this interest, lor he w'ished to obtain 
 4 information in England as to the then situation of the descen- 
 4 dants of the Earl w r ho obtained the grants; and all the information 
 4 which he might have received respecting them he would have trans- 
 4 ferred to this very Map. But, after all, with the tw r o documents which 
 4 he has left to us, no person in France can question the existence of 
 4 such a charter. 
 
 4 Lyons , 6. April, 1707.’ 
 
 AND, ^ 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and 
 
14 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 feloniously forge and fabricate, or cause and procure to be forged and 
 fabricated, on the back of the said map of Canada, a writing in the fol¬ 
 lowing or similar terms :— 
 
 4 J’ay lu dernierement chez Monsieur Sartre a Caveirac, la copie de la 
 4 charte du Comte de Stirling. J’y ay remarque beaucoup de particu- 
 4 larites curieuses, entremeslees d’ un grand nombre de details peu inte- 
 4 ressants. Je pense done qu’on doit avoir de grandes obligations a 
 4 Monsieur Mallet d’avoir mis le public Francois en estat de juger, par la 
 4 note cy-dessus, deTestendue et de 1’importance des concessions faites a 
 4 ce Seigneur Ecossois. Je trouve aussi qu’il a extrait les clauses les 
 4 plus essentielles de la charte, et en les traduisant en Francois les a 
 4 tres-bien rendues. Monsieur Caron Saint Estienne m’a prie de rendre 
 4 ce temoignage. Je le fais avec le plus grand plaisir. 
 
 4 A Nismes , ce 3. Juin 1707.’ 
 
 And you did, then and there, wickedly and feloniously forge and adhibit, 
 or cause and procure to be forged and adhibited thereto, the words 
 4 Esprit, Ev. de Nismes/ meaning the same to pass for, and be received 
 as, the genuine subscription of Esprit Flechier, sometime Bishop of 
 Nismes, or of some other person to the Prosecutor unknown ; which 
 writing, last above libelled, to which the said subscription was so adhi¬ 
 bited, being translated into English, is of the following or similar tenor, 
 import, and effect:— 
 
 4 1 read lately, at the house of Monsieur Sartre at Caveirac, the copy 
 4 of the Earl of Stirling’s charter. In it I remarked many curious par- 
 4 ticulars, mixed up with a great many uninteresting details. I think, 
 4 therefore, that the greatest obligations are due to M. Mallet for having, 
 4 by the above note, enabled the French public to judge of the extent and 
 4 importance of the grants made to this Scottish Nobleman. I also find 
 4 that he has extracted the most essential clauses of the charter, and in 
 4 translating them into French he has given them with great fidelity. 
 4 Monsieur Caron St Estienne has asked me to bear this testimony. 
 
 4 I do so with the greatest pleasure. 
 
 4 NismeSy 3. June , 1707.’ 
 
 AND 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and 
 feloniously forge and fabricate, or cause and procure to be forged and 
 fabricated, a letter in the following or similar terms :— 
 
 4 & Antrim, le 25 me Aoust 1707. 
 
 4 Je ne scaurois vous dire Madame combien ie suis sensible a Phonneur 
 4 de vostre souvenir. Je dois aussi de sinceres remerciemens a Monsieur de 
 4 Cambray puisque c’ est luy qui a facilite le voyage de mon amy Monsieur 
 . 4 Hovenden, et par la a este cause que vostre lettre et la copie que vous 
 4 avez eii la bonte de m’envoier de la notte sur la charte de mon ayeul 
 m out este rendues si vite. Je vais repondre de mon mieux aux ques- 
 tions que vous me faites. Je ne suis pas comme vous avez pense 
 ‘ P heritier des titres de ma famille. Nostre chef a present est Henri 5 me 
 c Comto de Stirling, descendu du 3 me fils de mon ayeul. II demeure a 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 15 
 
 c quelques niilles de Londres—n’a point d’enfans, mais il a des freres 
 ‘ dont Paine est son heritier presomptif-—Du 1" fils il ne reste quc des 
 4 descendants de ses lilies. Le 2 A n’a point laisse d’enfans. Mon perc 
 ‘ estoit le fils—il epousa en premieres noces une heritiere de la ma'ison 
 4 de Gartmore en Ecosse. Ma mere, de la famille de Maxwell, estoit sa 
 ‘ seconde femme—Mais quoyqu’il ait eii des filles par la premiere, il 
 4 n’exit jamais d’autre fils que moy. Pour achever cette genealogie de 
 4 famille, il faut Madame que ie vous dise que ma femme est une cadette 
 4 de celle d’ Hamilton ma'ison ducale en Ecosse—et qu’elle m’a donne un 
 4 fils, nomme John apres mon pere et raoy, et deux filles. J’ay si pen 
 4 d’idee a present que les titres et les biens de Stirling puissent dclioir a 
 4 mes enfaus que j’ay encourage le goiist de mon tils pour le rainistere 
 4 de nostre Eglise d’ Ecosse, et il s’ y prepare en Hollande a V Universite 
 4 de Leyde. 
 
 4 Je conserveray 1’ interessante notte de Monsieur Mallet avec soin — 
 4 La charte estoit enregistree a une epoque en Ecosse aussi bien qu’ en 
 4 Acadie; mais pendant la guerre civile et sous 1* usurpation de Cromwell 
 4 des caisses contenauts une partie des archives de ce royaume furent 
 4 perdues en mer pendant un orage; et selon P ancienne tradition de 
 4 nostre.famille, le registre sur lequel cette charte avoit este inscrite fut 
 4 au nombre de ceux que estoient perdus. 
 
 4 Voyla Madame tout ce que ie puis dire en response a vos questions, 
 4 car c’ est impossible dans ce pays d’ Irlande d’ obtenir d’ autres renseig- 
 4 nements a P egard de la charte enregistree. Je croy que ma grandmere 
 4 avoit donne la charte originate (qu’ elle apporta d’ Ecosse en venant 
 4 s’ establir en Irlande) a son gendre le Lord Montgomerie pour qu’ il la 
 • gardat avec soin dans Chateau Comber oti il deraeuroit. Je m’ infor- 
 4 meray de ce que cette famille en a pii faire, et si ie fais quelque decou- 
 4 verte j’ auray P honneur de vous en prevenir. 
 
 4 Je n’ oublierav jamais Madame vos bontez pour moy, ni les charmes 
 4 de la societe que ie irouvay tousjours chez vous. Tant que je vivray, 
 4 ie vous seray attache avec le plus respectueux devoiiement.’ 
 
 And you did, then and there, w ickedly and feloniously forge and adhibit, 
 or cause and procure to be forged and adhibited thereto, the w r ords 
 4 John Alexander,’ meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, 
 the genuine subscription of some person to the Prosecutor unknown, or 
 of a fictitious person, whom you represented to be your ancestor, and 
 the grandson of the said William first Earl of Stirling; w r hich letter to 
 which the said subscription was so adhibited, being translated into 
 English, is of the following or similar tenor, import, and effect:— 
 
 4 Antrim , 2 oth August , 1707. 
 
 4 I cannot express to you, Madam, how sensible I am of the honour 
 4 of your remembrance. My sincere thanks are also due to Monsieur 
 4 de Cambray, since he, by facilitating the journey of my friend Mr 
 4 Hovenden, was the means of my being so quickly put in possession of 
 4 your letter, and the copy w hich you have been good enough to forward 
 4 to me, of the note respecting my grandfather’s charter. The questions 
 4 w T hich you put to me, I shall endeavour to answer to the best of my 
 4 ability. I am not as you imagine heir to the family titles. The pre- 
 4 sent head of our family is Henry, Fifth Earl of Stirling, descended 
 4 from the third son of my grandfather. He resides within a few miles 
 4 of London; has no children ; but he has brothers, of whom the eldest 
 
16 trial OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 4 is his heir presumptive. Of the first son no descendants survive, 
 4 except the issue of his daughters. The second son died without issue. 
 4 My father was the fourth son ; his first wife was an heiress of the 
 * house of Gartmore in Scotland. My mother, of the Maxwell family, 
 4 was his second wife. But, although he had daughters by his first wife, 
 4 he never had any other son but me. To complete this family genea- 
 4 logy, I must tell you, Madam, that my wife is a cadette of the Hamilton 
 4 family, a ducal house in Scotland, and that she has borne me a son 
 4 called John, after his father and myself, and two daughters. I have at 
 4 present so little idea of the possibility of the titles and estates of 
 4 Stirling devolving on my children, that I have encouraged my son in 
 4 his inclination for the ministry of our Church of Scotland : and in that 
 4 view, he is now prosecuting his studies at the University of Leyden, 
 
 4 in Holland. I shall preserve with care the interesting note of M. 
 4 Mallet. The charter was at one time registered in Scotland as well as 
 4 in Acadia; but during the civil w r ar, and under the usurpation of 
 4 Cromwell, boxes containing a portion of the records of that kingdom 
 4 were lost during a storm at sea; and according to the ancient tradition 
 4 of our family, tbe icgister in w'hich this charter was recorded, w as 
 4 among the number of those that perished. # 
 
 4 Such, Madam, is all that I can say in reply to your questions, for it 
 4 is impossible in this country of Ireland, to obtain any other information 
 4 with regard to the registered charter. I believe that my grandmother 
 4 gave the original charter , (which she brought from Scotland, when she 
 4 came to take up her abode in Ireland) to her son-in-law', Lord Mont- 
 4 gomery, in order that he might preserve it carefully in Castle Comber, 
 
 4 w here he resided. I shall ascertain w hat this family may have done 
 4 with it; and I shall have the honour of acquainting you w'ith any 
 4 discovery which 1 may make. 
 
 4 I shall never forget, Madam, your kindness towards me, or the 
 4 charms of the society which I always enjoyed at your house. While 
 4 I live I shall not cease to feel attached to you by the most respectful 
 4 devotion AND, 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 upon the margin of the forged and fabricated letter last above libelled, 
 you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did w ickedly and 
 feloniously forge and fabricate, or cause and procure to be forged and 
 fabricated, a note or w riting in the follow ing or similar terms :— 
 
 4 Les amis de feu M. Ph. Mallet liront sans doute avec un grand 
 4 interet cette lettre d’un petit fils du Comte de Sterling. M. Cholet de 
 4 Lyon partant aujourd’hui 16. Octobre 1707 pour sen retourner chez 
 4 lui aura P honueur de la remettre a M. Brossette, de la pait de Madame 
 4 de Lambert. 
 
 4 Pour l’authentiquer j’ai ecrit et signe cette apostille.’ 
 
 and you did, then and there, wdckedly and feloniously forge and adhibit, 
 or cause and procure to be forged and adhibited to the said note or 
 writing the w'ords 4 Fr. Ar. Due. de Cambray,’ meaning the same to 
 pass for, and be received as, the genuine subscription of Francis 
 Fenelon, sometime Archbishop of Cambray, or of some person to the 
 Prosecutor unknowm ; w hich note or writing, to which the said subscrip¬ 
 tion was so adhibited, being translated into English, is of the following 
 or similar tenor, import, and effect:— 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 17 
 
 ‘ The friends of the late Mr Ph. Mallet will doubtless read with great 
 4 interest this letter of a grandson of the Earl of Stirling’s: M. Cholet 
 4 of Lyons, setting out to-day, 16. October 1707 on his way home, will 
 4 have the honour of delivering it to Mr Brossette, on the part of 
 4 Madame de Lambert. To authenticate it, I have written and signed 
 4 this marginal note • 
 
 And you did, for the better success and concealment of your said forgery 
 aud fabrication, paste or cause to be pasted, on the back of the said map 
 of Canada, the said letter, bearing to be subscribed 4 John Alexander,’ 
 with the said marginal note thereon, and also an impression of a seal in 
 wax which you fabricated or simulated, or caused to be fabricated and 
 simulated, meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, a genuine 
 contemporary impression of the seal of the alleged writer of the said 
 letter bearing to be subscribed 4 John Alexander:’ AND, 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and 
 feloniously forge, fabricate, and simulate, or cause and procure to be 
 forged, fabricated, and simulated, upon a paper, which you pasted, or 
 caused to be pasted, to the said map, an inscription or writing in the 
 following or similar terms :— 
 
 4 Here lieth the Body of 
 4 Iohn Alexander Esquire, 
 
 4 Late of Antrim, 
 
 ‘ The only Son of the Honourable Iohn Alexander, 
 
 4 Who was the fourth Son of that most Illustrious 
 4 And famous Statesman, 
 
 4 William Earl of Sterline 
 4 Principal Secretary for Scotland : 
 
 1 Who had the singular merit of planting at his 
 4 Sole expence, the first Colonie in 
 4 Nova Scotia. 
 
 4 He marryd Mary, Eldest Daughter of the 
 4 Rev. Mr Hamilton of Bangor, 
 
 4 By whom he had issue one son Iohn, who 
 4 At this present time is the Presbyterian Minister 
 4 At Stratford-on-Avon in England 
 4 And two Daughters, 
 
 4 Mary, who survives, and Elizabeth, Wife of 
 4 Iohn M. Skinner Esquire, who died 7th Jan. 17-in 
 4 Leaving three Children. 
 
 4 He was a Man of such endowments as added 
 4 Lustre to his noble descent, and was universally 
 4 Respected for his Piety and Benevolence 
 4 He was the best of Husbands : 
 
 4 As a Father most Indulgent: As a Friend 
 4 Warm, Sincere and Faithfull. 
 
 4 He departed this Life 
 4 At Templepatrick, iu the County of Antrim 
 4 On the 19th day of April 1712.’ 
 
18 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 And you did, then and there, wickedly and feloniously forge and 
 fabricate, or cause and procure to be forged and fabricated, upon the 
 margin of the paper, containing the said fabricated and simulate inscrip¬ 
 tion^ writing, a note or writing in the following or similar terms : 
 
 • This is a faithfull copy of the Inscription to the memory 
 ‘of John Alexander, Esquire, upon the tablet over his 
 ‘ tomb at Newtown-Ardes, Co. of Down, Ireland. 
 
 ‘ Stratford upon Avon, 
 
 ‘ Oct. 6. 1723.’ 
 
 and you did, then and there, wickedly and feloniously forge and adhibit, 
 or cause and procure to be forged and adhibited to the said note or 
 writing the words “ W. C. Gordon, junr.” meauing the same to pass for, 
 and be received as, the genuine subscription of some person to the 
 Prosecutor unknown, or of a fictitious person : AND, 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and 
 feloniously forge, fabricate, and simulate, or cause and procure to be 
 forged, fabricated, and simulated, upon the back of the said map, and 
 near to that part of it on which the said copy of an inscription is pasted, 
 a note or writing in the following or similar terms :— 
 
 “ Note. 
 
 “ Cette Inscription a este communiquee par Mad* de Lambert. 
 Depuis la mort de Monsieur Alexander en 1712 cette dame n’a pas 
 cesse de donner des marques de sa bienueillance et de son amitie au fils 
 de cet homme distingue. Ce fils est connu avantageusement en 
 Angleterre comme ministre du culte Protestant et comme scavant 
 philologue. Dans la connoissance des langues de POrient il est presque 
 sans competiteurs. II est a la teste du College pour l’education des 
 ieunes ministres etabli a Stratfort dans le comte de Varuick,” 
 
 meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, a genuine ancient note 
 or writing of some person to the Prosecutor unknown, or of a fictitious 
 person ; which note or writing, being translated into English, is of the 
 following or similar tenor, import, and effect:— 
 
 ‘ NOTE. 
 
 ‘ This inscription has been communicated by Madame de Lambert. 
 
 * Since the death of Mr Alexander in 1712, this lady has not ceased to 
 ‘ bestow on the son of this distinguished man marks of her good will 
 ‘ and friendship. This son is favourably known in England as a Pro- 
 4 testant Clergyman and a learned Philologist. In the knowledge of 
 4 Oriental Languages he is almost without a rival. He is at the head of 
 ‘ a college for the education of young clergymen, established at Stratford, 
 ‘ in the county of Warwick :* AND, 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did w r ickedly and 
 feloniously forge, fabricate, and simulate, or cause and procure to be 
 forged, fabricated, and simulated, upon the back of the said map of 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 19 
 
 Canada, aud near to the said writing, bearing to be subscribed * Ph. 
 Mallet,’ a note or writing, in the following or similar terms :— 
 
 * Cette note est digne 
 
 ‘ de quelque attention dans 
 
 * les cerconstances preseutes mais 
 
 ‘ qu’ on m’ envoie la copie de la charte origenale.’ 
 
 meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, a genuine note or 
 writing of Lewis XV. King of France, or some person to the Prosecutor 
 unknown; which note or writing, being translated into English, is of 
 the following or similar tenor, import, and effect :— 
 
 ‘ This Note is worthy 
 
 * of some attention under 
 
 * present circumstances : but 
 
 ‘ let the copy of the original charter be sent to me.’ 
 
 FURTHER, in the Court-room of the Second Division of the Court of 
 Session at Edinburgh, or within the Parliament House, or the Register 
 House of Edinburgh, on the 
 
 25th day of November, 1837, 
 
 or on one or other of the days of that month, or of October immediately 
 preceding, or of December immediately following, you, the said Alex¬ 
 ander Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and feloniously use and 
 utter as genuine all and each, or one or more of the forged, fabricated, 
 and simulate writings last above libelled, that is to say, the writings, 
 letter, inscription, and notes, with the forged and fabricated subscriptions 
 thereto, as above libelled, all written or pasted on the back of the said 
 map of Canada, you well knowing the same, all and each, or one or 
 more of them, to be forged, fabricated, and simulate, as said is, by then 
 and there delivering, or causing or procuring the same to be delivered 
 by the hands of Charles Alexander, your son, now or lately residing in 
 Carlton Place, Edinburgh, or of the said Ephraim Lockhart, or by the 
 hands of some other person to the Prosecutor unknown, to James Fer¬ 
 guson, Esquire, Principal Clerk of Session, for the purpose of being 
 lodged in process as evidence in your behalf in the said last mentioned 
 action of reduction-iraprobation ; and they were so lodged accordingly: 
 OR OTHERWISE, all and each, or one or more of the writings last 
 above libelled, that is to say, the writings, letter, inscription, and notes, 
 with the forged and fabricated subscriptions thereto, as above libelled, 
 all written or pasted on the back of the said map of Canada, having been 
 at some time and place, and by some persons or person, to the Prosecutor 
 unknown, forged, fabricated, and simulated, you, the said Alexander 
 Humphreys or Alexander, in the Court-room of the Second Division of 
 the Court of Session, or within the Parliament House, or the Register 
 House of Edinburgh, on the 
 
 25th day of November, 1837, 
 
 or on one or other of the days of that month, or of October immediately 
 preceding, or of December immediately following, did wickedly and 
 feloniously use and utter, as genuine, all and each, or one or more of 
 them, you well knowing the same, all and each, or one or more of them, 
 
0() TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMP1IRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 to be forced, fabricated, and simulate, as said is, by then and there 
 delivering* the same, or causing, or procuring the same to be delivered 
 by the hands of the said Charles Alexander, or of the said Ephraim 
 Lockhart, or some other person to the Prosecutor unknown, to James 
 Ferguson, Esquire, Principal Clerk of Session, for the purpose of being 
 lodged in process, as evidence in your behalf, in the said last mentioned 
 action of reduction-improbation ; and they were so lodged accordingly : 
 LIKEAS, (4.) within the house of Marie Anne Le Normand, at Paris, 
 above libelled, between the 
 
 21st day of December, 1836, and the 
 21st day of April, 1837, 
 
 the particular day being to the Prosecutor unknown, or at some other 
 time and place to the Prosecutor unknown, you, the said Alexander 
 Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and feloniously forge, fabricate, 
 and simulate, or cause and procure to be forged, fabricated, and simulated, 
 a letter or writing, in the following or similar terms :— 
 
 4 Mrs Innes Smyth’s compliments to Messrs De Porquet and Co. 
 4 She had fully intended calling in Tavistock Street when she arrived 
 ‘in town yesterday from Staffordshire; but another commission she 
 
 * had to execute having prevented her, she is induced to send the enclosed 
 4 packet to them by the twopenny post, with her particular request that 
 4 they will forward it instantly to the Earl of Stirling, or any member 
 4 of his Lordship’s family whose residence may be known to them. 
 
 4 IIackney, April 19 th' 
 
 meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, a genuine letter or 
 writing of some person to the Prosecutor unknown, or of a fictitious 
 person: AND, 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 you the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander did wickedly and 
 feloniously forge, fabricate, and simulate, or cause and procure to be 
 forged, fabricated, and simulated, a letter in the following or similar 
 terms:— 
 
 4 The inclosed was in a small cash-box, which was stolen from the 
 
 * late William Humphreys, Esq. at the time of his removal from Digbeth- 
 4 house, Birmingham, to Fair Hill. The person who committed the theft 
 4 was a young man in a situation in trade which placed him above suspicion. 
 4 Fear of detection, and other circumstances, caused the box to be carefully 
 4 put away, and it was forgot that the packet of papers was left in it. 
 4 This discovery has been made since the death of the person alluded to, 
 4 which took place last month. His family being now certain that the 
 
 * son of Mr Humphreys is the Lord Stirling who has lately published a 
 
 * narrative of his case, they have requested a lady, going to London, to 
 4 leave the packet at his Lordship’s publishers, a channel for its convey- 
 4 ance pointed out by the book itself, and which they hope is quite safe. 
 4 His Lordship will perceive that the seals have never been broken. 
 
 4 The family of the deceased, for obvious reasons, must remain unknown, 
 4 They make this reparation, but cannot be expected to court disgrace 
 4 and infamy. 
 
STYLING IlIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 21 
 
 meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, a genuine letter or 
 writing of some person to the Prosecutor unknown, or of a fictitious 
 person: AND, 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 upon a parchment case or cover, you, the said Alexander Humphreys or 
 Alexander, did wickedly and feloniously forge, fabricate, and simulate, or 
 cause and procure to be forged, fabricated, and simulated, a note or 
 writing in the following or similar terms: 
 
 € Some of my wife’s family papers,’ 
 
 meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, a genuine note or 
 writing of the deceased William Humphreys, your father, or of some 
 other person to the Prosecutor unknown; and you did, then and there, 
 fabricate and simulate, or cause to be fabricated and simulated, on the 
 said parchment case or cover, three impressions in wax of a seal, meaning 
 the same to pass for three genuine and contemporary impressions of a 
 seal of the said William Humphreys, or of some person to the Prosecutor 
 unknown, the alleged writer of the said note or writing: AND, 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and 
 feloniously forge, fabricate, and simulate, or cause and procure to be 
 forged, fabricated, and simulated, a writing or table, bearing to be Part of 
 the Genealogical Tree of the Alexanders of Mens try, Earls of Stirling 
 in Scotland, and to be dated April 15, 1759, in the terms set forth in the 
 Appendix No. III. hereunto annexed, or in similar terms; and you did, 
 then and there, wickedly and feloniously forge and adhibit, or cause and 
 procure to be forged and adhibited, to the said writing or table, the words 
 « Tlios. Campbell,’ meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, the 
 genuine subscription of some person to the Prosecutor unknown, or of a 
 fictitious person: AND, 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and 
 feloniously forge and fabricate, or cause or procure to be forged and 
 fabricated, a letter in the following or similar terms :— 
 
 ‘ Rev d Mr Alexander, 
 
 4 Birmingham, 
 
 4 Dear Bro r , 
 
 4 Mr Palmer is not at home ; but I will take care of 
 « the letter. 1 have but little time to write at present; yet, as Mr Solly 
 
 < is going to-night, and offers to take this, I must tell you, Campbell has 
 
 < written to me. The report we heard last year about the agents of 
 « \V. a. is too true. No other copy of the inscription can be had at 
 ‘ Newtown. The country people say, they managed one night to get 
 ‘ the slab down, and ’tis thought they bury’d it. However, C. does not 
 ‘ think you need mind this loss, as Mr Lyttleton’s copy can be proved. 
 
 4 Mr Denison tells Campbell, his copy of grandfather A.’s portrait will 
 4 be very like when finished. At the back of the original, old Mr Denison 
 4 pasted a curious mem., from which it appears, that our grandfather 
 4 rec d his early education at Londonderry, under 4 the watchfull eye of 
 4 4 Mr Maxwell, his maternal grandsire.’ At the age of sixteen, the 
 
22 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 * Dowager-Countess wished him to be sent to Glasgow College; but at 
 
 * last it was thought better for him to go to a German university. He 
 4 attained high distinction as a scholar, remained many years abroad, and 
 4 visited foreign courts. Please to give duty and love to Mamma, love to 
 4 sisters, and be yourself healthy and content. 
 
 4 Y r affectionate Bro r . 
 
 4 Lond. Aug* 20. 1765.’ 
 
 And you did, then and there, wickedly and feloniously forge and adhibit, 
 or cause and procure to be forged and adhibited thereto, the words * B. 
 Alexander,’ meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, the genuine 
 subscription of the deceased Benjamin Alexander, said to be your uncle, 
 or of some person to the Prosecutor unknown, or of a fictitious person : 
 AND, 
 
 Time and place last above libelled, 
 
 you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and 
 feloniously forge and fabricate, or cause and procure to be forged and 
 fabricated, a letter in the following or similar terms : 
 
 4 For 
 
 * Rev. Mr Jn° Alexander. 
 
 4 Dublin , Sept. 16. 1765. 
 
 4 Rev d Sir, 
 
 4 I was sorry to hear of y e lawless act at Newton, but as 
 4 I tell Mr Denison, I shall be ready to come forward if you w ant me. I 
 4 was about twenty-one when 1 attended y T grandfather’s funerall. He 
 4 w r as taken ill when visitting a friend at Teraplepatrick, and dyed y er , 
 * for he cou’d not be removed, Mr Livingstone, a verry old friend of y r 
 4 family, w r rote y* inscription, w h y* claimant from America got destroyed. 
 4 I always heard y* y r great gr.father, y e Hono b,e Mr Alexander, (w r ho was 
 4 known in the country as Mr Alexander of Gartmoir,) dyed at Derry : 
 4 but for y e destruction of y® parish registers in the north by y® Papists, 
 4 during y® civil war from 1689 to 1692, you rait have got y® certificates 
 4 you want. 
 
 4 I am w th Friend Denison till October ; so if you have more questions 
 4 to put to me, please to direct to his care. Till then, 
 
 4 I remain, Rev d Sir, 
 
 4 Y" respectfully.’ 
 
 And you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did, then and 
 there, wickedly and feloniously forge and adhibit, or cause or procure to 
 be forged and adhibited thereto, the w r ords 4 A. E. Baillie,* meaning the 
 same to pass for, and be received as, the genuine subscription of some 
 person to the Prosecutor unknown, or of a fictitious person : FURTHER, 
 within the said Register House, or the said Parliament House of Edin¬ 
 burgh, on the 
 
 27th day of November 1837, 
 
 or on one or other of the days of that month, or of October immediately 
 preceding, or of December immediately following, you, the said Alexan¬ 
 der Humphreys or Alexander, did w ickedly and feloniously use and utter 
 as genuine, all and each, or one or more of the six forged, fabricated, and 
 simulate writings last above libelled, having thereon the forged and fabri- 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 23 
 
 rated subscriptions respectively, as above libelled, that is to say, — the 
 letter bearing* to be written by Mrs Innes Smyth,— the letter commenc¬ 
 ing* * the enclosed was in a small Cash Box,’ and bearing* to be dated 
 
 * April 17, 1837,’ — the note on the parchment case or cover, with the 
 three fabricated impressions of a seal thereon, — the writing* or table,— 
 the letter bearing to be signed * B. Alexander,’ — and the letter bearing 
 to be signed ‘ A. E. Baillie,’ you well knowing the same, with the sub¬ 
 scriptions thereto, as above libelled, all and each, or one or more of them, 
 to be forged, fabricated, and simulate, as said is, by then and there deliver¬ 
 ing them, or causing or procuring them to be delivered, by the hands of 
 the said Ephraim Lockhart, your agent, or some other person to the Pro¬ 
 secutor unknown, to William Sheill, then and now or lately Assistant 
 Clerk of Session, Edinburgh, or to some other person in the offices of the 
 Clerks of Session to the Prosecutor unknown, for the purpose of being 
 lodged in process as evidence in your behalf in the said last mentioned 
 action of reduction-improbation ; and they were so lodged accordingly: 
 OR OTHERWISE, the six writings last above libelled, that is to say, 
 —the letter bearing to be written by Mrs Innes Smyth,—the letter com¬ 
 mencing ‘ the enclosed was in a small Cash Box,’ and bearing to be dated 
 c April 17, 1837,’—the note on the parchment case or cover, with the three 
 fabricated impressions of a seal thereon,—the writing or table,—the letter 
 bearing to be signed ‘ B. Alexander,’—and the letter bearing to be signed 
 
 * A. E. Baillie,’ with the subscriptions thereto as above libelled, having 
 been, all and each, or one or more of them, at some time and place, and 
 by some person or persons to the Prosecutor unknown, forged, fabrica¬ 
 ted, and simulated, you the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, 
 within the said Register House, or the said Parliament House of Edin¬ 
 burgh, on the 
 
 27th day of November 1837, 
 
 or on one or other of the days of that month, or of October immediately 
 preceding, or of December immediately following, did wickedly and 
 feloniously use and utter as genuine the said writings, with the subscrip¬ 
 tions thereto, as above libelled, you well knowing the same, all and each, 
 or one or more of them, to be forged, fabricated, and simulate, as said is, 
 by then and there delivering them, or causing or procuring them to be 
 delivered, by the hands of the said Ephraim Lockhart, your agent, or 
 some other person to the Prosecutor unknown, to William Sheill, then 
 and now or lately Assistant Clerk of Session, Edinburgh, or to some 
 other person in the offices of the Clerks of Session, Edinburgh, or to 
 some other person in the offices of the Clerks of Session to the Prosecu¬ 
 tor unknown, for the purpose of being lodged in process as evidence in 
 your behalf in the said last mentioned action of reduction-improbation ; 
 and they were so lodged accordingly : LIKEAS, (5.) the Second Divi¬ 
 sion of the Court of Session having appointed you to appear at the Bar 
 to be judicially examined as to how certain of the documents above 
 libelled, tendered in the said last mentioned process of reduction-impro¬ 
 bation came into your possession or to your knowledge ; and you, in the 
 course of that examination, on or about the 18th day of December 1838, 
 having stated that you had received the said map of Canada, with the 
 documents above libelled, written or pasted thereon, from the said Marie 
 Anne Le Normand ; and that she had represented to you that the same 
 had been conveyed to her by some person unknown; and that she received 
 a letter along with the document; and that she retained the said letter, 
 
 2 K 
 
24 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 but that a copy thereof was taken, which was then in the hands of your 
 agent; and you having undertaken to produce the same, you, the said 
 Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did, 
 
 At some time and place to the Prosecutor unknown, 
 
 wickedly and feloniously forge, fabricate, and simulate, or cause and pro¬ 
 cure to be forged, fabricated, and simulated, a writing iu the following or 
 similar terms : — 
 
 * Copy letter found by Mademoiselle Le Norraand, enclosed in the 
 
 * same packet which contained the Map of Canada, and was left at her 
 
 * Cabinet on July 11, 1837.’ 
 
 * Je viens d’apprendre Mademoiselle que vous vous interessez vive- 
 4 ment au succes d’un Anglais qui reclame comme descendant du Comte 
 4 de Stirling Pheritage de son ancetre en Araerique. Si les autographes 
 
 * que j’ai Phonneur de vous envoyer peuvent le faire reuissir je serai en- 
 4 chante d’avoir pu trouver une occasion de vous faire plaisir en lui ren- 
 4 dant service et de m’acquitter en meme temps uu peu des obligations 
 4 que je vous ai. Je suis /ache cependant que les devoirs d’une place que 
 4 j’occupe audjourd’hui ne me permettent pas de me faire connaitre dans 
 
 * cette affaire du Lord de Stirling. Vous qui en savez beaucoup ne serez 
 4 point surprise qu’un homme en place n’ose pas y intervenir ouvertement. 
 
 4 J’ai deja dit que je vous ai des obligations. Oui Mademoiselle j'en 
 4 ai et j’ai eu l’avantage plus d’une fois de vous consulter; meme a une 
 4 epoque lorsque j’etais menace d’une grande disgrace ce fut vous qui me 
 4 sauvates par un eclaircissement utile donne a propos. Vous n’avez pas 
 
 * oblige un ingrat. Je rends en toute occasion justice a vos talens et je 
 4 vous serai toute ma vie devoue et reconnaissant. 
 
 4 Vous pensez bien que je n’ai achete cette vieille carte du Canada que 
 4 pour les autographes qui sont fort curieux. L’apostille en marge de la 
 
 * Note de Mallet (dans le coin a droit) est dit-on de Louis XV. Les 
 4 autographes de Fenelon et de Flechier ne sont pas moins precieux et le 
 4 marchand qui me veudit la carte en 18 J 9 m’assura qu’elle avait appar- 
 4 tenue a Louis XVI. ce que parait assez probable d’apres ce quo je viens 
 4 de dire de l’apostille de son ayeul. Le marchand demeurait en 1819 sur 
 4 le quai Voltaire mais depuis taut d’anuees il s’est fait bien des change- 
 4 mens et sou nom m’a echappe. 
 
 4 Agreez Mademoiselle Phommage des sentimens distingues que je vous 
 ai voues et que vous meritez si bien. 
 
 4 M.’ 
 
 4 Versailles, le 10 Juillet 1837. 
 
 4 Je charge des personnes de confiance de ce paquet. Elies iront vous 
 4 consulter : Ne soyez done pas etonnee de le trouver sur quelque table 
 4 ou chaise dans votre cabinet.’ 
 
 meaning the same to pass for, and be received as, a genuine true copy, or 
 the true tenor of an actual genuine letter, written by some person to the 
 Prosecutor unknown, or by a fictitious person; and which writing, being 
 translated into English, is of the following or similar tenor, import, and 
 effect:— 
 
 4 1 have just learned, Mademoiselle, that you take a lively interest in 
 4 the success of an Englishman who claims as a descendant of the Earl of 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 25 
 
 4 Stirling* the inheritance of his ancestor in America. If the autographs 
 
 * which I have the honour of sending to you, can insure his success, I 
 ‘ shall be delighted to have found an opportunity, by rendering him a 
 4 service, of gratifying you, and, at the same time, discharging a small por- 
 
 * tiou of the obligations which 1 owe to you. 1 regret, however, that 
 ‘ the duties of an office which I at present hold do not permit me to make 
 4 myself known in this affair of Lord Stirling’s. You who know a great 
 4 deal about it will feel no surprise that a man in office should not dare 
 4 to interfere in it openly . 
 
 4 I have already stated that I am under obligations to you—yes, Made- 
 4 moiselle, I am, and more than once have I had the advantage of con- 
 4 suiting you ; eveu at a time when I was menaced with a signal disgrace, 
 4 it was you who saved me by a salutary eclaircissement seasonably given. 
 4 You have not obliged an ungrateful man. On all occasions I do justice 
 4 to your talents, and to you while I live I shall be devoted and grateful. 
 
 4 You may well imagine that I purchased this old map of Canada solely 
 4 on account of the autographs, which are very curious. The note on the 
 4 margin of Mallet’s note (in the right corner) is said to be Louis the 
 4 Fifteenth’s. The autographs of Fenelou and Flechier are no less pre- 
 4 cious, and the dealer who sold me the map in 1819, assured me that it 
 4 had belonged to Louis XVI. which is probable enough from what I 
 4 have just said of his grandfather’s marginal note. The dealer lived in 
 4 1819 on the Quai Voltaire; but since that time many changes have 
 4 taken place, and his name has escaped me. 
 
 4 Receive, Mademoiselle, the homage of the distinguished sentiments 
 4 which I have vowed to you, and which you so well deserve. 
 
 4 M.’ 
 
 4 Versailles , 1C )th July 1837. 
 
 4 I confide this packet to trust-worthy persons. They will go to con- 
 4 suit you; do not be surprised to find it on some table or chair in your 
 4 study.’ 
 
 FURTHER, within the Parliament House, or within the Register 
 House, Edinburgh, on the 
 
 20tli day of December, 1838, 
 
 or on one or other of the days of that month, or of November imme¬ 
 diately preceding, or of January immediately following, you, the said 
 Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, did wickedly and feloniously use 
 and utter as genuine, the said forged, fabricated, and simulate writing, 
 you well knowing the same to be forged, fabricated, and simulate, as 
 said is, by then and there delivering the same, or causing the same to be 
 delivered, by the hands of the said Ephraim Lockhart, or some other 
 person to the Prosecutor unknown, to the said William Sheill, or to 
 some other person in the offices of the Clerks of Session to the Prose¬ 
 cutor unknowm, for the purpose of its being lodged in process as 
 evidence in your behalf, in the said last mentioned action of reduction 
 improbation; and it w r as so lodged accordingly: And you, the said 
 Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, having been apprehended and taken 
 before George Tait, Esquire, Sheriff-Substitute of the County of Edin¬ 
 burgh, you did, in his presence at Edinburgh, emit three several 
 declarations, and subscribe them respectively with the word 4 Stirling,’ 
 
20 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMP1IRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 as the proper subscription of your said pretended title of Earl of Stirling : 
 Which declarations, dated respectively 
 
 The 14th and 18th days of February, and the 6th day of 
 March, 1839; 
 
 as also the various articles referred to in the said declarations ; as also 
 the forged and fabricated writings above libelled, with the map upon which 
 certain of the same are written or pasted; as also the several articles 
 enumerated in an Inventory hereto annexed, or part thereof, being to be 
 used in evidence against you, the said Alexander Humphreys or Alex¬ 
 ander, at your trial, will, for that purpose, be in due time lodged in the 
 hands of theClerk of the High Court of Justiciary, before which you are 
 to be tried, that you may have an opportunity of seeing the same: 
 ALL WHICH, or part thereof, being found proven by the verdict of 
 an Assize, or admitted by the judicial confession of you, the said Alex¬ 
 ander Humphreys or Alexander, before the Lord Justice-General, Lord 
 Justice-Clerk, and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, you, the said 
 Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, OUGHT to be punished with the 
 pains of law, to deter others from committing the like crimes in all 
 time coming. 
 
 C. INNES, A. D. 
 
 APPENDIX, No. I. 
 
 REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING INDICTMENT. 
 
 Excerpt. 
 
 Reg. Mag. Sig. Carta de Novodamus Willie Imi Com it is de Stbling Comitatus 
 Lib. LVII. de Stirling , $c. 
 
 Carolus Dei gratia Magnae Britan : &c. Sciatis quia nos per diploma 
 nostrum de data quarto die mensis Septembris anno Domini millesimo 
 sexcentesimo trigesimo feciinus creavimus et constituimus per confisura efc 
 dilectum nostrum Dominum Willielmum Alexander de Menstrie militera 
 utriusque regni nostri Consiliarium regni nostri Scotiae principalem Seere- 
 tarium Vicecomitem de Stirling Dominum Alexander de Tulliebodie 
 dando et concedendo sibi et haeredibus suis masculis cognomen et arma 
 de Alexander gerentibus titulum honorem gradum et dignitatem Viceco- 
 mitis dicti regni nostri Scotiae nec non investivimus prtefatura Dominum 
 Willielmum Alexander haeredesque suos masculos antedictos in dicto 
 titulo et dignitate Vicecomitis de Stirling Domini Alexander de Tullie¬ 
 bodie omni tempore affuturo nuncupandos et indigitandos fore ; Et per 
 alterum diploma nostrum de data decirno quarto die mensis Junii anno 
 Domini millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo tertio nos fecimus &e. prcefaturn 
 Willielmum Vicecomitem de Stirling Comitem de Stirling Vicecomitem de 
 Canada Dominum Alexander de Tulliebodie dan. et conceden. sibi suisque 
 hapredibus masculis in perpetuum cognomen et arma de Alexander geren¬ 
 tibus titulum honorem ordinem et gradum dignitatis Comitis cum omnibus et 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 27 
 
 singulis praerogativis prseeminentiis privilegiis libertatibus et imraunitatibus 
 ad eundem pertinen. quoquidem titulo honore et gradu dignitatis nos 
 investivimus et nobilitavimus praefatum Willielmum Vicecomitem de 
 Stirling heeredesque suos inasculos omni tempore futuro nuncupand. 
 Comites de Stirling, Vicecomites de Canada, Dominus Alexander de 
 Tullibodie, &c. tnodo latius in dictis diplomatibus respective content. Et 
 quia nos per Cartam nostram sub [nostro Magno Sigillo diet, regni nostri 
 Scotiae de data duodecimo die mensis Julii anno Domini millesimo sex- 
 centesimo vigesimo quinto pro rationibus inibi mentionatis dedimus, &c. 
 praefato Domino Willielmo Alexander haeredibus suis vel assignatis quibus- 
 cunque haereditarie omnes et singulas terras Continentas ac Insulas 
 situatas et jacen. in America intra caput seu promontorium comuniter 
 Cap de Sable appellat. jacen. prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum 
 aut eo circa ab equinoctiali linea versus septentrionem, &c. includen. et 
 comprehenden. intra dictas maris oras littorales ac earum circumferentias 
 a mari ad mare omnes terras continentes cum fiuminibus &c. jacen. prope 
 aut intra sex leucas ad aliquam earundem partem ex Occidentali Boreali 
 vel Orientali partibus orarum &c. et ab euronoto (ubi jacet Cap Britton) 
 et ex Australi parte ejusdem (ubi est Cap de Sable) omnia maria ac insu¬ 
 las versus meridiem intra quadraginta leucas dictarum orarum liltoralium 
 earundem magnam insulam vulgariter appellat Yle de Sable vel Sablon 
 includen. jacen. versus carban vulgo south southeist circa triginta leucas a 
 dicto Cap Britton in mari et existen. in latitudine quadraginta quatuor 
 graduum aut eo circa: Quaequidem terras praedict. omni tempore affuturo 
 nomine Novae Scotiae in America gaudebunt &c. Preterea nos fecimus 
 univimus annexavimus ereximus creavimus et incorporavimus totam et 
 integram praedictam provinciam et terras Novae Scotiae cum omnibus 
 earundem limitibus et maribus &c. in unum integrum et liberum dominium 
 et Baroniam per praedict. nomen Novae Scotiae omni tempore futuro 
 appelland. &c. ut dicta carta in sese latius proportat. Et quia nos per 
 alteram cartam nostram sub sigillo praedict. de data secundo die mensis 
 Februarii anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo vigesimo octavo pro causis 
 inibi specificatis dedimus &c. praefato Domino Willielmo Alexander here- 
 dibus suis et assignatis haereditarie in perpetuum omnes et singulas 
 insulas infra sinum Canadae jacentes inter Novam Scotiam et Terram 
 Novam ad ostium et introitum magni tiuminis Canadae, ubi decidit et 
 intrat in dictum Sinum (includendo inibi magnam insulam Anticosti) &c. 
 quasquidem totas et integras praenominatas terras spatia seu bondas 
 insulas aliaque generalit. et particularit. in dicta carta nostra supra expressa 
 nos pro nobis et successoribus nostris ereximus et univimus in unum inte¬ 
 grum et liberum dominium Dominium de Canada nuncupandura ad memo- 
 ratum Dominum Willielmum Alexander suosque praedict. hereditarie 
 spectan. et pertinen. in perpetuum &c. Et quia nos per alteram cartam 
 nostram sub Sigillo praedict. de data penultimo die mensis Julii anno 
 Domini millesimo sexcentesimo vigesimo nono dedimus &c. prefato 
 Domino Willielmo Alexander heredibus suis masculis et assignatis quibus- 
 cunque hereditarie et irredimabiliter totas et iutegras terras et baroniam de 
 Tulliebodie cum tenentibus tenandriis libere teuentium servitiis &c. Et 
 quia nos per alteram cartam nostram sub sigillo praedict. de data duodecimo 
 die mensis Julii anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo quarto 
 dedimus &c. prefato Willielmo nunc Comiti de Stirling in vitali reditu pro 
 omnibus suae vitae diebus ac prsedilecto nostro consanguineo Willielmo 
 Domino Alexander filio dicti Comitis nuper demortuo in feodo ac here¬ 
 dibus masculis de corpore suo legitime procreatis seu procreandis quibus 
 
28 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 deficientibus dicto Willielmo Comiti de Stilling h«redibus suis masculis 
 et assignatis quibuscunque haereditarie et irredimabiliter totas et integras 
 terras et baroniam de Tullicultrie &c. ut dicta carta in sese amplius tert. 
 Et quia nos per alteram cartam nostram sub sigillo predict, de data 
 vigesimo tertio die mensis Januarii anno Domino millesimo sexcentesimo 
 trigesimo sexto dediinus &c. praefato Willielmo Comiti de Stirling haeredi- 
 bus suis et assignatis quibuscunque haereditarie omnes et singulas duodecira 
 mercatas terrarum antiqui extentus de Gartmore &c. ut dicta carta in sese 
 amplius proportat. Qu^equidem dignitates cum praefatis titulis et hono- 
 ribus per antedict. diplornata nostra collat. ac cum omnibus et singulis 
 praerogativis praeeminentiis privilegiis libertatibus et immunitatibus dictis 
 titulis et honoribus incuben. perprius prenominato Willielmo Comiti de 
 Stirling suisque haeredibus masculis cognomen et arma de Alexander 
 gerentibus dat. fuerunt et concess. et per ipsum et suos procurators suo 
 nomine in manibus nostris debite et legitime resignat. pro nova conces- 
 sione eorundem titulorum honorum et dignitatum in favorem dicti 
 Willielmi Comitis de Stirling suorumque heredura infra script. Et 
 qujequidem dominia et baroniae Novae Scotiae et de Canada et baroniae de 
 Tullibodie et Gartmore intus respective comprehenden. terras insulas 
 molendina piscationes decimas aliaque supra script, intra praedictas bondas 
 respective cum omnibus suis pertinentiis jacen. ut praedicitur ac cum 
 omnibus et singulis partibus pendiculis privilegiis libertatibus immunitatibus 
 praerogativis officiis et jnrisdictionibus quibuscunque specialiter et genera- 
 liter in antedictis cartis nostris recitat. perprius ad dictum Willielroum 
 Comitem de Stirling pertinuerunt et per ipsum suosque procurators prae- 
 dictos suo nomine in manibus nostris debite et legitime rsignat. fuerunt: 
 Ac QUJEQUIDE3I baronia de Tullicultrie intus comprehenden. terras molen¬ 
 dina decimas aliaque supra script, jacen. ut dictum est cum omnibus et 
 singulis partibus et pendiculis predict, terrarum aliorumque cum pertinen¬ 
 tiis specialiter in antedicta carta nostra recitat. perprius ad dictum 
 Willielmum Comitem de Stirling in vitali reditu et ad dictum Willielmum 
 Dominum Alexander ejus tilium nunc demortuum in feodo pertinuerunt et 
 per dictum Willielmum Comitem de Stirling et dilectum nostrum consan- 
 guineum Willielmum nunc Dominum Alexander tilium ac heredem 
 masculum de corpore dicti demortui Willielmi Domini Alexander suosque 
 procurators suo nomine quoque in manibus nostris debite et legitime 
 resignat. fuerunt et haec pro nostro haereditario infeofamento eorundem in 
 favorem ejusdem Willielmi Comitis de Stirling, suorumque heredum infra 
 script, in legali et competenti forma uti congruit. lnsuper nos cum 
 expressis avisamento et consensu confisi nostri consanguinei et consiliarii 
 Joannis Comitis de Traquair Domini Lintoun et Caberstoun nostri magni 
 thesaurarii collectoris et computorum rotulatoris hujus regni nostri Scotiae 
 ac fidelis nostri consiliarii Domini Jacobi Carmiehaell de eodem Militis 
 Baronetti nostri deputati in diet, officiis nec non cum consensu reliquorum 
 Dominorum nostri Scaccarii ejusdem regni nostri nostrorum commissio- 
 nariorum pro bono fideli et gratuito servitio per diet. Willielmum 
 Comitem de Stirling omnibus occasionibus preteritis prestito et impenso 
 proque certis aliis respectibus et bonis considerationibus nos moven. per 
 has prjesentes Litteras Patentes nostras de novo dedimus et concessimus 
 ac pro nobis nostrisque successoribus de novo damus et concedimus in 
 perpetuum antediclo percontiso et predilecto nostro consanguineo et con- 
 siliario Willielmo Comiti de Stirling et haeredibus masculis de corpore suo 
 quibus deficientibus haeredibus femellis natu maximis sine divisione ultimi 
 taliurn haeredum masculorum et lueredibus masculis de corporibus diet. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 29 
 
 heredum femellarum respective procreandis cognomen et arma de Alex¬ 
 ander gerentibus quibus omuibus deficientibus propinquioribus legitimis 
 haeredibus quibuscunque dicti Willielrni Comitis de Stirling cum praece- 
 dentia a decimo quarto die uiensis Juuii auno Domino millesimo sexcen- 
 tesimo trigesimo tertio titulos honores et dignitates Comitis de Stirling 
 Vicecomitis de Stirling et de Canada Domini Alexander de Tullibodie 
 cum omnibus et singulis privilegiis pneeminentiis proerogativis libertatibus 
 et immunilatibus quibuscunque ad eosdem pertinen. et spectan. Et 
 similiter nos cum avisamento et consensu praedict. de novo dedimus con- 
 cessimus disposuimus et hac praesenti carta nostra confirmavimus tenoreque 
 ejusdem de novo daaius concedimus disponimus proque nobis et suces- 
 soribus nostris pro perpetuo confirmamus antedicto Willielmo Comiti de 
 Stirling et haeredibus masculis de corpore suo quibus deficientibus haeredi- 
 bus femellis natu maximis sine divisione ultimi talium haeredum masculorutn 
 titulis honoribus et dignitatibus prsedictis posthac succedentium et haere¬ 
 dibus masculis de corporibus talium heredum femellarum respective 
 procreandis cognomen et arma familie de Alexander gerentibus quae 
 tenebuntur et obligabuntur assumere quibus omnibus deficientibus pro¬ 
 pinquioribus legitimis haeredibus quibuscunque dicti Willielrni Comitis de 
 Stirling cum praecedentia a decimo quarto die mensis Junii anno Domini 
 millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo tertio hereditarie et irredimabiliter 
 absque ulla reversione redemptione seu regressu dominia terras et baronias 
 aliaque supra et subtus memorat. videlicet totum et integrum dominium 
 et baroniam de Nova Scotia in America comprehenden. &c. Et simi¬ 
 liter totam illam partem de lie main land Novae Angliae incipien. a certo 
 loco, appellato seu noto nomine Sancte Crucis lie St Croix contiguo ad 
 Novam Scotiam predict, et inde extenden. per maris oram adcertum locum 
 nuncupat. Petnaquine aliter Pemaquid et ita per fiuvium ejusdem ad ejus 
 scaturiginem reraotissimam prout tendit versus septentrionem et extenden. 
 abinde ad proximum ad fiuvium Kenebekike aliter Kennebeck et ita tenus 
 per cursum contractissimum qui tendit ad fiuvium Canadam versus septen¬ 
 trionem nec non totam illam insulam seu insulas communiter nuncupat. 
 separato nomine vel nominibus de Matowacks vel Long Island cum omnibus 
 et quibuslibet insulis iisdem adjacen. &c. Et etiam Totum et Integrum 
 dominium de Canada comprehenden. &c. intra dictum fiuvium Canadam 
 jacente9 a dicto ostio et introitu ad caput usque primum ortum et scaturi¬ 
 ginem ejusdem ubicunque sit &c. Et similiter totam et integram baroniam 
 de Tullibodie comprehenden. totas et integras terras et baroniam de Tulli¬ 
 bodie cum tenentibus tenandriis libere tenentium servitiis earundem &c. 
 Ac etiam totam et integram baroniam de Tullicultrie comprehenden. 
 Totas et Integras Terras et Baroniam de Tullicultrie &c. Intra bondas 
 limites et metas respective in prioribus infeofainentU memorato Willielmo 
 Comiti de Stirling fact, et concess. speciticat. &c. Ac etiam Totam et 
 Integram baroniam de Gartmore comprehenden. &c. Quinetiam nos 
 ereximus creavimus univimus et incorporavimns tenoreque presentis cartae 
 nostrae cum avisamento et consensu praedict. erigimus creamus unimus 
 et INCORPORA31US omnia et singula prafat. Dominia Terras Baronias 
 aliaque supra descript, omnesque partes et pertinentias diet, dominiorum 
 et baroniarum respective una cum Mineris et Mineralibus auri argenti 
 aliorumque mineralium praedict. cum Carbonibus et Carbonariis intra 
 bondas predictarum terrarum baroniarum aliorumque praescript. aut intra 
 fluvii fluxum earundem terrarum in unam integram et liberam Baroniam 
 et Comitatum nunc et omni tempore affuturo Comitatum de Stirling 
 appelland. cum titulo stylo ct dignitate Comitis secundum datam dicti 
 
30 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Comitis creationis supra memorat Nec non yolumus et concedimus ac pro 
 nobis nostrisque successoribus decernimus et ordinamus quod unica sasina 
 capienda nunc et omni tempore futuro per dictum Willielmum Comitem de 
 Stirling suosque supra script, apud Castrum nostrum de Edinburgh aut 
 super solo terrarum praedict. dominiorum et baroniae de Nova Scotia et 
 Canada respective vel cujuslibet earundem partis per terrae et lapidis 
 deliberationem fundi predict. Castri aut terrarum respectivarum solummodo 
 sine aliqua alia sasina est et stabit tarn valida et sufficien3 Sasina pro totis 
 et integris terris aliisque praedict. dominiorum et Baroniae respective seu 
 pro aliqua parte earundem ac si particular^ Sasina super unaquaque parte 
 et portione diet, terrarum aliorumque respective caperetur per traditionem 
 omnium usitatorum symbolorum non obstan. quod eadem discontigue 
 jaceant et diversas sasinas et varia symbola requirant Et Similiter quod 
 unica sasina capienda nunc et omni tempore futuro per diet. Willielmum 
 Comitem de Stirling suosque supra script, super solo terrarum predict, 
 baroniarum de Tullibodie Tullicultrie vel Gartmore vel cujuslibet earundem 
 partis, per terre et lapidis deliberationem fundi quarumvis predict, 
 terrarum solummodo sine aliqua alia sasina est et stabit tam valida et 
 sufficiens sasina pro totis et integris terris aliisque praedict. baroniarum 
 respective seu pro aliqua parte et portione diet, terrarum aliorumque ac si 
 particulars sasina super unaquaque parte earundem respective caperetur 
 per traditionem omnium usitatorum symbolorurn non obstan. quod eadem 
 discontigue et in diversis vicecomitatibus jaceant et diversas sasinas et varia 
 symbola requirant penes quas sasinas omniaque quae inde sequi poteriut 
 nos cum avisamento et consensu predict, dispensavimus tenoreque presen- 
 tium pro nobis nostrisque successoribus dispensamus in perpetuum. 
 Tenendas et Habendas prefatas dignitates cum titulis et honoribus 
 Comitis de Stirling Vicecomitis de Stirling et de Canada Domini Alex¬ 
 ander de Tullibodie cum omnibus et singulis privilegiis pre-eminentiis 
 prerogativis libertatibus et immunitatibus ad easdem pertinen. et spectan. 
 praedicto Willielmo Corniti de Stirling suisque suprascript. de nobis et 
 successoribus nostris pro perpetuo in omnibus et singulis nostris et succes- 
 sorum nostrorum parliamentis generalibus comitiis privatis et publicis 
 conventibus cum jure loco et potestate suffragia inibi ferendi cum omnibus 
 aliis praerogativis praeerainentiis privilegiis libertatibus et immunitatibus 
 pertinen. vel ad comitem intra dictum regnum quovis tempore praeterito 
 seu futuro pertinere et spectare valen. &c. In cujus rei testimonium 
 huic praesenti cartae nostrae magnum sigillum nostrum apponi praecepimus. 
 Testibus reverendissimo in Christo patre et praedilecto nostro consiliario 
 Joanne miseratione divina Sancti Andreae Archiepiscopo primate et metro¬ 
 politan© regni nostri Scotie nostro cancellario praedilectis nostris con- 
 sanguineis et consiliariis Jacobo Marchione de Hamiltoun Comite Arrani 
 et Cantabrigiae Domino Aven et Innerdaill Roberto Comite de Roxbrugh 
 Domino Ker de Cesfuird et Cavertoun nostri Secreti Sigilli Custode 
 dilectis nostris familiaribus consiliariis Dominis Joanne Hay de Barro 
 nostrorum rotulatorum registri et Consilii Clerico Joanne Hamiltoun de 
 Orbe3toun nostrae justiciariae clerico et Joanne Scot de Scottistarvett 
 nostrae cancellariae directore militibus. Apud aulam nostram de Quhythall 
 septimo die mensis Decembris anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo 
 trigesimo nono et anno regni nostri decimo quinto. 
 
 [Gratis.] 
 Per Signetum. 
 
 C. 1NNES, A. D. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 31 
 
 APPENDIX, No. II. 
 
 REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING INDICTMENT, 
 
 (Being Translation of the Document Appendix No. 1.) 
 
 Excerpt. 
 
 Charter of Novodamus of William Earl of Stirling of the 
 Earldom of Stirling. 
 
 Charles by the Grace of God of Great Britain, &c. 
 Se&^BookL vTl Know ye that whereas We by our diploma of date the 
 fourth day of September one thousand six hundred and 
 thirty have made created and constituted our right trusty and beloved Sir 
 William Alexander of Meustrie knight councillor of both our kingdoms 
 principal secretary of our kingdom of Scotland Viscount of Stirling Lord 
 Alexander of Tulliebodie giving and granting unto him and his heirs male 
 bearing the simame and arms of Alexander the title honour rank and 
 dignity of Viscount of our said kingdom of Scotland as also have invested 
 the foresaid Sir William Alexander and his heirs male aforesaid in the said 
 title and dignity of Viscount of Stirling Lord Alexander of Tulliebodie to 
 be called and pointed out in all time coming : Aud by our other diploma 
 dated the fourteenth day of June one thousand six hundred and thirty 
 three we have made &c. the foresaid William Viscount of Stirling Earl of 
 Stirling Viscount of Canada Lord Alexander of Tulliebodie giving and 
 granting unto him and his heirs male for ever bearing the sirname and 
 arms of Alexander the title honour order and rank of dignity of Earl with 
 all and sundry prerogatives preeminences privileges liberties and immuni¬ 
 ties belonging to the same with which title honour and rank of dignity 
 we have invested and ennobled the foresaid William Viscount of Stirling 
 and his heirs male to be called in all time coming Earls of Stirling 
 Viscounts of Canada Lords Alexander of Tulliebodie &c. in manner more 
 fully contained in the said respective diplomas : And whereas we by our 
 charter under our great seal of our said kingdom of Scotland of date the 
 twelfth day of July one thousand six hundred and twenty five for the 
 reasons therein mentioned have given &c. to the foresaid Sir William 
 Alexander his heirs and assignees whomsoever heritably. All and Sundry 
 the lands continents and islands situate and lying in America within the 
 Cape or promontory commonly called Cape de Sable lying near the lati¬ 
 tude of forty three degrees or thereby from the equinoctial line northwards 
 &c. including and comprehending within said sea coasts and their precincts 
 from sea to sea all the main lands wdth rivers &c. lying near or within six 
 leagues to any part thereof from the west north or east parts of the shores 
 &c. and from the south east (where Cape Britain lies and from the south 
 part thereof (where Cape Sable is) all the seas and islands towards the 
 south within forty leagues of the said sea shores of the same including the 
 great island, commonly called Isle of Sable or Sablon lying towards the 
 south south-east about thirty leagues from the said Cape Britton in the sea 
 and being in latitude forty four degrees or thereby which foresaid lands 
 shall in all time coming have the name of Nova Scotia in America &c. 
 Moreover we have made united annexed erected created and incorporated 
 all and whole the foresaid province and lands of Nova Scotia with all the 
 
32 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 boundaries and seas of the same &c. into one whole and free Lordship 
 and Barony to be called by the foresaid name of Nova Scotia in all time 
 coming &c. as the said charter in itself more fully proports : And whereas 
 we by our other charter under the foresaid seal dated the second day of 
 February one thousand six hundred and twenty eight for the causes 
 therein specified have given &c. to the foresaid Sir William Alexander 
 his heirs and assignees heritably for ever, all and sundry the islands lying 
 within the Bay of Canada between Nova Scotia and the New Land at the 
 mouth and entry of the great river of Canada where it falls and enters into 
 the said Bay, (including therein the great island of Anticosta) &c. All 
 and whole which forenamed lands spaces or bounds islands and others 
 generally and particularly above expressed in our said charter, we for us 
 and our successors have eYected and united into one whole and free lord- 
 ship to be called the Lordship of Canada pertaining and belonging to the 
 said Sir William Alexander and his foresaids heritably for ever &c. : 
 And whereas we by our other charter under the seal foresaid dated the 
 thirtieth day of July sixteen hundred and twenty-nine have given, &c. to 
 the foresaid Sir William Alexander his heirs-male and assignees whomso¬ 
 ever heritably and irredeemably all and whole the lands and barony of 
 Tuliiebodie with tenants tenendries services of free tenants &c.: And 
 whereas we by our other charter under the seal aforesaid of date the 
 twelfth day of July sixteen hundred and thirty-four have given &c. to the 
 foresaid William now Earl of Stirling in liferent for all the days of his life 
 and to our well-beloved cousin William Lord Alexander son of the said 
 Earl now deceased in fee and to the heirs-male lawfully procreated or to 
 be procreated of his body whom failing to the said William Earl of 
 Stirling his heirs-male and assignees whomsoever heritably and irre¬ 
 deemably all and whole the lauds and barony of Tillicultrie &c. as the said 
 charter in itself more fully bears : And whereas we by our other charter 
 under the foresaid seal dated the twenty-third day of the month of 
 January in the year of God sixteen hundred and thirty-six have given 
 &c. to the foresaid William Earl of Stirling his heirs and assignees whom¬ 
 soever heritably all and whole the twelve merk lands of old extent of 
 Gartmore &c. as the said charter in itself more fully proports : Which 
 dignities with the foresaid titles and honours conferred by our foresaid 
 diplomas and with all and sundry prerogatives preeminencies privileges 
 liberties and immunities belonging to the said titles and honours were 
 of before given and granted to the foresaid William Earl of Stirling, 
 and his heirs male bearing the sirname and arms of Alexander and were 
 by him and his procurators in his name duly and law fully resigned in our 
 hands for a new’ gift of the said titles honours and dignities in favour of 
 the said William Earl of Stirling and his heirs within written, and which 
 lordships and baronies of Nova Scotia and Canada and baronies of Tulli- 
 bodie and Gartmore therein respectively comprehending the lands islands 
 mills fishings teinds and others above-written within the respective 
 boundaries foresaid with all their pertinents lying as said is and with all 
 and sundry parts pendicles privileges liberties immunities prerogatives 
 offices and jurisdictions w hatsoever specially and generally recited in our 
 aforesaid charters belonged of before to the said William Earl of Stirling 
 and were by him and his foresaid procurators in his name duly and lawfully 
 resigned in our hands j And which barony of Tullicultrie comprehending 
 therein the lands mills teinds and others above-written lying as said is 
 with all and sundry parts and pendicles of the foresaid lands and others 
 with the pertinents specially in our foresaid charter recited pertained of 
 before to the said William Earl of Stirling in liferent and to the said William 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 33 
 
 Lord Alexander his son now deceased in fee and were by the said William 
 Earl of Stirling- and by our beloved cousin William now Lord Alexander 
 son and heir-male of the body of the said deceased William Lord Alexander 
 and their procurators in their names also duly and lawfully resigned in our 
 hands and these for our new heritable infeftment thereof in favour of the 
 said William Earl of Stirling and his heirs within-written in legal and 
 competent form as accords. Moreover we with the express advice and 
 consent of our trusty cousin and councillor John Earl of Traquair Lord 
 Lintoun and Caberstoun our great treasurer collector and comptroller of 
 this our kingdom of Scotland and of our faithful councillor Sir James Car- 
 miehaell of that Ilk knight baronet our deputy in the said offices and also 
 with consent of the rest of the Lords of our Exchequer of our said kingdom 
 our commissioners for the good faithful and gratuitous service done and 
 performed by the said William Earl of Stirling on all occasions bypast and 
 for certain other respects and good considerations us moving have by these 
 our present letters patent de novo given and granted and for us and our 
 successors de novo give and grant for ever to our foresaid right trusty and 
 well-beloved cousin and councillor William Earl of Stirling and the heirs- 
 male of his body whom failing to the eldest heirs-female without division of 
 the last of such heirs-male and the heirs male respectively to be procreated 
 of the bodies of the said heirs-female bearing the sirname and arms of 
 Alexander w-hom all failing to the nearest lawful heirs whomsoever of the 
 said Wiliiam Earl of Stirling with precedence from the fourteenth day of the 
 month of June in the year of God sixteen hundred and thirty-three the 
 titles honours and dignities of Earl of Stirling Viscount of Stirling and of 
 Canada Lord Alexander of Tullibodie with all and sundry privileges pre- 
 eminencies prerogatives liberties and immunities whatsoever thereto per¬ 
 taining and belonging ; And in like manner we with advice and consent 
 foresaid have de novo given and granted disponed and by this our present 
 charter confirmed and by the tenor of the same de novo g ive grant dispone 
 and for us and our successors for ever confirm, to the foresaid William Earl 
 of Stirling and the heirs-male of his body whom failing to the eldest heirs- 
 female without division of the last of such heirs-male hereafter succeeding 
 to the foresaid titles honours and dignities and the heirs-male respectively 
 to be procreated of the bodies of such heirs-female bearing the sirname and 
 arms of the family of Alexander w r hich they shall be bound and obliged to 
 assume whom all failing to the nearest law ful heirs whomsoever of the said 
 William Earl of Stirling with precedence from the fourteenth day of the month 
 of June in the year of God sixteen hundred and thirty-three heritably and 
 irredeemably without any reversion redemption or regress the lordships 
 lands and baronies and others above and undermentioned viz. all and w'hole 
 the lordship and barony of Nova Scotia in America comprehending &c. 
 And in like manner that w hole part of the main land of New England 
 beginning from a certain place called or knowm by the name of St Croix 
 near to Nova Scotia aforesaid and thence extending along the sea-shore to a 
 certain place called Petnaquine otherwise Pemaquid and so along the river 
 thereof to its most remote source as it tends northward and extending from 
 thence next to the river Kenebekike otherwise Kennebeck and thus so far 
 by the shortest course which leads to the river Canada tow ards the north as 
 also that w hole island or islands commonly called by the separate name or 
 names of Mato wracks or Long Island with all and whatsoever islands adja¬ 
 cent thereto &c. : And also all and whole the lordship of Canada compre¬ 
 hending &c. lying between the said river of Canada from the said mouth 
 and entrance all along to the head first rise and source thereof wherever it 
 is &c.: And in like manner all and whole the barony of Tullibodie 
 
34 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 comprehending 1 all and whole the lands and barony of Tullibodie with 
 tenants tenendries services of free tenants thereof &c.: And also all 
 and whole the barony of Tullicultrie comprehending all and whole the lands 
 and barony of Tullicultrie &c. w r ithin the boundaries limits and marches 
 respectively specified in the former infeftments made and granted to the 
 foresaid William Earl of Stirling &c. And also all and whole the barony 
 of Gartinore comprehending &c. But also we have erected created united 
 and incorporated and by the tenor of this our present charter with advice 
 and consent foresaid do erect create unite and incorporate all and sundry 
 the foresaid lordships lands baronies and others above described and all the 
 parts and pertinents of the said lordships and baronies respectively along 
 with the mines and minerals of gold silver and other minerals foresaid with 
 the coals and coal-heughs within the bounds of the foresaid lands baronies 
 and others before written or within the flood-mark of the said lands into 
 one whole and free barony and earldom to be now and in all time coming 
 called the Earldom of Stirling with the title style and dignity of Earl con¬ 
 form to the date of creation of the said Earl above mentioned : As also 
 we will and grant and for us and our successors decern and ordain that one 
 sasine to be taken now and in all time coming by the said William Earl of 
 Stirling and his above-written at our Castle of Edinburgh or upon the 
 ground of the lands of the foresaid lordships and barony of Nova Scotia 
 and Canada respectively or of any part thereof, by deliverance of earth 
 and stone of the ground of the foresaid Castle or respective lands allenarly 
 without any other sasine is and shall stand as valid and sufficient a sasine 
 for all and w r hole the lands and others of the foresaid lordships and barony 
 respectively or for any part of the same as if a particular sasine should be 
 taken upon each part and portion of the said lands and others respectively 
 by delivery of all the usual symbols notwithstanding that the same lye 
 discontiguous and require different sasines and various symbols and in like 
 manner that one sasine to be taken now' and in all time coming by the 
 said William Earl of Stirling and his above written upon the ground of the 
 lands of the foresaid baronies of Tullibodie Tullicultrie or Gartmore or of 
 any part thereof by deliverance of earth and stone of the ground of any of 
 the foresaid lands allenarly without any other sasine is and shall stand as 
 valid and sufficient a sasine for all and w'hole the lands and others of the 
 foresaid baronies respectively or for any part and portion of the said lands 
 and others as if a particular sasine should be taken upon each part thereof 
 respectively by deliverance of all the usual symbols notwithstanding that 
 the same lye discontiguous and in several sheriffdoms and require different 
 sasines and various symbols anent which sasines and all that can follow 
 thereupon we with advice and consent foresaid have dispensed and bv the 
 tenor of these presents for us and our successors dispense for ever To "have 
 and to hold the foresaid dignities with the titles and honours of Earl of 
 Stirling Viscount of Stirling and of Canada Lord Alexander of Tullibodie 
 with all and sundry privileges preeminences prerogatives liberties and im¬ 
 munities thereto pertaining and belonging by the foresaid William Earl of 
 Stirling and his above-written of us and our successors for ever in all and 
 sundry our and our successors Parliaments general conventions private and 
 public councils with the right place and pow er of bearing suffrages therein 
 with all other prerogatives pre-eminencies privileges liberties and immu¬ 
 nities belonging or that can pertain and belong to an Earl within our 
 kingdom in time past or to come. In testimony whereof to this our 
 present charter we have commanded our Great Seal to be appended. 
 Witnesses the most reverend father in Christ and our well-beloved 
 councillor John by the mercy of God archbishop of St Andrews 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 35 
 
 primate and metropolitan of our kingdom of Scotland our chancellor 
 our well-beloved cousins and councillors James Marquis of Hamilton 
 Earl of Arran and Cambridge Lord Aven and Innerdaile Robert Earl 
 of Roxburgh Lord Ker of Cesfurd and Cavertoun keeper of our Privy 
 Seal our beloved familiar councillors Sir John Hay of Barro clerk ot our 
 Rolls Register and Council John Hamiltoun of Orbestoun our Justice- 
 Clerk and John Scot of Scotstarvet Director of our Chancery knights at 
 our Court of Quhythall the seventh day of the month of December in the 
 year of God one thousand six hundred and thirty-nine and of our reign the 
 fifteenth year. 
 
 [Free.] 
 
 {[ By the Signet . 
 
 C. INNES, A. D. 
 
 APPENDIX, No. III. 
 
 REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING INDICTMENT. 
 
 John, Benjamin, Mary, 
 
 Eldest Son, Born, 2d Son, Eldest 
 
 at Dublin, in 1736, Born at Daur. 
 
 heir Dublin Born at 
 
 to the in 1737. Dublin 
 
 Titles <fe Estates. in 1733. 
 
 I_!_!_ 
 
 . I 
 
 John 
 
 6th Earl of Stirling, 
 (De Jure,) 
 
 M<* Hannah Higgs 
 of Old Swinford. 
 Died at Dublin, 
 Nov. 1, 1743. 
 
 Aged 57. 
 
 Burd there. 
 
 Hannah, 
 2d Daur. 
 Born at 
 Dublin 
 in 1741. 
 
 Mary, 
 Eldest Daur. 
 Born in 1683. 
 Died 
 unmar’d. 
 
 John 
 Marry’d 
 Mary Hamilton 
 of Bangor. 
 Settled at Antrim, 
 after living many 
 years in Germany. 
 
 Died 1712. 
 Bur d at Newtown. 
 
 I_ 
 
 Elizabeth, 
 Born 1685, 
 
 M<* J. M. Skinner, 
 died 1711. 
 leaving 
 Issue. 
 
 I 
 
 Janet 
 
 only 
 
 Surviving 
 Child 
 of the 
 heiress of 
 Gartmore. 
 
 I 
 
 Part 
 
 of the Genealogical Tree 
 of the 
 
 Alexanders of Menstry, 
 Earls of Stirling in Scotland, 
 shewing 
 
 only the fonrth and now existing 
 Branch. 
 
 Reduced to Pocket size from the 
 large emblazoned Tree in the 
 possession of Mrs Alexander, 
 of King Street, Birm. 
 
 By me, 
 
 Thos. Campbell, 
 
 April 15, 1759. 
 
 John, 
 
 4th Son—Marry’d 
 1. Agnes Graham, 
 heiress of Gartmore. 
 2. Elizabeth Maxwell 
 of Londonderry. 
 Settled in Ireland 
 in 1646. 
 
 Died 1665. 
 
 William. 
 
 1st Earl of Stirling 
 B. 1580. 
 
 M. Janet Erskine. 
 
 Had issue, 
 
 7 Sons & 3 Daurs. 
 Died 1640. 
 
 Burd at 
 Stirling. 
 
 C. INNES, A. D. 
 
36 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 INVENTORY of Productions referred to in the 
 foregoing Indictment. 
 
 ]. A summons of proving the tenor at the instance of Humphreys or 
 Alexander, or Earl of Stirling, against Watts and Duer, dated and 
 signeted 12th October, 1829, with Inventory, and whole steps and 
 productions of the process following thereon. 
 
 2. A summons of reduction-improbation, declarator, &c. at the instance 
 
 of the same pursuer against William Cunninghame Cunninghame 
 Grahatne, dated and signeted 1st September, 1830, with Inven¬ 
 tory, and whole steps and productions of the process following 
 thereon, 
 
 3. A summons of proving the tenor at the instance of the same pursuer 
 
 against William Cunninghame Cunninghame Grahame and others, 
 dated and signeted 2d September, 1830, with Inventory, and whole 
 steps and productions of the process follow ing thereon. 
 
 4. A process of reduction-improbation, at the instance of the Officers of 
 
 State against Humphreys or Alexander, calling himself Earl of 
 Stirling, the summons dated and signeted 16th January, 1833, with 
 Inventory, and whole steps and productions. 
 
 5. A paper, bearing to be a copy of a protest taken by Alexander, Earl 
 
 of Stirling and Dovan, hereditary proprietor and lieutenant of the 
 province of Nova Scotia and the lordship of Canada, and addressed 
 to the Right Honourable the Earl Grey, First Lord Commissioner 
 of his Majesty’s Treasury, and to be dated 22d day of October, 
 1831. 
 
 6. A paper, entitled ‘ Copy Address to the public authorities, the land 
 
 4 settlers, inhabitants, and all others whom it may concern in the 
 4 Anglo-Scottish Colony of Nova Scotia, including New Bruns- 
 4 wick, &c. and in the Lordship and territory of Canada, &c. &c.’ 
 and bearing to be signed 4 Stirling and Dovan, proprietor and 
 4 Hereditary Lieutenant of all Nova Scotia, and Lord of the 
 4 Dominion of Canada, and to be dated 4 53, Parliament Street, 
 
 4 London, 28 October, 1831.’ 
 
 7. Four Certificates of Search, each bearing to be signed 4 Geo. Robert¬ 
 
 son,’ and marked on the back respectively, Search A.—Search B. 
 —Search C.—Search I). 
 
 8. Five papers, each titled on back 4 Extract,’ and dated respectively 
 
 4 Sept. 1630, 14th June, 1633, 12 July, 1634, 23 Jany. 1636, 
 
 27 June 1642. 
 
 9. Two papers, titled 4 Extracts,’ and bearing to be dated respectively 
 
 30 Sept. 1641 and 2 Oct. 1641. 
 
 10. Extract sasine, dated 
 
 11. A paper, entitled Certificate of Search of Signatures, under letter S. 
 
 from 1623 to 1653. 
 
 12. A paper, entitled, Extract Diploma Willielmi Vicecomitis de Stirling, 
 
 domini Alexander de Tulliebodie, &c. &c. dated 4th September 
 1630. 1 
 
 13. A paper, entitled, Extract Diploma Willielmi Comitis de Stirling, 
 
 Vicecomitis de Canada dni Alexander de Tulliebodie, &c. dated 
 14th June, 1633. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 37 
 
 ✓ 
 
 14. A Crown Charter of King Charles, iu favour of the City of Edin¬ 
 
 burgh, dated 11 December 1659. 
 
 15. Original Signature in favour of the same city, dated 11 December 
 
 1639, or extract or certified copy of the same. 
 
 16. Part ot the record of Signatures, containing the said signature recor¬ 
 
 ded, or extract or certified copy of the said Record. 
 
 17. Part of the Register of the Privy Seal, containing the precept for the 
 
 said charter recorded, or an extract or certified copy of the said 
 Register. 
 
 18. Part of the Register of the Great Seal containing the said charter 
 
 recorded, or an extract or certified copy thereof. 
 
 19. A Crown Charter of King Charles, in favour of the Governors of 
 
 Heriot’s Hospital, dated 11 December 1639. 
 
 20 . Original Signature in favour of the said Hospital, dated 11 December 
 
 1639, or an extract or certified copy thereof. 
 
 21. Part of the Record of Signatures, containing said last mentioned 
 
 signature registered, or extract or certified copy of the said 
 Register. 
 
 22 . Part of the Register of the Privy Seal, containing the precept for the 
 
 said last mentioned charter recorded, or an extract or certified 
 copy of the said Register. 
 
 23. Part of the Register of the Great Seal, containing the said last men¬ 
 
 tioned charter registered, or an extract or certified copy of the said 
 Register. 
 
 24. A book entitled, Spottiswood’s History of the Church of Scotland. 
 
 25. A book entitled, Crawfurd’s Lives of the Officers of State. 
 
 26. Searches or Notes of searches regarding the death, funeral, and testa¬ 
 
 ment of John Spottiswood, Archbishop of St Andrews. 
 
 27. A paper entitled, Extract warrant for sealing the Commissioner’s 
 
 Commission, 13th November 1638. 
 
 28. A paper entitled. Extract the Commissioners’ declaration anent the 
 
 Great Seal, 14th Nov. 1638. 
 
 29. Three volumes of a book entitled Mercure de France, bearing the 
 
 dates 1715, 1718, 1726. 
 
 30. Four volumes of a book entitled Almanach Royal, for the years 1717, 
 
 1718, 1719, 1720. 
 
 31. A book entitled Biographie Universelle. 
 
 32. A book entitled Oeuvres de Fontenelle. 
 
 33 . Examined Extract from the Register of the Secretary of State of 
 
 France, of date 24 August 1718. 
 
 34 . Examined copy letters patent for the installation of the Bishop of 
 
 Nismes, of date 26 February, 1711. 
 
 35 . Examined Extract from the Registers of the Chapter of Cambray, of 
 
 date 7 and 8 January 1715. 
 
 36. Thirty or thereby maps, bearing to be prepared by Guillaume Delisle. 
 
 37 . A volume of maps entitled, “ Recueil de cartes,” belonging to the 
 
 Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh. 
 
 38. A volume of maps without title. 
 
 39 . A paper bearing to be translations of certain documents referred to 
 
 in the Indictment against Alexander Humphreys or Alexander. 
 
 40. A paper entitled Translated Extracts from M e,le Le Normand’s letter 
 
 of 17th Oct r . 1838 to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 41. A paper entitled Translation of a letter from M el,e Le Normand to the 
 
 Earl of Stirling, dated 26th Nov r . 1838. 
 
38 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 42. A paper entitled Translation of M e,la Le Normand’s letter of 9th 
 
 Jany. 1839 to the Earl of Stirling*. 
 
 43. A paper entitled Translation of M #,u Le Normand’s letter to the 
 
 Countess of Stirling, dated Paris, 18th Oct r . 1837. 
 
 44. A paper entitled Translation of M r,,e Norraand’s letter to the Earl of 
 
 Stirling, dated Paris, Nov. 8th, 1837. 
 
 45. A paper entitled Translated Extracts from M e,,e Le Normand’s letter 
 
 of 26th Sept r . 1838 to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 46. Paper, entitled Copy Letter M* ,,e Le Normand, 19 April 1838. 
 
 47. A letter addressed to Madame La Comptesse de Stirling, and bearing 
 
 to be signed Le Normand, and to be dated 16 Juin 1838. 
 
 48. A letter docqueted Paris, 13 Augst. 1838, M e,,e Le Normand, R. 17th 
 
 Do. 
 
 49. A letter docqueted Paris, 30th Novr. 1838, M e,,e Le Normand, R. 5th 
 
 December. 
 
 50. A letter docqueted 1839, Paris, Jany. 8th, M* le Le Normand to Lady 
 
 S. R. 9th Feby. 
 
 51. A letter bearing to be dated Paris ce 9 Janvier 1839, and to be 
 
 addressed to Madame Madame la Comtesse de Stirling, and to be 
 signed Le Normand. 
 
 52. A letter docqueted 1839, Paris, 4th Feby. M d!a Le Normand & 
 
 Monsr. T. R. 7 & 8th Do. 
 
 53. A paper, entitled extract from a private deed or agreement on the 
 
 part of the Earl of Stirling, to repay by instalments to M*"* Le 
 Normand, the amount in principal and interest of different Loans 
 advanced to the said Earl, between 1815 and 1837. 
 
 C. 1NNES, A . B. 
 
 LIST OF WITNESSES. 
 
 1. George Tait, Esquire, now or lately sheriff-substitute of the county of 
 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 2. Archibald Scott, now or lately procurator-fiscal of said county. 
 
 3. James Wilson, now or lately sheriff-clerk of said county. 
 
 4. James Wilson, junior, now or lately sheriflf-clerk-depute of said 
 
 county. 
 
 5. Richard John Moxey, now or lately clerk in the sheriff.clerk’s office 
 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 6. James Mackenzie, now or lately sheriff-officer in Edinburgh. 
 
 7. Thomas Thomson, Esquire, Deputy Clerk Register, Edinburgh. 
 
 8. Richard Mackenzie,Esquire, writer to the signet, Edinburgh. 
 
 9. Alexander Macdonald, Esquire, keeper of the Register of Deeds, 
 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 10. Robert Webster, now or lately extractor, Signet Office, Edinburgh. 
 
 11. George Robertson, Esquire, now or lately one of the keepers of the 
 
 records, Edinburgh. 
 
 12. Doctor Andrew Fyfe, now or lately residing in George square, 
 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 13. William Robertson, Esquire, now or lately one of the keepers of the 
 
 Records, Edinburgh. 
 
 14. Archibald Ewart, Esquire, Deputy Director of Chancery, Edinburgh. 
 
STYLING IlIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 39 
 
 15. William Whytock, clerk in the Chancery Office, Edinburgh, and now 
 
 or lately residing in East Preston street, in or near Edinburgh. 
 
 16. Jean Baptiste Theodore Alexandre Teulet, Joint Secretary of the 
 
 Archives of the Kingdom of France, residing on the Quai 
 Napoleon, Paris. 
 
 17. Stanislas Jacobs, geographical engraver, attached to the Institute of 
 
 France, at Paris. 
 
 18. Amedee Melanie Fontaine, lately residing at No. 2, Rue de Tournon, 
 
 Paris, and now or lately residing in India street, Edinburgh. 
 
 19. Hugues Francois Beaubis, lately residing in Rue des Canettes, Paris, 
 
 and now or lately residing in India street, Edinburgh. 
 
 20. Pierre Francois Joseph Leguix, print and map-seller, lately residing at 
 
 the Quai D’Orsay, Paris, and now or lately residing in India street, 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 21. John Tyrrell, sometime an agent or in the employment of Alexander 
 
 Humphreys or Alexander, calling himself Earl of Stirling, and 
 now or lately residing in Regent street, London, or now or lately 
 residing in Carlton Chambers, Regent street, London. 
 
 22. William Home Lizars, engraver, now or lately residing in Regent 
 
 Terrace, Edinburgh. 
 
 23. John Smith, lithographist, now or lately residing in Dundas street, 
 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 24. Ephraim Lockhart, Esquire, writer to the signet, Edinburgh. 
 
 25. Charles Alexander, now or lately residing with Alexander Humphreys 
 
 or Alexander, calling himself Earl of Stirling, now or lately residing 
 in Carlton place, Edinburgh. 
 
 26. William Shiell, assistant clerk of Session, now or lately residing in 
 
 Duncan street, Newington, near Edinburgh. 
 
 27. John Morison, assistant clerk of Session, now or lately residing in 
 West Laurieston lane, in or near Edinburgh. 
 
 James Ferguson, Esquire, now or lately principal clerk of Session, and 
 now or lately residing in Heriot row, Edinburgh. 
 
 Francis Espinasse, teacher, now or lately residing in Frederick street, 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 Angus Fletcher, Esquire, advocate, now or lately residing in Stafford 
 
 28 
 
 29. 
 
 30, 
 
 31. 
 
 street, Edinburgh. 
 
 Dr David Irving, librarian to the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh, 
 and now or lately residing in Meadow place, near Edinburgh. 
 
 32. Eugene Alexander, now or lately residing with the said Alexander 
 
 Humphreys or Alexander. 
 
 33. Peter Anderson, Esquire, writer to the signet, Edinburgh. 
 
 34. Isaac Bayley, Esquire, writer, now or lately residing in Regent 
 
 Terrace, Edinburgh. 
 
 35. Robert Backworth, clerk to Messrs Richardson and Connell, solicitors, 
 
 London. 
 
 36. The Reverend Hugh Scott, now or lately residing in Edinburgh, or 
 
 now or lately minister of the parish of Anstruther Easter, Fife- 
 shire. 
 
 37. John Adams, solicitor, now or lately residing in North Charlotte street, 
 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 38. Henry R. Madden, surgeon, now or lately residing Warriston crescent, 
 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 C. 1NNES, A. D . 
 
 2 L 
 
40 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 LIST OF,ASSIZE 
 
 For the Trial of Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, pretending to 
 be Earl of Stirling, if the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander 
 claims, and is entitled to the privilege of a Landed Man. 
 
 City of Edinburgh. 
 
 Landed Men . 
 
 John Learmonth, residing Moray place 
 Thomas Henderson, seedsman, Melville crescent 
 George M‘Miken Torrance of Kilsaintninian, George square 
 James Hunter of Thurston, Moray place 
 5. James Smith of YVhitchester, Gayfield square 
 Thomas Whyte of Glenesslin, there 
 John Greig of Lethangie, Royal Terrace 
 William Henry Brown of Ashley, Forth street 
 Captain David Brown of Park, Regent Terrace 
 10. John Hamilton Colt of Gartsherrie, there 
 William Plomer, residing York place 
 Sir George Macpherson Grant, Baronet, George street 
 James Baillie of Falahill, Greenside house 
 William Crawfurd of Cartsburn, Bellevue crescent 
 15. Alexander M‘DufF of Bonhard, Regent Terrace 
 William Stothert of Cargen, Randolph crescent 
 James MacKintosh of Lamancha, Buccleuch place 
 George Cleghorn of Weens, Regent Terrace. 
 
 Common Jurors, 
 
 William Neilson, spirit-merchant, Rosebank 
 20. John Scott, baker, West Preston street 
 John Masterton, spirit-dealer, James street 
 William Clark, flesher. Thistle street 
 Peter Wilson, spirit-dealer, Bank street 
 Daniel Connel, spirit-merchant, Rose street 
 25. George Johnston, hotel-keeper, Nicolson street 
 David Hay, silk-mercer, Catharine street 
 e Bernard Burns, spirit-dealer, East Crosscauseway 
 Kenneth Scoon, baker, Clerk street 
 Alexander Dickson, smith, James’ square 
 30. James Burt, residing Broughton street 
 
 William Hamilton, bootmaker, Montague street 
 Henry Haig, engraver, Brighton street 
 James Stewart, coach-hirer, South Charlotte street 
 William Robinson, cowfeeder, Fountainbridge 
 35. Alexander Allan, cabinet-maker, Hope street. 
 
 Town of Leith. 
 
 Landed Man, 
 
 John Ainslie of Huntington, Constitution street. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 41 
 
 Common Jurors. 
 
 John Gilbert, pawnbroker, Coatfield lane 
 Alexander Downs, victual-dealer, Kirkgate 
 40. George Campbell, grocer, Elbe street 
 
 James Torry Douglas, general agent, John’s place 
 
 John \\ atson of Hull and Leith Shipping Company, Vanburgh place 
 
 James Rutherford, contractor, Whitehouse, Leith Links 
 
 John Martin, grocer, Giles’s street 
 
 Walter Ritchie, plasterer, Kirkgate. 
 
 County of Edinburgh, 
 
 Landed Men. 
 
 45. George Glendinning of Millrig 
 Archibald Wilkie of Ormistonhill 
 
 John Davie Martin of Gavieside and Brotherton, Gavieside 
 David Davidson of Townhead, New Mills 
 William Stewart Walker of Bowland 
 50. John Inglis of Redhall 
 
 William Tait Burton of Toxside, Mauldslee 
 William Macdonald of Caillie, Powderhall. 
 
 Common Juror. 
 
 Robert Gray, farmer, Badpark. 
 
 County of Linlithgow. 
 
 Landed Men. 
 
 James Dundas of Dundas 
 55. James John Cadell of Grange 
 John Russel of Mosside. 
 
 Common Jurors. 
 
 William Duncan, junior, builder, Philipstoun 
 John Duncan, grocer, Linlithgow. 
 
 County of Haddington. 
 Landed Men . 
 
 Robert Ainslie of Redcoll, Redcoll 
 60. John Anderson of Whitburgh, Whitburgh 
 Sir John Hall, Baronet, of Dunglass 
 Robert Hay of Linplum, Ormiston. 
 
 Common Jurors. 
 
 Samuel Cathie, slater and glazier, Haddington 
 James Forrester, farmer, Laverock Law 
 65. Peter Punton, baker, Aberlady. 
 
42 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 LIST OF ASSIZE 
 
 For the Trial of Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, pretending to 
 be Earl of Stirling, if the said Alexander Humphreys or Alexander does 
 not claim, or is not entitled to, the privilege of a Landed Man. 
 
 City of Edinburgh. 
 
 Special Jurors . 
 
 George Hogarth, accountant, Torphichen street 
 Charles Hargitt, teacher of music, Forres street 
 James Ewan Newton, corn-merchant, Queen’s place, Leith Walk 
 William Henderson, jeweller, Rosehall 
 5. Robert Hogue, dentist, Hill street 
 
 Alexander Paterson, merchant. Hillside crescent 
 James Black, residing St Cuthbert street 
 
 Lieutenant Patrick Deuchar of the Royal Navy, George street 
 Adam Burn, coach-lace-maker, Dublin street 
 10. James Wilson, wright and builder, Glover street, Leith 
 Charles Lees, portrait-painter, South Charlotte street 
 Robert Gibb, residing Haddington place. 
 
 Common Jurors . 
 
 William Neilson, spirit-merchant, Rosebank 
 John Scott, baker, West Preston street 
 15. John Masterton, spirit-dealer, James’ street 
 William Clark, flesher, Thistle street 
 Peter Wilson, spirit-dealer, Bank street 
 Daniel Connal, spirit-merchant, Rose street 
 George Johnston, hotel-keeper, Nicolson street 
 20. David Hay, silk-mercer, Catharine street 
 
 Bernard Burns, spirit-dealer, East Crosscauseway 
 Kenneth Scoon, baker, Clerk street 
 Alexander Dickson, smith, James square 
 James Burt, residing Broughton street 
 25. William Hamilton, bootmaker, Montague street 
 Henry Haig, engraver, Brighton street 
 Janies Stewart, coach-hirer, South Charlotte street 
 William Robertson, cowfeeder, Fountainbridge street 
 Alexander Allan, cabinet-maker, Hope street 
 30. James Derrin, plasterer, Richmond place 
 John Cay, tinsmith, Barony street 
 Thomas Malcolm, piano-forte-maker, Drummond street 
 Ebenezer Scott, baker, Lothian street 
 
 Robert Dickson, wine-merchant, Brunswick street, Stockbridge 
 35. Douglas Murray, tailor, Crighton street. 
 
 Town of Leith. 
 
 Special Jurors . 
 
 John Paterson Strong, merchant, Charlotte street 
 George Mill, banker, Bernard street 
 David Ainslie, residing Constitution street 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 43 
 
 40. 
 
 Common Jurors. 
 
 John Gilbert, pawnbroker, Coatfield lane 
 
 Alexander Downs, victual-dealer, Kirkgate 
 
 George Campbell, grocer, Elbe street 
 
 James Torry Douglas, general agent, John’s place 
 
 John M atson of Hull and Leith Shipping Company, Vanburgh place 
 
 James Rutherford, contractor, Whitehouse, Leith Links. 
 
 County of Edinburgh. 
 Special Jurors. 
 
 45. James Kemp, merchant, Musselburgh 
 Thomas Young, merchant, Bank-house 
 Andrew Paton Bell, residing St Bernard’s crescent. 
 
 Common Jurors. 
 
 Robert Gray, farmer, Badpark 
 Archibald Young, farmer, Long Dalmahoy 
 50. William Binnie, junior, wright, Hermislon 
 John Wilkie, carter, Corstorphin 
 Alexander Aitken, farmer, Fisherrow 
 John Kerr, farmer, Carmilty. 
 
 ^County of Linlithgow. 
 Special Jurors. 
 
 John Kersopp, merchant, Linlithgow 
 55. Captain John Durie, residing Kirkhill. 
 
 Common Jurors . 
 
 W r illiam Duncan, Junior, builder, Philipstoun 
 John Duncan, grocer, Linlithgow 
 John Cruikshanks, gardener, Burnfoot. 
 
 County of Haddington. 
 Special Jurors. 
 
 Archibald Scott, farmer, Southfield 
 60. Alexander Howden, farmer, Congalton Mains. 
 
 Common Jurors. 
 
 Samuel Cathie, slater and glazier, Haddington 
 James Forrester, farmer, Laverock Law 
 Peter Punton, baker, Aberlady 
 James Aitchison, wright, Nungate 
 65. Thomas Brockie, tailor, Haddington. 
 
44 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 COPIES, TRANSLATIONS, EXTRACTS, AND LISTS of 
 some of the Documents Produced for the Prosecution, in the 
 case of Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, pretending 
 to be Earl of Stirling, Indicted of Forgery, &c. 
 
 Edinburgh, April , 1839. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Nos. of Inventory 
 
 of Productions. .... . „ „ *¥* 
 
 5. Paper, bearing to be Copy of a Protest taken by Alexander Earl of 
 
 Stirling and Dovan, &c. &c. addressed to the Right Honourable 
 the Earl Grey, &c. &c. dated 22d October, 1831, . 46 
 
 6. A paper, entitled “ Copy Address to the Public Authorities, the 
 
 Land-settlers, &c. &c. signed Stirling and Dovan, &c. &c. dated 
 53 Parliament Street, London, 28th October, 1831, . ib. 
 
 8. Extract Diploma, Willielmi Vice Comitis de Stirling Domini Alex- 
 a ander de Tullibodie, &c. &c. dated 4th September, 1630, . ib. 
 
 Translation of the preceding, . . . . ib. 
 
 8. Extract Diploma, Willielmi Vice Comitis de Stirling Vicecomitis de 
 b Canada, Domini Alexander de Tulliebodie, &c. dated 14th June, 
 
 1633, ....... 47 
 
 Translation of the preceding, .... ib. 
 
 15. Extracts from Original Signature in favour of the City of Edinburgh, 
 
 dated 11th December, 1639, ib. 
 
 16. Extracts from the Record of Signatures, being parts of said Signature 
 
 in favour of the City of Edinburgh, dated 11th December, 1639, 48 
 
 17. Extracts from the Register of the Privy Seal, being parts of the 
 
 Precept for the said charter, in favour of the City of Edinburgh, 
 dated 11th December, 1639, . ... 49 
 
 18. Extracts from the Register of the Great Seal, being parts of said 
 
 Charter to the City of Edinburgh, . . . ib. 
 
 14. Extracts from a Crown Charter of King Charles, in favour of the 
 
 City of Edinburgh, dated 11th December, 1639. . . 50 
 
 20. Extracts from Original Signature in favour of the Governors of 
 
 Heriot’s Hospital, dated 11th December, 1639, . . 51 
 
 21. Extracts from the Record of Signatures, being parts of said Signa¬ 
 
 ture, in favour of the Governors of Heriot’s Hospital, . 52 
 
 22. Extracts from Register of the Privy Seal, being parts of the Precept 
 
 for the said Charter, in favour of the Governors of said Hospital, ib. 
 
 23. Extracts from the Register of the Great Seal, being parts of the said 
 
 Charter, in favour of the Governors of said Hospital, . 58 
 
 19. Extracts from Crown Charter, in favour of the Governors of Heriot’s 
 
 Hospital, dated 11th December, 1639, ... 54 
 
 27. A paper, entitled “ Extract Warrant for Sealing the Commissioners* 
 
 Commission, 13th November, 1638,*’ ib. 
 
 % 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 45 
 
 Hos. or Inventory 
 
 of Productions. Page 
 
 28. A paper entitled “ Extract, the Commissioner’s Declaration anent 
 
 the Great Seale,” ...... 55 
 
 24. Extract from Spottiswood’s History of the Church of Scotland, being 
 
 Inscription on Archbishop Spottiswood’s Monument, . 56 
 
 29. Extract from Mercure de France, being Letter on the Geographical 
 
 Works of De L’Isle, ..... ib. 
 
 Translation of the preceding, . . . . .57 
 
 33. Extract from the Register of the Secretary of State of France of 
 
 24th August, 1718, . . . . . ib. 
 
 Translation of the preceding, . . . . .58 
 
 34. Examined Copy Letters Patent for Installation of the Bishop of 
 
 Nismes, 26th February, 1711, . . . . ib. 
 
 35. Examined Extract from the Register of the Chapter of Cambray, 
 
 7th and 8th January, 1715, . . . . 59 
 
 37. Extracts from Recueil de Cartes, (Delisle’s Maps,) . . ib. 
 
 38. Extracts from Volume of Maps, (Delisle’s Maps,) . . 61 
 
 36. Extracts from Maps, (Delisle’s Maps,) . . . . ib. 
 
 43. Translation of Letter Le Normand to Countess of Stirling, 18th 
 
 October, 1837, ...... 62 
 
 44. Do. do. . do. to Earl of Stirling, dated 8th November, 1837, 63 
 
 46. Copy Letter Le Normand, dated 19th April, 1838, . . 64 
 
 Translation of the preceding, . . . . .66 
 
 47. Letter Le Normand to the Countess of Stirling, dated 16th June, 1838, 68 
 
 Translation of the preceding, .... 69 
 
 48. Letter docqueted Paris, 13th Aug 1 . 1838, M elle Le Normand, ib. 
 
 Translation of the preceding, . . . . . 71 
 
 45. Translated Extracts from Le Normand’s Letter to Earl of Stirling, 
 
 dated 26th September, 1838, .... 72 
 
 40. Translated Extracts from Le Normand’s Letter to Earl of Stirling, 
 
 dated 17th October, 1838, . . - . ib. 
 
 41. Translation of Letter from Le Normand to Earl of Stirling, dated 
 
 26th November, 1838, ..... 74 
 
 49. Letter docqueted Paris, 30th November, 1838, M elle Le Normand, 75 
 
 Translation of the preceding, . . • . .76 
 
 50. Letter docqueted 1839, Paris, January 8th, M clle Le Normand to 
 
 Lady S. ....... 77 
 
 Translation of the preceding, . . . . . ib. 
 
 51. Letter Le Normand to the Countess of Stirling, dated 9th January, 1839, 78 
 
 Translation of the preceding, .... 
 
 52. Letter docqueted 1839, Paris, 4th February, M elle Le Normand, 
 Translation of the preceding, ..... 
 
 53. Paper entitled Extract from a Private Deed or Agreement to repay 
 
 Loans to Le Normand, ..... 
 Translation of preceding, . . • * 
 
 4. Excerpts from Letters from Mr Eugene Alexander to the Earl of 
 Stirling, . . . • • 
 
 Judicial Declaration in Action of Reduction, 
 
 Letter referred to in Do. 
 
 First Judicial Declaration on Criminal Charge, 
 
 Second do. do. 
 
 Third do. do. ..•••• 
 
 79 
 
 80 
 81 
 
 82 
 
 83 
 
 84 
 86 
 
 ib. 
 
 89 
 
 93 
 
46 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 [No. 5 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Paper titled Copy Protest taken by Alexander Earl of Stirling 
 and Dovan, Hereditary Proprietor and Lieutenant of the Pro¬ 
 vince of Nova Scotia and the Lordship of Canada, and addressed 
 to the Right Honourable the Earl Grey, First Lord Commis¬ 
 sioner of His Majesty’s Treasury, dated 22 Oct. 1831. 
 
 [As this document has been already printed at page 18 of the Introduction 
 to the volume, it has been omitted here.] 
 
 [No. 6 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Paper entitled COPY ADDRESS to the Public Authorities, the 
 Land Settlers, Inhabitants, and all Others whom it may concern, 
 in the Anglo-Scottish Colony of Nova Scotia, including New 
 Brunswick, &c. and in the Lordship and Territory of Canada, 
 &c. 28th October, 1831. 
 
 [Printed at page 15 of Introduction, and therefore omitted here.] 
 
 [No. 8 of Inventory of Productions, a.] 
 
 Extract, Diploma Willielmi Yicecomitis de Stirling domini 
 Alexander de Tulliebodie, &c. &c.—4 Sept. 1630. 
 
 [Register of the Great Seal, Book LIII. Part 2, No. 135.] 
 
 CAROLUS &c. Igitur Nos regii nostri favoris et gratie tesseram 
 in eum conferre volentes fecimus creavimus et constituimus 
 tenoreque presentium ex regia nostra potestate et authoritate 
 regali facimus creamus et constituimus prefatum dominum Williel- 
 mum Alexander Vicecomitem de Stirling dominum Alexander de 
 Tullibodie dando et concedendo sibi et heredibus suis masculis 
 cognomen et arma de Alexander gerentibus titulum honorem 
 gradum et dignitatem Vicecomitis dicti regni nostri Scotie &c. 
 
 [Translation of the above patent of William Viscount Stirling, 
 
 4 Sep. 1630.] 
 
 Charles, &c. Therefore We, willing to confer on him a mark of 
 our Royal favour and grace, have made, created, and constituted, 
 and by the tenor of these presents, of our Royal power and kingly 
 authority, make, create, and constitute the foresaid Sir William 
 Alexander, Viscount of Stirling, Lord Alexander of Tullibodie? 
 giving and granting to him and his heirs male bearing the surname 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 47 
 
 and arms of Alexander, the title, honour, and dignity, of a Viscount 
 of our said kingdom of Scotland, & c. 
 
 [No. 8 of Inventory of Productions, 5.] 
 
 Extract, Diploma Willielmi Comitis de Stirling Vicecomitis de 
 Canada domini Alexander de Tulliebodie &c 14 Jun. 1633. 
 
 [Register of the Great Seal, Book LIV. No. 135.] 
 
 Carolus &c. Igitur Nos ex auctoritate regali et potestate regia 
 fecimus constituimus et creavimus tenoreque presentium facimus 
 constituimus et creamus prefatum Willielmum Vicecomitem de 
 Stirling Comitem de Stirling Vicecomitem de Canada Dominum 
 Alexander de Tullibodie dan. et conceden. prout tenore presen¬ 
 tium damus et concedimus sibi suisque heredibus masculis imper- 
 petuum cognomen et arma de Alexander gerentibus titulum 
 honorem ordinera et gradum dignitatis Comitis &c &c. 
 
 [Translation of the above patent of William Earl of Stirling, 
 
 14 June 1633. 
 
 Charles, &c. Therefore We, of our kingly authority and royal 
 power, have made, constituted, and created, and by the tenor of 
 these presents make, constitute, and create the foresaid William 
 Viscount Stirling, Earl of Stirling, Viscount of Canada, Lord 
 Alexander of Tullibodie, giving and granting, as by the tenor of 
 these presents we give and grant to him and his heirs male for 
 ever, bearing the surname and arms of Alexander, the title, 
 honour, rank, and degree of dignity of an Earl, &c. &c. 
 
 [No. 15 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extracts from Original Signature in favour of the City of 
 Edinburgh; of the Burgh of Regality of Canongate —11 Dec. 
 1639. 
 
 CHARLES R. 
 
 OURE SOVERANE LORD with expres advyse and consent 
 ofhishienes richt traist cousigne and counsalour Johne erle of 
 Traquair Lord Lyntoun and Caverstoun &c. heich thesaurar 
 collectour and Comptroller of the kingdome of Scotland and of his 
 hienes familiar and trustie counsallour Sir James Carmichael of 
 that Ilk knicht Depute in the saidis offices and als with consent of 
 the remanent Lordis of his Majesties excheker Commissioners of 
 the said kingdome ORDAINES ane charter to be maid under his 
 hienes great seill in dew forme GIVEAND grantand and dispone- 
 
48 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 and to his hienes lovitis The Provest Baillies counsall and com- 
 munitie of the burgh of Edinburgh and thair successouris heretablie 
 All and sindrie the particular landis burgh of regalitie superioritie 
 priviledge of regalitie and utheris efterspecifeit viz The burgh of 
 regalitie callit the Cannogait lyand betuix the burgh of Edinburgh 
 and the abbay of Halyrudhous, &c. &c. 
 
 And that the said Charter be extendit in the best forme with all 
 claussis necessar and preceptis be direct therupon in forme as 
 effeiris &c Gevin At his Majesteis Court of Quhythall the ellevint 
 day of December the yeir of God I m VI C threttie nyne zeiris. 
 
 Compositio fiftie poundis Sterling. 
 
 Traquaire Th p 
 J Hamiltoun 
 J Balcomye 
 Cranstounriddell ' 
 
 Craighall 
 
 Pleis your Sacred Majestie 
 This containes ane Gift be your Majestie 
 to the Provest baillies Counsall and Communitie 
 of the Brugh of Edinburgh of the richt and superi¬ 
 oritie of the burgh of Cannogait &c &c &c 
 
 S r Thomas Hope 
 
 [No. 16 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extracts from the Register of Signatures, being parts of said 
 
 Signature in favour of the City of Edinburgh, dated 11th Decern. 
 
 1639. [Book lv. fol. 215.] 
 
 OURE Souerane Lord with expres auise and consent of his 
 hienes right traist cowsing and counsellour Johnne earle of 
 Traquair Lord Lyntoun and Caverstoun heigh Thesaurar collector 
 and comptrollar of the kingdome of Scotland and of his familiar 
 and trustie counsellor Sir James Carmichaell of that Ilk knight 
 depuite in the saidis officeis and als with consent of the remanent 
 Lordis of his Majesties Exchecker Commissionaris of the said 
 kingdome Ordaines ane Charter to be maid under his hienes great 
 seall in dew forme Gewand grantand and disponand to his hienes 
 lowittis The Proveist baillies counsall and Communitie of the 
 burgh of Edinburgh and thair successoris heritablie All and sindrie 
 the particular landis burgh of Regalitie Superioritie priviledge of 
 regalitie and utheris efterspecifeit viz. The burgh of Regalitie 
 callit the Cannongait lyand betuix the burgh of Edinburgh and 
 the abbay of Halyruidhous <Src. &c. &c. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 49 
 
 And that the said Chairter be farder extendit &c. Gevin 
 At Quhithall the Ellewint day of December 1639 i<mo. 
 
 Suprascribitur Charles JR. Et subscribitur sic Traqnaire 
 Th r . J Hamilton J Balcomie Cranstounriddcll CraighalL 
 
 Compositio vj c li. 
 
 [No. 17 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extracts from the Register of the Privy Seal, being parts of 
 the Precept for the said Charter in favour of the City of Edin¬ 
 burgh, dated 11th December, 1639.— [Book cix. fo. 146.] 
 
 CAROLUS, Sec. QUIA, Arc. DEDIAIUS concessimus et 
 disposuimus dilectis nostris preposito ballivis consulibus et com- 
 munitati burgi nostri de Edinburgh eorumque successoribus 
 hereditarie Omnes et singulas particulares terras Burgum regali- 
 tatis superioritatem privilegium regalitatis aliaque subtus speci- 
 ficata viz. burgum regalitatis vicicanonicorum lie cannogaitt 
 nuncupat. jacen. juxta burgum nostrum de Edinburgh et monas- 
 terium sanctae crucis, &c. Sec. 
 
 VOBIS &c Apud curiam nostram de Quhythall vndecimo die 
 mensis Decembris anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo 
 nono et regni nostri anno decimo quinto. 
 
 6 lib. 
 
 Per Signetum. 
 
 [No. 18 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extracts from the Register of the Great Seal, being parts of 
 said Charter to City of Edinburgh, dated Dec. 11, 1639.— 
 [Book lvi. No. 116.] 
 
 Carolus Dei gratia magne Britannie Francie et Hibernie Rex 
 fideique defensor omnibus probis hominibus totius terre sue clericis 
 et laicis Salutem Sciatis nos cum expressis avisamento et consensu 
 confisi nostri consanguinei et consiliarii Joannis Comitis de Tra- 
 quair Domini Lintoun et Caverstoun &c. nostri magni thesaurarii 
 collectoris et computorum rotulatoris huius regni nostri Scotie ac 
 fidelis nostri consiliarii Domini Jacobi Carmiehaell de Eodem 
 Militis Barronetti nostri deputati in dictis officiis necnon cum 
 consensu reliquorum dominorum nostri scaccarii ejusdem regni 
 nostri nostrorum commissionariorum Dedisse concessisse disposuisse 
 et hac presenti carta nostra confirmasse tenoreque eiusdem dare 
 concedere disponere ac pro nobis et successoribus nostris pro 
 perpetuo confirmare Dilectis nostris preposito ballivis consulibus 
 
50 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 et communitati burgi nostri de Edinbrugh eorumque successoribus 
 hereditarie omnes et singulas particulares terras burgum regalitalis 
 superioritatem privilegium Regalitatis aliaque subtus specificata, 
 viz. Burgum regalitatis Vicicanonicorum lie Cannongait nuncupat. 
 jacen. juxta burgum nostrum de Edinbrugh et Monasterium Sancte 
 Crucis, &c. &c. 
 
 In Cuius Rei Testimonium huic presenti carte nostre magnum 
 sigillum nostrum apponi precepimus Testibus ut in alijs cartis con- 
 similis date preceden, &c. Apud aulam nostram de Whythall 
 vndecimo die mensis Decembris Anno Domini Millesimo sexcen- 
 tesimo trigesimo nono Et anno regni nostri decimo quinto. 
 
 [No. 14 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extracts from a Crown Charter of King Charles in favour of 
 the City of Edinburgh, dated 11 Dec. 1639. 
 
 CAROLUS dei gratia Magne Britannie Francie et Hibernie 
 Rex fideique Defensor OMNIBUS probis hominibus totius terre 
 sue clericis et laicis Salutem SCIATIS nos cum expressis avisa- 
 mento et consensu confisi nostri consanguinei et consiliarii Joannis 
 Comitis de Traquair Domini Lintoun et Caverstoun &c. nostri 
 Magni Thesaurarii Collectoris et Computorum rotulatoris hujus 
 regni nostri Scotie ac fidelis nostri consiliarii Domini Jacobi 
 Carmichaell de Eodem militis Baronetti nostri deputati in dictis 
 officiis Necnon cum consensu reliquorum Dominorum nostri Scac- 
 carii ejusdem regni nostri nostrorum Commissionariorum DEDISSE 
 concessisse disposuisse et hac presenti carta nostra confirmasse 
 tenoreque ejusdem dare concedere disponere ac pro nobis et suc¬ 
 cessoribus nostris pro perpetuo confirmare DILECTIS NOSTRIS 
 Preposito Ballivis Consulibus et Communitati burgi nostri de 
 EDINBURGH eorumque successoribus hereditarie OMNES et 
 singulas particulares terras Burgum Regalitatis superioritatem 
 privilegium Regalitatis aliaque subtus specifiata viz. Burgum Re¬ 
 galitatis Vicicanonicorum lie Cannogait nuncupat. Jacen. juxta 
 burgum nostrum de Edinburgh et Monasterium Sancte Crucis 
 &c. &c. 
 
 ....... • 
 
 IN CUJUS REI TESTIMONIUM huic presenti carte nostre 
 magnum sigillum nostrum apponi precepimus TESTIBUS predi- 
 lectis nostris consanguineis et consiliariis Jacobo Marchione de 
 Hamiltoun Comite Arranie et Cantabrigie domino Aven et Inner- 
 daill &c Willielmo Comite de Stirling Vicecomite de Cannada 
 domino Alexander de Tulliebodie &c nostro Secretario dilectis 
 nostris familiaribus consiliariis Dominis Joanne Hay de Barro 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 5 , 
 
 nostrorum Rotulorum registri ac consilii Clerico Joanne Hamil- 
 toun de Orbiestoun nostri Justiciarie clerico et Joanne Scott de 
 Scottistarvett nostre Cancellarie directore militibus Apud aulam 
 nostram de Whythall undecimo die mensis Decembris Anno 
 Domini Millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo nono Et anno regni 
 nostri decimo quinto. 
 
 [No. 20 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 EXTRACTS from Original Signature to the Burgh of 
 Edinburgh as Governors of Heriot’s Hospital of the 
 Toun and Lands of Bruchtoun, &c. —11 Dec. 1639. 
 
 CHARLES R 
 
 OUR SOUERANE LORD with expres advyse and consent 
 of his hienes rich traist cousigne and counsallour Johnne Erie of 
 Traquair Lord Lyntoun and Caverstoun &c. heich thesaurer Col- 
 lectour and Comptroller of the kingdome of Scotland and of his 
 hienes trustie and familiar counsallour Sir James Carmichaell of 
 that Ilk knicht depute in the saids offices and als with consent of 
 the remanent Lordis of his Majesties excheker Commissioneris of 
 the said kingdome ORDANES ane Charter to be maid undir his 
 hienes greit seill In dew forme GEVAND grantand and disponand 
 To his hienes lovittis The Provest baillies ministeris and counsall 
 of the burgh of Edinburgh as ffeoffis in trust and governouris of 
 Heriottis hospitall to the use and behuif of the said Ilospitall 
 callit Heriottis hospitall heretablie All and sindrie the landis 
 mylnes superioriteis few dewties and utheris respective eftir 
 specifeit viz All and haill the toun and landis of Bruchtoun &c 
 &c &c 
 
 And that the said Charter be extendit in the best forme with 
 all claussis necessar and preceptis to be direct heirupon In forme 
 as effeiris &c Gevin at His Majesteis Court of Quhythall the 
 ellevint day of December the yeir of God I m VI C and threttie 
 nyne yeiress 
 
 Compositio Ten merkis 
 Traquaire Th r 
 S r Thomas Hope 
 J Hamiltoun 
 Cranstounriddell 
 Craighall 
 
 Please your Sacred Majestie 
 This contains ane Gift to the Provest Baillies 
 Ministeris and Counsell of the brughe of Edinburgh 
 as feoffis In Trust and Governours of Heriottis Hos¬ 
 pitall of certaine landis &c &c 
 
 S r Thomas Hope 
 
52 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 [No. 21 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 EXTRACTS from the Record of Signatures, being parts of 
 said Signature in favour of the Governors of Heriot’s 
 Hospital, dated 11 Dec. 1639.—[Book lv. fol. 217.] 
 
 OURE Souerane Lord with expres auise and consent of his 
 hienes richt traist cowsing and counsellour Johnne earle of 
 Traquair Lord Lyntoun heighe thesaurar collector and comp- 
 trollar of the kingdome of Scotland and of his hienes trustie and 
 familiar Counsalour Sir James Carmichaell of that Ilk knight 
 Depuite in the saidis officeis. And als with consent of the 
 remanent Lordis of his Majesties Excheker commissionaris of the 
 said kingdome Ordaines ane Charter to be maid under his heines 
 great seall in dew forme Gewand grantand and disponand To his 
 hienes louittis The Proveist baillies Ministers and Counsall of the 
 said burgh of Edinburgh as ffeoffis in trust and Governouris of 
 Heriottis hospitall to the use and behuiff of the said hospitall callit 
 Heriottis hospitall heritablie All and sindrie the landis milnis 
 superioriteis fewdewties and utheris respective efterspecifeit, viz. 
 All and haill the toun and landis of Brochtoun &c &c &c 
 
 And that the said Charter be extendit in the best forme with all 
 claussis neidfull. And preceptis be direct &c. Gevin At his 
 Majesteis Court At Quhythall The Ellewint day of 
 December 1639 Suprascribitur Charles /?. Et subscri- 
 bitur sic Traquaire Th r S r Thomas Hope J Hamiltoun 
 Cranstounriddell Craighall. 
 
 Compositio vj li xiij s. iiij d. 
 
 Registrat 
 30 J&nuar 1640. 
 
 [No. 22 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extracts from the Register of the Privy Seal, being parts of the 
 Precept for the said Charter in favour of the Governors of 
 Heriot’s Hospital, dated 11 Dec. 1639.— [Book cix. f. 139.] 
 
 Carolus &c. Qufa &c. Dedimus concessimus et disposuimus 
 dilectis nostris preposito ballivis ministris et consulibus burgi nostri 
 de Edinburgh prout in feudo affidatis lie as feoffis in trust et 
 Gubernatoribus Herioti Hospitij lie Heriots Hospitall ad usum et 
 commodum dicti hospitij vocat Hcriotis Hospitall eorumque suc- 
 cessoribus hereditarie Omnes et singulas terras molendina superi- 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 53 
 
 orltates feudifirmarias devorias aliaque respective subtus specificata, 
 viz. Totas et Integras villam et terras de Brughtoun &c. &c. 
 
 VOBIS &c. APUD curiam nostram de Quhythall undecimo die 
 mensis Decembris Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo tri- 
 gesimo nono et regni nostri anno decirno quinto 
 4 lib x s. 
 
 Per Signetum. 
 
 [No. 23 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extracts from the Register of the Great Seal, being parts of the 
 said Charter in favour of the Governors of said Hospital, dated 
 Dec. 11, 1639.—[Book lvi. No. 117.] 
 
 Carolus Dei gratia Magne Brittannie Francie et Hibernie Rex 
 fideique defensor omnibus probis hominibus totius terre sue clericis 
 et laicis salutem Sciatis nos cum expressis avisamento et consensu 
 confisi nostri consanguinei et consiliarii Joannis Comitis de Traquair 
 Domini Lintoun et Caverstoun Sec . nostri magni Thesaurarii collec- 
 toris et computorum rotulatoris hujus regni nostri Scotie ac fidelis 
 nostri consiliarii domini Jacobi Carmichaell de Eodem militis 
 baronetti nostri deputati in dictis officiis necnon cum avisamento 
 et consensu reliquorum dominorum nostri Scaccarii nostrorum 
 commissionariorum dicti regni nostri Dedisse concessisse disposuisse 
 et hac presenti carta nostra confirmasse Tenoreque ejusdem dare 
 concedere disponere ac pro nobis et successoribus nostris pro per- 
 petuo confirmare Dilectis nostris preposito ballivis ministris et 
 consulibus burgi nostri de Edinburgh tanquam fidei commissariis 
 lie feoffis in trust et Gubernatoribus Hereoti Hospitii lie Hereotts 
 Hospitall ad usum et commodum dicti Hospitii vocati Hereotis 
 hospitall eorumque successoribus hereditarie Omnes et singulas 
 terras molendina superioritates feudifirme devorias aliaque respec¬ 
 tive subtus specificata viz. Totas et integras villam et terras de 
 Brughtoun &c. &c. 
 
 In cuius Rei Testimonium huic presenti carte nostre Magnum 
 Sigillum nostrum apponi precepimus Testibus ut in aliis cartis 
 consimilis date preceden. Apud aulam nostram de Whythall 
 vndecimo die mensis Decembris anno Domini millesimo Sexcen¬ 
 tesimo trigesimo nono et anno Regni nostri decirno quinto. 
 
54 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 [No. 19 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extracts from a Crown Charter in favour of the Governors of 
 Heriot’s Hospital, 11 Dec. 1639. 
 
 CAROLUS dei gratia Magne Britannie Francie et Hibernie 
 Rex fideique defensor OMNIBUS probis hominibus totius terre 
 sue clericis et laicis Salutem SCIAT1S Nos cum expressis avisa- 
 mento et consensu confisi nostri consanguinei et consiliarii Joannis 
 Comitis de Traquair domini Lintoun et Caverstoun &c. nostri 
 magni Thesaurarii Collectoris et computorum rotulatoris hujus 
 regni nostri Scotie ac fidelis nostri Consiliarii Domini Jacobi 
 Carmichaell de Eodem militis Baronetti nostri deputati in dictis 
 officiis necnon cum avisamento et consensu reliquorum Dominorum 
 nostri Scaccarii nostrorum Commissionariorum dicti regni nostri 
 DEDISSE concessisse disposuisse et hac presenti carta nostra 
 confirmasse tenoreque ejusdem dare concedere disponere ac pro 
 nobis et successoribus nostris pro perpetuo confirmare DILECTIS 
 nostris Preposito Ballivis Ministris et Consulibus burgi nostri de 
 Edinburgh tanquam fidei Commissariis lie ffeoffes in trust et 
 gubernatoribus Herioti Hospitii lie Heriotes Hospital ad usum et 
 commodum dicti Hospitii vocati Hereotes Hospitall eorumque 
 successoribus hereditarie OMNES et singulas terras molendina 
 superioritates feudifirme devorias aliaque respective subtus specifi- 
 cata viz. Totas et integras villam et terras de Brochtoun, &c. &c. &c. 
 
 IN CUJUS REI TESTIMONIUM huic presenti carte nostre 
 magnum sigillum nostrum apponi precepimus TESTIBUS predi- 
 lectis nostris consanguineis et consiliariis Jacobo Marchione de 
 Hamiltoun Comite Arranie et Cantabrigie Domino Aven et 
 Innerdail &c. Willielmo Comite de Stirling Vicecomite de Cannada 
 domino Alexander de Tulliebodie nostro Secretario dilectis nostris 
 familiaribus consiliariis Dominis Joanne Hay de Barro nostrorum 
 rotulorum registri ac consilii clerico Joanne Hamiltoun de Orbies- 
 toun nostre Justiciarie Clerico et Joanne Scott de Scottistarvett 
 nostre Cancellarie directore militibus Apud Aulam nostram de 
 Whythall undecimo die mensis Decembris Anno Domini millesimo 
 sexcentesimo trigesimo nono Et anno regni nostri decimo quinto. 
 
 [No. 27 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extract Warrant for Sealing the Commissioners’ Commission, 
 13 Nov. 1638. [ Registrum Secreti Concilii,'] 
 
 Forsamekle as it lies pleased his Majestie upon diverse good 
 considerations to committ the charge and keeping of his great sea 1 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 55 
 
 to his darrest cousine and counseller the Marques of Ilamiltoun 
 his Majesties Commissionar till his Majestie sail be graciouslie 
 pleased to declare his further will and pleasure thereanent And 
 whereas his Majestie hes made choice of his said cousine the Mar¬ 
 ques of Hamilton to be his Majesteis Commissioner for keeping 
 and halding of Parliaments and assemblies and doing of sindrie 
 other things at length specifeit in his Majesteis commission grantit 
 to him of the date the day of And seing 
 
 this Commission must necessarlie pas the Privie and great seales 
 and seing the great seal is now in the said Lord Commissioner his 
 owne keeping So as be the order of the Chancelarie it cannot be 
 exped at the Chancelarie without a warrant Thairfoir the Lords 
 of Secreit Counseill hes found it meit and necessar the Commis¬ 
 sion foresaid pas both at the privie and great seales And for this 
 effect Ordanis and commandis the Lord keiper of the privie seale 
 and writter thereto and the director of the chancellarie To writ 
 and exped the Commission foresaid in the ordinar forme dew to 
 thair place and charge and that the said Lord Commissioner caus 
 append the great Seale thereunto And farther Ordanis and com¬ 
 mands the said director of the chancellarie to write and exped all 
 other patents and writts concerning his charge and office as he did 
 in the time of anie precedent chancellours or during the time of 
 the vacancie of that office Ancnt the doing quhairof the extract of 
 this act sail be thair warrant. 
 
 [No. 28 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extract The Commissioners' Declaration anent the Great Seale, 
 14 Nov. 1638. [Registrum Secreti Concilii.~\ 
 
 The whilk day James Marques of Hamilton his Majesties Com¬ 
 missioner Declared to the Lords of Privie Counsell that according 
 to ane warrant and direction sent unto him under his Majesteis 
 royall hand That he had receaved the resignation and dimission 
 made be John Archbishop of St Andrews late lord high Chanceller 
 of this kingdome and otheris in his name of the office of Lord 
 Chanceller And that the said archbishop had delivered unto him 
 his Majesties great seale and cashett to be keeped by him during 
 his Majesteis royall will and pleasure and whill his Majestie sail 
 be pleased to give further signification of his Majesteis pleasure 
 And that in the meane time till his Majesteis pleasure be returned 
 That his Majestie allowed and willed the said Lord Commissioner 
 to append his Majesteis great scale to all infeftmentis patents and 
 other letters and writts whereunto the said great seale is requisite 
 and necessar wherethrow his Majesteis subjects susteane no harme 
 nor skaitli be the want of the said seale and cashett. 
 
 2 M 
 
56 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 [No. 24 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extract from Spottiswood’s History of the Church of Scotland, 
 being Inscription on Archbishop Spottiswood s Monument in 
 Westminster Abbey, from his Life prefixed to said History. 
 
 Memoriae sacrum. 
 
 Dominus Joannes Spotisvvood 
 Ecclesiae Sancti Andreae 
 Archiepiscopus 
 Scotiae primas 
 et regni 
 cancellarius. 
 viginti annos presbyter 
 undecem annos archiepiscopus 
 Glasgoensis, viginti quinque 
 annos S. Andreae 
 et per 
 
 quatuor annos 
 regni Scotiae cancellarius 
 ex hac vita in pace migravit 
 anno domini 1639 
 sexto calendas decembris 
 regni Caroli 15, aetatis suae 74. 
 
 [No. 29 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extract from the Mercure de France, being Lettre sur les 
 ouvrages geographiques de M. Delisle premier Geographe du 
 Roy, de FAcademie Royale des Sciences et sur sa mort. 
 
 Mercure de France , Mars 1726. 
 
 Je n’ai pas voulu interrompre la suite des annees dans lesquelles 
 il a publie ses cartes pour vous parler de fhonneur quil re£ut 
 lorsqu’il fut appelle pour aider les personnes chargees du soin de 
 conduire les etudes de ce jeune Prince. Le feu Roy avoit envoye 
 M. PAbbe Perrot consulter M. Delisle sur les choix des cartes 
 que Pon devoit mettre entre les mains de jeune Dauphin et sur la 
 methode que Pon devoit suivre pour Pinstruire des premiers ele- 
 mens de la Geographic. Lorsque ce Prince fut sur le trone et 
 dans un age un peu plus avance, M. Delisle fut charge de travailler 
 avec lui sur la Geographic; il crut qu’il ne pouvoit mieux remplir 
 les vues de ceux qui Pavoient appelle, qu’en dressant plusieurs 
 cartes, sur lesquelles il marqua les noms modernes, et les noras 
 anciens des memes lieux, et dont les divisions etoient relatives a 
 certaines epoques determinees, afin d’eclaircir entierement Phistoire 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 57 
 
 ties temps ausquels elle avoit rapport. Son travail fut si agreable 
 au Roi que pour Yen recompenser il lui confera par Brevet du 
 24 Aout 1718, la qualite de Son premier Geographe, avec 1200 
 liv. d’appointemens. II n’y avoit point d’exemple de ce titre de 
 premier geographe du Roi; et comme c’etoit a son merite singulier 
 qu il avoit ete accorde, on peut juger s’il sera possible de le rem- 
 placer. 
 
 [Translation of the preceding.] 
 
 Letter on the Geographical Works of M. De ITsle, First Geo¬ 
 grapher to the King, Member of the Academy of Sciences, and 
 on his death. 
 
 From the Mercure de France , March 1726. 
 
 I have not chosen to interrupt the series of the years in which 
 he published his maps, to tell you of the honour he received when 
 he was called to assist the persons intrusted with the direction of 
 this young Prince’s studies. The late King had sent the Abbe 
 Perrot to consult M. de l’lsle on the choice of the maps to be 
 placed in the young Dauphin’s hands, and on the method to be 
 followed in teaching him the first elements of Geography. After 
 this Prince was on the throne and a little older, M. de ITsle was 
 employed to assist his studies in Geography. He thought he 
 could not better fulfil the views of those who had appointed him, 
 than by preparing several maps on which he marked the modern 
 names with the ancient names of the same places, and where the 
 boundaries were suited to certain fixed epochs, for the purpose of 
 rendering quite clear the history of the periods to w T hich it related. 
 His labours were so agreeable to the King, that as a recompense 
 he conferred upon him by patent, of 24th August, 1718, the office 
 of his first Geographer, with 1200 livres of salary. There was no 
 former example of his title of first Geographer to the King, and as 
 it was bestowed upon him for his singular merit, we may judge if 
 it will be possible to supply his place. 
 
 [No. 33 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extract from the Register of the Secretary of State of France, 
 of date 24 August, 1718. 
 
 Du vingt quatre aoust mil sept cent dix huit. 
 
 Brevet de premier Geographe du Roy pour le Sr De ITsle 
 
 Aujourdhuy &c Le Roy etant a Paris ayant des preuves 
 authentiques de la profonde erudition du Sieur Guillaume de ITsle 
 de l academie royale des sciences par le grand nombre^ d ouvrages 
 de geographic qu’il a faits pour son usage et qui ont ete re 9 us avec 
 
58 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 une approbation generale dans le public, Sa Majeste de Eavis &c 
 voulant Eattacher plus particulierement a son service par un titre 
 d’honneur qui luy procure en mesme terns les moyens de continuer 
 des ouvrages d’une telle utilite, a declare et declare veut et entend 
 que ledit S r de Elsie 9oit doresnavant son premier geographe pour 
 servir en cette qualite aux honneurs, autboritez, prerogatives, fran¬ 
 chises, libertes, gages et droits y appartenans, que sa Majeste a 
 fixes a la Somme de douze cents livres par chacun an voulant que 
 par les gardes de son tresor royal presens et avenir, chacun en 
 Eannee de son exercice, ledit S r de Elsie en soit paye sur ses 
 Simples quittances suivant les etats ou ordonnances qui en seront 
 expedies en vertu du present brevet que Sa Majeste a pour asseur- 
 ance de sa volonte signe de Sa main et fait contresigner par moy 
 conseillier secretaire d’etat de ses commandements et finances 
 
 [Translation of the preceding.] 
 
 On the 24th of August, 1718. 
 
 Patent of first Geographer to the King for the Sr. De Elsie. 
 
 This day, &c .—The King being in Paris, having authentic proofs 
 of the profound erudition of the S. Guillaume De Elsie of the Royal 
 Academy of Science, in the great number of geographical works 
 which he has executed for his use, and which have been received 
 with general approbation by the public, His Majesty, by the advice, 
 &c. wishing to attach him more particularly to his service, by a 
 title of honour, which may procure him at the same time the means 
 of continuing works of such usefulness, has declared and declares, 
 wishes and enjoins, that the said Sieur De Elsie be henceforward 
 his first Geographer, to enjoy in that capacity the honours, autho¬ 
 rities, prerogatives, franchises, liberties, wages, and rights thereto 
 belonging, which his Majesty has fixed at the sum of twelve hun¬ 
 dred livres per annum, wishing, that by the Keepers of his Royal 
 Treasury, present and future, each in the year of his office, this 
 allowance be paid to the said Sr. de Elsie, upon his simple receipt, 
 according to the reports ordonnances which shall be issued in 
 virtue of the present patent, which his Majesty, in proof of his 
 pleasure, has signed with his hand, and caused to be counter¬ 
 signed by me, Counsellor, Secretary of State of his commande¬ 
 ments and finances. 
 
 [No. 34 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Examined Copy, Letters Patent for the Installation of the 
 Bishop of Nismcs, 26 Feb. 1711. 
 
 Louis par la grace de Dieu Roy de France et de Navarre &c. 
 • • • • . ayant fait voir en nostre conseil les bulles et provi¬ 
 
 sions apostoliques octroyees par nostre Saint Pere le Pape sur 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 59 
 
 nostre nomination, a nostre ame et feal Conseiller en nos Conseils 
 M. Caesar Jean Rousseau de la Parisiere Evesque de Nisme, <Src. 
 
 .Nous avons admis le dit Sieur Evesque, &c. 
 
 . . . Car tel est nostre plaisir. Donne a Versailles le vingt 
 
 sixieme Fevrier fan de grace mil sept cens unze, et de nostre. 
 Regne le soixante huitieme. 
 
 Signe, Louis —et plus bas—par le Roy Colbert. 
 
 [No. 35 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Examined Extract from the Register of the Chapter of 
 
 Cambray. 
 
 Feria 2, die vii Januarii 1715. 
 
 Hodie circa quintam matutinam obiit illustrissimus dominus 
 Franciscus de Salignac de La Mothe Fenelon, Archiepiscopus et 
 Dux Cameracensis, sacri Romani imperii Princeps, Comes Came- 
 racensis, &c. 
 
 Requiescat in pace. 
 
 [No. 37 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 Extracts from Book entitled ‘ Recueil de Cartes.’ 
 
 2. Delisle’s Maps without the title of ‘ Premier Geographe du Hoi.’ 
 
 1 Mappe-monde, 
 
 4 L’Europe, 
 
 77 Italie, 
 
 89 L’Asie, 
 
 93 L’Afrique, 
 
 102 L’Amerique Merid. 
 
 54 L’Allemagne, 
 
 90 Turquie, 
 
 5 Isles Britanniques, 
 
 52 Provinces Unies, 
 
 14 France, 
 
 86 Hongrie, 
 
 99 Mexique, 
 
 40 Narbonne, 
 
 48 Flanders, 
 
 55 Rhin, 
 
 57 Rhin, 
 
 49 Brabant, 
 
 106 Theatrum Historicum, 
 
 107 Theatrum Historicum, 
 
 78 Piemont, 
 
 78 Piemont Merid. 
 
 94 Egypte, 
 
 110 Grecia Merid. 
 
 41 Beziers, 
 
 18 Beauvais, 
 
 1700 
 
 1700 
 
 1700 
 
 1700 
 
 1700 
 
 1700 
 
 1701 
 
 1701 
 
 1702 
 
 1702 
 
 1703 
 1703 
 
 1703 
 
 1704 
 1704 
 1704 
 
 1704 
 
 1705 
 1705 
 1705 
 1707 
 1707 
 1707 
 
 1707 
 
 1708 
 1710 
 
60 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 112 Italia Media, 
 
 . 1711 
 
 19 Picardie, 
 
 1712 
 
 20 Champagne, 
 
 . 1713 
 
 21 Champagne Merid. 
 
 1713 
 
 2 Hemisphere Septent. 
 
 . 1714 
 
 3 Hemisphere Merid. 
 
 1714 
 
 113 Sicilia, 
 
 . 1714 
 
 26 Normandie, 
 
 1716 
 
 85 Sicile, 
 
 . 1717 
 
 100 Louisiane, 
 
 . June 1718 
 
 ‘ Recueil de Cartes 
 2.—Delisle’s Maps having the title of ‘ Premier Geographe du lloi.’ 
 
 97 Amerique Septent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1700 
 
 108 Africa, 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 1700 
 
 75 Espagne, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1701 
 
 46 Pays bas Catholiques, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1702 
 
 98 Canada, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1703 
 
 103 Perou, 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 1703 
 
 104 Paraguay, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1703 
 
 61 Suabe Merid. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1704 
 
 60 Suabe Septen. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1704 
 
 91 Chine, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1705 
 
 12 Moscovie, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1706 
 
 92 Tartarie, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1706 
 
 50 Hainaut, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1706 
 
 88 Grece, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1707 
 
 96 Barbarie, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1707 
 
 115 Tou), 
 
 
 
 
 
 1707 
 
 95 Congo, . 
 
 
 
 
 
 1708 
 
 109 Grecia Septen. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1708 
 
 17 Senlis, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1709 
 
 31 Bourgogne, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1709 
 
 11 Danemarc, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1710 
 
 116 Delphinatus, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1710-11 
 
 15 Prevoste de Paris, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1711 
 
 47 Artois, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1711 
 
 38 Bearn, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1712 
 
 37 Bourdelois, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1714 
 
 105 Orbis Veterum, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1714 
 
 42 Provence, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1715 
 
 72 Suisse, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1715 
 
 111 Italia Antiqua, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1715 
 
 16 Paris, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1716 
 
 87 Hongrie, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1717 
 
 101 Antilles, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1717 
 
 22 Orleans, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1718 
 
 74 Pologne, 
 
 
 
 
 
 no date. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 61 
 
 [No. 38 of Inventory of Productions.} 
 Extracts from a Volume of Maps without Title. 
 Delisle s Maps—late impressions . 
 
 24* Italie, 
 
 13* Allemagne, 
 
 21 Espagne, . 
 
 23 Pays bas Catholiques, 
 22* Provinces Unies, 
 
 7 Canada, 
 
 16* Hongrie, 
 
 17 Pologne, . 
 
 31 Theatrum historicum, 
 
 32 Theatrum historicum, 
 33* Grecia Merid. 
 
 30 La Grece, 
 
 34 Grecia Septent. 
 
 36 Italia Antiqua, 
 
 14 Suisse, 
 
 4 Malabar, . 
 19 France, 
 
 1700. 
 
 Printed after 1745. 
 
 1701. 
 
 
 1745. 
 
 1701. 
 
 — 
 
 1745. 
 
 1702. 
 
 
 1745. 
 
 1702. 
 
 — 
 
 1745. 
 
 1703. 
 
 
 1745. 
 
 1703. 
 
 
 1745. 
 
 1703. 
 
 
 1745. 
 
 1703. 
 
 _ 
 
 1745. 
 
 1705. 
 
 — 
 
 1745. 
 
 1707. 
 
 -- 
 
 1745. 
 
 1707. 
 
 •-- 
 
 1745. 
 
 1708. 
 
 — 
 
 1745. 
 
 1715. 
 
 
 1745. 
 
 1745. 
 
 
 1745. 
 
 1723. 
 
 # 
 
 1745. 
 
 1731. 
 
 — 
 
 1745. 
 
 [No. 36 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Delisle s Maps —from the Archives of the Kingdom of France . 
 
 A. * Pays bas Catholiques, 1702. 
 
 B. * Canada, . . 1703. 
 
 C. Canada, . . . 1703. Printed after 1783. 
 
 D. Pologne, . . 1703. 
 
 E. * Italia, . . . 1715. 
 
 F. Italia, . . . 1715. 
 
 G. Louisiane, . June 1718. 
 
 H. Maine, 25 May 1719. 
 
 I. Amerique, . 1722. 
 
 Without the title of ‘ Premier Geographe du Roi 
 
62 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER I1UMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 [No. 43 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Translation of M elle Le Normand’s Letter to the Countess of 
 
 Stirling. 
 
 Paris , 18 th October , 1837. 
 
 My dear Countess, 
 
 Receive my best thanks for your remem¬ 
 brance, and, pray, be persuaded that I feel happy in being able to 
 contribute to the establishment of your husband’s rights. I like to 
 believe that the truth and authenticity of the important document 
 cannot possibly be doubted. I have, for a long time past, men¬ 
 tioned your claims to personages of influence, who have told me,— 
 
 ‘ We know the affair of Lord Stirling, but he has a powerful party 
 ‘ opposed to him.* Justice, however, is pure, and will not make 
 her scales incline on the side of the strongest. The map of Canada 
 which I have in my possession, and which you may lay before the 
 Judges composing the Sovereign Court of Scotland, will not only 
 serve to enlighten them, but also to convince them. As a French 
 woman, I cannot know any thing of your English law’s; but, truly, 
 in this country, our Magistrates would say, ‘ These are, indeed, 
 speaking proofs !’ 1 cannot tell you, my dear Countess, that I have 
 
 had this map of Canada since the Revolution of 1789. Certainly 
 not 1 But, at that unfortunate period, every thing which belonged 
 to Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette’s private cabinet was scat¬ 
 tered abroad. This map, therefore, could not be found in the 
 archives of the State, but became an object of distinct curiosity, 
 separated from the royal cabinet. The person who, from feelings 
 of respect, presented it to me, w rites thus : ‘ I bought it in 1819 
 ‘ as an object of curiosity, on account of the autographs upon it. 
 
 ‘ The tradesman told me it was believed to have been taken from 
 
 * the interior of the cabinet of Louis XVI.’ ‘ It might well have 
 ‘ formed a part of a collection belonging to that unfortunate prince. 
 
 * So much the more so, as his grandfather w rote a marginal note 
 
 * upon it.’ I am also told in this letter—‘ If the document can be 
 i useful to the family' whom you know, and for whom you feel so 
 ‘ much interested, I shall be glad, especially as I am under personal 
 c obligations to you, Mademoiselle Le Normand. The situation I 
 1 occupy prevents me from openly declaring my r self,’ &c. &c. Being 
 curious, beyond all powder of expression, about whatever is con¬ 
 nected with the arts, with politics, or with antiquity, it cannot 
 appear surprising to those who know me, that I have in my posses¬ 
 sion valuable autographs. If my Lords, your Judges, raise any 
 difficulties about this matter, as regards my name, or the friendship 
 which has united us since 1812, show them first the works of your 
 friend, and afterwards let them make inquiries in France. I have 
 lived in the Rue de Tournon since 1795. I am a proprietor of 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 63 
 
 houses and lands, and a patented bookseller since 1810, established 
 at Paris. In short, I could have told you, ‘ I have had this map 25 
 * years ; but I should have told a falsehood, and never did a false¬ 
 hood defile my lips. Besides, if it had been in my possession, I 
 should long since have given it up to you. I hope all your wishes 
 will be accomplished. Send an express to me to fetch the map. 
 I will deliver it to the person in the same envelope in which it was 
 sent to me. Adieu my dear Countess. Once more, be happy, as 
 well as my Lord and your children. 
 
 Your friend, 
 
 Le Normand. 
 
 [No. 44 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Translation of M eUe Le Normand’s Letter to the Earl of Stirling, 
 dated Paris , November 8, 1837. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 I have received your letter by the hands of Mr 
 Alexander, your second son. I have caused inquiries to be made, 
 which I am still continuing, to ascertain who were the possessors 
 of the map of Canada from the year 1789. But it is impossible, 
 my dear Lord, to establish this fact. Our Revolution caused the 
 overthrow and destruction of every thing that was in the Palace of 
 our Kings. How many documents of value to families have been 
 scattered abroad, sold, or torn in pieces ! It was by a great and 
 signal miracle that your map, covered with authentic autographs, 
 fell into my hands. Monsieur Villenave observed to your Son, — 
 
 ‘ The possessor of this map must be under the greatest obligations 
 c to Mademoiselle Le Normand, to have parted with so scarce a 
 ‘ document in her favour.’ 
 
 As for me, my dear Lord, I again affirm, that on the 11th of July 
 of this year, the large envelope, which I preserve with its seals, 
 contained, 1st, the map of Canada, &c.; 2d, a letter addressed to 
 me, of which your son must have sent you a copy. I have already 
 said, and repeated, that it is not surprising the possessor gave up 
 the map to me. I have spoken to persons holding high stations in 
 society of your rights, of the justness of your claims. On that 
 account, it was considered making me a really acceptable present, 
 in grateful return for my advice , when homage was made to me of 
 such important writings. If your just cause were mine, I would 
 say, in presence of the Supreme (Sovereign) Court of Scotland,— 
 ‘ Either the map I have the honour to submit for your enlightened 
 ‘judgment is not a true original, or it is one. In the first case, it 
 ‘ belongs to you gentlemen to furnish the proof; in the second, 
 
 ‘ good and valid justice ought to be administered ; prejudices ought 
 < to be dismissed from this cause. Were it otherwise, and you 
 ‘ persisted in requiring me to declare who have been the possessors 
 
64 trial OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 < of the map from the year 1789, it would then be necessary for 
 
 < me to invoke the shade of the unfortunate Charles the First. It 
 « would tell you, my Lords, I granted the Charter of 1639 in favour 
 
 < of the Earls of Stirling. My successors ought to know, that if 
 
 < good faith be banished from society, it ought still to dwell in the 
 
 < breast of Kings ! King Charles the Second granted a desert to 
 t William Penn in America. He transported thither men of pure 
 « lives and vigorous arms. Their descendants enjoy at present the 
 
 < fruit of the labours of their founder. You cannot do less in favour 
 
 < of the Earl of Stirling, whose ancestor was the creator, in a great 
 « measure, of your possessions in Canada. The demand that I 
 
 < should retrace [go back, re-ascend] to the year 1789 is indiscreet. 
 
 ‘ Judge whether the attestations are genuine, and then pronounce 
 ‘ your decision. Several Advocates of the Parisian Bar have de- 
 ‘ dared that the question was not, whence came the precious docu- 
 ‘ ment, but whether it was or was not valid ? Therein lies all the 
 * pith of the inquiry. Lord Stirling presents it. He relies on its 
 i contents for support. All vain formalities are evasions of the 
 i truth/ 
 
 Your Scotch Judges will no doubt be sufficiently enlightened, 
 without admitting the ambiguous reasons of your adversaries ! 
 Appeal to public opinion. Strike down the hydra , and prove that 
 you would be unworthy of the title of a Peer of Scotland if you 
 overshadowed [deviated from] the truth. 
 
 I speak to you according to the dictation of my thoughts, but 
 truly there are so many resources in what you demand, that I 
 would hope in the present reign prompt and ‘ eclatante’ reparation 
 will be granted to you. Otherwise I should say, — 1 What, then, 
 
 ‘ surely Albion, noble Albion, cannot shew herself less generous 
 ‘ than was France towards the United States’ II!!!!! 
 
 Be the interpreter of my sentiments to the dear Countess and 
 her children. The map is delivered by me to your son under a 
 sealed cover, and he has given me your receipt. 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 Your very humble servant, 
 
 Le Normand. 
 
 [No. 46 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 % # 
 
 Copy Letter, M elle Le Normand. 
 
 Paris, 19 Avril 1838. 
 
 Milord, 
 
 Je vous confirme ma precedente. Settlement j’ajoute 
 que le 12 courant, un Anglais s’est presente chez moi, accompagne 
 d'un Interpretc Fran^ais. II m’a dit: ‘ la carte produite par vous 
 * ^ Lord Stirling, et dont il pretend s’etoycr est fausse : c’cst a dire, 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 65 
 
 4 les autographes. On vous a demande a la Police, d’ou cette piece 
 4 provenait—Nous vous le demandons encore. On ferait meme des 
 4 sacrifices en argent pour connaitre sa veritable origine . Vous avez 
 4 une lettre d’envoi de la dite Carte. Veuillez vous la montrer?’ 
 
 4 Sur la proposition d’argent j’ai repondre — 4 Ce n’est pas a moi 
 4 qu’il taut faire des ofFres, mais bien a Lord Stirling, qui depuis 
 4 long temps reclame son du.’— 4 II en faudrait trop/ a-t-on dit: 
 
 4 l’intention serait d’ancantir cette affair ; de laver son linge en 
 4 famillef &c. &e. telle fut l’expression propre!!* ‘Mais que 
 4 deviendrait alors Lord Stirling et sa famille ?' 4 Oupourraitfaire 
 
 4 quelques sacrifices pour les empecher de crier 9 (propre expression) 
 
 4 Du reste, cette Carte est oraie, mais les autographes, Non ! 1 ! 
 
 4 Je ne s’agit plus du jugement de la Cour Souveraine d Ecosse. 
 4 C’est termine, mais bien de Forigine de la Carte: Non pour faire 
 4 de la peine a Lord Stirling. On tient seulement a savoir d’ou elle 
 4 vient.’ Sur mon refus de montrer la lettre d’envoi, Flnterprete 
 Fran^ais dit. 4 Cet Anglais n’est point charge de vous faire des 
 4 ofFres. C’est erreur dans la traduction des deux langues.’ Je 
 4 n’ai pu en empecher de dire : C’est trop fort I’ 11s ont ete 
 chez M. Villenave, a ce qu’il parait. Bref, ce Monsieur est con- 
 vaincu de l’authenticite de l’autographe de Flechier, et des quel¬ 
 ques lignes de Louis XV. Je vous avais bien dit, que vous auriez 
 du avoir la consultation du Barreau Fran^ais ; que toutes les pieces 
 soient reconnues par Experts ; et jugement rendu a cet effet: Vous 
 Juges Ecossais ne pourraient alter contre une semblable evidence. 
 Comment voulez-vous qu’en France on puisse juger sur des fac¬ 
 simile ? f Je vous dit que la prevention et contre vous ; qu’on croit 
 que le jugement est deja porte; qu’il faut faire echover cette inter¬ 
 minable procedure. II s’agit maintenant pour vous d’exiger que la 
 carte revetue de ces autographes soit renvojee en France, pour 
 etre reconnue par ceux qui Font rire, et attestee par ceux qui veri- 
 fieront les autographes. D’apres, les avocats feront leurs observa¬ 
 tions; le Tribunal rendra son jugement. II parait que c’est par 
 l’entremise de Fambassadeur Anglais a Paris, que cette enquete 
 verbale se fait (comment vos Juges Ecossais pourront — ils sen 
 rapporter a des on dits !) 
 
 Envoyez promptement, ou venez vous—meme, si faire peut, pour 
 suivre une Enquete legale. C’est le moment d’agir. Sans cela, 
 mon cher Milord, Je craindrais le terrible coup de massue. On 
 dit que vos enfans sont venu a Paris en 1836 sous des noms sup¬ 
 poses ; vous meme aussi. J’ai dit 4 Si Milord etait venu a Paris, je 
 4 Faurais vu. Ce n’est que fin d’Octobre ou les premiere jours de 
 4 Novembre, que j’ai re 9 u la visite de Son Fils Charles. II n’est 
 4 reste que quelques jours dans la capitale. Je lui ai remis la Carte 
 
 * Note , by this word M' Ue - draws attention to the dirtiness or indelicacy of the 
 
 expressions.—S. . . , „ 
 
 f From this remark, it is quite clear the men had impressions to shew jyr' e ' 
 and M. Villenave of the Edinburgh facsimile; at least of the autographs—S. 
 
66 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 4 du Canada, seigneusement enveloppee ; contre un re^u de Lord 
 4 Stirling/ On vous travaille en tous sens fortune, reputation, &c. 
 &c. 11 s’agit de parler, et d’employer tous vos moyens. Sans cela 
 
 vous serez maltraite par les arbitres de votre sort. Consultez vos 
 Avocats. J’ai vu que votre route etait semee d’epines. J’ai en 
 raison. Si on ne vous accordait pas la demande du renvoi de la 
 Carte en France, protestez sur le jugement avenir. II me semble 
 que Ton ne saurait dire un proces est termine, s’il ne c’est pas. Je 
 souhaite que tous ceux que se dirent vos amis, vous restent aussi 
 sinceres que moi. Je ne connais que la verite. Si cette Carte est 
 bonne, pourquoi en douter ? S’ils jugent le contraire, a quoi sert 
 tant d'investigations I C*est une enquete legale devant des Magis- 
 trats (torn) qu’il faut faire entendre sur le merite des autographs 
 —non des conversations. 
 
 Ces Messieurs devaient revenir. Je ne les ai pas vus — Ils 
 n’aimaient pas ma franchise et l’interet, que je portais a votre 
 famille. Quoique depouille de vos titres par le jugement de Lord 
 Cockburn, selon eux , vous rien etes pas moins, a mes yeux, un par- 
 fait honnete homme ; et je fais des vceux bien sinceres pour que le 
 Gouvernement Anglais vous traite avec bienveillance et que la 
 Chambre des Paris, s’il y (torn) vous de dommage de vos longs 
 malheurs et fasse droit a vos reclamations! — Hommage a la Com- 
 tesse — Je vous salve. 
 
 L. N. 
 
 This is a true copy of the original letter of Mademoiselle Le 
 Normand, received this day, 28d of April 1838. 
 
 Stirling. 
 
 [Translation of the Preceding.] 
 
 Paris , \$th April 1838. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 I beg to confirm what I stated in my preceding 
 Letter. I shall only add that on the 12th current, an Englishman 
 presented himself at my House, accompanied by an Interpreter. 
 He said to me: 44 The map procured by you for Lord Stirling, and 
 by means of which he pretends to bolster up his claim, is forged ; 
 or rather the Autographs. You have been asked by the Police 
 Authorities whence came that document. We again put the 
 question to you. We are even icilling to pay a sum of money for 
 the discovery of its true origin . You have a letter which accom¬ 
 panied the map—be pleased to shew it to us/ The proposal as to 
 the money was instantly met by this answer— 4 It is really not to 
 me that offers should be made, but to Lord Stirling, who has so long 
 been demanding what is due to him !* 4 It would require too large 
 
 a sum !’ was the reply ; 4 Wc are anxious to put an end to this 
 affair; to effect a quiet settlement of our differences!* ( 4 laver son 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 07 
 
 linge en famille !’) Such was the very expression. ‘ But what 
 would then become of Lord Stirling and his family?’ < Some sacri¬ 
 fice might be made to keep them quiet ! / (the very expression)— 
 after all this map is genuine, but the Autographs—No ! I! The 
 question is no longer as to the decision of the Supreme Court of 
 Scotland—that is at an end—but the question is as to the origin 
 of the map; not with any intention of giving pain to Lord Stirling. 
 We are merely anxious to ascertain whence it comes/ On my 
 refusal to shew the accompanying letter, the french interpreter 
 said, This Englishman is not instructed to make you any offers, 
 it is an error in the Translation/ I could not avoid exclaiming: 
 ‘that is too much I’(‘ C’est trop fort !’) It appears they 
 have been at Mr Villenave’s. In short, that Gentleman is con¬ 
 vinced of the authenticity of the Autograph of Flechier, and of the 
 few lines of Louis the Fifteenth’s. I told you, that you should 
 have consulted the French Bar; that you should have had all the 
 documents approved by men of skill {Experts ;) and Judgment 
 given to that effect. Your Scottish Judges could not proceed in 
 the face of such evidence.—How is it possible that in France any 
 Judgement can be formed on fac similes. I tell you—that the 
 prejudice is against you ; that the belief is that judgement has 
 already gone forth; that this interminable process must be stranded. 
 The point for you now is to demand that the map, on which the 
 Autographs appear, be sent back to France, in order that it may 
 be recognized by those who have seen it, and attested by those 
 who will verify the autographs. Upon this, counsel will make 
 their observations, the Court will deliver its Judgement. It 
 appears that it is through the medium of the English Ambassador 
 at Paris that this verbal enquiry is going on (how can your Scotch 
 Judges be guided by on dits?) Send some one speedily; or, if 
 possible, come in person, to follow up a legal enquiry. Now is the 
 moment for action. Without that, my dear Lord, I should much 
 fear the terrific Club stroke. It is said that your children and you 
 yourself came to Paris in 1836, under assumed names. My answer 
 was, ‘ Had my Lord come to Paris, I should have seen him. It was 
 ‘not till the end of October, or about the first of November, that I 
 ‘ received a visit from his son Charles. He remained but a few 
 ‘days in the Capital. I gave him the map of Canada, carefully 
 ‘ wrapped up—on receiving Lord Stirling’s receipt/ You are 
 assailed on every side—fortune, reputation, &c. Sec, Now is the 
 time to speak out and to summon all your resources, otherwise you 
 will be rudely handled by the arbiters of your destiny. Consult 
 your Counsel—I saw that your path was strewed with thorns, and 
 I was right. If they refuse your demand of sending back the map 
 to France, protest against any future decision. It appears to me 
 that a process cannot be considered as terminated, when it is not 
 so. I hope all those who call themselves your friends, may remain 
 as sincere as I am. I know nothing but the truth. If this map 
 is genuine, why doubt it? If they are of a contrary opinion, to 
 
(58 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 what purpose so much investigation ? It is a legal enquiry before 
 magistrates (torn) that must be heard on the merits of the auto¬ 
 graphs—not conversations. These gentlemen were to have re¬ 
 turned. I have not seen them. They did not relish my frank¬ 
 ness, and the interest which I bore your family. Altho’ according 
 to them , stript of your titles, by the judgement of Lord Cockburn, 
 —you are not the less, in my eyes, a perfectly honest man ; and I 
 sincerely hope the English Government may treat you with kind 
 consideration ; and that the House of Lords, if there (torn) may 
 indemnify you for your protracted misfortunes, and do justice to 
 your demands ! My duty to the Countess. 
 
 ‘ Your’s, 
 
 ‘L. m: 
 
 4 
 
 [No. 47 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 A Letter addressed to Madame La Comtesse de Stirling, and 
 bearing to be signed Le Normand, and dated 16 Juin 1838. 
 
 Milord, 
 
 Comment se fait il! que d’apres tout 1’interet que 
 je vous ai porte et vous porte encore vous me negligiez totalement. 
 J’avais con^u le dessein de me rendre a Londres, au moment de la 
 reunion brillante du Couronneraent, el pour servir vos reclamations. 
 Nul* lettre de vous, en reponse de ma derniere. Je vous y donnais 
 des renseignemens precieux. Votre silence me fait peine. Seriez 
 vous indispose ou la chere Comtesse, les enfans. Veuillez lever 
 mes doutes. Je vous previens de vous garantir des fausses pro- 
 messes. On poura en France vous faire entrevoir la possibility de 
 traiter, meme vous fournirdes fonds. C’est un piege. Ne Signez 
 nul ecrit que vous ne voyez entre vos mains une realite. On a 
 travaille en tout sens l’opinion a votre sujet. Avis au Lecteur. Ou 
 en etes vous de votre proces. Je devais etre appelee le 18 mai. 
 Votre derniere lettre me demandait le signalement des envoye. f 
 Je vous l’ai caique affirmativement. Avez vous re^u cette lettre, 
 elle etait tout simplement adressee a la Comtesse, a Ldimbourg. 
 un simple pain a cacheter la refermait: Je favais fait ainsi pour 
 que les Curieux ne voie J aucun mistere. Je serais bien flattee 
 d’apprendre que vos efforts soient Couronnes, car apres tant de 
 traverses, il serait bien temps que la raison et le bon droit soit § 
 ecoutes. Veuillez me repondre de suite, me tenir au courant et 
 Comptcz comme par le passe sur mon zele raon attachement, et le 
 plaisir que j’aurais d’apprendre que vous soyez heureux, ainsi que 
 Taimable famille et les Chers enfans. en attendant de vos precieuses 
 nouvelles, car depuis plus d’un mois j’en suis privee, Veuillez me 
 croire Milord avec la Consideration la plus distinguee, 
 
 Votre tres humble servante, 
 
 Le Normand. 
 
 16th Juin, 1838. 
 
 P.S. un Souvenir d amitie a toute la famille. 
 
 * For nulle. f F° r envoy4s. f For voient. 
 
 § For soient. 
 
(59 
 
 STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 [Translation of the Preceding.] 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 How comes it that after all the interest I have borne 
 and still bear towards you, you should totally neglect me ! I had 
 formed the design of going to London, at the period of the 
 brilliant assemblage for the Coronation and to advance your claims. 
 No letter from you in answer to my last; In it I gave you infor¬ 
 mation—your silence grieves me—can it be that you or the dear 
 Countess or children are unwell: Do pray remove my doubts. 
 I forewarn you to be upon your guard against false promises. In 
 France they may throw out the possibility of entering into en¬ 
 gagements with you and even of providing you with funds. This 
 is a snare ; Sign no paper till you hold something tangible. They 
 have worked up the public mind in every possible way against you. 
 Notice to the Reader. What length have you got with your 
 process. I was to have been summoned the 18th of May. In 
 your last letter you ask me the description of the persons sent—I 
 have drawn it faithfully for you; Did you receive that letter—it 
 was just addressed to the Countess at Edinburgh—and was only 
 closed with a wafer—I did so that the inquisitive might not ima¬ 
 gine that it contained any mystery. I should be highly gratified 
 to learn that success has crowned your efforts—for after so many 
 disappointments it would be high time that reason and just right 
 should be heard—pray answer me immediately and let me know 
 how things get on and rely as hitherto upon my zeal, attachment 
 and the pleasure it w r ould afford me to learn that you are happy 
 as well your amiable family and the dear children. Awaiting news 
 from you so precious to me and of which I have been deprived for 
 more than a month, I beg you to believe me with the most dis¬ 
 tinguished consideration—Your very humble servt. 
 
 Le Normand. 
 
 16 June 1838.— 
 
 P.S. My Friendly regards to all the family. 
 
 [No 48 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Letter docqueted Paris, 13th Augt. 1838, M lle Le Normand. 
 
 R. 17th Do. 
 
 Milord, 
 
 J’avais prevu le retard de votre affaire, et ne pouvant 
 I* accelerer, j’ai prefere ne point troubler votre quietude, ne para¬ 
 lyser vos moyens. XIs sont immenses • Vos ennemis furieux. II 
 en est qui s’en prennent a moi meme, de vous avoir remis la carte 
 du Canada. Je me trouve heureuse, si par ma bonne volonte ains 
 
70 TRIAL OK ALEXANDER IIUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 mon influence clans la societe, j’ai pu concourir a etablir, soutenir 
 vos droits, et amener a fin cet interminable proces. Du courage 
 done au present en attendant le triomphe de l’avenir ! le deces de 
 Vun de vos juges , semblerait vous etre nuisible. Cependant il en est 
 aujourd’hui de mieux intentionnes, ne faut point s’en rapporter a 
 des esperances trompeuses, mais surveiller I Car de nouvelles 
 machinations sembleraient se preparer ! ! ! ! Je suis visite par des 
 Anglais qui sont hostiles a vos reclamations. J’en ai convaincu 
 plusieurs par la force de mon raisonnement. Alors ils finissent 
 par s’ecrier: Oh I oh ! Ce qui nous paraissait jusqui-ci une fable, 
 finirait done par devenir une realite. Yes, yes, ce que vous dites 
 s’accomplira!! !! Mon cher Milord, j’en accepte l’augure pour 
 vous et votre interissante famille. J’ai encore fait faire des 
 recherches immenses. Sur les anciens possesseurs de la carte du 
 Canada, je n’ai rien de positif Mais en fait; les Juris-consultes 
 les plus eclaires de la capitale sont d’accord ; que si elle est soumise 
 a I’examen de juges eclaires ils pronon^eront sur sa validite. Ou 
 elle est vraie dans son contenu, ou elle offre des divergences. 
 C’est a la justice a prouver, et non pas a vous de dire; a telle 
 ‘ epoque elle etait dans le cabinet de Louis XVI. Roi de France/ 
 depuis 1789, elle fut vendue avec une infinite d’autres papiers, un 
 Bouquiniste la revendit a un amateur, cet amateur en a fait hom- 
 mage a un ministre curieux d’autographes, &c. &c. en fait; cette 
 carte est nulle pour la Politique Fran^aise. Nos droits sur le 
 Canada ne sont point reserves. Ce serait done par Keffet du plus 
 grand des hazards, si on retrouvait trace d’une correspondance. 
 Car en definitif; pour etre parvenue a Louis quinze, un memoire a 
 du la preceder ; mais ou est-il ? Notre Revolution a tout boulverse, 
 tout confondu! et selon le dire des hommes les plus eclaires du 
 Barreau; II est trop rigoureux d’exiger de vous, le certificat 
 cTorigine de la veille* Carte du Canada , Ainsi done, faites votre 
 projet de mes reflexions, et tenez vous en garde contre d’astucieux 
 argumens. Pour M T . il cut voulu seul negocier ! ! ! la conjiajice 
 doit etre discrete , et non pleniere. Gardez vous de choquer I C’est 
 Janus , mais a mtnager ! ! ! Targent sera bien rare. Quelques 
 empi unts partiels. Mais M, T. a paralyse. V (torn) Fils doivent 
 employer le langage de la persuasion pour convaincre. Mais vos 
 ennemis disent effrontement; que votre dernier titre est votre 
 ouvrage , &c. Que vous etes venu a Paris. J’ai dit non f d ailleurs, 
 Je lauruis vu ! en verite, cette cabale est infernale, on e (torn) 
 depite du Zele que j’ai mis a vous servir. Vous arriverez au mois 
 de Novembre avec gene, un peu d’argent sera donne. faites en 
 sorte; que Ton ne recule pas encore ; car un retard serait serieux. 
 tenez moi au courant. Assurez la Comtesse de mon attachement. 
 Mes complimens a vos Fils. Croyez moi, Milord, avec devoue- 
 nient, votre devouee, 
 
 L. N. 
 
 * For vieille. 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 71 
 
 [Translation of the preceding.] 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 1 had foreseen the delay in your business, and not 
 being able to accelerate its progress, I thought it better not to 
 disturb your peace of mind, or paralyze your resources. They are 
 immense. Your enemies frantic. Some of them even blame me 
 for having given you the map of Canada. I feel happy if, by my 
 anxious wish to serve you, and my influence in society, I have 
 been able to contribute to establish and support your claims, and 
 bring to a close this interminable process. Courage, then, for the 
 present, in expectation of future triumph. The death of one of your 
 Judges , would appear to be prejudicial to you; there are, however, 
 at present some of them better inclined towards you. Don’t place 
 reliance upon hopes that may prove delusive; but be upon the 
 watch ! for new machinations would appear to he in preparation !!!! 
 
 ; I am visited by Englishmen who are hostile to your claims. I 
 have convinced several by the force of my arguments. They then 
 end by exclaiming Oh ! Oh ! what hitherto appeared a fable, 
 would then turn out to be a reality; yes, yes, what you say will be 
 accomplished??? My Dear Lord, l accept the omen for you 
 and your interesting family. 1 have again caused the most 
 searching inquiries to be made. As to the former possessors of the 
 map of Canada, I know nothing positive ; but the fact is, that the 
 most enlightened lawyers of the capital agree, that, if it be sub¬ 
 mitted to the examination of enlightened judges, they will pro¬ 
 nounce in favour of its validity. Either it is true in its contents, 
 or it affords room for difference of opinion. It is the business of 
 the Court, not yours, to say at what period it was in the closet of 
 Louis 16th King of France. Subsequent to the year 1789 it was 
 sold with a number of other papers. A dealer in old books resold 
 it to an Amateur ; this Amateur presented it to a Minister of State 
 who was curious in Autographs, &c. &c.; the fact is, that this map 
 is worthless as far as French Politics go. We have reserved no 
 rights upon Canada. It would therefore be the effect of the 
 greatest chance if they recovered any trace of a correspondence ; 
 doubtless, before reaching Louis the Fifteenth a memorial must 
 have preceded it; but where is it ? Our revolution has upset and 
 thrown every thing into confusion ! And according to the opinion 
 of the most enlightened of the Bar, it is too rigorous to exact from 
 you the certificate of the origin of the old Map of Canada . Form 
 therefore your plans from my reflections, and be on your guard 
 against crafty arguments. As to M. T. he could have wished to 
 have been sole negotiator ! ! I Confidence ought to he discreet and 
 not unlimited ; Beware of giving offence ; he is a Janus hut to he 
 carefully treated ! ! ! Money will be rather scarce. Some partial 
 loans, but M. T. has paralyzed. Your sons ought to employ the 
 language of persuasion to convince. But your enemies have the 
 
 2 N 
 
72 trial OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 effrontery to say ,—that your last title is your own handywork , &c. 
 —that you have returned to Paris—my answer has been No ! for 
 I should have seen him . This Cabal is really infernal, they are 
 full of spite at the zeal I have shewn to serve you. You will be 
 much pinched to reach the month of November. A little money 
 will be given. Contrive so that there may be no farther delay, 
 for delay would be productive of the most serious consequences— 
 Assure the Countess of my attachment: my compliments to your 
 Sons. Believe me my Lord with devotedness your devoted. 
 
 L. N. 
 
 [No 45 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Translated Extracts from Mademoiselle Le Normand’s Letter 
 of 26th September, 1838, to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 4 I can no longer understand the difficulties they oppose to you 
 4 regarding the veracity of your great map. How can we re-ascend 
 4 to the origin of an autograph document which has perhaps passed 
 4 through various hands! Either it is a legal title, or it is not. 
 4 Your Judges must decide the question ; and it is according to 
 4 the opinion of well-informed people, doing you a remarkable 
 4 injury, as well as myself, to pretend a possible falsification. I 
 4 delivered it up to you in the state in which it was deposited at 
 4 my house. I shall feel happy if this document serve to establish 
 4 your rights. The pleasure of being useful has, at all periods, 
 4 been the honourable mission I have constantly fulfilled. If your 
 4 Judges knew me, they would also know, that whatever partakes 
 4 of intrigue is foreign to my character,’ &c. 
 
 4 I return to my argument. Either the proof is good, or it is a 
 4 forgery. In the first case, you must gain your suit. In the 
 4 second hypothesis, demand an inquiry in France . Let the map 
 < of Canada be submitted to a jury of artists (“ des Experts.”) 
 4 Let it be deposited in a public place, where every one shall be 
 4 able to judge of it. Let the newspapers repeat an appeal to 
 4 impartial justice. I would oppose myself to a final judgment of 
 4 my equals if I saw their non-conviction of the signatures attached 
 4 to it in France. I would say, 44 Strike the forger, or declare the 
 4 merit of the document produced on the day of pleading.” I 
 4 conceive all your embarrassments—others will arise. The will 
 4 of God be done ! I am willing to believe that the term of your 
 4 trials is at hand,’ &c. 
 
 [No. 40 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Translated Extracts from M elle Le Normand’s Letter of 17th 
 October, 1838, to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 4 How can the map be acknowledged genuine here while we 
 4 have it not in view ! If it were in Paris, indeed, we might appeal, 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 73 
 
 1 and good luck would perhaps enable us to find out some former 
 * proprietor of it, but how can any one say, 44 I have seen,’* without 
 ‘ seeing I No, assuredly. What, therefore, you had better do, is 
 4 to give powers to your son, and a copy of the map, failing the 
 4 original, causing it to be attested that it is in every respect like 
 4 it. He would then present himself to some public man, deposit 
 4 it, make an appeal to the lovers of books and amateurs of auto- 
 4 graphs. By that means the truth might be established. If the 
 4 Edinburgh Judges doubt of the validity of the document pro- 
 4 duced to the point of rejecting it, then demand an investigation 
 4 in France. Let one of our Judges come over before pronouncing 
 ‘judgment. The map will then be judged of and appreciated. 
 4 Believe me, my Lord, in so serious an affair, you must not abuse 
 4 yourself. Your traducers are numerous. You cannot imagine 
 4 what steps they have ordered to be taken. This very day I learn 
 4 that they have hazarded insidious speeches respecting me. They 
 4 positively maintain that the map must be your work, or that of 
 4 your sons. It is, therefore, great eclat that is required. You 
 4 must make the newspapers speak out,' &c. 
 
 4 Don’t let them take you by surprise. They are plotting again. 
 4 Strike great blows. All the calumnious discourse they have 
 4 indulged in respecting you is infamous. It is reflected back 
 4 upon me, who feel interested about you. This is carried to such a 
 4 pitch, that already I have felt inclined to repair to England, and 
 4 thence to Scotland, to unmask the traitors? Now, it would 
 4 inspire them with no confidence, were a single man to say, 44 I 
 4 have seen that map.” It is necessary, either that they believe in 
 4 the veracity of my declaration, or that a public inquiry be made. 
 
 4 Your fac similes are inexact , at least those I saw. Moreover, 
 4 how can an opinion be formed of documents on separate pieces 
 4 of paper ! My Lord, I tell you, in the sincerity of my heart, 
 4 out of friendship for your excellent wife and your children, you 
 4 should carefully inquire what is the opinion of your Judges,* &c. 
 
 4 Either send your son, or, according to the appearance of things , 
 4 insist upon the map being sent by a Judge. The delay of a month 
 4 will be more desirable to obtain a triumph, and the re-establish- 
 4 ment of an attacked reputation 1 
 
 4 If I were not known, I should lose, by serving you, tranquillity, 
 
 4 hope, and even health. Answer me immediately what you 
 4 decide upon doing.’ 
 
 [No. 41 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Translation of a Letter from Mademoiselle Le Normand, dated 
 from Paris 26th November, 1838, addressed to the Earl of 
 Stirling. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 1 have deferred answering you, because I have again 
 caused inquiries to be made respecting the origin of the map of 
 
74 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Canada. I have not been able to learn any thing, unless it be that 
 well informed persons agree in saying, i If it be found genuine, it 
 ought to be admitted; if otherwise, it ought to be rejected /’ for it 
 would be impossible to discover the former possessors of this map. 
 If this affair is the cause of torment to you, which, I am willing to 
 believe, may be put an end to, it is not the less so to myself who 
 have no desire but to be useful to you . Every day I learn some¬ 
 thing new. Either your enemies must be very powerful or very 
 cowardly I I who have only candour (or good faith) to guide me ; 
 who would not for a great deal utter a falsehood ; who might have 
 said, ‘ 1 have possessed this map since 1789/ but who would not say 
 so. The truth, nothing but the truth. It was sent to me, and I 
 also gave it up to you. Your Englishman* and his interpreter 
 have been circulating all sorts of false reports. They have been 
 inquiring whether my property belongs to me; whether I have 
 any debts; whether I have paid for my Estate ! They have 
 written to the Conservators (‘ Conservateurs .’) They have had 
 
 the audacity to inquire in my own Province whether I have houses 
 there > and whether they have been paid for ! In short, there are 
 no kinds of vexations which these men have not made me expe¬ 
 rience, on account of the interest I have constantly felt for your 
 family. The purest disinterestedness has governed all my actions. 
 I have seized every occasion to do what might be agreeable to 
 you ; but I cannot support the idea that my reputation suffers on 
 that account. I prefer it pure and untouched to all the fortunes 
 that could be offered to me. It is infamous on the part of this 
 English Agent to endeavour to defame a woman who is more 
 deserving than he— Money, money, Morbleu! that must have 
 made him undertake his journey to Paris. Not content with 
 having denounced me to the Police, to his Ambassador, to all who 
 were willing to listen to him, he had the baseness to wish to 
 bribe me! Superior to such offers, my indignation could not be 
 
 restrained. It was then that he began to cry me dowm. Your 
 lawsuit, according to him, is a tissue of lies ; those who are faithful 
 to you are in your pay ! How shall I express it ? This has been 
 repeated in high, in the middling class, and in the lowest society. 
 They even w ent to interrogate the wife of my gardener ! Up to 
 this period I had always believed the Scotch a brave people. I 
 • believe them so still; but the envoy of your enemies deserves 
 that the severest correction be applied to him. It is not, there¬ 
 fore, the mere babbling of wicked people or of bad English women 
 —no— it is the man accredited by your Government, who comes 
 here to overwhelm an unoffending woman, whose only fault is her 
 feeling for your estimable family, and seeking to the utmost of her 
 power the means of restoring you all to hope and happiness ! 
 
 * Mademoiselle, like most foreigners, confounds in one mass English, 
 Irish, and Scotch. She means , how ever, no person but Mr Rodk. Mackenzie, 
 whom she alludes to as “ Votre Anglais.” 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 75 
 
 The tenor of your correspondence is known. It is dreadful thus 
 to violate the secrets of your letters. It appears that one of your 
 letters which was addressed to me was subjected to inspection. 
 
 My Lord, I never could put up with a gross offence, and your 
 Scotchman shall be unmasked. If he be ill-disposed towards you, 
 that is no reason why he should attack me. I am neutral in your 
 suit. I presented to you,—I did not sell the map of Canada. 
 There are laws, and I shall know how in proper time and place to 
 confound the wicked; but really this Scotchman has done his 
 utmost to ruin you in public opinion, and me also. The cabal is 
 regularly appointed and paid. It is for you to display all your 
 courage in the maintenance of your rights. This map of Canada 
 requires no certificate of birth, no certificate of its origin. Either it 
 is genuine or it is not. To re-ascend to its source after our 
 Revolutions is to attempt what is impossible. This affair is much 
 discussed—matters of the greatest consequence cannot fail to be 
 very soon revealed to you. I am very sorry to hear of the illness 
 in your family. We must hope for the best. Keep me informed 
 of what is going on. I greet you cordially, as well as the dear 
 Countess. Better health to you all ! Let us hope that the equity 
 of your Judges will repair serious mistakes, and put a term to your 
 misfortunes. It is the sincere wish of your devoted. 
 
 Le Normand. 
 
 [No. 49 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Letter doequeted Paris, 30 November, 1838, M e,le Le Normand, R. 
 
 5th December. 
 
 Paris , 30 Novembre, 1838. 
 
 Milord, 
 
 Je viens de re 9 evoir des renseignemens sur le signa- 
 taire du certificate si toutefois on l admet; et que vous croyez qu’il 
 puisse vous servir. Car j’ignore absoluement qui me l’envoie, et 
 vos ennemis emploie* tous leurs moyens pour vous faire perdre 
 votre proces. Je ne con^ois pas que vos juges montref de telles 
 preventions, et que la police ‘de votre tribunal soit aussi derisoire. 
 en verite vos antagonistes ont beau jeu ; si je voyais que mes juges 
 soient aussi mal disposes, je ne voudrais pas etre jugerj et je les 
 recuserais, ou demanderais une enquete en France. Je vous con- 
 seillerais si toutefois vous le jugez utile de renvoyer de suite le 
 certificat pour que la signature Parmentier soit legalisee par le 
 ministre de la guerre. Voici les renseignemens que j’ai re^us. 
 
 4 Apres avoir ete blesse a 1’armee du nord, Monsieur Parmentier 
 4 fut nomme en vendemiaire an 6 Octobre 1797, secretaire de 
 4 place a Verdun, et conservat cet emploi jusqu’en 1812 ; Son 
 
 • For emploient, f For montrent. \ Forjugee. 
 
76 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 < dossier est depose bureau des lois et archives anciens etats majors 
 1 des places de guerre (ordre alphabetique,) demander la legalisa- 
 1 tion au ministere de la guerre- Bureau de la justice militaire, 
 * en donnat les indications ci dessus.’ 
 
 Si cet* observation vous et est utile ; si ce certificat est reconnu 
 parfait; alors votre cause prendrait un nouvel aspect. Vous ne 
 pouvez trop faire connaitre les menees de Fagent; car il vous a 
 decrie, d’une maniere infame, et me fait regarder comme complice 
 d’une carte supposee. 
 
 Votre fils aura bien de la peine a supporter de nouvelJes crises. 
 Dieu seul peut lui rendre la vie, les hommes de Fart n’esperef 
 rien. 
 
 Je plains les douleurs de la Comtesse. elle se doit menager pour 
 sa famille et cesf amis. 
 
 Poste par poste, tenez moi au courant sur ce que vous decidez. 
 Je vous salue. 
 
 Le Normand. 
 
 [Translation of the Preceding.] 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 Paris , '60th November , 1838. 
 
 I have just received information concerning the 
 signer of the Certificate, if indeed they admit it , and you think it 
 may be of service to you. For I am completely in the dark as to 
 who sent it me, and your enemies are using every exertion to make 
 you lose your suit. I cannot conceive how your Judges shew such 
 prejudices and how the constitution of your Court should be such 
 a mockery. Your antagonists have forsooth a capital game of it— 
 Were I to see Judges so ill disposed towards me I would not be 
 tried by them and would challenge their competency, or demand 
 an enquiry in France. I would advise you, if indeed you think it 
 of advantage, to send back the certificate immediately, in order 
 that the signature of Parmentier may be verified by the Minister 
 at War. The following is the information I have received: — 
 ‘ After having been wounded in the army of the North, Monsieur 
 i Parmentier was appointed in Vendemiaire, in the year six 
 1 (October 1797) Governor’s Secretary at Verdun, and held that 
 ‘ appointment till 1812. The act of his nomination is deposited at 
 6 the office of the Laws and Archives of the Old Staff of Fortified 
 * Towns (in alphabetical order.) Ask for the verification of it at 
 ‘ the War Office Department of Military Claims ; giving the above 
 1 directions.’ Should this observation prove useful to you, should 
 this certificate be acknowledged authentic, then your cause would 
 assume a new aspect. You cannot give sufficient publicity to the 
 intrigues of the agent; for he has run you down in a most 
 
 * For cette. 
 
 f For esperent. 
 
 \ For ses. 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 77 
 
 infamous manner, and causes me to be looked upon as the accom¬ 
 plice of a forged map. 
 
 It will be difficult for your son to stand a new crisis. God alone 
 can restore his life. The professional men are without hope. I 
 feel for the sorrows of the Countess; she must take care of herself 
 for the sake of her family and friends. By return of post let me 
 know’ your decision. 
 
 Your’s, 
 
 Le Normand. 
 
 [No. 50 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Letter docqueted 1839, Paris, Jan y . 8 th M elle Le Normand to 
 Lady S.—R. 9 th Feb y . 
 
 Milord, 
 
 Paris ce 8 Janvier 1839. 
 
 Je vous remercie de vos bons souhaits, et fais des voeux 
 pour vous et l'aimable famille. puissiez vous tous etre heureux, 
 tels sont les voeux de mon coeur. Je remercie la bonne Comtesse 
 de son souvenir; puisse cette excellente epouse si tendre mere, 
 voir le retablissement progressif de son cher fils et finer enfin par 
 revoir cette France, ou la paix et bonheur sembleraient lui etre 
 promis. Vous re^everez par la poste une lettre de moi que vous 
 pouvez montrer au tribunal, quand a vos questions, votre fils vous 
 les repondra de vive voix. Seulement on a decouvert Y horame du 
 quai, on vent le faire partir pour f Eccosse ; il declare que voila 
 18 mois il a vendu une carte du Canada a un Anglais qui plusieurs 
 fois est venu chez lui, on lui a dit; le reconnaitrez vous,^ le crois , 
 T agent est descendu Hotel Meurice. Je saurai autre chose et 
 vous previendrai. Mes amities sinceres a tous. 
 
 Salut. 
 
 [Translation of the Preceding.] 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 Paris , 8th January 1839. 
 
 I am obliged by your kind wishes. May every good 
 attend you and your amiable family. That you may all be happy, 
 is the wish of my heart. I thank the good Countess for her kind 
 remembrance. May that excellent wife and tender mother witness 
 the progressive recovery of her dear son, and at length visit that 
 France, where peace and happiness seem to be promised her. 
 You will receive by Post, a letter from me, which you may shew 
 to the Court. As to your questions, your son will answer them 
 viva voce . I shall only mention that they have found out the man 
 on the Quay. They w T ish to make him go to Scotland. He says 
 that 18 months ago he sold a map of Canada to an Englishman, 
 
78 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, Oft ALEXANDER, 
 
 who repeatedly called on him ; when asked if he could recognize 
 him, 4 1 think so. 1 The agent has put up at Meurice’s Hotel. I 
 shall find out more and report to you. My love to all. Your’s, 
 
 [No. 51 of Inventory of Productions/] 
 
 Letter addressed to Madame Madame la Comtesse de Stirling. 
 
 9 
 
 Paris ce 9 Janvier 1839. 
 
 Milord, 
 
 Je me trouvais indisposee lors de V arrivee de Monsieur 
 votre Fils dans notre Capitale, ce qui m’ a privee de beaucoup de 
 details sur votre interminable proces. J’ ai appris cependant que 
 vos adversaires ont ose elever des doutes sur la veracite d’ une 
 dette aussi sacree, que legitime, et que remonte a 1812; sans 
 compter; que j’ ai mis nombre de fois la bourse de mes amis a 
 contribution, pour vous servir dans de presens besoins ; avoir oblige 
 des amis malheureux serait done un crime en Ecosse ? dans ce 
 pays si riche en Souvenirs ! ! ! ! Je vous ai dit; 44 Arretez unique - 
 4 ment mon compte , et vous me solderez a fur et a mesure de vos 
 4 Entree / * Cela remonte de plus haut. Vous m’ avez envoye votre 
 ouvrage comme libraire et pouvant vous en distribuer beaucoup ! 
 J’ ai offert ce meme ouvrage a des personnes de distinction qui 
 viennent chez moi, j* ai parle en votre faveur, V amitie que je porte 
 a M de votre epouse, a votre nombreusefamille m’ a rendue eloquente I 
 une vielle j* carte du Canada revetue d’ autographes de Fenelon , 
 FlecJuer^ Louis XV. &c. fut remise chez moi le 11. juillet 1837, 
 elle etait renfermee Hermetiquement dans un fort papier de 
 couleur chocolat avec trois cachets, une lettre y etait jointe . Je 
 vous en ai envoye anterieurement la copie. Je pouvais dire : Je 
 possedais cette carte , comme tant d 9 autres autographes depuis la 
 Revolution de 1789 ; amie de la verite, ne Connaissant que la verite, 
 j’ ai declare : 44 Voyez et Jugez-la ! ” Ce qui est odieux, c’ est de 
 pouvois supposer que M elle . Le Normand, se soit rendue coupable 
 d* attacher un prix a un service obligeant! Vous connaissez ma 
 delicatesse, J' aurais horreur de moi mime , Si la Cupidite m’ avait 
 stimulee au point d exiger un salaire eleve. 
 
 Declarez done hardiment devant vos Juges: que vous me depuis 
 27 ans de grosses sommes, avecles interets cumules. Si Je comptais 
 de clerc a Maitre, 500,000 f. me seraient bien dus. Dieu seul, 
 Milord, peut eclairer vos Juges 1 Dieu seul peut faire un miracle ! 
 Si vous m’ aviez soldee, je serais retiree des affaires, et serais plus 
 tranquille. Je dis avec Cesar ! 44 Je tie pouvais supporter V idee 
 
 4 d etre Soupgonnie! 9 Ma reputation est Europeenne, je ne 
 souffi irai pas que vos compatriotes ose J ternir mon nom. Vous 
 me devez loyalement, J' ai cru a la bonne foi , a cette loyaute d’ un 
 
 • For rentrees. 
 
 f For vieille. 
 
 \ For osent. : 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 79 
 
 veritable anglais, J* y crois encore. Mais deverser le blame, y 
 meller * F ironie, Certes je ne le souffrirai pas ; J' ai refuse les off res 
 de votre eyinemi . Vous ne m’ en avez fait aucune. S’ il en eut ete 
 ainsi, Je vous tnepriserais ! Si on conteste la veracite d’ une carte 
 qui a passe par mes mains, exigez que cette meme Carte, (torn,) 
 verifiee en presence d’ experts. C’ est en France (torn) faut faire 
 une enquete. Si elle est reconnue louable, alors, elle est admise 
 comme preuve de votre filiation, dans le cas contraire, on pronon- 
 cera.—la Subordination f ni les sots propos ne pourront en imposer 
 a vos Juges qui du reste Sont Gens d honneur y et ne trahiraient 
 pas leur conscience pour depouiller une famille, ainsi que les 
 creanciers d’ une famille, dont le chef est sous le joug de la perse¬ 
 cution. Je suis si tellement outree de tout ceci, que je me depitte. 
 Mais en verite on le serait a moins. J’ ai prete mon argent avec 
 noblesse et 1’ on m’ accuserait de Simonie. horreur — horreur. 
 Je vous offre mes souhaits, ainsi qu’ a la Comtesse. Votre tres 
 humble. Le Normand. 
 
 [A Translation of the Preceding.] 
 
 Paris , 9. January 1839. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 At the time of your son’s arrival in our capital, I was 
 unwell, which prevented my hearing many details of your inter¬ 
 minable process. I have, however, learned, that your adversaries 
 have dared to call in question the existence of a debt as just as it 
 is sacred, and which goes back to the year 1812; without taking 
 into consideration that I have many times called into requisition 
 the resources of my friends, in order to serve you in your times of 
 need; to have obliged friends in misfortune during 27 years, would 
 then be a crime in Scotland ? in that land so rich in noble 
 recollections ! Ill I said to you, 6 You have only to make out my 
 ‘ account , and you will pay me gradually as your income comes in! 
 It goes farther back ! You sent me your work, as to a publisher, 
 and one able to distribute a number for you ! 1 offered the work 
 
 to persons of distinction who visit me. 1 spoke favourably of you 
 — the friendship which 1 bear your Lady, your numerous family, 
 make me eloquent! An old map of Canada, bearing autographs 
 of Fenelon, Flechier , Louis 15th , &c. &c. was left at my House, the 
 11 of Julv 1837 ; it was hermetically enclosed in strong chocolate 
 coloured paper, with three seals, and accompanied with a letter , a 
 copy of which I have already sent you. 1 might say, I was in 
 possession of this map , in the same way as of many other autographs 
 since the revolution of 1789. A friend of truth, knowing nothing 
 but the truth, I said ‘ look ut it and judge ! !' the odious part of it, is 
 the possibility of supposing that M" lle Le Normand has incurred the 
 guilt of fixing a price upon a friendly service. You know my 
 
 * For meler. 
 
 f For subornation. 
 
80 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPH RYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 delicate feelings. I would look on myself with abhorrence , were I so 
 far the slave of cupidity as to exact a high remuneration ! Declare 
 then boldly before your judges, that for these 27 years past you 
 owe me large sums of money with accumulated interest . Were the 
 reckoning as between clerk and master, I might easily claim 
 500,000 fr. God alone, my Lord, can enlighten your judges ! 
 God alone can work a miracle ! had you paid me, 1 would have 
 retired from business apd should be more quiet. I say with 
 Caesar, c The thought of suspicion I could not brook.' My reputation 
 is European, and that your countrymen should dare tarnish my 
 name is what I will not endure. You owe me in good faith, I 
 trusted to the good faith , to the known honour of a true English¬ 
 man, I still trust in it; but to pour forth censure, and to heap 
 irony upon it, is what I will never endure. 1 refused the offers of 
 your enemy; from you, I never received any; had it been so, I 
 would have despised you I If they contest the authenticity of a 
 map which you have received from me, demand that the same map 
 be verified in presence of men of skill ( Experts .) It is in France 
 that an inquiry must be made. If it be recognized as genuine, in 
 that case it is admitted as a proof of your descent; in the contrary 
 event, judgment will be given. Subornation and idle talk can 
 have no weight with your judges, who af ter all are honourable men, 
 who would not betray their conscience for the purpose of robbing 
 a family, as well as the creditors of a family, whose head is under the 
 yoke of persecution. All this makes me so indignant, that I get 
 perfectly out of temper; but in truth, one might be so for much 
 less. I have lent my money in the most generous way, and they 
 would accuse me of simony. Horrid, horrid. I present to you 
 my best wishes, as also to the Countess. 
 
 Your very humble Servt. 
 
 Le Normand. 
 
 [No. 52 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Letter docqueted 1839, Paris, 4 th Feby, M lle Le Normand & 
 Monsr. T.—R. 7 and 8 th Do. 
 
 Madame et amie, 
 
 4 Fev . 1839. 
 
 Je suis vraiement inquiete de votre sante, de 
 celle de votre interessante famille. Que fait Milord ? Je le crois 
 tres afflige. On parle du depart d’un Francois attache aux 
 archives de France porteur de divers documens tant sur la filiation 
 du Comte, que sur la carte oil se trouve les autographes qu’on lui 
 conteste. D’ici au 8 courant on se met en route pour Edimbourg. 
 Mr votre fils, que j’ai re^u, a du vous rapporter que j’avais de 
 justes craintes sur la liberte de Milord. Je l avais meme engage 
 de faire une revue serieuse dans ces papiers. Quand ont est 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 81 
 
 mecontent, on ecrit souvent par indignation, ce que Ton ne vou- 
 drait pas que des ennemis mette* au jour. Onabbat que l’homme 
 timide, que l’homme coupable! mais celui, dont la conscience est 
 pure, ne saurait trembler I Veuillez ma Chere Comtesse me 
 donner de vous nouvelles. avez vous ecrit depuis le retour de Mr 
 votre fils. Je n’ai rien re<ju. On dit qu’une Lettre addressee par 
 votre epoux fut interceptee. J’ignore encore qui pouvait se per- 
 mettre une telle infamie. Milord reclame les possessions alloueef 
 a safamille. C’est aux tribunaux a juger si la demande est bien 
 ou mal fondee. Mais penetrer clandestinement le secret d’une 
 correspondance d’un Client a son Conseil, c’est le nec ultra de la 
 corruption, d’ailleurs vos detracteurs n’en peuvent tirer aucun 
 fruit. Si j’ai ete assez heureuse de vous obliger depuis tant 
 d’annee,J si votre epoux m’a jure sur l’honneur de me rembourser 
 uneavafice, assurement Je dois etre a ses yeux, ainsi qu’aux votres, 
 une personne bien delicate. Je n’ai rien re^u et n’en continue 
 pas moins a vous assurer de raon attachment, et des voeux que je 
 forme pour vous voir fibres de tous vos embarras. Je les presume 
 grands dans cet instant. C’est dans le danger qu’il faut conserver 
 son caractere et Milord n’en manque pas. Assurez le de mon 
 interet. S’il n’evite pas les pieges, il faut esperer qu’il n’y suc- 
 combera pas : Yotre devouee. 
 
 P.S. II me semble qu’il serait dans l’interet de Milord sauf 
 meilleur avis, de prier M. M. Daunou Chef des archives, ainsi que 
 M. Vilnave de vouloir attester dans leur ame et conscience, que si 
 Ton eleve des doutes, sur leur conviction, c’est a tort. 
 
 [Translation of the preceding.] 
 
 4th February, 1839. 
 
 Madam and Friend, 
 
 I am really uneasy about your health, and 
 that of your interesting family. What is my Lord about ? He 
 must be in great distress. They speak of the departure of a 
 Frenchman attached to the Archives of France, the bearer of 
 various documents regarding both the descent of the Earl, and the 
 map, on which are the disputed autographs. Between and the 
 8th current they start for Edinburgh. Your son, whom I have 
 seen at my house, will have told you that I entertained serious 
 apprehensions as to the personal liberty of my Lord. I had even 
 solicited him carefully to go over all these papers. When out of 
 humour, one often writes from indignation, what one would not 
 wish an enemy to make public. You must be aware that in a 
 struggle so unequal, all means are fair. 1 he timid man, the guilty 
 man. may be overthrown ; but he whose conscience is pure knows 
 
 •For mettent. 
 
 f For allouecs. 
 
 \ For annees. 
 
82 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER. 
 
 not what it is to tremble ! My dear Countess, do let me hear 
 from you. Have you written to me since the return of your son ? 
 I have received no letter. It is reported that a letter written by 
 your husband was intercepted. Who could have committed such 
 an act of infamy is as yet unknown to me. My Lord claims the 
 possessions granted to his family. It is for the Court to decide 
 whether his demand be well or ill founded. But, clandestinely to 
 pry into the secret correspondence between client and counsel, is 
 the ne plus ultra of corruption. Besides, your detractors can 
 derive no benefit from it. If I have been fortunate enough to 
 oblige you during so many years; if your husband swore on his 
 honour to refund an advance , I must, in his eyes, as well as in 
 yours, be a person of great delicacy. I have received nothing; 
 and I do nevertheless continue to offer you the assurance of my 
 attachment and my wishes to see you all relieved of all your 
 embarrassments. I fancy these are very great at this moment. 
 Be of good heart, my dear Countess. It is in moments of danger 
 that one must sustain one’s character, and in this my Lord is not 
 wanting. Assure him of my continued interest. If he should not 
 avoid the snares, let us hope that he will not be their victim : 
 
 Your devoted. 
 
 P.S.—It appears to me that it would be for the interest of my 
 Lord, in the absence of better advice, to request Mr Daunou, 
 head of the archives, as well as Mr Villenave, to be so good as 
 attest, on soul and conscience, that any doubts started as to their 
 conviction are unfounded. 
 
 [No. 53 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Extract from a Private Deed or Agreement on the part of the 
 Earl of Stirling, to repay by instalments to Melle. Le Normand, 
 the amount in principal and interest, of different loans advanced 
 to the said Earl between 1815 and 1837. 
 
 Extract de XActe sous seing prive entre M el,e Marie Anne Le 
 Normand, Auteur. Libraire, proprietaire, et Alexander Comte 
 de Stirling. 
 
 * Moi Alexander Alexander Comte de Stirling,’ &c. &c. Recon- 
 nais devoir bien legitimement a la dite demoiselle Le Normand la 
 somme totale de quatre cents mille francs recus en especes en 
 diverses versemens soit a Paris soit a Londres, dont plusieurs 
 remontent aux annees anterieures. La dite somme de quatre cent 
 mille francs procreera interets a cinq pour cent a compter de ce 
 jour sans aucune retenue m’engageant en plus sur Phonneur moi et 
 les miens qu’aussitot la conclusion de mes affaires tant en Angle- 
 terre qu’aux Etat-Unis et au Canada. Je compterai a Made moi- 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 83 
 
 selle Le Normaml, entre ses mains, ou clans cclles de son charge 
 de pouvoir a Edimbourg en Ecosse; ou par des traites sur la 
 Banque cVAngleterre, si toute fois, j’avais change de residence, 1°. 
 les arrerages echus de la elite somme de quatre cent mille francs — 
 2°. Dans les six mois qui suivront ma rentree dans mes biens, je 
 donnerai un accompte, sur la somme principale, de cent mille 
 francs, et ainsi d'annee en annee jusqu’a fin de payement et les 
 interets servis integralement ce qui comportera quatre annees a 
 compter du premier remboursement, et pour le solde general du 
 dit pret. 
 
 Edinr . 18 Feby . 1839.— Referred to in my declaration. 
 
 (Signed) Stirling. 
 
 G. Tait. 
 
 [Translation of the preceding.] 
 
 Extract from the deed , under private Sign Manual\ between 
 M elle Marie Anne Le Normand, Authoress, Publisher, Proprie- 
 trix, and Alexander Earl of Stirling. 
 
 I, Alexander Alexander, Earl of Stirling, &c. &c. acknowledge, 
 that I am duly indebted to the said Demoiselle Le Normand in 
 the principal sum of four hundred thousand francs , received in 
 cash, both at Paris and in London, in different payments, some of 
 which were made in the course of previous years. The said sum 
 of four hundred thousand francs will bear interest at the rate of 
 5 per cent, from the present date, without any reduction : Moreover, 
 binding me and mine, in honour, that so soon as my affairs, as well 
 in England as in the United States and Canada, shall be con¬ 
 cluded, to pay to Mademoiselle Le Normand, into her own hands, 
 or into those of the person at Edinburgh, in Scotland, holding 
 a pow er of attorney from her, or by drafts on the Bank of England, 
 in the event of my having changed my residence, lo. The arrears 
 due on the said sum of four hundred thousand francs; 2do. 
 within the six months after my recovery of my property I shall 
 make a payment of one hundred thousand francs, to account of 
 the principal sum, and so on, from year to year, till final payment, 
 with the whole of the interest, which will take four years from the 
 date of repayment of the first instalment, and for the general dis¬ 
 charge of the said loan. 
 
84 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 [Part of No. 4 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 EXCERPTS from LETTERS from Mr Eugene Alexander to 
 the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 London , April 22 d. 
 
 26. 
 
 My dear Father, 
 
 I have your 24. 
 
 At 1/4 to seven to-night I write a few hasty lines to say, that 
 I received . . . new evidence yesterday, and ever since have 
 
 been so occupied as not to be able to do any thing—not write a 
 letter. It contained four documents, and a beautiful portrait of 
 John of Antrim. I shall write on Monday full particulars. 
 
 Your affectionate Son, 
 
 (R. 24th.) E. 
 
 London , April 23 d, 1837. 
 
 No. 27. 
 
 My dear Father, 
 
 You will receive my 26 of yesterday with the 
 great news of the new evidence. I now proceed to give you full 
 particulars. I received your last (24.) on Friday morning, and 
 went to Golden Square to see W. Pearson and Angela. It was 
 on my return home that I called at De Porquet & Co. about 
 2 o’clock, when the young man at the counter said, that they had 
 received a packet by the 2d post about an hour before I called, 
 which he put into my hands. It was directed to Messrs De Por¬ 
 quet & Co. 11 Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, London. They 
 had opened it, and found the following note, with another packet 
 addressed ‘ The Right Hon ble the Earl of Stirling. The Note was 
 as follows in a Lady’s hand without disguise. * Mrs Innes 
 Smyth’s Compliment,’ &c. (here the note is copied.) I took the 
 packet, with the cover, and note to De Porquet, just as they 
 received it, in my pocket. Upon getting home, and taking off the 
 cover to De Porquet, I read again the note, and examined the 
 packet addressed to you. I sat to consider what I would do. It 
 all at once struck me that I would go before a magistrate or some 
 other public functionary, to have his testimony of being present at 
 the breaking of the Seal. I then went to Mr Lockhart (who is 
 living close by me, having taken lodgings in Surrey Street) and 
 consulted with him. He highly approved of my idea, and advised 
 me to go to our Sol r8 Fennell and Vaux, and ask them, as English 
 lawyers, whether it was the proper mode of proceeding to go to a 
 magistrate. I saw Fennell; and, after long debating, he said that, 
 never having had any thing similar to it before, he really did not 
 know what to advise. It was too late that night to get any thing 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 85 
 
 done. We then fixed ten o’clock yesterday morning for Mr 
 Lockhart, and all of us to meet at their office. We decided at 
 last when we met, that a Public Notary was the proper person to 
 open the packet. Fennell and I then got into a cab, and (drove) 
 to the great Notaries at the Royal Exchange. The packet was 
 then opened, and within it another packet, cased in parchment, 
 was discovered with the following words upon it:—‘ Some of my 
 wife’s family papers.’ In an instant I exclaimed, i that is my 
 Grandfather’s hand-writing/ The parchment packet was sealed 
 with three black seals; all the same impression; evidently my 
 Grandfather’s seals; not like those w T e have. I cannot describe 
 them. We then examined the cover; it was addressed to you as 
 before-mentioned ; and inside are the following remarkable words : 
 —‘ The enclosed was in a small cash-box/ &c. (here copied at 
 length.) Then follows the Notary’s certificate upon the same 
 paper, ‘ This Note w T as opened in my presence,’ &c. (here the 
 certificate is copied.) The sheet of paper is a mourning one with 
 a deep black edge round, ow ing to the death of the thief. The 
 Notary then said his duty ended there as he could not venture to 
 witness the (opening of the) parchment packet. He said we must 
 go to Doctors Commons before a Proctor. We then went to the 
 Proctor Thomas Blake. Here we were five hours. I cut the 
 parchment, and four persons, as witnesses, watched me. I cut 
 the parchment over the middle black seal, and was then able to 
 draw out the contents. I refer you now to the copies of the docu¬ 
 ments accompanying this letter. They have all been numbered 
 by the Proctor. No. 4. Mr Lockhart tells me we need not produce in 
 Court, because it is only a beautiful miniature painting of John of 
 Antrim, which I had better, perhaps, get framed, that it may not 
 be spoiled. There is also the pedigree beautifully executed, both 
 by the same person, Mr Thomas Campbell, and dated 1759. The 
 contents of the parchment packet must, I suppose, have remained 
 untouched if it was put up just before the removal to Fair-hill 
 50 years, which accounts for the admirable state of preservation it 
 is in. The thief never dared break the Seals. The Proctor and 
 the other three witnesses have put their initials upon every docu¬ 
 ment, and a formal paper has been drawn up and signed by all 4 to 
 prove that they all saw the packet opened. The Proctor also made 
 verbatim copies of every document, which have been compared 
 with the originals and signed by the Examiners. You will see 
 that the Inscription is now made a good document, being con¬ 
 firmed by the Letters of B. Alexander and A. E. Baillie. The 
 cause is enrolled to be heard on the 31st day of May. 
 
 In haste your affectionate Son, 
 E. J. A. 
 
86 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER I1UMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 JUDICIAL DECLARATION of the Defender in the Action 
 of Reduction-Improbation, &c. The Officers of State, against 
 Alexander, calling himself Earl of Stirling. 
 
 ["This forms No. VI. of the Appendix to Introduction, p. xcv, and 
 consequently omitted here.] 
 
 DECLARATIONS of Alexader Humphreys or Alexander, 
 claiming to be Earl of Stirling. 
 
 FIRST DECLARATION. 
 
 At Edinrurgh, the fourteenth day of February eighteen 
 hundred and thirty-nine years, 
 
 In presence of George Tait, Esquire, Sheriff-Substi¬ 
 tute of Edinburghshire, 
 
 COMPEARED Alexander Earl of Stirling, at present in 
 custody, l to whom it was stated by the Sheriff-Substitute that he 
 was charged with forging, or being concerned in forging, or 
 obtaining to be forged, certain documents produced in a process 
 depending before the Court of Session at the instance of the 
 Officers of State against him, or uttering them knowing them to 
 be forged ; that his present declaration would probably be used in 
 evidence against him if brought to trial on those charges; and that 
 therefore he was entitled to decline answering any questions put 
 to him, or to give such answers in explanation as he might think 
 proper. Interrogated, declares, That some years ago a process of 
 reduction at the instance of the Officers of State was raised against 
 him in the Court of Session, for setting aside two services which 
 he had obtained as heir to the first Earl of Stirling, and various 
 procedure has taken place in that process, and he has produced 
 several documents in support of his claim : That he left Edinburgh 
 in the beginning of the year eighteen hundred and thirty-six, and 
 lived for a short time in houses of private friends in England ; and 
 he left a friend’s house in England on the fifteenth of December of 
 that year, and embarked about the eighteenth for France, and he 
 remained in France until the following August, when he returned 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 to Edinburgh for the Peers Election ;—and when in Paris, in 
 March or April eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, he heard that 
 Lord Cockburn had pronounced an unfavourable judgment in his 
 case, and at that time a copy of the printed papers of the judgment 
 and of the note, was sent him by his family from Edinburgh, and 
 until that time he was not aware that Lord Cockburn had enter¬ 
 tained or formed an unfavourable opinion of his case : That when 
 in Paris, in the end of April, lie received two letters from his son 
 Eugene in London, dated the twenty-second and twenty-third of 
 that month, informing him that certain documents had been sent 
 to his publishers Messrs de Porquet and Cooper, booksellers, II 
 Tavistock Street, Covent Garden ; and at the same time the decla¬ 
 rant received copies of the documents, and the documents appeared 
 to be very material to his cause, and he had not the slightest 
 knowledge of them until that moment, and he never saw the 
 originals until he returned to Edinburgh, when he got a glimpse of 
 them from his agent Mr Ephraim Lockhart, VV.S. and he hardly 
 knows the appearance of them : Declares, That he had occasionally 
 called on Mademoiselle Le Normand in Paris, by desire of Lady 
 Stirling, who was well acquainted with her; and on one occasion 
 of his calling, she took from a cover and opened before him a map, 
 accompanied by a letter, which he found to be a map of Canada, 
 having some writings made upon it, and some pasted upon it, and 
 she read the accompanying letter which was not subscribed by 
 any person : That she said she had suspicions who the person was, 
 but did not mention his name : That he examined the m?p and 
 writings on it, and saw that it was a most important document: 
 That he himself has no knowledge or suspicion from whom 
 she may have received the packet; and all that he knows 
 of it is that he heard afterwards, either from her or from 
 some person residing in her house, that two ladies fashion¬ 
 able dressed, and who were unknown, had been observed to 
 leave the packet on a chair or table in her apartment : 
 That Mademoiselle Le Normand would not part with the map, and 
 he did not obtain it until November of the same year, when his son 
 Charles brought it from Paris, and it was then produced in Court 
 sealed with her own seal ; and after the seals were broken by the 
 Court, the packet was borrowed by Mr Lockhart, who gave the 
 declarant a glimpse of it at the declarant’s house, and the declarant 
 was satisfied that it was the same map which Mademoiselle Le 
 Normand had shewn him in Paris ; but he [had] not an opportu¬ 
 nity of examining it particularly when he was in Paris, as she would 
 not part with it. Declares, That he understood that the writings 
 received by his publishers in London, as before mentioned, were 
 also produced in process; his son Eugene or Mr Lockhart, who 
 was then in London, having, as the declarant was informed, carried 
 them to Edinburgh for that purpose : That it appeared to the de¬ 
 clarant from the copies sent to him, that they were extremely valu¬ 
 able documents ; and he has no doubt that he wrote to his son, that 
 
 2 o 
 
88 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 they ought to be produced in process, if they were found to be so 
 important as they appeared from the copies to be ; but whether the 
 documents were produced in process before or after his return to 
 Scotland he cannot say : That he left it to his two sons, to act in 
 all such matters, as they should be directed by counsel- Declares, 
 That on the eighteenth day of December last, he was judicially 
 examined before the Court of Session with regard to the w’ritings 
 and map before referred to; and a declaration, bearing to be emit¬ 
 ted by him in the Court of Session, of that date, being shewn to 
 him, he declares that it is that referred to ; and it being now read 
 over to him, and being interrogated, declares, That it is correct, 
 with this explanation, that instead of having granted obligations to 
 Mademoiselle Le Normand for four hundred thousand francs, he 
 granted only two obligations, each for one hundred thousand francs ; 
 and he made the mistake in consequence of not being prepared to 
 answer such a question with accuracy at the time he was examined ; 
 but declares, That the total amount of what he owes to Mademoi¬ 
 selle Le Normand, including accumulation of interest for many 
 years, was computed to amount to four hundred thousand francs, 
 and, therefore, he promised and came under an obligation by letter 
 to pay her to that amount; but he granted regular obligations or 
 securities to the amount only of two hundred thousand francs, and 
 she trusts to his honour for payment of the remainder : That he 
 still declines to answer the questions which he formerly declined 
 to answer; and he now states, that his debt to Mademoiselle Le 
 Normand was entirely a private affair, arising out of remote trans¬ 
 actions, and had no connection whatever with the present proceed¬ 
 ings. And being shewn a card, bearing to have been written by 
 Mrs Innes Smyth to Messrs de Porquet and Company, dated 
 Hackney, April 19; an anonymous note to the declarant, dated 
 April 17, 1837 ; a cover of parchment having on the back, the 
 words t Some of my wife’s family papersan emblazoned pedigree 
 of the Earls of Stirling; a letter, Dr Benjamin Alexander to the 
 Reverend John Alexander of Birmingham, dated London, August 
 20th 1705; a letter, A. E. Baillie to Reverend John Alexander of 
 Birmingham, dated Dublin, Septemr. 16, 1765; a letter, Dr Ben¬ 
 jamin Alexander to Mrs Alexander, King Street, Birmingham, 
 dated London, July 26, 1766; a paper entituled on the back, 
 Examined Copy Note upon Miniature portrait of J. Alexander, 
 Esq. of Antrim, and a map of Canada, having various writings upon 
 it; and being interrogated, declares, That he knows the map to be 
 that referred to, but he cannot identify any of the other writings. 
 The declaration, the map and writings are now marked, as relative 
 hereto. And being interrogated, declares, That he has no know¬ 
 ledge or suspicion of the map or any of the writings having been 
 forged ; and, if he had had any suspicion that they had been forged, 
 he would not have used them, or authorized them to have been 
 used, and he would have spurned such an idea : And being inter¬ 
 rogated with regard to the writing on the cover of the map, now 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 89 
 
 also shewn him, and marked as aforesaid, declares, That he knows 
 it to be in the handwriting of Mademoiselle Le Normand. And 
 all this he declares to be truth. 
 
 (Signed) Stirling.* 
 
 G. Tait. 
 
 Arch d . Scott. 
 Uich d . J. Moxey. 
 Ja\ Mackenzie. 
 
 SECOND DECLARATION. 
 
 At Edinburgh, the eighteenth day of February eighteen 
 hundred and thirty-nine years, 
 
 In presence of George Tait, Esquire, Sheriff-substitute of 
 Edinburghshire, 
 
 COMPEARED Alexander Earl of Stirling ; and the cau¬ 
 tion at the commencement of the declaration emitted by him in 
 presence of the sheriff-substitute on the fourteenth current, being 
 repeated, and that declaration being read over to him, and he being 
 interrogated, declares, That he adheres thereto. Interrogated, 
 declares, That when he was in Paris he did not correspond with 
 his law-agents : That he received letters from his sons, mentioning 
 in a general way the nature of Lord Cockburn’s judgment; but he 
 does not know whether any of those letters are preserved: That 
 he got no distinct information as to the judgment, until March or 
 April of eighteen hundred and thirty-seven ; and until then he had 
 no idea of the extent to which Lord Cockburn’s judgment was un¬ 
 favourable ; and in particular, he was not aware that Lord Cock- 
 burn had pointed out any links in the propinquity as being awant- 
 ing: That he was engaged at Paris in literary pursuits ; and, in 
 particular, he was concerned in supplying information with regard 
 to the state of society in England, to a friend who is engaged in 
 publishing a work upon England, which has not yet been announced; 
 and he was also engaged in writing a memoir of his own life : That 
 he declines to mention the persons concerned in the publication of 
 the work first alluded to. Interrogated, declares, That a few days 
 before Mademoiselle Le Normand shewed him the map, she asked 
 him to look in upon her soon, as she used often to do, and at that 
 time he was in daily expectation of hearing from his family in^ 
 Scotland ; and he was altogether unprepared for the discovery of 
 the map ; and he was completely taken by surprise : That he had 
 called upon her occasionally, but not often, and generally m conse¬ 
 quence of letters from his family, whose welfare he wished to com¬ 
 municate to Mademoiselle Le Normand: That he called for her 
 sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the evening : 1 hat, at 
 
90 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRY!?, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 tlmt time lie was living in great seclusion, and under peculiar cir-* 
 cumstances, and, therefore, it was more agreeable for him to call 
 on her in the evening: That he cannot say how long he usually 
 remained in her company: That he occasionally wrote and addressed 
 letters and papers to her, which he sometimes sent to her, and 
 which he sometimes left in passing ; but she never w’rote to him : 
 That, when he conversed with her, it was generally in her own 
 closet: That he does not know whether there were writing mate¬ 
 rials in the closet on those occasions; and he does not remember 
 of any thing being written in the closet in his presence: That he 
 has frequently conversed with her regarding his law-suit, but never 
 with regard to the detail of the evidence : That he was very desi¬ 
 rous to find the charter of novodemus , referred to in his process, 
 and any other writings respecting the Stirling family : That Lady 
 Stirling had requested Mademoiselle Le Normand to endeavour to 
 get searches made in the Archives in France, Germany, and else¬ 
 where, for any such papers, which she kindly undertook to do; and 
 he understood that she employed persons, friends of her own, who 
 are unknown to him ; and he merely made out a few’ short memo¬ 
 randa in such terms as these :—* The charter of vovodumus granted 
 i by King Charles the First, to the first Earl of Stirling, 1639, and 
 ‘ any other papers regarding the Stirling family ?’ declares, That he 
 understood from Mademoiselle le Normand that she declined to 
 give the map to him, because she had got legal advice that she 
 ought not to part with it; but she allowed him to take copies of 
 the writings for the information of his family, which he accordingly 
 did at her house ; and he forgot that circumstance when he said 
 he had never written in her house : That he afterwards procured 
 Monsieur Triboul, a student of medicine, who visited Mademoiselle 
 le Nonnand’s house, to take a copy of the map, with the writ¬ 
 ings upon it, which he brought with him to Scotland, and which 
 he now has at home : That she never asked money for the map: 
 That he had great difficulty in making out the writings on the 
 map ; but he perused them attentively, and copied them for the 
 use of his family, as above mentioned : That the commencement 
 of the transactions with Mademoiselle 1c Normand was very far 
 back — probably as far back as eighteen hundred and fifteen, or 
 eighteen hundred and sixteen ; and they were, especially at the 
 commencement, chiefly assistance rendered to Lady Stirling, and 
 those transactions continued until comparatively a recent period: 
 That so far as he is aware, no obligations or documents were 
 granted a* to these transactions, except in so far as mentioned in 
 his former declaration: That his obligation for four hundred thou¬ 
 sand francs was granted before the discovery of the map, and his 
 two notes for one hundred thousand francs each were sent to her 
 after his return to Scotland: That he has strong suspicions that 
 the map of Canada w as in the Archives in one of the Administerial 
 Departments of France a short time before Mademoiselle le 
 Normand had it; and he believes that it was sent to her by the 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 91 
 
 intervention or direction of a person high in office ; but lie does 
 not consider himself at liberty to be more particular, because he 
 can only form a supposition on the subject, though he believes it 
 to be correct: That he wrote a letter to Mr Thomas T homson, 
 clerk of Session, stating that he believed that, if a commission was 
 granted to examine evidence in France, he could prove in whose 
 possession the map was before Mademoiselle received it; but he 
 declines to mention names at present, because he is only making 
 inquiries: That Mademoiselle le Normand did not say whom she 
 suspected to have had the map previously to her getting it. And 
 being shewn five letters, addressed to Lady Stirling, dated lltli 
 June, 13th August, 30th November, 1838, 8th January, and 4th 
 February, 1839, declares, T hat they are letters from Mademoiselle 
 le Normand to Lady Stirling: That they all came by post, except 
 the one dated in January, which his son Charles brought with him 
 from Paris. They were in his house when he was taken into 
 custody : That the markings on the back are in his hand-writing, 
 and shew the dates of his receiving and answering them, and the 
 numbers within parentheses denote the numbers of the letters 
 which he has written to Mademoiselle le Normand since he came 
 from France. And being shewn another letter to Lady Stirling, 
 dated 9 January, 1839, declares, That it is a letter from Made¬ 
 moiselle le Normand to Lady Stirling, and is a letter which he 
 gave to his agent Mr Lockhart. And being shewn translations of 
 letters bearing to be from Mademoiselle le Normand to the decla¬ 
 rant, dated 26th September, 17th October, and 26th November, 
 
 1838, 9 January, 1839, and 8 November, 1837; and translation of 
 a letter from her to Lady Stirling, dated 18th October, 1837, 
 declares, That Lady Stirling and he received from Mademoiselle 
 le Normand the letters from which those translations were taken ; 
 and the translations were taken for the use of counsel, and w ere in 
 his repositories when he was taken into custody. And being 
 shewn copy of a letter from Mademoiselle le Normand to the 
 declarant, dated 19 April, 1838, declares, That he received the 
 principal letter from Mademoiselle le Normand. Interrogated 
 where are the principal letters from which the translations and the 
 copy before referred to w r ere taken, declares, That he supposes 
 they must be either in his house or in the hands of Mr Lockhart: 
 That his papers are in confusion in consequence of his having fre¬ 
 quently turned them over in looking for different papers : That 
 after a letter from Mademoiselle le Normand was copied or trans¬ 
 lated for the use of counsel, the original was laid aside as of no 
 farther use, and little care was taken of it, especially as Made¬ 
 moiselle le Normand’s hand is very difficult to be read; and the 
 -declarant’s attention being called to the letter of 8th January, 
 
 1839, declares, that it was delivered to him by his son on his 
 return from France in its present form. And being interrogated 
 with regard to the meaning of the following passage : ‘ Seulement 
 ( on a decouvert Y homme du quai. On vient le faire partir pour 
 
02 trial OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 1 1* Ecosse. II declare que voila 18 mois il a vendu une carte da 
 4 Canada a un Anglais qui plusieurs fois est venir chez lui. On 
 4 lui a dit le reconnaitrez vous. Je le crois,’ declares, That his 
 son and friends had been making inquiry for a man of the descrip¬ 
 tion referred to, who was alluded to by the Lord Advocate at the 
 declarant’s examination in the Court of Session, under the name 
 Leguix, and Mademoiselle communicates the information, that 
 such a person had been discovered : That the declarant never 
 heard of such a person until he was alluded to by the Lord Advo¬ 
 cate at the declarant’s examination. And his attention being 
 drawn to the letter of 4th February, 1839, declares, That the 
 marking on the back of it, 4 Monsr. T.’ is a marking by him, to put 
 him in mind that he had received a letter from Monsieur Triboul 
 by desire of Mademoiselle le Normand, communicating some 
 similar information ; but he does not know where that letter is 
 now. And his attention being drawn to a passage about the 
 middle of the first page of that letter, declares, That that passage 
 merely contains an intimation of reports, which Mademoiselle le 
 Normand had heard of persons boasting in Paris that he should be 
 arrested, and a caution to the declarant’s wife, as a friend, to 
 destroy any papers which might be prejudicial to the declarant’s 
 interest; and declares, That that is a very natural caution for a 
 French woman to give, because the seizure of papers is a very 
 common step of procedure in France, when proceedings are insti¬ 
 tuted against any person. But he did not think it possible that 
 such a proceeding, or criminal proceedings of any nature, should 
 be instituted against him in Scotland ; and, therefore, he treated 
 the intimation with levity, being conscious of his innocence : That 
 neither he nor his family, in so far as he knows or suspects,, 
 destroyed or put away any papers or correspondence connected 
 with the law-suit, or with Mademoiselle le Normand’s assistance 
 in the matter; and he has no suspicion of Mademoiselle le Nor¬ 
 mand having done so. And being shewn a paper entitled, 4 Extrait 
 4 de facte sous seing prive entre M ele Marie Anne Le Normand, 
 4 auteur libraire, proprietaire et Alexander Comte de Stirling/ 
 declares, That it is in his hand-writing, and was made in Paris from 
 the agreement between him and her long before the map was 
 discovered ; and he thinks about the beginning of his last residence 
 there. Interrogated, declares, That he was at Boulogne, and 
 other towns in the coast of France, in eighteen hundred and thirty- 
 four, but he was not in Paris ; and he declares, That although he 
 did not see Mademoiselle le Normand between eighteen hundred 
 and fifteen and eighteen hundred and thirty-six, and although 
 Lady Stirling saw her only in eighteen hundred and twenty-two, 
 the two ladies carried on a friendly correspondence by letter, 
 and Mademoiselle thought proper to make remittances from time 
 to time to accommodate Lady Stirling; declares, That he does 
 not think the correspondence on that subject has been preserved; 
 and, if it had been, lie did not think it would have been proper to 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 93 
 
 produce it. Declares, That he has not given any money to Made¬ 
 moiselle le Normand since the recovery of the map; but he sent a 
 small sum of ten or twelve pounds sterling by his son, Charles, to 
 her, to reimburse her for trifling advances she had made in pro¬ 
 curing articles for him. Declares, That he has purchased prints 
 of portraits in a shop on the Quai Voltaire ; but he does not know 
 by whom it is kept: That he did not purchase or inquire for a 
 map of Canada when in France, and did not employ any person to 
 do so for him, and does not know of any person having done so. 
 And being interrogated, and being shewn a copy of an address, 
 bearing to have been issued by the declarant to the inhabitants of 
 Nova Scotia and Canada, of date 28th October, 1831, declares, 
 That he issued an address about that time which was printed; and 
 a copy of it was sent to the Government of this country, and he 
 did so by the advice of counsel, or other professional men ; but he 
 cannot say whether the copy shewn him be a correct copy of that 
 address: Interrogated, declares, That he opened an office in Par¬ 
 liament Street, London, to receive offers for the purchase of lands 
 in Canada ; but he does not remember whether that was mentioned 
 in the address. Interrogated, declares, That he does not recollect 
 whether, when he was in France, he wore hair on his upper lip. 
 The writings shewn him in the course of this examination are 
 marked as relative hereto. And all this he declares to be truth. 
 
 (Signed) Stirling. 
 
 G. Tait. 
 
 Archd. Scott. 
 
 Richd. J. Moxey. 
 
 Jas. Mackenzie. 
 
 THIRD DECLARATION. 
 
 At Edinburgh, the sixth day of March, eighteen hun¬ 
 dred and thirty-nine years, 
 
 In presence of George Tait, Esquire, Sheriff-substitute 
 of Edinburghshire, 
 
 COMPEARED Alexander Earl of Stirling, at present a 
 prisoner in the gaol of Edinburgh ; and the caution at the com¬ 
 mencement of the declarations emitted by him in presence of the 
 Sheriff-substitute, on the fourteenth and eighteenth days of last 
 February, being repeated, and those declarations being read over 
 to him, and he being interrogated whether he adheres thereto, he 
 declares, That, by his agent’s advice, he declines to answer any 
 questions. And being interrogated whether he knows that a pro¬ 
 cess or processes of proving the tenor were raised before the Court 
 
94 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER* 
 
 of Session at his instance against the Officers of State and others 
 in eighteen hundred and twenty-nine, or eighteen hundred and 
 thirty, declares, That he declines to answer any questions. And 
 being shewn a paper purporting to be, 6 Excerpt Carta de Novo- 
 damus Willielmi Comitis de Stirling Comitatus de Stirling,’&c.; 
 and being interrogated whether he was ever in possession of that 
 paper, and whether it was produced for him in either of the pro¬ 
 cesses of proving the tenor before referred to, or authorized it to 
 be so produced, declares, That he declines to answer any questions. 
 The paper referred to is marked as relative hereto. And being 
 interrogated whether he ever saw that paper before, and whether 
 he knows how it was obtained, declares, That he declines to answer 
 any questions. And the declaration being read over to him, and 
 being interrogated whether it is correctly taken down, declares- 
 that it is. 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 Stirling. 
 
 G. Tait. 
 
 Arch'. Scott. 
 Rich 0 . J. Moxey. 
 Ja’. Mackenzie. 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY. 
 
 Monday, April 29, 1839. 
 
 THE COURT MET AT HALF-PAST TEX O'CLOCK. 
 
 PRESENT. 
 
 Lords Meadowbank, M‘Kenzie, Moncreiff, Cockburn. 
 
 Counsel for the Crown. — Andrew Rctherfurd, Esq. 
 Lord Advocate ; James Ivory, Esq. Solicitor General ; 
 Cosmo Innes and Robert Handyside, Esquires, Advocates 
 Depute; David Cleghorn, Esq. W.S. Agent. 
 
 Counsel for the Pannel. — Patrick Robertson, Adam 
 Anderson, and John Inglis, Esqs.; Henry Maxwell 
 Inglis, Esq. W.S. Agent. 
 
 The pannel took his place at the bar, accompanied by 
 Colonel D’Aguilar, Deputy Adjutant General to the Staff' in 
 Ireland. Colonel D’Aguilar remained with him during the 
 whole period of the' trial. 
 
 The indictment having been read, — to which the pannel 
 pled “ Not Guilty,” — the following jurymen were sworn to 
 pass on the Assize : — 
 
 Robert Hogue, dentist, Hill Street. 
 
 Adam Burn, coach-lace-maker, Dublin Street. 
 
 John Kersopp, merchant, Linlithgow. 
 
 Thomas Young, merchant, Bank-house. 
 
 5 George Hogarth, accountant, Torphichen Street. 
 Alexander Aitken, farmer, Fisherrow. 
 
 Thomas Malcolm, pianoforte-maker, Drummond street. 
 Eberiezer Scott, baker, Lothian Street. 
 
 James Torry Douglas, general agent, John’s Place. 
 
 10 Robert Gray, farmer, Badpark. 
 
 John Gilbert, pawn-broker, Coatfield-lane. 
 
 Peter Wilson, spirit-dealer, Bank Street. 
 
 John Cruickshanks, gardener, Burnfoot. 
 
 George Campbell, grocer, Elbe Street. 
 
 15 Kenneth Scoon, baker, Clerk Street. 
 
90 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Mr John Mohrison, assistant-clerk of Session. Interro¬ 
 gated by Mr Cosmo Innes. 
 
 You are assistant-clerk of Session ? I am. 
 
 It is your duty to receive productions made in processes in 
 the Court of Session ? It is. 
 
 Look at that action of proving of the tenor. (No. 1 is 
 shewn witness.) You observe that mark? Yes. 
 
 When was the summons lodged ? On the 17th December, 
 1829. 
 
 Look at the date of the signeting of that summons. It is 
 dated the 12th October, 1829, and signeted the same day. 
 
 Look at the excerpt. See if it was produced in the process 
 of proving the tenor. (First document libelled on, No. 1 of 
 inventory of productions.) It was produced in process. It 
 must have been about the 17th December, 1829. It is No. 
 10 of inventory, No. 12 of process. 
 
 By the Court.—Could the summons have been called with¬ 
 out it ? Yes. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Have you any recollection of the person who 
 produced that document ? No. 
 
 It was produced for the pursuer calling himself the Earl of 
 Stirling? Yes. 
 
 Mr Lockhart was then the agent ? Yes. 
 
 It was produced by or for him ? Yes; Mr Lockhart’s 
 name is on the back. 
 
 You do not remember the person who produced it ? Do 
 you know where it was produced ? The usual place of doing 
 it is in the Register Office. 
 
 By the Court. — Would you have received it any where 
 else ? No. 
 
 And it appears from the document itself that you did receive 
 it there? Yes. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Look at the inventory of process, and read 
 the first article after it. (The witness examined, and recog¬ 
 nized the whole process.) 
 
 Look at the second summons of proving the tenor, (No. 3 
 of the productions,) at the instance of the said pursuer. Dated 
 and signeted what date ? 2d September, 1830, and signeted 
 the same day. 
 
 Was it received by you ? Yes, there is my mark. 
 
 Can you tell us whether this document was again produced 
 with that summons or in that process? Yes, it was produced 
 in the second process also. 
 
 What date ? I cannot tell. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 97 
 
 When was the summons called? On the 18th November, 
 1830. 
 
 It is probable that it was produced then, and not before? 
 It would probably be lodged along with the summons. The 
 summons ought to have been lodged on the Monday, 18th 
 November. 
 
 By tbe Court.—Is there no date on the excerpt ? No date. 
 
 But there is a mark on the excerpt hi the second process ? 
 It is only one marking, 12, H. T. M. That marking applied 
 equally to both processes. 
 
 Do you distinctly recollect that that marking was on it as 
 No. 12 of the second process ? Yes. 
 
 By Solicitor General.— Look at the inventory of productions 
 of the second process. Is this the inventory of the second 
 process? Yes. 
 
 Now, look if you find how many numbers are in the inven¬ 
 tory of productions? 13. 
 
 What number is the excerpt? No. 12. 
 
 Read the articles of the inventory. First, Summons; 
 second, Inventory of productions. 
 
 Now, read the receipt immediately after that. (Receipt 
 read by witness.) 
 
 That receipt contains a borrowing of that excerpt as in the 
 hands of the clerk ? Yes, borrowed on the 18th November, 
 1830, by the clerk of Mr F. Wilson. 
 
 By the Court. — He was acting for the Officers of State ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr Innes. — Look at the summons of reduction and 
 improbation against William Cuninghame Cuninghame 
 Graham, dated and signeted the 1st September, 1830 ? Yes, 
 signeted on the same day. 
 
 Was that placed in your hands ? Yes, it is a printed copy 
 of the summons. 
 
 Lodged along with the original by the agent, or for the 
 agent of the pursuer ? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Patrick Robertson. — You say that 
 this paper marked 12, H. T. M. was produced in both of these 
 processes, because it is No. 10 of each of the inventories? 
 Yes. 
 
 Look at the first inventory, and read No. 10 ? It is a man¬ 
 date by the pursuer. 
 
 Therefore it is not the excerpt ? No, it is not the excerpt. 
 
 It is No. 9 ? Yes. It is not marked by me. 
 
 You now tell me it is No. 9 ? Yes. 
 
98 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 No. 10 is a mandate ? Yes. 
 
 Then No. 10 ought to have been No. T2 ? Yes, there is 
 some mistake. 
 
 Then you cannot tell whether that was produced in the two 
 processes? I am certain it is produced in the first, because I 
 see Mr Hay’s marking. 
 
 Now, you conclude it was produced in one of them duly ? 
 Mr Hay would never have marked No. 12 if it had not been 
 produced. 
 
 Do you know any thing more about the document ? Do you 
 know anv thing of the interior ? No. 
 
 » O # # 
 
 All that you know is that Mr Hay’s marking No. 12 is on 
 the skin of parchment ? Yes. 
 
 You did not receive this yourself? No. 
 
 How do you know that Mr Hay received it in the Register 
 House ? Because he would not have received it any where 
 else. 
 
 You do not know whether this might not have been received 
 in the Outer House ? I do not think Mr Hay would have 
 received it there ? 
 
 Might not an excerpt or deed be produced at any time with¬ 
 out being produced with the summons ? Yes. But the in¬ 
 ventory of the productions seems to have been produced along 
 with the summons. 
 
 You have told us that it must have been produced with the 
 summons. Look at the title, it says nothing about the sum¬ 
 mons. You say that the productions must have been made 
 with the summons, because it appears to have been produced 
 along with the summons. The inventory of productions does 
 not bear you out in that assertion. Look at these. The one 
 has summons on the face of it, and the other has not. How 
 do you reconcile that ? First, this is not his own handwriting, 
 12 H. T. M. and then he did not receive that document him¬ 
 self. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff. — Does not that inventory bear summons 
 upon it ? And this bears the same. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — Then, my Lord, he said they never bore 
 that. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff (to the witness.) —That is the inventory of 
 the productions with the first summons ? (handing it to wit¬ 
 ness.) Yes. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—What number is that ? No. 9. 
 
 He positively swore that this excerpt was No. 10. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff.—He swore it was produced in both. 
 
STYLING IIlMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 01) 
 
 Mr Robertson.—You are sure from the inventories that it 
 was produced in both ? I am sure it is entered here, and Mi- 
 Hav never would have entered it without it. 
 
 M hen the production is made with the inventory, is there 
 a marking of the number put on the production itself to corres¬ 
 pond with its production in process? No. 
 
 If the article had been No. 9, it would have been No. 11 ? 
 (He says, my Lord, when an inventory is produced consisting 
 of a number of articles, that that which would have been No. 
 10 of process would have become No. 12.) Yes. 
 
 Corresponding to the number of the inventory, adding the 
 preceding steps of process ? Yes. 
 
 And consequently, that No. 10 would be No. 12? Yes. 
 
 Then No. 12, II. T. M. being produced as No. 10 of the 
 inventory, ought to have the marking 11 H. T. M. ? Yes. 
 
 If it had been produced in both it would have II. T. M. 11, 
 and H. T. M. 12? Yes. 
 
 By the Court. — Which of these are you confident of its 
 being produced in ? The second ; that is, No. 3. 
 
 You are acquainted with Mr Hay’s handwriting ? Yes. 
 
 You have no doubt of his handwriting? Not the slightest. 
 I know the handwriting as well as my own. 
 
 Mr Robertson (to the Court.) — Be so good as take down 
 that all he knows of that marking is from the outside marking 
 on the skin, and knows nothing of what was within. Is that 
 the case, sir ? Yes. 
 
 Do the clerks receive documents in their own houses? 
 Occasionally on the box day; not on other days. 
 
 Mr Innes then read part of the summons of proving the 
 tenor, (No. I of the Inventory, dated 12th October, 1829.) 
 Mr Robertson said he would hold both summonses as read. 
 
 Mr Innes then read the interlocutor of 4th March, 1830, 
 and 2d March, 1833, dismissing the two actions of proving 
 the tenor. 
 
 He then read part of the summons of reduction-im- 
 prob'ation proved by Mr Morrison, (No 2 of the inventory 
 produced in second process of proving the tenor.) “ The 
 whole process is put in.” 
 
 Mr George Robertson interrogated by Mr Innes.—You 
 are joint keeper of the records ? I am. 
 
 Look at that extract patent of William Earl of Stirling— 
 that is an extract from the great seal, made under your direc¬ 
 tions? Prepared by me and the other keeper of the records. 
 
100 TRIAL OP ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 And you found it correct? Yes. (No. 8 a of printed pro¬ 
 ductions.) 
 
 Look at that extract dated 14th June, 1633, (No. 8 b ,)— 
 that is an extract of a patent in favour of William Earl of 
 Stirling? Yes. 
 
 It is also a correct extract ? ies. 
 
 Look at that certificate of search, search A,* — that is a 
 search made by you ? Yes, a search by me through the 
 great seal; it is titled, “search for any charter of Novodamus 
 in favour of William Earl of Stirling,” &c. 
 
 That is a correct report of the search so made ? Yes, so 
 far as I could make it. 
 
 It is made in the ordinary way ? Yes, in the ordinary way, 
 by the indexes. 
 
 It bears also that you made a particular search of one 
 volume of the record ? Yes, the 57th volume. 
 
 And you state the result of that search correctly there ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Read the title of search B, (witness read it; which was to 
 the effect that the search was from 7 December, 1639, to 31 
 January, 1641.) 
 
 That includes the 7th September ? Yes; and is correct so 
 far as I have been able to make it; and it was made in the 
 usual way. 
 
 Look at search D. That is correct, and also made in the 
 usual way. I made the last search from the principal record. 
 
 Look at search C, — search in the General Register of 
 Sasines. It is a correct report of the search, and made in 
 the usual way, 
 
 Mr Robertson.—You say you searched the record ? Yes. 
 
 Not the minute book ? No; the minute book of the privy 
 seal is not very satisfactory; but I searched the principal 
 record. 
 
 By the Court.—Do you know any instances of sasines 
 recorded, and not in the minute book ? They are very rare; 
 but I have seen some. 
 
 By Mr Innes. — Look at that extract of a charter under 
 the great seal. Yes ; dated 12 July, 1634. 
 
 Is that a correct extract from the great seal prepared by 
 you ? Yes. 
 
 Look at this last extract, dated 27 June, 1642, —is that an 
 extract from the same register? Yes; and it is also a correct 
 extract. 
 
 * Sec these Searches at the end of the volume. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 101 
 
 Have you brought some volumes of the records with you ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Give me the volume which contains the signature in favour 
 of the town of Edinburgh, 11 September, 1609. (No. 16 of 
 productions.) Witness produced it. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I admit this page 6 of the productions 
 is correctly taken from the book. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Does the same volume contain the signature 
 ot the charter by King Charles in favour of the governor of 
 Heriot’s Hospital? Yes; they are both marked. (No. 21 
 of the productions.) 
 
 \ou have the volume of the privy seal, containing the pre¬ 
 cept for the same charter ? Yes; and for the other ; they are 
 both in the same volume. (Nos. 17 and 23 of productions.) 
 
 Have you got part of the register of the great seal which 
 contains the charter in favour of the city of Edinburgh ? 
 Yes; it has also both the charters, much decayed; but both 
 are there. (Nos. 18 and 19 of productions.) 
 
 Look at the extract, (No. 27 of productions,) that is an 
 extract warrant for sealing the commissioner’s commission, 
 13 Nov. 1638,—is that from the privy seal record? Yes; 
 and it is a correct extract. 
 
 Look at that extract entitled “ Extract the commissioner’s 
 declaration anent the great seale, 14 Nov. 1638,” (No. 28 of 
 productions)—is that an extract from the same record ? Yes. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—The object of these documents is to shew 
 the resignation of the chancellor, and the giving up of the 
 great seal, in November, 1638. 
 
 Mr Innes.—That is also a correct extract ? Yes. 
 
 Look at these extracts, from the same record. They are 
 extracts from the books of Parliament. 
 
 These are from a volume of the records of Parliament; 
 and are not printed? I do not think they are printed. 
 
 By the Court.—When do these volumes begin? and when 
 do they end? Mr Innes.—They are not chronological. 
 
 Is the record of signatures chronological ? Witness.—Not 
 exactly; none of them are chronological. I searched the 
 whole volume of register of seals. My search is correct inde¬ 
 pendently of the arrangement of the charters. 
 
 By the Court.—There are none of those volumes wanting ? 
 Just one volume. 
 
 Are they chronologically generally ? There is no date of 
 recording mentioned ; and the charters are not chronologi¬ 
 cally entered according to their respective dates. 
 
102 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Lord Advocate.—The question of search is one thing, and 
 producing the volumes is another. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr P. Robertson.—What kind of 
 book is applicable to the period ? No book but the register 
 of signatures. 
 
 Did you search the minute book of the privy seal? No; 
 I searched the principal record, and I searched the indexes of 
 the great seal. 
 
 And the minute book of the register of sasines, and not the 
 original ? Not the original. That is the ordinary way. 
 
 There is no minute book applicable to the register of sig¬ 
 natures? I have only searched in the principal record of 
 signatures. I have searched the indexes and not the principal 
 record applicable to the sasines, which are the usual modes of 
 search. 
 
 By the Court.—Between the dates you have given, is there 
 any other book than those you have searched, where such 
 things could exist? There is no other book. 
 
 You made the search effectively in all the books ? My 
 directions related to the four books. 
 
 Mr Robertson. You are asked whether any other books 
 were applicable to the subject during that period ? Not in 
 which such a thing could exist. 
 
 Were there any books applicable to that period lost? 
 There is part of one volume that appears to be wanting. 
 
 During what time ? It is in book 57. 
 
 Mr Innes. You made a report of that in one of your 
 searches? I think so. 
 
 Mr Robertson. Is that a limitation to the answer you 
 gave ? It is not a book, but part of a volume that appears to 
 be lost. 
 
 Lord Advocate. Read the report. (The certificate was 
 then read by the witness, to the effect that twelve leaves 
 were destroyed or lost; but that they did not contain any 
 charters, or diploma, or grant,* &c.) That is your report in 
 reference to the lost leaves that are amissing? Yes. 
 
 Do you not find the two indexes perfectly agreeing in 
 regard to the missing leaves. And you have no doubt respect¬ 
 ing the result ? No doubt. 
 
 Mr Robertson. Can you tell us the period to which these 
 twelve leaves ought to correspond ? Commences in 1641, 4*2, 
 43, 44, 45, and 46, the whole volume. It goes no farther 
 back than 1641. 
 
 * Sec Certificate of Search at the end of the volume. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 103 
 
 What is the date of the first entry in the volume after the 
 twelve lost leaves ? 26th February, 1642. 
 
 I want you to speak from the volume apart from the 
 indexes. What is the first date in the book ? 26th Feb¬ 
 ruary, 1642. 
 
 There is nothing before 1642 in the book ? 
 
 Lord Advocate.—It is not chronological. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — Is there any thing in 1641, after that? 
 I cannot say. 
 
 Where is the first charter of 1641 ? It is lost. 
 
 The Court.—There is no reason to suppose that any thing 
 is lost except what appears in the index. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — 1642, is the first charter entered in that 
 book ? Yes. 
 
 And the leaves that are amissing will precede that ? Yes. 
 
 Have you any means of judging of the date of what is away 
 except what is in the index ? Nothing. 
 
 What does the index say ? Is it applicable to this particu¬ 
 lar book or to other books ? It is the index of that volume. 
 
 That is, the index of the volume that has the missing leaves? 
 v ° 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Then it is only from 1641 here that you judge? Yes, I 
 understand it to contain from 1641 to 1646. 
 
 Then you have no means of judging that there was any 
 thing in this book except from the index ? No. 
 
 You did not find any in 1641 ? I do not recollect. There 
 may be. 
 
 How far down does that book go ? This book is divided 
 into two parts. 
 
 How far does the lost part go down ? To 1645. 
 
 Well, the book that you have, which is in two volumes, 
 commences, the first one in 1642, the last one in 1645 ? Yes, 
 but the one immediately before the last one ends in 1646. 
 
 And 1645 comes after 1646? Yes. 
 
 How do you identify the index with the volume itself? 
 You do not know that any of 1641 is in it? I could not 
 exactly say. 
 
 I wish to know how you identify the index with the book ? 
 It corresponds with the book very nearly. 
 
 Which is the beginning of the book ? There seems to be 
 two beginnings. Which is the portion of the index applicable 
 to the two volumes in question ? This is the index applicable 
 to the fifty-seventh volume. 
 
 2 p 
 
J04 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 What is this applicable to ? To the paper register, tem¬ 
 porary writings, institutions. 
 
 You do not know the date of the missing twelve pages yet ? 
 Some of the dates are mentioned, but not the whole. There 
 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 dates in 1641, I see mentioned, and no 
 others. 
 
 You cannot tell whether some of them might not have been 
 dated in 1639, from the index or any other evidences ? No 
 farther than from the title of the index itself. 
 
 The Court.—It is the title that contains the information of 
 what is the date.—He believes that title to be accurate — he 
 did not forge it. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I know; but we are inquiring into a very 
 obscure matter. 
 
 Lord Advocate.— There are two things, — the one is the 
 search of the great seal, the first thing. Then there is the 
 blank of twelve folios, and you think you can restore that 
 blank from the index. But independently of that blank, what 
 you did first was to search the index of the great seal; and 
 you certify that you searched from 16th June, 1632, till 
 8th July, 1710, being the date of the last charter recorded in 
 the fifty-eighth volume, but found no charter except those 
 mentioned. You have searched the indexes between these 
 periods, and this is the result of the search ? Yes. 
 
 Now, there is a blank in the fifty-seventh volume of twelve 
 folio pages ? Yes. 
 
 I understand the volume itself shews the blank ? Yes. 
 
 And consequently, the volume being blank does not give 
 the means of telling what that is? No. 
 
 But you are in possession of two indexes of ancient date. 
 One of them was in the Writers to the Signet’s Library, 
 which is now in the general registry; the other always has 
 been there ? Yes. 
 
 That does not go through the whole volume ? No. 
 
 In so far as the volume is preserved, it corresponds with 
 the volume ? No, there are some inaccuracies. I took a 
 note of them. 
 
 You have another index that goes through the whole 
 volume? Yes, and there is just one mistake in it that I 
 found out. 
 
 Now these indexes coincide in regard to these charters that 
 must have filled the twelve folios ? They agree perfectly as 
 to these. 
 
 ^ou have no doubt these two indexes, the one perfect the 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 105 
 
 oilier imperfect, are the proper indexes of the volume? No 
 doubt of that. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Which is the one that has only one error ? 
 The one in the Writers to the Signet’s Library. 
 
 When did it come from there ? A month or two ago. 
 
 Is the Writers to the Signet’s Library a proper place to 
 keep the records of the great seal ? No. 
 
 Yon never saw it till within a month ? I never saw it till 
 I brought it from the Writers to the Signet’s Library myself. 
 
 There are several inaccuracies in the index which was kept 
 in the office ? Yes, there are four charters in the register 
 that are not in the index. 
 
 Full charters ? Yes. 
 
 Is it the one that was found in the Writers to the Signet’s 
 Library, or the one that was kept in the office that begins 
 with 1641 ? They both begin with that date. 
 
 Then this is the index that was kept in the office ? I pre¬ 
 sume so, there is no marking. 
 
 You spoke to this from your belief that it was the proper 
 index kept in the office; that is, the book that begins 1641, 
 and it was not in existence till nearly one hundred years after 
 the register ? That is the date that is upon it. We have a 
 series of indexes in the register —this is one of a series, and in 
 the same handwriting. 
 
 Then, is this the book that has the proper index that was 
 kept at the time ? It appears to be so, so far as it goes. 
 
 Co you believe this to have been made up from time to 
 time ? I do. 
 
 And you do not believe this one to have been made up till 
 1721? No. 
 
 As I understand you, apart from the one which came from 
 the Writers’ Library, you have no means of judging what the 
 twelve leaves consisted of, excepting from your own book ? 
 None. 
 
 And there are four charters omitted in that ? Yes. 
 
 During the period to which the volume applies? Yes. 
 
 The Court.—But you are certain that there are but twelve 
 folios amissing? Yes. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — Did you ever make a search out of this 
 book before? I never saw it nor heard of it before. 
 
 Is it in the same hand-writing with any index in your pos¬ 
 session ? It resembles very much one that we have in the 
 office, volume 2d ; it immediately follows this one. 
 
 It iniorht have been made after 1721 also? Yes. 
 
 o 
 
106 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Then you have no index of the great seal in existence 
 .applicable to the period of 1641, excepting these two volumes 
 which were made up after 1721 ? We have just these three 
 indexes. 
 
 One of which you got from the Writers’, and the other two 
 volumes — none of which were made up till 1721; and you 
 have the'one which contains the four mistakes about the 
 charters that you spoke of? Yes. 
 
 The Court.—The index is only of use in finding what is in 
 the book ? Yes. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—That volume is the property of the Writers 
 still ? I suppose it is. 
 
 To whom does the other volume belong? To the Register 
 House. 
 
 The Court.—Read the title of the Writer to the Signet’s 
 one ? The title of the Register is, “ Registrarum,” &c. 
 
 And nothing said of Mag. Sig. ? No. 
 
 You know that in the progress of a charter it begins with 
 the presenting of a signature ? I cannot exactly speak to that. 
 
 The Court.—The entries in this index, as to the missing 
 charters, are of the same appearance as the others ? Just the 
 same. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—What does this mean ? “ Not good,” 
 
 and in the same hand-writing, “ William Campbell ? William 
 Smith, his book ?” 
 
 Lord Advocate.—My learned friend is out of order. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I am going no farther than I am entitled 
 to go. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—The examination was in the hands of the 
 Court, and Mr Robertson should not have examined again 
 but through the Court. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I admit that I should have put that through 
 the Court, but I make no other admission. 
 
 Mr Robert Webster. Interrogated by Mr Innes.— 
 You are extractor in the Signet Office ? Yes. 
 
 You were directed to make a search of signatures from 1623 
 to 1653? Yes. 
 
 You keep your original signatures in the Signet Office ? 
 Yes; the original warrants. 
 
 They are arranged alphabetically ? Yes. 
 
 Were von directed to search the book for the letter S? 
 Yes. 
 
 Is that the report of search by you ? Yes. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 107 
 
 Read it. (Witness did so. # ) 
 
 You searched both the index and the collection of original 
 signatures applicable to that period ? Yes. 
 
 And you got no such signatures? No such signatures. 
 
 Were you instructed to make a search for a signature in 
 favour of the City of Edinburgh, in December, 1839 ? Yes. 
 
 You succeeded in finding that signature ? Yes. 
 
 Have you brought that signature? Yes. 
 
 That has been preserved to the Office of the Signet ? Yes. 
 I have no doubt that it is an original signature under the sign 
 manual. 
 
 Were you also directed to search for a signature in favour 
 of Heriot’s Hospital of the same date? Yes. 
 
 Did you succeed in finding that? Yes. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — Did you search in the index ? Yes. 
 
 Did you get the dates furnished ? 
 
 Lord Advocate. — That is very unnecessary. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Very well. 
 
 Then you found these signatures entered in the index as 
 well as in the bundle? Yes. 
 
 The Court. — You were furnished with a note of the date of 
 the Charter of the Earl of Stirling that was wanted, and those 
 in favour of the Town of Edinburgh and Heriot’s Hospital ; 
 you were furnished with the whole of them in the same way ? 
 In the same way. 
 
 Peter Anderson, Esq. W.S. Interrogated by Mr Innes. 
 
 You are one of the agents for the City of Edinburgh ? Yes. 
 
 Look at that charter under the great seal, dated lltli De¬ 
 cember, 1639, in favour of the Provost and Magistrates of the 
 City of Edinburgh. Is that taken from the repositories of the 
 City of Edinburgh ? Yes. 
 
 It is in your hands at present, as agent for the City ? Yes. 
 
 You have no doubt it is a genuine charter? It has been 
 reputed as such. 
 
 Lord Advocate to Mr Robertson. — Do you admit it to be 
 so ? Yes. 
 
 Lord Advocate. — In the testing clause of this charter, per¬ 
 mit me to observe, that John Archbishop Spottiswood is not 
 a witness. 
 
 Isaac Bayley, Esq. W.S. Interrogated by Mr Innes. 
 
 You are one of the agents for Heriot’s Hospital ? Yes. 
 
 *■ See Certificate of Search at the cn<l of the volume. 
 
108 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Look at that charter under the great seal in ^our of the 
 Hospital. I know it; it is in my hands as clerk of Henot 
 Hospital; it is dated the 11th December, 1639. 
 
 You have no doubt that it is a genuine charter . I have no 
 
 ^°Lord Advocate. —We have a witness, Mr Ewart, to prove 
 the correctness of the Latin translation. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — They are all admitted. 
 
 Mr William Wiiytock. Interrogated by Mr Innes. 
 
 You are a clerk in the Chancery Office ? I am. 
 
 Have you had much experience in transcribing and reading 
 old hand-writing? Yes, for many years. 
 
 Look at that document, which is an original excerpt from 
 the charter —The document entitled Appendix, -No. 1. 
 The subject of the first charter. I saw it on two dmeren 
 
 ° C< Have you seen Scotch hands of that kind ? It is not a 
 Chancery hand; it is like the engrossing hand used in 
 
 England and Ireland. , _ , . 
 
 From the appearance of the ink and other matters, what 
 
 would you say the age of the writing of that document to be. 
 
 I could not say the age; it does not seem of great antiquity. 
 
 Is it fifty, or a hundred, or two hundred years. It is not 
 
 a hundred years of age. . 
 
 Is it fifty years? I really cannot say. It is not a curient 
 
 hand, and it* is not so easy to speak to the date of it. 
 
 You observe some contractions in the writing some alte¬ 
 rations ? There are a few. .. 
 
 Are these such as are in use in Scotland . I should not 
 think so. They are not like Scottish abbreviations. “ Britan: 
 
 I never saw the word contracted in that way: and farther, 
 down « dignitem”—for “ dignitatem” I suppose. 
 
 Do you observe any more ? None at present. 
 
 Do you notice the word «generaliter ?” Yes, I see the 
 word generality —there is a particular mark for er. 
 
 Is that used there ? It is not there. 
 
 These are not the contractions that you are accustomed to 
 see in old Scotch writings ? No ; I am not much acquainted 
 
 with English charters. . 
 
 Give us your opinion as to what you can judge from the 
 appearance of that part. You observe it is ot a dark brown 
 colour, especially outside ? Yes. 
 
 Look also at that part covered bv the stitching being 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 109 
 
 brought round the edge? It appears of a uniform colour,— 
 what is under the stitching is the same. 
 
 Can you make any inference from that ? What is your 
 opinion in regard to that as a test of the ancientness of the 
 writing? If it had been a late stitching, that part which is 
 covered by the stitching ought to have been whiter than 
 the rest. It seems at present to be of the same colour. 
 
 Do you notice whether the edges are fresh or sharp cut 
 under the stitching ? There is nothing except separate leaves 
 tinder the stitching. 
 
 Do you observe any sharpness in the cutting of these edges 
 ■under the stitching ? They appear to be sharp. 
 
 The Court.—There are no whole sheets in it ? There 
 seems to be no whole sheets. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—What is it that appears whiter? The 
 edges. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Look at some places that seem to have been 
 erased in that document? I see several places where there 
 are marks of erasures—one about three-fourths down on the 
 third page—another about a third part down the fourth page 
 —one near the foot on the same page—last word at the bot¬ 
 tom of the fifth page—and two near the end of the deed. 
 
 These appear to have been erasures from some errors in 
 writing ? Yes. 
 
 How do they appear to have been treated after the erasures ? 
 I could not say—they have been rubbed—but it may have 
 been to make them be written on more easily afterwards. 
 
 Do they appear to have been rubbed over with a dark sub¬ 
 stance ? They are certainly soiled. 
 
 Was that of any use to make them write the more easily ? 
 I do not know. 
 
 Does the soiling occur in every instance of an erasure that 
 you observe? Less or more in every instance. 
 
 How could that have been produced ? It might have been 
 produced by rubbing with the finger or the application of 
 pounce. 
 
 If the erasure was made on paper of its present colour, 
 would not the erasure leave it white at the place where it was 
 erased ? Yes. 
 
 And the pounce or other substance would not alter the 
 whiteness? I do not think it. 
 
 Look at the marking on the margin at the beginning of the 
 excerpt. Read the words on the margin. “ Reg. Mag. Sig.” 
 
 Does it appear to be in the same hand with the rest of the 
 
1 10 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 page ? It looks a little more modern. It is an abreviation 
 for Registrum Magni Sigilli. 
 
 On the whole, are you of opinion, from all the marks you 
 have seen, that that is a writing about 1723? It is my opi¬ 
 nion that it is not so aged as 1723. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Robertson.—But you cannot tell 
 of what age it may be ? I cannot. 
 
 You cannot tell if within fifty years? Circumstances would 
 lead me to infer that it is later than that. 
 
 What are they ? The last question put to me as to the title 
 on the margin, Reg. Mag. Sig. 
 
 What is it ? Because I am not aware that it was ever the 
 name given to the record of charters till they were bound up 
 by Mr Thomson. 
 
 Independently of that, is there any thing else that leads you 
 to suppose it is not more than fifty years ? The words that 
 are written in larger characters than the rest are written in a 
 sort of German text, such as might be used at the present 
 
 <%• . . . . . T . , 
 
 But you are not acquainted with the writings in Irish or 
 
 English deeds ? Not particularly acquainted. It is liker the 
 writing employed in the specifications of patents than the 
 Chancery hand. 
 
 You have no acquaintance of English or Irish writings of 
 that period ? None. 
 
 And your only acquaintance with English or Irish writings 
 is from seeing these specifications of patents ? Chiefly. 
 
 Then holding this to be an English or Irish paper, and 
 putting out of view the marking about the great seal, is 
 there any other circumstance that can lead you to say that it 
 is not a hundred years old ? I could not swear by any means 
 that it was not a hundred years old, but it is my impression that 
 it is not. 
 
 But is there any other circumstance that would lead you to 
 suppose that it was not ? I could not say that there is, apart 
 from the marking of the great seal. I could not swear it was 
 not of that age. 
 
 And you have no acquaintance with old Irish or English 
 papers ? I may have seen them. 
 
 They do not fall within your ordinary business ? They 
 seldom come in my way. 
 
 You said, that if the erasures had been made on paper of 
 the present colour, the whiteness would appear ? I said pro¬ 
 bably it would. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 Ill 
 
 There is no such whiteness? No. 
 
 The Court.—Is the marking on the margin apparently in 
 the same ink as the rest? I should think it is a shade darker. 
 
 Mr Innes.—The white marks that you say would occur in 
 erasing, you think might have been artificially coloured ? All 
 that 1 can say is that, on marking an erasure, it would be 
 natural to rub it to make it write better. 
 
 Mr Robertson. You hold that one to have been rubbed 
 and corrected like any other paper of the same kind ? Yes. 
 
 Mr Alexander Macdonald. Interrogated by Mr Innes. 
 
 I am a keeper of tbe record of deeds in the Register House, 
 Edinburgh. I have been about thirty years employed in the 
 Register House, under Mr Thomas Thomson. 1 was clerk 
 to Mr Thomson when he began binding up the records of 
 the great seal. I entered in the year 1808. 
 
 What was the old backing of the registers of the great seal ? 
 Charters, book I. book II. and soon. 
 
 Have you preserved any of them ? We have preserved 
 the boards of three of the old volumes by accident. 
 
 Are these backed as you mention ? They have served as 
 portfolios since 1808; and on two of them in particular I find 
 the backing. 
 
 Do you observe how what is called the register of the great 
 seal, is quoted by writers of the last century ? “ Great Seal 
 
 Book,” “ Records of Parliament,” “ Charters under Greal 
 Seal,” and “ Charters.” 
 
 Have you ever seen it quoted Reg. Mag. Sig. ? Never be¬ 
 fore the records were bound up in 1808. 
 
 Have you turned your attention to the volume 57 ? I have 
 examined that volume very particularly. There are twelve 
 leaves wanting in it at the beginning. 
 
 You have access to certain indexes, which, when taken 
 together, agree in giving you the contents of the missing 
 volumes ? Yes. 
 
 Were you enabled to trace any considerable number of 
 those missing charters ? The missing leaves form the begin¬ 
 ning of the 57th volume; there are thirty-two charters, 
 diplomas, and patents wanting; this I found out by both 
 indexes. 
 
 What do the instruments consist of? Treaty between 
 England and Scotland, ten diplomas of patents of honour, 
 and one Litera Ilehabilitationis in favour of Patrick Irvine, 
 and twenty ordinary charters. 
 
112 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Of what dates were these charters? I have traced about 
 nineteen of them between September, 1641, and February, 
 1642: the missing charters—not diplomas. 
 
 By the Court.—Diplomas do not include lands ? I should 
 think not. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Is there amongst all these any in 1639? Not 
 one. 
 
 In the previous volume, 56, are there a great many of that 
 date ? Yes; there are fourty-four. 
 
 IIow many are there in the month of December, 1639? 
 
 Four. 
 
 Are you aware that one of these is in favour of the city of 
 Edinburgh, and another in favour of Heriot’s Hospital ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you find that there is any of them witnessed by John 
 rSpottiswood, Archbishop of St Andrews? tyo. 
 
 Have you searched for the occurrence of such a witness at 
 that date ? I have. 
 
 What is the latest occurrence ? 
 
 Mr Robertson. — My Lord, he is now going to speak of 
 something that is in the charter or not in the charter. The 
 better way would be to produce the charter itself to prove the 
 affirmative or the negative. My learned friend is now going 
 to ask whether the witness has searched the records, and 
 whether the same person is not a witness to certain other 
 charters. I apprehend this is irregular. Suppose my learned 
 friend had put the question, “ Do you find in 1638 Arch¬ 
 bishop Spottiswood witness to any charter ?” I apprehend 
 it is clear the Court would not have allowed that question to 
 be put, because the best witness to his name being witness to 
 a charter, or register, is the charter, or register itself. We 
 ought to have the whole register, or to have notes of what 
 parts of the register are to be used against the prisoner. The 
 charter is the best evidence of what it contains, and what it 
 does not contain. The question to be put, is, whether Arch¬ 
 bishop Spottiswood is there or not there, and the best 
 answer is to be found in the register itself. This witness is 
 not even keeper of the register. He is a person who has 
 searched, and he is asked if he has not found a particular 
 name. I submit that, by the rules of the law of evidence, 
 you must have the best evidence which the subject affords. 
 Why did not this gentleman make a regular search, and let 
 the search be produced as in other cases? Mv learned friends 
 produced searches proved by Mr Robertson. I say they 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF HAUL OF STIRLING. 
 
 113 
 
 ought to have produced the regular search. He is asked it' 
 lie could find Archbishop Spottiswood’s name at a particular 
 period. They ought to have given in this search. The 
 searches of Mr Robertson were produced, because they could 
 not produce the register themselves, to direct our attention to 
 that searcli, to see if they were correct. But here, without 
 notice or productions of a search of any kind, they put a 
 witness into the box, and, after telling him about Spottis- 
 wood, they say, Do you find this name witnessing a charter 
 of a particular date ? I submit that the question is one which 
 your Lordships will not sustain. 
 
 The Lord Advocate.—I want to prove, that, in the year 
 1639—and those charters and records were searched for the 
 purpose — the name Spottiswood does not appear as-a witness 
 in any one of them, and I find he does not; 1 want to ask the 
 same question as to 1638, and I do not see any objection to 
 this. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — My learned friend ought to have pro¬ 
 duced the register which contains these years; it is only one 
 volume that is already proved. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—If the books are here, what objection can 
 you have? 
 
 Mr Robertson. — That alters the question, which would do 
 away with my objection. The best evidence is the volume 
 itself. 
 
 The Court. — Do you not say that your objection is done 
 away with ? 
 
 Mr Robertson. — I am misunderstood by one of your Lord- 
 ships. My objection is not done away with, because it 
 remains undisposed of; but it is unnecessary to be discussed 
 if my learned friend withdraws the question put to the wit¬ 
 ness, and offers to prove the fact by the production of the 
 register. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—The witness is there who is to explain 
 the register himself. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I understood that the witness was to 
 speak from a search without the book being here. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff. — The objection is at an end. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — I had no notice of this search by Mr 
 Macdonald. 
 
 Lord Advocate (to the witness.)—You have the record 
 there of the Great Seal from July, 1638, to December, 1639, 
 vol. 56. You have looked into that volume for the purpose of 
 ascertaining whether Archbishop Spottiswood was a witness. 
 
H4 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMP1IRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Do you find him a witness to any crown charter from 1638 
 down till 1639? On the 14th July, 1638, he appears as a 
 witness for the last time. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — My learned friend is now proceeding to 
 state the contents of the register, and to ask the witness 
 whether Spottiswood’s name is not there; now that volume 
 of the register is not libelled on, or produced in the Justiciary 
 Office, and is not mentioned in the inventory of the produc¬ 
 tions. 
 
 Lord Advocate. — No. 18; it is not a volume of the 
 register. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—You say it is No. 18. Begin at No. 15, 
 “ Extracts from Original Signature in favour of the City of 
 Edinburgh, of the Burgh of Regality of Canongate, 11th 
 Dec. 1639.” I say that is held to be produced, because they 
 could not get it from the Register Office. All that is pro¬ 
 duced of No. 18, is part of the register of the great seal, 
 which contains the said charter, or certified copy thereof,— 
 no other part is produced. It is volume 57 that contains the 
 charter, and it is volume 56 that the witness is looking at; 
 and w'e are now to get something proved out of the register 
 that is not produced. 
 
 By the Court. —Witness says, that the charter is in that 
 very volume. 
 
 Lord Advocate. — There are two charters, one in favour of 
 Edinburgh, and one in favour of Heriot’s Hospital. 
 
 (To witness.) There are in that book before you other 
 charters, in 1638, of a subsequent date ? Yes. 
 
 There are charters in it of 1639 ? Yes. 
 
 And in none of these charters of 1638 and 1639, subse¬ 
 quent to 14th July, 1639, do you find the name of Spottis- 
 wood? No, the name is not found after 14th July, 1638. 
 
 How is Spottiswood designed on 14th July, 1638 ? 
 “ Testibus reverendissimo in Christo patre et predifecto nostro 
 consiliario Joanne miseratione divina Sancti, See. &c. nostro 
 cancellario,” &c. 
 
 It is very common, I believe, in the records of the great 
 seal, that the testing clause is not given at full length ? Yes, 
 very common. It is given in full length in some, and in 
 some others it is given by a reference to witnesses as above. 
 
 How many charters are there in that volume 56, in which 
 the testing clause is given in full ? Nine. 
 
 W hich is the first ? No. 80, in point ot date, in which the 
 clause is full; its date is 14th April, 1631. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 1 15 
 
 Is Spottiswood a witness there? No. 
 
 What is the next ? 83, in point of time ; dale, 6th July, 
 
 1635. He is a witness in 1635. 
 
 How designed ? “ Reverendissimo nostro, &c. &c. nostro 
 
 cancellario.” The next is 31st July, 1637 ; he is a witness 
 there, and described in the same way. The next is 16th Jan¬ 
 uary, 1638, the first of the volume ; he is a witness also there, 
 and is described in the same way. The next in point of date, 
 is 5th March, 1638; and he is here described a witness in the 
 same way. The next is 14th July, 1638, also where he is 
 still a witness, and described in the same terms. The next is 
 November 20, 1638. 
 
 Is he a witness there ? He is not. The next, with a 
 full testing clause, is January, 1640. He is a witness there. 
 
 These are the charters in which the testing clause is full ? 
 Yes. 
 
 It does not appear, in the shorter mode, that in any of the 
 charters he was a witness subsequent to the 12th July, 1638? 
 Certainly not. 
 
 The reference ut supra does not make him a witness at a 
 subsequent date ? No. 
 
 Are there any intermediate charters between July and 
 November, where the testing clause bears testibus ut supra ? 
 I cannot tell. 
 
 Have you any reason from that book to suppose, that sub¬ 
 sequent to 1638, Archbishop Spottiswood was a witness to 
 any royal charter ? No. 
 
 "Read the testing clause to the charter November 20, 1638? 
 Testibus, &c. 
 
 In other charters where the testing clause is not complete, 
 how are they entered ? Uniformly, “ Testibus ut in aliis 
 chartis consimilis dati.” 
 
 That is to say, witnessed by the same, as in other charters 
 of a similar date ? Yes. 
 
 How many charters are under the great seal in December, 
 1639? Four, and forty-four in the whole year. 
 
 In volume 57, there is no charter of 1639? None. 
 
 Mr Innes.—There was no Chancellor from 1638, till Sep¬ 
 tember, 1641? No. 
 
 And during the intermediate period, with others that dis¬ 
 charged the duties of the office, there was the Marquis of 
 Hamilton ? He stands first as a witness in the charter, 
 without the title of Chancellor. 
 
 You have now before you a document, Excerpt from an 
 
1 IfJ TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRY?, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 original charter of Novodamus of William Earl of Stirling, 
 No. I. in the Appendix. You observe the marking in the 
 margin of it, — is there any difference in the writing on the 
 margin from that in the body of the document ? It would 
 appear to me to be modern writing — no later, perhaps, than 
 thirty years. 
 
 What is your reason for believing so? In a great measure 
 from the title Beg. Mag. Big. lib. 57. 
 
 This is not an ancient way of describing a charter? I 
 never saw it till 1808—it was introduced by Mr Thomson. 
 
 What is your opinion from the appearance of the ink, and 
 character of the hand-writing? It is a hand-writing that I 
 never saw in Scotland. 
 
 Do you observe it in reference to the ink and the colour of 
 the paper? The colour of the paper seems darker, the 
 excerpt is written on distinct leaves, and the part folded 
 under the stitching is of the same colour as that of the body 
 of the paper, which is more exposed to the air. 
 
 The Court. — You say it is written on distinct leaves, what 
 do you mean by that ? It is not written on sheets. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Do you observe some erasures running through 
 it ? There are occasional erasures. 
 
 Do these present any thing noticeable to you? What are 
 these black spots owing to ? They are just to give it the 
 appearance of an older writing. 
 
 Do you mean that the erasures were made to give it an 
 older appearance? It might be. 
 
 Do they appear to have been studiously and intentionally 
 done at these places? The appearance of the last one is of a 
 very suspicious character. 
 
 Have you any reason to say that there is any difference in 
 the hand-writing on the margin, and that on the writ? 
 
 I can see no reason for saying that they are not in the same 
 hand, either from the shape of the writing, or the colour of 
 the ink. I think they must have been made at the same time. 
 The colour of the marginal note is the same with the colour of 
 the text. 
 
 Turn to the end of the charter, and look at the testing clause, 
 who is the first witness to that testing clause ? John, Arch¬ 
 bishop of St Andrews, Chancellor of Scotland, dated 7th 
 December, 1639. 
 
 And for a year and a half before that date, he does not 
 appear as a witness in any crown charter? No. 
 
 Look towards the end of the charter; you observe it is the 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 117 
 
 testing clause of a finished charter under the great seal ? 
 
 v ° 
 
 i es. 
 
 Look at the bottom of it; you observe the words, Gratis 
 per Signetum; are these words applicable to a great seal 
 charter? Certainly not. 
 
 What would this lead you to believe ? That it was a 
 precept from the signet office to the keeper of the privy seal. 
 
 Per Signetum marks the warrant under which the writ 
 subsequently follows? Yes. 
 
 Are there any instances of a privy seal writ being brought 
 at once from the signet, and offered to the great seal ? Cer¬ 
 tainly not. 
 
 The Court.—Thegreat seal would not acknowledge the privy 
 seal ? No. 
 
 Mr Innes.—And prior to the time of Mr Thomas Thomson, 
 it was the custom to carry writs by the privy seal to the great 
 seal, so that vou might have a signature to the warrant of the 
 great seal ? Yes. 
 
 But you could not have a signet warrant ? No. 
 
 Is there any authentic instrument by the law of Scotland in 
 which she does these two things, that are found in that writ ? 
 giving a full testing clause applicable to a finished crown char¬ 
 ter, and the words <£ Gratis. Per Signetum ?” Certainly not. 
 
 Have you any doubts whether or not it is a genuine copy of 
 a genuine charter in Scotland ? I would say it is not a 
 genuine copy of a genuine charter, and not a genuine copy of 
 any writ that ever existed in Scotland. 
 
 Have you any doubt about it ? No doubt. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Robertson.—You said it did not 
 appear to be older than thirty years ? I would say between 
 twenty and thirty years. 
 
 It does not bear to be a full copy ? It is only an excerpt. 
 
 Did you say you thought the erasures were made on purpose, 
 or might they not have occurred in the course of writing? 
 They may have occurred in the course of writing. 
 
 You have not much acquaintance, I suppose, with the Irish 
 and English writings of this kind of hand ? The only writ¬ 
 ings approaching to it that I know are specifications from the 
 patent office in London ; but of the Irish writings I know- 
 nothing. 
 
 You do not think that Peg. Mag. Sig. is a shade darker 
 than the rest of the document ? I thought not. 
 
 You think it is of the same colour of ink as the rest ? Yes. 
 
 In forming your opinion that it is not a genuine copy of an 
 
lift TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 instrument of that date, you attach considerable importance to 
 this marking, as being not of the date, but long subsequent to 
 the date of the charter ? I attach importance to the writing 
 altogether. 
 
 There is no subscription of any name being annexed to the 
 deed at all ? There is no name of Spottiswood, or any other 
 name attached to the paper ? No. 
 
 They are official persons named at the end of the deed ; but 
 they do not subscribe ? They are, and they do not subscribe 
 the charter. 
 
 What was it you said was suspicious at the end of the deed ? 
 The blackening over the er in the words Per Signetum. 
 
 Does that appear to you to have been done at the same time 
 as the rest of the letters of the same word ? I cannot say that. 
 
 Then what is it that appears to you to be suspicious ? The 
 blackening round the words, the darkness of the paper, not the 
 writing. 
 
 You do not attach importance to the P and S, appearing to 
 be painted over more than the rest of the writing ? No, I do 
 not; it is the Per Signetum that I attach suspicion to. 
 
 Is there any erasure at the Per Signetum ? I do not think 
 it; there is a blacking of the letters P and S. 
 
 But you attach no suspicion to the blacking there ? No. 
 
 And there is no erasure on the last page ? There is no 
 erasure, no word taken out and another substituted; but there 
 is a little rubbing. 
 
 Shew me any erasure in the second last page of the deed ? 
 
 I cannot see any on that page. 
 
 Look at the last word on the fifth page ; do you observe any 
 erasure there ? There is a blotting at “ successoribus.” 
 
 Is there any erasure ? I think at the first c the clerk had 
 intended another letter; and I think the first s has been scraped. 
 
 And that is all ? Yes. 
 
 Shew me any erasure you can point out at all in the deed 
 except that s. I would say the word sese in the third page 
 is an erasure, the whole word has been erased and written over. 
 There is a hole through it, I think. I can see the Jury 
 through it. 
 
 The Lord Advocate.—The Jury ivill see through it. 
 
 Mr Robertson.— I hope so. 
 
 Let me see any more of these erasures. At the bottom of 
 the fourth page there is an erasure, the letters eck. 
 
 Is there any thing in the circumstances of the erasures that 
 creates suspicion ; or might they have occurred in the course of 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 119 
 
 writing ? No; they might have occurred in the course of 
 writing. 
 
 Supposing that it had wanted the Per Signetum and the 
 testing clause, and the name of Archbishop Spottiswood, what 
 circumstances would there be to induce you to think that 
 it is not a genuine copy in the Irish hand-writing, you being 
 totally unacquainted with the Irish hand-writing ? I am 
 totally unable to answer the question. 
 
 The Court.—He said, taking the whole of the writing put 
 together, it did impress him with the belief that it was not 
 a genuine document. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—But, my Lord, I put the question to him 
 distinctly. He knows of no other circumstance. 
 
 The Court.—Looking at the whole deed as it is, with all 
 the circumstances described, the writing, the appearance, the 
 title, the Per Signetum, the testing clause, you said it was not 
 older than 30 years,—are you confidently of opinion as to 
 that ? I am, that it is not more than 30 years old. 
 
 What think you of the paper ? I think the leaves might 
 have been cut out of a book, from the circumstance of their 
 not being written on sheets. 
 
 Can you speak to the age of the paper ? No, I cannot. 
 
 You are acquainted with old writings, and you have seen 
 paper that had become of a tanned colour by usage, and 
 otherwise; does it appear to you that the paper on which that 
 document has been written, is that which has fairly attained 
 that colour, or has it been superinduced upon it by any par¬ 
 ticular preparation ? I cannot answer that, I cannot give 
 any opinion on the paper. The two last leaves are pasted 
 together. 
 
 When did you first see the writ ? When it was laid 
 before Mr Thomson, nine or ten years ago, for his opinion.* 
 
 * At this stage of the proceedings there occurred “ane pleasant inter¬ 
 lude,” not unworthy of notice. Mr James Ferguson, clerk of session, 
 made a personal motion to the Court, to the effect that his evidence 
 (merely official) might be taken at that time instead of in the order 
 assigned to him in the list of witnesses, on the ground that his presence 
 was required as a voter in Ayrshire. The Court properly remarked, 
 that such an application could only be entertained by the public prosecutor. 
 When the Lord Advocate, who had but a few minutes previously 
 returned from his unopposed election at Leith, declared, that “ the case 
 was so complex, he could not accede to Mr Ferguson’s request, by taking 
 him out of the order assigned.” Mr Ferguson, we believe, would only 
 have added one to Lord Kelburne’s small majority of 462. 
 
 2 Q 
 
120 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Richard MacKenzie. Esq. W.S. Examined by the Lord 
 Advocate.—You are a writer to the signet in Edinburgh ? 
 Yes ; I have been 36 years in the profession. 
 
 You have an extensive knowledge of the profession ? I 
 ought to have. 
 
 You are deputy keeper of the signet ? Yes. 
 
 You have attended to the course followed in passing crown 
 charters ? Yes. 
 
 From the earliest writ down to the concluding charter? 
 Yes. 
 
 There are some differences or omissions in the course of 
 doing that now, from the course that used to be followed in 
 the middle of the 17th century ? In 1809 a change was 
 introduced. 
 
 You are acquainted by reading with the records of 1639 ? 
 Yes; I have examined the records. I have read Hope’s 
 Minor Practicks in the time of Charles the First, in which the 
 process is particularly mentioned. 
 
 What was the course followed in passing a crown charter 
 from the original signature downwards, where it contained a 
 grant of lands as well as of honours ? The mode to follow is, 
 to give the signature into the Exchequer; the signature is 
 given in along with the titles shewing the right of the person 
 in whose favour the signature is given. r I hen, on the day 
 appointed, a writer to the signet attends with the writ and 
 titles; he shews that the said lands are given out, and he also 
 attends to the return paid to the superior for the land. 
 
 It receives the sign manual ? If a new grant. 
 
 Then it requires to have the sign manual ? The cachet is 
 not sufficient. 
 
 Then there is a record of these signatures kept in the 
 Exchequer ? Yes. 
 
 The signature itself is carried to the signet ? Yes; and the 
 signature is retained by the signet as a warrant for what the 
 signet has to do. 
 
 And what the signet has to issue is an order to the privy 
 seal ? Yes. 
 
 There is no record in the signet of the precept that the 
 signet issues ? None. The signature being presented to the 
 signet, the signet issues its precept to the privy seal, and the 
 signature is retained in the signet as the warrant of what the 
 signet has done. 
 
 The signet precept is carried to the privy seal; but in the 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 121 
 
 privy seal you have a record; and the privy seal issues its 
 precept to the great seal ? Yes. 
 
 Then the privy seal retains the signature as authority, but 
 records its own precept at the time it gives it ? It records its 
 own precept. 
 
 The signature is retained at the signet, and gives out its 
 own precept ? Yes. 
 
 And at the great seal the charter is completed ? Yes. 
 
 What is done with the privy seal precept in the great seal ? 
 The signet and deputy keeper used to keep it, and several of 
 the precepts have been given to the general record. 
 
 But the great seal not only gives out the charter, but 
 records it ? Yes. 
 
 So that you have the record of signatures, the regular 
 record of the privy seal, and the regular record of the great 
 seal ? Yes; these three records existed in 1639. 
 
 And no charter with lands and honours could be regularly 
 completed, without passing through all these ? No. 
 
 The forms of the charter ultimately granted is given in full 
 length in the signature ? Yes. 
 
 The warrant of the signet is just a repetition of the signa¬ 
 ture ? Yes ; with a very small exception. 
 
 In the course of that process the precept and signet pass 
 into Latin P Yes. 
 
 And then the variation is, that these subsequent precepts 
 contain a mandate to the seal ? Yes. 
 
 What sort of testing clause is there at the signature ? No 
 clause at all; there is a date given so and so; for instance, at 
 Whitehall or Edinburgh, or any of the royal residences at the 
 time. 
 
 Then in the signet precept it is the same date ? Yes; and 
 it is the same in the privy seal precept. 
 
 You do not find the full testing clause till you come to the 
 
 completed charter ? No. 
 
 That was the course followed in 1639 ? Yes. 
 
 Look at this charter ? (excerpt libelled.) I have seen it 
 before ; I read the printed copy; I have some notes in regard 
 to it. 
 
 Look at page six of the document. You see it appears to 
 be a signature ? Yes, it is an original grant. 
 
 Look at the note “ Given at his Majesty’s court;” that is the 
 ordinary way in which these signatures conclude ? Yes. 
 
 Pass to the foot of page 7; is that the ordinary way in 
 ■which a precept is produced ? Yes, the ordinary way. 
 
122 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 You observe there the per signetum ? Yes ; the meaning 
 is, that this expresses the warrant on which the privy seal pre¬ 
 cept proceeds. I mentioned that I had the information from 
 the record, and partly from the warrants, and partly from 
 Hope’s Minor Practices. The Per Signetum is an abbreviation 
 of the lengthened expression Per Signaturam, Sic. 
 
 You have seen the writ libelled on. Did you observe any 
 thing particular in it ? At the end of it I noticed Per Signe¬ 
 tum , which could apply only to a precept issuing from the 
 privy seal; while we have here a full testing clause, which 
 could only be got from a charter which had come out from the 
 great seal. The full testing clause is never found but in a 
 completed charter. 
 
 Could these two things exist together in any writing or in¬ 
 strument of authenticity according to the law of Scotland ? It 
 appears to me that they could not. 
 
 Have you any doubt about it ? None. 
 
 Then is this document, which you now have before you, a 
 copy of any thing that could have been genuine or authentic 
 by the law of Scotland ? No, I have no doubt as to that. 
 
 Do you observe any thing else remarkable in the writ ? I 
 observe the word gratis. It is possible that the word might 
 come there, but not likely. If it were in favour of a writer to 
 the signet, “ gratis” would have been proper enough; but the 
 Per Signetum is officially impossible to be there. Another 
 observation I have to make on this writ is, the Reg. Mag. Sig. 
 on the margin at the commencement. 
 
 What is that ? I could not have answered that question a 
 month ago. I called on Mr Thomson to inquire of him the 
 meaning of it. 
 
 Did you know that it was a reference to the great seal 
 record ? No. I thought myself very stupid in not knowing it. 
 
 That is not the way in which the great seal record was 
 referred to generally ? No. In a book, the second edition of 
 which was published in 1813, I found the Reg. Sig. Mag.; I 
 went back to the first edition, and did not find it; I found 
 instead, “ Chart, in Archivis.” 
 
 Does any thing farther occur to you ? Nothing in particu¬ 
 lar professionally. 
 
 Is there any thing that leads you to suppose that it could 
 not be a complete copy ? Yes, it wants something particu¬ 
 larly ; it wants the Reddendo. 
 
 Explain to the Jury the meaning of the reddendo ? It is 
 that part which specifies the return that is to be made. There 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 123 
 
 are two things the Barons look to, namely, to see that the des¬ 
 cription of the lands to be given up is the same contained in a 
 former grant which the writer points out; and next, to shew 
 that the reddendo or return payable to the crown is particu¬ 
 larly inserted. Sometimes it is in money, sometimes in feu- 
 duty, and sometimes in oxen; but this writ has no reddendo. 
 
 Does any thing else occur to you ? Yes, in making my 
 notes upon it, I found that there were several resignations in 
 it ; but we have no note of the dates of the deeds on which the 
 resignations proceed. In regard to one of them, the barony 
 of Tillicultrie, which belonged formerly to William Earl of 
 Stirling, and his son, then deceased, in fee, it is said that 
 the barony was resigned by William Earl of Stirling, and 
 William now Lord Alexander, that is to say, by the father 
 himself, and by the grandson in the fee, in favour of the said 
 William Earl of Stirling, and his heirs, and there is no men¬ 
 tion how the son acquired a grant to the land. That is a 
 great defect. 
 
 Do you observe any thing particular about some of the 
 lands granted there, — their locality ? There are grants in 
 America and Nova Scotia, and other lands. 
 
 Do you observe any thing in regard to New England ? 
 Yes ; “ and in like manner the whole part of the main land of 
 New England, beginning from a certain place called or known 
 by the name of St Croix, near to Nova Scotia aforesaid, and 
 thence extending along the sea shore to a certain place called 
 Petnaquine, otherwise Pemaquid, and so along the river to its 
 utmost source, as it tends northwards,” &c. 
 
 Did you ever know any charter under the Scottish crown 
 giving lands in New England ? Of course I know nothing of 
 the kind. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Robertson.—You say there is no 
 reddendo ? No. 
 
 Is it a copy of a charter that is before you, or does it bear 
 on the face of it that it is an excerpt ? It is an excerpt. 
 
 Then being only an excerpt, were there nothing else in the 
 writ to cause you to suspect it, would you think that its con¬ 
 taining no reddendo rendered it an improper writ ? The 
 existence of the reddendo is not necessary to the accuracy of 
 the excerpt so far as it goes, and neither is the Qnaquidem. 
 
 Supposing the Per Signetum, and the Peg. Sig. Mag. were 
 away, what remains suspicious, holding it to be only an excerpt ? 
 What I mentioned as to the resignation of the lands of Tilli¬ 
 cultrie : nothing else. 
 
124 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 The Reg. Sig. Mag. is on the margin, and forms no part 
 of the body of it, and the Gratis per Signetum is at the end, 
 and not engrossed in any part of the deed ? Yes. 
 
 Supposing the Reg. Sig. Mag. and the Gratis Per Signetum 
 away, and the paper only an excerpt, what remains suspicious 
 in it ? What I mentioned about the resignation of Tillicultrie. 
 
 Then how should it have read here ? It would not have 
 read at all. 
 
 Then, with these exceptions, there is nothing in the writ 
 suspicious ? Nothing else. 
 
 Re-examined by the Lord Advocate.—You think New Eng¬ 
 land in the writ a strange thing ? Yes. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—You think Canada a strange thing too, do 
 you ? I ask you, does the testing clause at this excerpt bear to 
 be subscribed by any one ? No. 
 
 The Court.—Did you, in the whole course of your reading 
 of charters, ever see an address to a commoner as “ nostro 
 consanguineo ?” It is repeated twice, at least, to William 
 Lord Alexander, son of the Earl, now deceased, and he is a 
 commoner? I remarked that, and thought it not correct. 
 
 Did you ever see it any where else in your recollection ? I 
 have no recollection of seeing it any where else. 
 
 Have you ever seen a writ of novodamus where there was a 
 grant of honour along with land ? No. 
 
 Have you ever examined the Roxburgh charters ? No. I 
 might have seen them without examining them. 
 
 Thomas Thomson, Esq. Deputy Clerk Register. Exa¬ 
 mined by Mr Innes.—You have seen that writ before ? Yes. 
 
 How long have you been Deputy Clerk Register ? Since 
 
 1807. 
 
 You have the superintendence of the whole national records ? 
 I act as deputy to the Lord Clerk Register; whatever power 
 he is competent to exercise is given to me. 
 
 You have had a long acquaintance with land rights and 
 charters ? I certainly say so, with the records of this country, 
 particularly with records of land rights and charters passing 
 under the seals. 
 
 Mr Robertson (in initialibus.) —When did you first see that 
 writ ? I cannot venture to say the exact year, but I was at 
 one time consulted by Lord Stirling professionally. 
 
 Was it in the course of being so consulted that you first 
 saw it ? Yes. 
 
 Did you see it on more occasions than one ? At the dis- 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 125 
 
 tance of ten years I hardly can say, but it was in my possession 
 a short time. 
 
 Was a case laid before you for opinion? Opinions were 
 taken from me, whether verbally or written I cannot say. 
 
 But you gave some opinions, either verbally or written, in 
 regard to the subject matter of that deed ? Yes. 
 
 Who acted as agent for Lord Stirling at that time? Mr 
 Lockhart. 
 
 How long did you continue to act as counsel ? I cannot 
 answer that question, but I had repeated interviews with Mr 
 Lockhart under that charter. I daresay there were other 
 points that were brought into my notice. 
 
 Suits and interests arising out of the matter ? At that time 
 there were no suits. 
 
 But with a view to the institution of suits ? Yes, perhaps. 
 
 And with a view to ascertain the nature and extent of Lord 
 Stirling's rights, if he had any, under that ? I would say so. 
 
 I object to any question which may tend to encroach on that 
 confidence which exists between counsel and client. 
 
 AYitness.—I know my own duty. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I am perfectly aware that you do; but I 
 make this observation to prevent any unnecessary questions 
 being put. 
 
 The Lord Advocate.—ft is admitted by this examination in 
 initialibus, that there did exist a relation of confidence between- 
 the witness and the pannel. It is no objection to the admissi¬ 
 bility of the witness; it may be an objection to certain ques¬ 
 tions being put to him. 
 
 Mr Innes. —I will not ask you any question in regard to 
 the opinion. Explain to the jury the progress of a writ, from 
 the first signature to the completed charter under the great 
 seal, such as it was before the recent change took place.— 
 When such a charter was granted, of which this is said to be 
 an excerpt, it was very regular. First, certain grants could 
 only have been instituted by an actual signature under the 
 sign manual. In another class of grants, where a more arti¬ 
 ficial but less formal method was adopted, such as stamping, 
 which was called the cachet, in all grants that contained any 
 thing new or beyond privileges, and powers, and honours, in 
 former grants, the signature of the sovereign was indispensable, 
 and it would have been a treasonable act on the part of advisers 
 to permit any such grant without the sign manual. Having 
 obtained the signature, that signature was addressed to the 
 keeper of the royal signet, directing him to issue a precept, 
 
126 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 which was addressed to the keeper of the privy seal. In that 
 precept the signet and tenor of the future charter was repeated. 
 It was addressed to the king’s privy seal keeper; he was 
 authorized to prepare a precept to the keeper of Chancery, 
 requiring him to expede a complete charter in terms of the 
 original signature. In going through each particular step, the 
 warrant by which that step was taken was apparent on the 
 face of the document. In the case, for example, of a signet 
 precept, which proceeded either on a signature, or sign 
 manual, or under the cachet, the precept issued at the privy 
 seal was issued per Signetum , either by the hand of the king or 
 the artificial stamp of the king’s name. Then that passed to 
 the signet office; the document which issued from the signet 
 office was carried to the privy seal, and the privy seal precept 
 was issued in terms of that precept. The Per Signetum is the 
 mode in which it was generally done; then that passed into 
 Chancery. Then there was a separate class of procedure; 
 grants under the great seal, which were peculiar, and grants, 
 for example?, of an honour; these did not pass through the 
 intermediate steps of either the signet or privy seal, but passed 
 with one leap into Chancery. 
 
 Was there any process at all, or any mode by which in any 
 circumstances a signet warrant could get into the great seal ? 
 Impossible. 
 
 Will you look to the end of that document in your hand; 
 you observe Per Signetum ; from that conclusion alone what 
 should you conclude to be the nature of that writ ? I would 
 consider the writ proceeding on a precept in the signet, and 
 therefore a privy seal writ. 
 
 If you were confining your attention to these words at the 
 foot of the last page, you would say it was a privy seal precept 
 proceeding on a signet warrant ? An extract from the record 
 of the privy seal, perhaps. The record under the privy seal 
 would term it so. 
 
 So you would say it appeared to be a copy from a deed of 
 the record of the privy seal ? Yes. 
 
 Look at the testing clause. What do you judge from the 
 form of that testing clause ? I would say it was the first pre¬ 
 cept I ever saw with a resting clause of that kind. In every 
 stage of the charter the date is the same in the intermediate 
 stages; it would be the first specimen I had ever seen either 
 in a signet precept or a precept under the privy seal. 
 
 Are you acquainted with any authentic w’rit in all Scotland 
 which could combine these two different parts, full testing 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 127 
 
 clause and Gratis per Signetum ? It would be quite unknown 
 to me; I never saw a testing clause like that in a precept under 
 the signet. 
 
 Turn to the beginning of that document. The marginal 
 note on the first page “ Reg. Mag. Sig.” that is the present 
 mode you have adopted of referring to the register ? I believe 
 that mode was first begun by me, when I had the whole 
 records examined and put into good order, and rebound. It 
 was about 1806 or 1807 when the operation began of rebind¬ 
 ing the record, and that particular title was adopted by me 
 for the first time. 
 
 You found in the course of your experience various ways 
 of titling ? Yes, very loose ways ; for example, one entitled, 
 ** Charters, Book 10—12,” &c. The modes of reference were 
 very various; there was no uniform or technical mode. 
 
 Invariably, now, when any extract is desired from the record, 
 it is expressly said to be from Beg. Mag. Sig. ? I think the 
 keepers of the record have uniformly adopted that mode on 
 the margin. 
 
 Do you observe these red lines round the margin of that 
 excerpt; what are these like ? Are they used in Scotland ? 
 I know that in the precepts of signature, the margin is of this 
 kind; that is a system that was not introduced till 1780. 
 
 Did you direct your attention to the writing paper, and the 
 colour of the ink ? Give the jury your opinion as to these. 
 This has very little the air of an official excerpt at all; there 
 is no attestation by any official person; it is an attempt at a 
 copy; an attempt to abridge a longer document by omitting 
 clauses. 
 
 Any remarks on the writing? The writing is not chancery 
 hand, nor any hand used in the Register-house. I should 
 have said first, it must have been made from the record since 
 1806 or 1807. The appearance of the paper is old, whether 
 from age or artificial means, but the writing itself appears not 
 older, if so old as that; the paper is older, but whether 
 darkened by age or artificial means I cannot tell. 
 
 Does it appear to you that that is the appearance it would 
 have had if it had been written on paper before it had been 
 browned, and the browning come on along with the writing 
 of it? It is the glaring contrast that leads me to say, that 
 however old the paper may be, the writing is not so old as 
 the paper. There is a brilliancy and freshness in the ink, 
 which leads me to say, that no colour had been put upon it. 
 
 Do you observe the way in which it is stitched ? Do you 
 
128 TRTAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 observe that the outer leaf is brought round, and stitched 
 over the remaining leaves? It has been so, forming a sort of 
 binding on one side. Another singularity; it appears to be 
 written on single leaves, and if I am not much mistaken, they 
 appear to have been recently cut away, either from a book, or 
 from the corresponding leaves. 
 
 Do you observe the colour of that part of the paper which 
 is covered by the stitching? The colour is uniform all over. 
 
 As if it had been browned before the stitching? There is 
 no difference in any respect from the other part of the paper ; 
 the probability is, this part would have been brown, and this 
 other part would have been protected. 
 
 You are aware of a defect in the record of the charters ? 
 A defect that must have existed as far back as 1760 or 1756. 
 
 You are aware that there are earlier indexes than that; 
 are you enabled from them to fill up the gap to ascertain the 
 charters in that missing part? These indexes are the opera¬ 
 tion of inferior officers in the department, and are liable to 
 greater or less imperfection and inaccuracy, as their talents or 
 abilities may have occasioned. I have in my possession what 
 I dare say was an official index, but it came down only to the 
 year 1596, which plainly appears to have been manufactured 
 in Chancery, and which had wandered abroad. I do not 
 know that there exists an earlier index than one which I think 
 must have been formed about the end of the seventeenth or 
 early part of the eighteenth century. 
 
 The indexes supply the defects in volume 57 ? I ascer¬ 
 tained that there was a defect in the beginning of that volume, 
 and that there was no other clue to the contents of these lost 
 charters, but those indexes, one of which remained in the 
 Register Office. 
 
 Are you aware that there are two indexes, one belonging to 
 the Register-house, and one brought from the Writers to the 
 Signet’s Library, and that these concur and give the same 
 statement ? Yes, I have examined them myself. The one 
 brought from the Writers to the Signet’s Library had wan¬ 
 dered out of the. Chancery Office, and is, in fact, one of a 
 series of which we have the other parts. 
 
 From these two indexes, can you fix the precise charters 
 that existed in that volume ? Holding them to be accurate, 
 they fix it to that extent certainly. But there is a great dis¬ 
 tinction to be taken between those indexes formed ex post 
 facto, and those books called minute books, which are neces- 
 sarily part of the record to which they belong; where, if any 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 129 
 
 thing is wrong, it must be because of some gross fraud or 
 negligence. 
 
 We have had a search by the proper officer in regard to 
 the great seal. Supposing any such charter in the great seal, 
 where would you find trace of the charter ? To go backwards 
 to the register of the privy seal; from that back to the register 
 of signatures and exchequer register, which come down to 
 1660, which is a register of signatures, is one of the necessary 
 steps. There is still another place where such a writ might 
 be found, in the Signet Office, that I mentioned, among the 
 original signatures; there is no other record kept at the Signet 
 Office. 
 
 How many registers were there altogether? There may 
 be said that there are four, but three properly so called, 
 great seal, (going backwards,) privy seal, comptroller’s 
 register. Then what I do not call a register at all, is the 
 original signature, preserved in the signet office. They have 
 no record, but keep the warrants. 
 
 Is there any reason, at the date of that charter, for suppos¬ 
 ing that a charter that passed, and was an existing writ in 
 Scotland, should not be in any of these registers ? I am not 
 aware of any great imperfection, but the record of charters is 
 in some respects incomplete, and that particular volume is 
 defective. Some others are injured by damp, but the privy 
 seal and comptroller’s record are quite complete at that 
 period ; no volumes lost, nor any mutilation in any of the 
 volumes. They were in full operation till the act of Parlia¬ 
 ment, passed in 1809, which enabled a party to pass over the 
 privy seal record altogether, leaving behind the ordinary 
 office, and carrying the signet precept directly into Chancery. 
 
 The signet precept now does operate in Chancery ? It 
 does under the force of that act of Parliament since 1809. 
 
 If you were told a certain charter was not found in any of 
 these registers, and that charter alleged to be of date 1639, 
 should you consider that a strong presumption against its 
 existence ? Certainly a presumption, but not more than a 
 presumption ; for there are possibilities of inaccuracy, but I 
 have reason to believe of the greatest possible rarity; but I 
 would not believe that such a charter existed, unless it was 
 produced. 
 
 Taking the appearance of that writ, and its various pecu¬ 
 liarities, should you say it was not genuine? I have said that 
 nothing short of a genuine charter could counteract the non- 
 appearance of that charter in any of these registers. 
 
130 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPMRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Lord Advocate.—I understand you to have said, that from 
 the circumstance of the full testing clause found at the end, 
 joined with these words, Gratis per Signetum ; you are satis¬ 
 fied it could not be the copy of a genuine and authentic writ? 
 I have said that. It could only have been the production of 
 some ignorant person, grossly ignorant of the form of deeds 
 in the Scotch law, attempting to manufacture deeds of this 
 nature. 
 
 You said that it had been brought to you by Mr Lockhart, 
 the agent for Lord Stirling? Yes. 
 
 The Court.—Mr Thomson will observe, that this deed 
 contains a grant of honours, as well as of landed estates ; now, 
 observe there is here given a grant of honours from a parti¬ 
 cular deed. Of course, you are perfectly acquainted with 
 deeds of this description; I wish to know if, in the whole 
 course of your experience, and seeing such documents, you 
 ever saw one with a retrospect in conferring the novodamus ? 
 It would be too much a matter of course to require that grant, 
 and there is no such in the Roxburgh cases. 
 
 Are you aware, whether in any deed you ever saw, that it 
 came addressed to a commoner by the style of “ consanguineo 
 nostro ?” That is quite singular. 
 
 Do you observe that that is in this charter ? Once or twice 
 at least. Certainly that is not the regular style. 
 
 Was New England ever held to be a parcel of Scotland? 
 No; under a genuine Scotch charter I should hold such a 
 grant pro non scrip to. 
 
 There are a good many charters where grants are made in 
 Nova Scotia? Yes. 
 
 Did you ever see a charter without a reddendo? No; but 
 many excerpts of charters where the reddendo was omitted. 
 
 The Lord Advocate.—William Lord Stirling was distin¬ 
 guished in his day ? Highly so. 
 
 A man of great talent ? Yes. 
 
 And attentive to his own interest? Yes. 
 
 Not likely to have got charters of such immense importance 
 as these, and not to have seen them properly carried through 
 the seals? He was a very old man, but it is not likely that 
 he would neglect to have them expede. 
 
 The Court.—Here the keeper of the privy seal was secre¬ 
 tary of state at the time. 
 
 Dr Andrew Fyfe being called. 
 
 The Lord Advocate. — Dr Fyfe is a scientific witness. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 131 
 
 Application was made by the crown, that a scientific gentle¬ 
 man should be called in, to make certain experiments in 
 regard to these documents, to shew whether they had been 
 tampered with, or whether the ink in which they are written 
 was different in its composition from ordinary ink. I want 
 to know whether my learned friends have any objections to 
 let him have these documents for the purpose of experi¬ 
 menting on them. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I was not aware that any motion of this 
 kind was to be made to your Lordships. 
 
 The Court.—We have authorized experiments to be made 
 on the stomach of a person said to be poisoned, and what 
 objections can there be to allow the documents to be experi¬ 
 mented upon in a way not to injure them. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I must oppose this motion. I do not 
 know the ground on which that is asked : nor do I know the 
 particular case to which you refer. 
 
 The Lord Advocate.—If you place the documents to be 
 operated on under the care of an officer, can there be any 
 objection ? 
 
 Mr Robertson.—The proposal is, that two scientific gentle¬ 
 men shall take with them two of the documents,—my learned 
 friend said the charter and the map which contains all the 
 French documents,—charter No. 1, and French documents 
 on the back of the map, nine in number, in all ten documents. 
 The map and charter, that is to say, what contains nine 
 documents. A great deal of the evidence, some of which we 
 have already had, turns on the appearance of the document 
 itself,—on the shade and colour of the ink : we have already 
 had evidence on these; we may have other evidence for the 
 prisoner. And I must say, that if you begin chemical expe¬ 
 riments on these documents, which may alter the appearance 
 of the documents, this appears to me to be a proposition 
 for which there is no authority, and which is not consistent 
 with the rules of justice, as applicable to such a case. They 
 charge us with the direct act of forgery of all these docu¬ 
 ments; they are to prove the forgery. A great part of the 
 evidence, as yet, arises from the appearance of the documents 
 themselves. Certain I am, we are prepared with other evi¬ 
 dence on the appearance of these documents; but how it is to 
 turn out if the whole appearance of the document is changed, 
 no man can tell: the very authenticity of the document may 
 be entirely obliterated by the experiments to be carried on. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff. You do not mean to say this is the first 
 
J32 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 time it was ever proposed to put writings under the hands of 
 scientific men. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Under a motion of Court. 
 
 The Lord Advocate.—Is it worse to place them in the 
 hands of a scientific man, under a motion of Court, than if 
 I had taken a leaf, or part of a leaf, and subjected it to experi¬ 
 ment without a motion of Court. Am I in a worse condition 
 to make that demand under the Court, than I would be to 
 make the demand in any other way ? It is made not for the 
 purpo>e of destroying or defacing, but merely for the purpose 
 of ascertaining through the operation of scientific men the 
 composition of the ink; and that they might be allowed to 
 take one or two small portions of the paper to ascertain the 
 nature of the colouring matter. Let it be done under your 
 Lordships’ inspection,—that is, in the way in which you can 
 see it done through the custody of your Lordships’clerk. I do 
 not want them absolutely surrendered. I ask this to be enabled 
 to conduct a scientific examination ; and I am told that I am 
 in a worse condition, because I ask it under a motion of the 
 Court. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—My objection is that he is not entitled to 
 make operations at all. 
 
 The Court.—Supposing they were done in presence of the 
 Jury ? 
 
 That would be another matter,—we would then know what 
 is going on. 
 
 The Court.— Supposing you were to ask the witness a 
 question about the ink, what objection would there be to 
 touch a letter of an insignificant word with the point of my 
 knife moistened ; and what objection would there be to apply 
 chemical action to the latter. 
 
 Mr Robertson.— Supposing my case to turn upon the 
 opinion of an individual that a peculiar word or line on this 
 document is authentic, what do I know what these chemists 
 are to do with it ? If this be competent on a motion of the 
 Lord Advocate, it is equally competent on the motion of a 
 private prosecutor. Would you allow the instrument in such 
 a case to be taken from the Court, and put into the keeping 
 of tw’o witnesses for the Crown, to make such experiments 
 upon it as they think fit, which might tend to a total oblitera¬ 
 tion of the whole document ? 
 
 Lord Moncreiff.—That, perhaps, would be the best thing 
 possible for you. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I understand your Lordship to mean the 
 
STYUXC. HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 133 
 
 annihilation of the documents; I do not mean that. Sup¬ 
 posing I were accused of forging a Bill of Exchange: That 
 bill is produced, and there are witnesses to prove that they 
 think the ink not genuine, and I have witnesses to prove that 
 it is genuine. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—Let my learned friend bring any one of 
 his witnesses, and I shall engage that no part or particle of a 
 line or word that these witnesses point out shall be touched in 
 the course of this examination. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I will not disclose my case. I shall shew 
 it to no one, whether to the Court or the public prosecutor, 
 until it is resrularlv brought out in the Court. 
 
 Court.—Let us hear what the scientific witnesses intend to 
 do. 
 
 Dr Fyff. was then brought in, and examined by Mr Innes.— 
 You are a lecturer on chemistry, and a practical chemist of 
 great experience ? I have had a good deal of experience in 
 practical chemistry. 
 
 Can you, as a chemist, give us an insight into the colouring 
 of this excerpt which 1 now put into your hands ? I have 
 seen the deed before. From experiments that I have per¬ 
 formed upon it, I think the colouring proceeds from some 
 vegetable or animal substance—organic matter. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Have you already performed experiments 
 upon it ? I must know what these experiments have been. 
 
 Mr Lines.—It is some weeks ago since you performed these 
 experiments ? About six weeks ago. 
 
 It was sent to you by the crown agent? It was. 
 
 For the purpose of obtaining your opinion on the colouring 
 matter ? Yes. 
 
 You examined it ? I did. 
 
 Have you a wish to make farther experiments on it ? I 
 have. It was not permitted me to make experiments upon it; 
 it was withdrawn from me. 
 
 How long was it in your hands ? About two days. 
 
 What experiment did you make upon it P I tested diffe¬ 
 rent parts of the paper, first with bleaching powder. 
 
 Let us see where you tested it? \ou will see here (point¬ 
 ing to the outer cover of the document) two or three whiter 
 spots than the general colour. I applied on these spots che¬ 
 mical tests, bleaching powder. I applied it also on the margin 
 of one or two of the other leaves, not on the writing. 
 
 Did you apply your test to any large part ? No; I applied 
 
131 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER I1UMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 it merely on the outer cover, and on the margin of one or two 
 of the leaves, on a small spot, half the size of my nail, or 
 thereabouts. 
 
 Mr Innes.—You did not touch the writing of the deed ? I 
 did not apply the test in such a way as to affect the general 
 appearance. I merely, as I have said, touched a few spots on 
 the outer cover, and on the margin of the paper. 
 
 The document was then withdrawn ? Yes. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—How withdrawn ? It was taken from me 
 by the crown agent. 
 
 Did any body assist you ? No. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Tell us the result ? I came to the conclusion 
 that there was a colouring matter of some vegetable or animal 
 nature, some organic matter, in the paper; the browning of 
 the paper was owing to some such vegetable or organic matter. 
 
 Did you come to any other conclusion ? Yes, that there is 
 in the paper some acid, sulphuric acid or oil of vitriol. That 
 is the result to which I came, so far as my experiments went. 
 
 You wish to make farther experiments ? Yes, I do. 
 
 Of what nature ? I wish to be allowed to operate on a 
 larger part of the paper. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Do you propose to use any other agent ? 
 I cannot tell. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—"Were you asked to examine the document 
 on the part of the prisoner ? Yes, about three weeks ago. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Do weak acids give ink a brownish appear¬ 
 ance ? They do. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff.—Would the farther experiments you pro¬ 
 pose, make any appearance on the deed generally ? Can you 
 make your experiments on part of the paper where there is no 
 writing ? Yes. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—You could do it by getting a margin of 
 the document or half a margin ? Yes. 
 
 Court.—Would this experiment you propose be more satis¬ 
 factory to your own mind, and enable you to give a sounder 
 opinion ? Certainly. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—To what extent would you carry your 
 operations, or do you propose to have an unlimited power over 
 the deed ? Not an unlimited power, certainly. I would 
 merely operate on a part of the paper on which there is no 
 writing,—on this sheet, for instance, where there is no writing. 
 
 How much of the paper would you require ? I would take 
 this blank leaf. 
 
 Court.— Is there any experiment that you can perform on 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 135 
 
 on the writing itself, or a small portion of the writing, that 
 would satisfy your mind, and enable you to answer satisfactorily 
 as to whether the ink is a new or an old ink ? I do not wish 
 to perform any experiment on the ink at all. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Am I to understand you, that farther ex¬ 
 periments are to be confined to that blank sheet of paper ? I 
 shall confine myself to it. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—You want a portion of that paper, not 
 touching any part of the integrity of the document at all, to 
 enable you to make your experiments ? Yes. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I understand it, then, to be limited to this 
 extent; and if the Court think fit to sanction the crown wit¬ 
 ness and my witness to operate on the paper separately, I shall 
 not state any objection. 1 shall be satisfied if the Court instruct 
 Dr Fyffe to confine his experiments to the blank sheet, and to 
 confine his observations upon it till he give his opinion upon 
 oath. I beg that my scientific witness be called in to receive 
 his portion of the paper, and his instructions from the Court. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff.—Can you perform your experimentson that 
 blank sheet in such a manner as to leave a sufficient portion as 
 to enable the other witness afterwards to do the same ? Yes. 
 
 Dr Madden was then called. 
 
 Court.—A proposal has been made to the Court, sanctioned 
 by the prisoner’s counsel, that a part of that document which is 
 before you shall be given into your hands, for the purpose of 
 your making experiments upon it, for the purpose of ascertain¬ 
 ing whether any adventitious matter has been applied to the 
 paper to give it a colour, or whether there is the presence of 
 any acid, or any other substance in the paper which is not to 
 be found in ordinary paper. The Court is of opinion that the 
 experiments must be performed by you and Dr Fyffe sepa¬ 
 rately, and that you are to have no communication with each 
 other. Dr Fyffe can leave the one-half of the sheet to you. 
 You are not only to have no communication with each other 
 as to your experiments, but you are to speak to nobody in 
 regard to them till you give your opinion in Court. 
 
 Mr Robertson.— Let them tear the sheet in two, and leave 
 the document. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff.—If there be consent of the party. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I proposed it, and the prisoner is perfectly 
 agreeable to it. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—Allow me to state to Dr Madden, that the 
 object I want attended to is, whether this paper has been 
 tainted by the application of any liquid, or any matter, so as 
 
 2 R 
 
136 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 to give it that brown colour, or whether it is only the natural 
 brown colour of old paper; that is the point to which I want 
 you to direct your inquiry. 
 
 The Court then adjourned till to-morrow at nine o’clock. 
 
 SECOND DAY. 
 
 Tuesday, April 30, 1839. 
 
 Mr Ephraim Lockhart. Examined by Mr Innes. You 
 are a writer to the signet and agent in Edinburgh ? Yes. 
 
 When were you first employed by the pannel as agent ? 
 In April, 1828. 
 
 In what law proceedings or actions ? I was employed at 
 first in an action of proving of the tenor of a charter of novo- 
 damus of 1639. It was raised against Dr John Watts and Mr 
 Alexander Duer. 
 
 Was appearance afterwards made for his Majesty’s Advo¬ 
 cate ? Yes. 
 
 What were the adminicles by which you proposed to prove 
 the tenor of evidence, — was this one of them ? A document 
 bearing to be excerpt charter of novodamus ? Yes. 
 
 That was the document that you proposed to produce as an 
 adminicle of evidence ? Yes. 
 
 Did you produce it ? Yes, in one of the clerk’s offices in 
 the Register House. 
 
 About what time did you first produce it in the first pro¬ 
 cess P It was produced with the summons. 
 
 The date of producing that document would be nearly the 
 date of lodging the summons ? Yes. 
 
 After some proceedings, the action was dismissed on preli¬ 
 minary objections ? Yes; and another action was raised for 
 the same purpose against the Officers of State and Mr Cuning- 
 hame Graham of Gartmore, in which the same document was 
 produced by me. I borrowed it up out of the first action, and 
 lodged it again in the second, on behalf of Lord Stirling. 
 
 What is the date of the second lodging of that excerpt ? It 
 was also lodged with the summons. 
 
 From whom did you get the excerpt then produced ? I got 
 it at Netherton House, Lord Stirling’s residence, near Wor¬ 
 cester, from himself; to the best of my knowledge from his 
 own hands. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 137 
 
 Was it lodged in both of these actions of proving the tenor 
 with the knowledge of Lord Stirling? I am sure that Lord 
 Stirling knew of it; it was given to me for that purpose. 
 
 The Lord Advocate.—He knew that an action was to be 
 raised ? Yes. 
 
 And he knew that they were to be given as adminicles of 
 evidence in that action ? Yes. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Of what date did you receive it from Lord 
 Stirling at Netherton ? In May 1829. 
 
 Did he tell you how it came into his possession ? I do not 
 recollect any thing particular about that. I had heard before ; 
 but I do not recollect Lord Stirling’s speaking to me particu¬ 
 larly about it. 
 
 After various procedure and discussion in Court, that action 
 of proving the tenor was also dismissed by the Court ? Yes. 
 
 Are you aware that the pannel had served three separate 
 general and special services as heir to William first Earl of 
 Stirling ? Yes ; the first in the Canongate, and the second in 
 the Sheriff Court. 
 
 After these services, there was an action of reduction at the 
 instance of the Officers of State themselves, and issued against 
 the pannel ? Yes. 
 
 In that action, after various procedure, Lord Cockburn 
 pronounced a decreet as Judge Ordinary? Yes, about the 
 20th December, 1836. (Witness identifies the interlocutor.) 
 
 Did that point out various defects in the evidence? Yes. 
 
 Did you present an application to the Court afterwards to be 
 allowed to produce new evidence ? Yes, there was a reclaim¬ 
 ing note given in against the judgment of the Lord Ordinary, 
 and it was after that that the application to lodge new docu¬ 
 ments was made. 
 
 You obtained delay on that account ? Yes. 
 
 Did you at length tender as productions various documents, 
 which you lodged as evidence in the cause, along with a 
 minute stating how they had come into your possession ? Yes. 
 
 Is that part of wdiat you so produced ? Yes, that is one of 
 the documents I produced, a plan of the map of Canada. 
 
 With all these writings on the back of it ? All these docu¬ 
 ments were on it as far as I can see. 
 
 The Court.—You do not see any change upon it ? I do 
 not see any thing particular. It appears to be just as it was ; 
 all the documents are there. 
 
 Mr Innes.—You gave in various other documents along 
 w’ith the map ? Yes. 
 
J3S TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRY'S, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Are these the documents you gave in ? Do you see a note, 
 « Mrs Innes Smyth’s compliments,” &c. ? Yes. 
 
 Do you see another, 6i The enclosed was in a small cash 
 
 box ?” Yes. _ 
 
 You see a parcliment case or cover, with “ Some ot my 
 wife’s family papers” written on it ? Yes. 
 
 Do you see a letter addressed to the “ Reverend Mr Alex¬ 
 ander,” and signed “ B. Alexander ?” es, dated August 
 
 20 th, 1765. . . 
 
 Was there a genealogical tree in the packet ? i es, it is 
 inside this packet; that was one of the documents. 
 
 Was there also a letter addressed the “ Rev. J. Alexander,” 
 signed “ A. E. Baillie ?” Yes, and was also produced. 
 
 All these were produced by you at that time, along with a 
 minute for the pannel ? Yes. (W itness identifies the minute.) 
 A minute stating how they came into his possession. 
 
 They were lodged on or about the date of that minute ? 
 Yes, so far as my memory goes. 
 
 From whom did you receive these other documents, — the 
 map, and the other various documents since mentioned ? The 
 documents mentioned last, were first received by me in Lon¬ 
 don,—they were discovered there in April, 1837. 
 
 When did you receive them ? I did not leave London till 
 about the middle of May, and I think I received them some 
 few days before I left. 
 
 From whom ? From Eugene Alexander, Lord Stirling’s 
 son. 
 
 When did you receive the map, and from whom ? The 
 map was brought to Edinburgh. 
 
 When did you receive it, and from whom ? It must have 
 been in November 1837, in Edinburgh, and from Mr Charles 
 Alexander, another of Lord Stirling’s sons. 
 
 Do you remember where you lodged the other documents 
 except the map P With one of the clerks in the Register 
 House. 
 
 Where was the map produced ? It was produced in Court 
 first of all, at the table of the Court of the Second Division. 
 
 Was that on the same date with the minute, or the day 
 after ? I cannot tell; I gave it to Mr Ferguson, the clerk of 
 Court, as will appear from his marking; he marked it at the 
 time. 
 
 You lodged this for Lord Stirling, in that action of reduc¬ 
 tion against him ? Yes. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EAltL OF STIFLING. 
 
 139 
 
 Did you produce these for the pannel in the action of reduc¬ 
 tion against the Officers of State ? Yes. 
 
 Did you produce them with his authority ? I produced 
 them with his knowledge. 
 
 And that is understood at his desire ? I understood so. 
 Lord Stirling very seldom instructed me what steps to take, 
 but he was aware that I had lodged them. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Robertson.—How did you come to 
 be employed as agent for Lord Stirling ? I got some little 
 things to do as far back as 18*26, by Mr James Wright, writer 
 in Stirling, on Lord Stirling’s interest. 
 
 There was a service in 1826 by Lord Stirling to his mother ? 
 Yes. 
 
 You recollect some papers that go by the name of Iloven- 
 den’s affidavit and Gordon’s statement ? Yes. 
 
 And these two papers bear a certificate by Thomas Con¬ 
 yers ? Yes. 
 
 These were produced in the original service in 1826 P They 
 were. 
 
 And afterwards produced in the other processes ? Yes, in 
 the proving of the tenor. (Witness identifies the documents.) 
 
 And the documents refer to a certain charter of novodamus ? 
 They do. 
 
 Had inquiries been made in Ireland to your knowledge in 
 regard to the charter of novodamus, and how do you know ? 
 You know a person of the name of Banks ? Yes. 
 
 Had you communications with him, and about what ? That 
 was in 1828. 
 
 But in 1828 had you communications about the recovery 
 of the novodamus in Ireland ? We had conversations about 
 it. I cannot charge my memory about any search made in 
 Ireland. 
 
 Had the charter been found in Ireland in 1828 to your 
 knowledge ? Not to my knowledge. 
 
 When did you first hear of the excerpt charter of novo¬ 
 damus ? In April, 1829. 
 
 From whom did you hear at first ? In a letter from 
 Banks. 
 
 The Lord Advocate.—Banks is alive ? Yes. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—When did you see him last? I saw him 
 in Edinburgh about three weeks ago in the chambers of Mr 
 Cleghorn, the crown agent. 
 
 Look at that letter,—is it the letter you received from 
 Banks to which you have spoken ? It is. 
 
140 trial OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 And you received it at that date by post ? Yes; dated 
 “Netherton House, 10 April,” and received on the 11th. 
 
 Had you received any previous letters from Mr Banks, or 
 any subsequent one P Yes; one on the 17th April. 
 
 You had received previous letters ? I do not think in that 
 year. (Witness identifies the letter of 17th April, 1829.) 
 
 Did you, after so receiving that letter, go to Netherton 
 House ? Yes; in May. 
 
 It was then you told us that you got the excerpt from Lord 
 Stirling ? Yes. 
 
 Did you get it by itself, or among other papers ? Yes. 
 
 Before receiving it, had you been made aware that any 
 such deed had been found in Ireland by any body ? Yes; 
 by Banks. 
 
 The Lord Advocate. — You cannot speak to any thing 
 Banks said ? Then I had no previous information except 
 what I received from Mr Banks and these letters. 
 
 Did you afterwards go to London in this business in 1829 ? 
 I was then on other business. 
 
 Being in London, did you wait on the Lord Advocate at 
 that time ? Yes ; that was on this business. 
 
 Do you know a Mr Corrie, a solicitor in Birmingham ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Was he agent for Lord Stirling’s family ? Yes; for his 
 father’s family. 
 
 Did Corrie go with you to London ? Yes; he went on 
 business that was to come on before the Lord Advocate, Sir 
 William Rae. 
 
 Was the excerpt shewn to Sir William Rae ? It was. 
 
 Quite openly ? Yes, openly. 
 
 Was it left with Sir William Rae ? It was left some days 
 with him; and Gordon’s statement and Hovenden’s affidavit 
 were also left with him. 
 
 They were got back again ? Yes. 
 
 Was it after this that it was resolved on to bring the action 
 of proving the tenor ? Yes. 
 
 Was there a Mr Wilson of Lincoln’s Inn consulted about 
 the matter ? I do not know any thing about that. 
 
 Do you* know whether Wilson prepared a case for Lord 
 Stirling to be laid before the Lord Advocate ? I never knew 
 who prepared it. 
 
 Do you recollect if Wilson was ever consulted on the busi¬ 
 ness in London at all ? I knew he was. 
 
 The Lord Advocate. How do you know ? I have seen 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 141 
 
 his opinions. He is now in the Mauritius. He is a Scotch 
 advocate, and went to Lincoln’s Inn, and is now chief justice 
 of the Mauritius. 
 
 Then the action of proving the tenor was instituted ? Yes. 
 
 And proceedings went on in the two several actions in the 
 way you stated, and then came the action at the instance of 
 the Officers of State ? Yes. 
 
 You say you were in London in 1837 when you got Mrs 
 Innes Smyth’s parcel from Mr Alexander ? Yes. 
 
 What state were they in when you saw them first ? I 
 remember very well the state: There was an envelope opened 
 addressed to the Messrs De Porquet and Company, book¬ 
 sellers, Tavistock Street; within that was a note from Mrs 
 Smyth to the bookseller. 
 
 What was within that ? A parchment case. The anony¬ 
 mous letter covered the rest. 
 
 It was sealed ? First, there was an open packet. 
 
 Then the letter from Mrs Smyth open, and then the sealed 
 parcel ? Yes. 
 
 And enclosed in that anonymous letter from Mrs Smyth ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And it was opened next day ? Yes. 
 
 Were you present when it was opened? No; I did not 
 take possession of it before it was opened. 
 
 Who shewed the sealed packet to you ? Mr Eugene Alex¬ 
 ander, and took it away with him. 
 
 Did you advise any thing to be done with the sealed 
 packet ? Yes. 
 
 What did you advise ? I advised him to have it opened 
 before a magistrate. 
 
 The Court.—To whom was the sealed packet within the 
 cover addressed ? To the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—When did you first see the paper that 
 was on the back of the packet bearing “ Some of my wife’s 
 family papers ?” Next day in the afternoon. 
 
 By the Court.—In whose hands did you see those next 
 day ? I cannot say whether in the hands of Mr Fergusson 
 or Mr Fennel, a solicitor in Bedford Row. 
 
 Was it sealed when you saw it ? No. 
 
 What else did you see ? The two letters, signed B. Alex¬ 
 ander, and A. E. Baillie, and the minute said to have been 
 made up at the opening of the packet. 
 
 You would know it again ? Perfectly well; it had to be 
 made up by a proctor. (Witness identifies the documents.) 
 
142 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 That was shewn to you as a minute made up at the open¬ 
 ing of the packet seen in the hands of Eugene Alexander ? 
 Yes. 
 
 What was done with the papers after being so shewn to 
 you ? They were, first of all, left in the hands of Mr Fennel 
 to make a copy of them; after that was done, I received them 
 into my possession from Eugene I think. 
 
 You would know them again of course? Yes. (Identifies 
 them.) 
 
 What did you do with them ? I brought them with me to 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 Then they were afterwards produced in the process of 
 reduction ? Yes. 
 
 Was Lord Stirling, to your knowledge, in London at the 
 time ? No ; to the best of my knowledge he was not. 
 
 You never saw him there ? Not at that time. 
 
 When had you seen him last before that ? I saw him in 
 Scotland in 1834. 
 
 When again ? I do not recollect. I think I saw him in 
 August, 1837. 
 
 That was at the time of the peers’ election ? It may be, 
 but I do not at present recollect. 
 
 As to the map and the other documents, when did you first 
 see them ? I first saw them in that packet sealed. 
 
 When was this? Early in November, 1837. 
 
 It was in a sealed state, and first produced in Court under 
 seal ? It was. 
 
 And when produced it bore that writing on it, whatever it 
 might be, and the name Le Normand? Yes. 
 
 Had you seen Lord Stirling between August and Novem¬ 
 ber ? Yes ; he remained in Edinburgh. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — Does it consist with your knowledge 
 whether there was any quarrel between Lord Stirling and 
 Mr Banks? Mr Banks frequently spoke to me- 
 
 Court.—That will not do. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Does it consist with your knowledge that 
 there was a good deal of intercourse between Lord Stirling 
 and Mr Banks at one time ? Does it consist with your know-i 
 ledge that that intercourse ceased, and when ? Yes ; it ceased, 
 I think, in the end of 1834, or beginning of 1835. 
 
 Since your first acquaintance with Lord Stirling, have you 
 had frequent and familiar intercourse with him ? Yes ; both in 
 my own house and in his. 
 
 Did you ever see in his possession any old maps, or char- 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 143 
 
 ters, or documents that excited any suspicion in your mind in 
 any way ? I never did. 
 
 How did Lord Stirling usually employ himself so far as you 
 know ? \\ ithin doors he read the modern books of the day, 
 
 and occupied himself like other gentlemen. 
 
 Did any suspicion ever cross your mind at any time as to 
 the authenticity or genuineness of any one of the documents 
 that you have spoken to to-day ? No. 
 
 You produced the whole of them in the bona Jide belief 
 that they were genuine ? Certainly. 
 
 Otherwise you would not have done so, I presume ? I 
 would not. 
 
 How long have you been a writer to the signet ? I entered 
 first, I think, in 1803. 
 
 In so far as you know, has the prisoner always borne a fair 
 and honourable character? I have every reason to believe so. 
 So far as I can judge, Lord Stirling has borne an excellent 
 character, the character of an honourable and good man. 
 
 And deservedly so in your opinion ? Yes ; particularly so. 
 
 Look at these letters bearing to be from Banks of various 
 dates. You know them to be in Banks’ handwriting ? Yes ; 
 I know the handwriting. They are letters to Lord Stirling. 
 
 By the Court.—Have you seen Banks write? Frequently. 
 
 And corresponded with him ? Yes. 
 
 And these letters bear postmarks ? Yes. 
 
 By Mr Innes.—Do you remember the pannel being exa¬ 
 mined in the Second Division, and producing a copy of a 
 letter from Paris ? Yes. 
 
 He undertook to produce a copy of the original. See if 
 that is a copy of the letter you produced for him ? Yes. 
 
 Had you received a copy from him ? It is copied from a 
 paper, and produced by me as a copy of that letter. 
 
 What was the date of producing it ? 20th December, 1838. 
 It came through my hands by the authority and desire of 
 Lord Stirling. 
 
 By Lord Advocate.—You say that the intercourse between 
 Banks and the prisoner ceased in 1834. Do you happen to 
 know that Banks was the prisoner’s confidential agent prior to 
 that ? Yes; but not quite up to that time. He was not an 
 attorney, but a confidential agent. 
 
 Mr James Ferguson. Examined by Mr Innes. You are 
 principal Clerk of Session in the Second Division. Look at the 
 marking on the cover of that map ? That is my signature. 
 
144 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Read the marking. “ Edinburgh, 25th November, 1837. 
 In presence of the parties, the seal of this envelope was 
 opened by authority of the Court, and the enclosure therein 
 has been marked by me in the absence of my colleague, Mr 
 Thomas Thomson, clerk of the process.” 
 
 Look at this. Is this the enclosure therein referred to? 
 Yes, and marked by me. 
 
 Read the marking. “ Edinburgh, 25th November, 1837. 
 These documents were found in the envelope, and marked by 
 me in absence of my colleague, Mr Thomas Thomson, clerk 
 of the process.” 
 
 They were correctly marked of that date ? 
 
 Mr William Shiell. You are assistant Clerk of Session ? 
 I am. 
 
 Were you present when this packet was given in to Mr 
 Ferguson in absence of Mr Thomson ? Yes, I saw it opened. 
 Mr Charles Alexander handed it to Mr Lockhart, and Mr 
 Lockhart handed it over to Mr Ferguson. 
 
 Along with some other documents ? No ; the other docu- 
 ments were lodged in the office on the Monday by Mr Lock¬ 
 hart. 
 
 Is that one of the documents so lodged ? Yes, (identifies it.) 
 
 Look at these. Are these the documents that were lodged 
 on the Monday—the articles referred to in No. IV. of the 
 indictment — the packet to De Porquet ? Yes, these are 
 the documents. They were lodged on the 20th December, 
 1837. 
 
 Mr Innes.—I am now about to read the summons bv the Officers 
 of State against Lord Stirling, and the judgment of the Lord 
 Ordinary, with the accompanying note produced along with 
 these documents when they were lodged in Court. The sum¬ 
 mons is for reducing certain retours of service therein specified, 
 a general and special service of the pannel, as heir of William, 
 first Earl of Stirling, and of various lands and possessions both 
 in Scotland and in America, and the writs on which the ser¬ 
 vices proceeded. The pursuers are the Lord Advocate, and 
 the Officers of State. The defender is called upon to produce 
 certain writs for having them proved false, and the summons 
 proceeds in this manner. (Read it.) Then I read the inter¬ 
 locutor of the Lord Ordinary, 10th December, 1836, and the 
 note then issued was afterwards appended to the interlocutor 
 when completed. (Read it. # ) 
 
 * Sec this printed in Appendix to Introduction, No. III. p. lxii. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 145 
 
 Mr Adam Anderson.—There was a reclaiming note in the 
 Second Division against that interlocutor. 
 
 Mr Innes.—I state now, and subject to the correction of 
 my learned friends, that there was no averment made then of 
 any second marriage of John Alexander called of Gartmore. 
 Mr Robertson.—Yes; this statement is correct. 
 
 Mr Innes.—And I state also that there was a reclaiming 
 note, as my friend Mr Anderson says, given in against this 
 interlocutor, which I presume it is unnecessary to read. Then 
 come various motions for time; and, at last, come the docu¬ 
 ments, for the production of which the time was craved, and a 
 minute, stating how the}' came into the hands of the pannel, 
 which I now read. (Read it.*) That is signed by counsel 
 for Lord Stirling. (To the Jury.) Gentlemen, I may be 
 allowed to explain to you, that the Court, not finding the 
 Minute sufficiently minute, directed a condescendence to be 
 given in, a part of which I now read to you. He states that 
 he went to France in 1836, and lived there till the 15th of 
 August, 1837, when he returned to vote at the election of 
 Scottish Peers; and then he mentions, nearly in the same 
 terms as before, the recovery of the English documents. Then 
 he states in regard to the French documents as follows:— 
 (Here Mr Innes read the substance of what appears in the 
 minute, No. IV.) Along with that reclaiming note, there 
 was produced a sketch of descents from the first Earl of 
 Stirling, which I now hold in my hand, and which I shall 
 read to you. (The descent, as may be found in Appendix to 
 Introduction, was read.) 
 
 Monsieur Espinasse, French teacher, was then called into 
 Court, to be sworn as interpreter between the French witnesses 
 and the Court. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—We wish to have an interpreter sworn 
 also, and I submit that Monsieur Duriez should be called in. 
 I beg to say, that I have the most perfect confidence in Mon¬ 
 sieur Espinasse; and if the Court have no difficulty in regard 
 to this, I submit that our request should be complied with. 
 
 The Court.—You may have your interpreter sitting by 
 Monsieur Espinasse to satisfy you. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I am perfectly satisfied my Lord. (Mon¬ 
 sieur Espinasse was then sworn.) 
 
 Mr Innes.—My Lords, this large volume of maps, which 
 I mean to make use of in the examination, is a volume pro- 
 
 * Printed in Appendix to Introduction, No. IV. p. lxxii. 
 
146 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRY'S, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 duced from the Advocates’ Library, entitled “ Recueil des 
 Chartes,” (No. 37 of Inventory of Productions.) 
 
 Monsieur Jean Baptiste Theodore Alex. Teulet. 
 (Court.)—Ask him in what manner he would wish to be 
 sworn for a binding oath ? “ As you please.” (Sworn in the 
 
 usual way.) 
 
 Examined by Mr Innes.—What are you ? Joint Secre¬ 
 tary of the Archives of the kingdom of France. 
 
 Are the Archives a great national collection ? They are 
 documents relating to the public affairs and history of 
 France. 
 
 The Archives of the kingdom do not comprise all the 
 Ai’chives of France ? It is an immense collection, but it is 
 not altogether complete. 
 
 Is part of the collection composed of topographical and 
 geographical works and maps ? The Archives of the Kingdom 
 are divided into five sections. One of the numbers of these is 
 geography — the topographical collection comprehends an 
 immense quantity of various maps. 
 
 Do these maps form part of the collection ? This map 
 alone does not make part of the collection. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Are they marked in any way ? 
 
 Mr Innes.—Did you bring these maps in your hands from 
 the collection ? Yes ; I brought them myself. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Did you mark them before you brought 
 them away ? 
 
 Mr Innes.—Do you know for certain that these are the 
 papers from the Archives ? Yes; I brought them myself, 
 and I am sure they are authentic, they never came out of my 
 hands till they were brought hither. 
 
 Look at all the maps, and see if you have any doubt that 
 these are maps of the Archives P Point out the mark on each 
 map by which you know it ? They are perfectly insignificant; 
 made as the maps come into the Archives, and made by 
 chance. The map of the Archives has a stamp. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I have no doubt that this gentleman speaks 
 honestly to his belief. He says these are the maps that he took 
 out of the collection ; now he must explain how r he identifies 
 the papers which he took out of the Archives with the papers 
 before him. (To the witness.) Are these the maps which 
 you brought from the Archives, and how do you know that 
 they are the same ? I know them, because I have examined 
 them so often, that I cannot but say they are the same. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. U7 
 
 Mr Innes.—See if there are any marks on the maps by 
 which you may identify them ? There is a mark upon one 
 here. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—What marking P 
 
 The Court.—The interruption is irregular; do not interfere 
 till you come to cross-examine. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—My Lords, I am perfectly aware that that is 
 the rule of the Court, but I beg here to ask my friend, the Lord 
 Advocate, if he means to tender these maps as evidence ? 
 
 Lord Advocate.—I do. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Then I am entitled to object to them as 
 not being sufficiently identified. 
 
 The Court.—But that interrupts the whole proceedings, 
 let Mr Innes go on with his examination to identify them if 
 he can. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Have you no means of identifying them? Yes, 
 
 I have the best of all means, I detached them from the Atlas, 
 and by this means I can identify them conscientiously. Be¬ 
 sides, some of them are marked in my own hand. Three of 
 them are so marked, because they were each part of three 
 sections of maps. 
 
 Are all the maps which you brought from the Archives 
 maps of Guillaume De L’ Isle ? 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I was stopped by the Court in objecting 
 to these maps as not being identified. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—Yes, they are identified. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I object to their being put in evidence. 
 
 Mr Innes.—I will go on in another manner. Look at 
 this map, what is it a map of? A map of Canada, or New 
 France, by Guillaume De L’ Isle. 
 
 Say whether that map bears to be by Guillaume De 
 L’ Isle, Geographer to the Royal Academy of Sciences ? I 
 consider it authentic. 
 
 Is it a map of Guillaume De L’ Isle having the title of 
 “ Premier Geographe du Roi?” 
 
 Court.—Let him read it, and then describe it. (Witness 
 read it.) Now translate it. “ Map of Canada, or New 
 France, and of new discoveries made there, drawn from 
 several observations, and a great number of printed accounts 
 and manuscript narratives, by William De L’ Isle of the 
 Royal Academy of Sciences, First Geographer to the King, 
 &c* 1703. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Now you have seen a great number of maps 
 by De L’ Isle ? A very great number. 
 
148 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 From those you have seen, and from those you have brought 
 with you to this country, do you know that De L’ Isle had a 
 practice of keeping the copper of hismaps, and from time to 
 time making alterations on, and additions to them ? De 
 L’ Isle was in the practice of keeping his plates, either from 
 maps or drawings, to use them for other impressions as the 
 sale was called for. 
 
 You mean throwing off impressions from the coppers as he 
 required them ? 
 
 Do you know that De L’ Isle, from time to time, made 
 alterations on the coppers for the successive impressions on 
 his maps? De L’ Isle, from time to time, made on his coppers 
 changes and additions. 
 
 What kind of changes did he make in general ? The 
 changes were modified according to circumstances; for instance, 
 according to discoveries made, or for a change in his domicile, 
 or for any new title he received. 
 
 Look at the map of Canada marked B on the margin ; is 
 that a map of De L’ Isle ? It is a map of Canada by De 
 L’ Isle of 1703. 
 
 Read the inscription upon it. 
 
 Mr Robertson. I object to this. It is not identified. I 
 ask if it is one of the maps he got from the Archives ? Yes. 
 
 Are you certain of that ? Quite certain. I brought it 
 with my own hands from the Archives, and I have seen it so 
 often, that I can assert it to belong to the Archives. 
 
 How many maps did you bring altogether? Twenty-two 
 or twenty-three. 
 
 Did you put any particular mark on these maps ? Only 
 upon some of them. 
 
 Upon how many did you put a mark ? I put a particular 
 mark on a certain number of maps which I rolled together. 
 There were three principal marks. 
 
 Were there any more than three marked by you ? I think 
 there were only three out of the twenty-two. 
 
 What was the object of that marking ? It was to shew in 
 what manner De L’ Isle made his additions to his map, 
 “ Premier Geographe du Roi.” 
 
 Have you any other mark by which you can identify those 
 twenty-two maps as maps taken out of the Archives of France ? 
 They were detached from an atlas, as the atlas was too large 
 to bring hither, and they bear in the corner the number of 
 the atlas from which they were taken. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EAKL OF STIRLING. 149 
 
 Did you make any marking yourself, by which you can 
 identify those maps, except the three you speak of? Yes. 
 
 What mark did you make ? There is on each map a part 
 of the bit of paper by which the map is attached to the atlas. 
 
 Did you make any mark by which you would know any 
 map again when you saw it ? I made no mark towards ascer¬ 
 taining any particular mark, but I know them all to be the 
 same that I brought with me. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Look at the map B. How is the author de¬ 
 scribed in that map ? Guillaume De Lisle, Geographer to the 
 Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—I wish to put a copy of the facsimile of 
 the map libelled on into the hands of the Jury, if the opposite 
 party have no objection. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—We have no objections. 
 
 To Jury.—Gentlemen, you will observe that the map is by 
 Guillaume De L’ Isle. A map has been put into the hands 
 of the witness, the title of which does not bear more than 
 Guillaume De L’ Isle, Geographer to the Royal Academy of 
 Sciences. Observe, both maps bear the same date. Look at 
 the title of the copy, I want you to observe the title of the 
 one, and the title of the other. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Is that a genuine map of Guillaume De L’ Isle 
 which you have before you ? It is. 
 
 Have you seen other additions, with alterations, of the same 
 title ? I have seen many copies of the map of Canada, with 
 alterations and additions. 
 
 Are these additions to the title ? To the other parts, the 
 additions are in the title. 
 
 Look at the title of that map, (map from Advocates’ Lib¬ 
 rary,) is that a map from the same copper ? It is a map from 
 the same copper, but it changes. 
 
 Are these changes in the title ? Yes. 
 
 What is the residence in that map ? At the Golden Eagle, 
 Quai d’ Horloge.* 
 
 On the map B, read the residence of the author thus, Rue 
 des Canettes, sur 1’ Hospice. In the other Quai d’ Horloge. 
 
 Both bear the date 1703 ? Yes. 
 
 To Court.—I now, my Lords, put into his hands a body 
 of maps without title, (38 of Inventory of Productions,) and 
 
 * Mr Espinasse here interpreted as follows“ He says, my Lord, he 
 live at de Golden Eagle at de key of de clock!” (Loud laughter.) 
 “ Dat is as you make it! ” 
 
150 trial OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 I shall ask him to look at that map if it has come from the 
 same quarter. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Nobody can tell. All that you get is a 
 volume of maps without mark or any thing else, and that is 
 to be shewn to the witness to prove something against the 
 prisoner, I know not what. 
 
 Court.—You understand it is libelled on ? Yes. 
 
 Mr Robertson. Supposing my learned friend had pro¬ 
 duced a volume of papers, bearing to be deeds of various 
 descriptions, could he have shewn that to the witness and said, 
 Do you know that to be the deed of such a man ? 
 
 Court.—What he is going to ask is, do you know that to 
 be a map by De L’ Isle ? What is the objection ? 
 
 Mr Robertson.—The-map is not described in any way. 
 
 Court.—Put the map into the hands of the witness, and 
 ask if he knows it. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Do you know tjiat to be a map of De 
 L’ Isle ? 
 
 Mr Innes.—Is that a map of De L’ Isle from the same 
 copper ? Yes, but with a change. 
 
 That is still a map of 1703? It is still a map of 1703, 
 but it is not an impression thrown off in that year. 
 
 How do you know that ? I know it by the addition of 
 “ Premier Geographe du Iloi.” 
 
 Look at the lower corner of that map B, there is a date 
 there? There is the date of 1745 at the corner. The title 
 remains First Geographer to the King, and to the Academy 
 of Sciences: it was then the property of the son-in-law of the 
 author. 
 
 But the title is the same as in the map libelled on ? Yes. 
 
 Are you certain that these two maps are from the same 
 copper ? I am certain that they have been printed from the 
 same copper. 
 
 Look at this map which I hold in my hand, (one of De 
 L’ Isle’s maps from the Archives,) is that still a map of Canada 
 by Guillaume de L’ Isle ? It is. 
 
 Is that from the same copper ? Yes, but printed long sub¬ 
 sequently. 
 
 What is the date of the map ? (C, No. 36 of Inventory of 
 
 Productions.) 1783. 
 
 There are many alterations on that map ? There are many 
 changes in the title of this map ; all that part of it, from the 
 words “ Guillaume De L’ Isle” has been effaced, and re¬ 
 placed by other characters. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 151 
 
 How do you know which are printed earlier, and which 
 later? I know that this map dated 1703, was printed several 
 years subsequently to 1718, because in the title of this map 
 are to be found the words “ Premier Geographe du Roi.” 
 
 Do you judge that any map having the title Premier 
 Geographe du Roi, applicable to De L’ Isle, must have been 
 thrown off after 1718? I am sure and perfectly convinced, 
 that every copy of the map bearing the words “ Premier 
 Geographe du Roi,” must have been thrown off subsequently 
 to August, 1718. 
 
 How do you know that? I am perfectly certain of it. 
 De L’ Isle did not bear the title till the month of August, 
 1718. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I put this question, How do you know 
 that De L’ Isle was appointed Premier Geographe du Roi, 
 on the 24th August, 1718? I know it, because we have 
 found in the Archives of the kingdom the commission of De 
 L’ Isle, as Premier Geographe du Roi, dated 24th August, 
 1718. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Look at that extract. It is the very extract 
 which I made with my own hands from the Register. 
 
 Mr Adam Anderson.—We object to this. You see what is 
 produced. First, if we are to deal with a foreign register we 
 have not the register itself, — the document which is now said 
 to be produced is only a copy. We have no evidence before 
 us by French lawyers, or otherwise, that according to the 
 laws of France, either the register itself may be evidence, or 
 whether a copy could be produced as evidence in the Courts 
 of France, and, therefore, we think that this document cannot 
 be received as evidence. Observe, the register from which 
 this document bears to be extracted is foreign. We all know, 
 for instance, that according to the laws of this country, records 
 of baptisms and burials were not received at one time as 
 evidence, because they were kept irregularly, and the Court 
 could not place confidence in them; and even now they are 
 only received when a party is ready to speak to their correct¬ 
 ness and authenticity. It is necessary, before you can look 
 to a foreign register, to know that it is such as will bear faith 
 in judgment in that country. You see even in our own 
 country that every thing depends on the regularity in which 
 the register is kept. Then look to the circumstance, and see 
 how you apply these principles in this country. It is neces¬ 
 sary that you should know whether such evidence would be 
 allowed to be brought forward in the country where such a 
 
 2 s 
 
152 trial OF ALEXANDER HUMPBRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 register is kept. We take our objection on a second and still 
 stronger ground. The only evidence which is now tendered 
 is a document which the witness himself says he has written 
 and compared himself. We require to know whether a copy 
 such as this would have been received as evidence by the laws 
 of France. We know nothing here of what is a sufficient 
 extract by the laws of France, and we are entitled to have 
 such evidence. I put the case, that the Crown had tendered 
 and put in evidence a foreign judgment. We would have 
 been entitled to know that that judgment was duly authen¬ 
 ticated before you could receive it. I am arguing this on 
 distinct and positive authority. This point was decided in the 
 Civil Court in regard to the judgment of an English Court, 
 and you will see the course there followed ; Robertson v. Gor¬ 
 don, Nov. 15, 1814, (Fac. Col.) One of your Lordships 
 must know it well. The rubric is — 
 
 “ Proof. —Foreign. — An exemplification of a foreign judg¬ 
 ment, attested to be a true copy by the officer of Court, and 
 bearing the chief justice’s seal, is not per se good evidence that 
 such judgment had been pronounced. 
 
 “ Mrs Robertson raised an action in the Island of Grenada 
 against Mr Gordon, for recovery of certain sums of money 
 alleged to be due by him; and she obtained decree. 
 
 “ Mr Gordon having retired to his estate in Scotland, Mrs 
 Robertson proceeded to make the decree effectual, by insti¬ 
 tuting an action against him in the Court of Session; and 
 she founded upon an exemplification which she affirmed to be 
 a true copy of the judgment, — to be attested as such by the 
 proper officer of the foreign court, and to bear the seal of the 
 chief-justice for the time ; and she argued that in such circum¬ 
 stances this document was conclusive without further proof. 
 
 “ The defender contended, that there was no evidence that 
 the copy was faithful, or that the seal was the seal of the 
 chief-justice; that the copy, therefore, was not legally and 
 formally authenticated, and could not be received in Court 
 as good evidence of the fact that such judgment had ever been 
 pronounced. 
 
 “ The Lord Ordinary, in repelling the defence, proceeded 
 principally upon a letter from the defender to the pursuer, 
 which his Lordship conceived to imply an acknowledgment of 
 the debt. 
 
 “ The court ordered the opinion of English counsel to be 
 taken on a joint case prepared by the parties. The opinions 
 of Sir Arthur Pigott and Sir Samuel Romillv were decidedly, 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 153 
 
 that the exemplification of the judgment was not duly and 
 sufficiently authenticated, and would not, without farther 
 evidence, be admissible in a court of law in England. 
 
 “The Court (15th November, 1814) altered and sustained 
 the defences in hoc statu. 
 
 “ On a petition, followed with answers, the Court, (9th Feb¬ 
 ruary, 1815,) before answer as to the relevancy, allowed a 
 proof of the authenticity of the copy.” 
 
 Lord Moncreiff.—There was no witness. 
 
 Mr Anderson.—No; but look to the course of procedure. 
 The court, knowing nothing of English law, and not taking 
 upon itself to decide what was a good exemplification, did 
 what ? They resorted to the opinion of English lawyers to 
 see whether the evidence tendered was sufficient or not. It 
 would have been the same if witnesses had been there. The 
 court cannot take upon itself to say what is a sufficient 
 exemplification of the judgment. It is not an unusual course 
 of procedure. We have the same law laid down by other 
 institutional authors in regard to criminal procedure, Bur¬ 
 net says, p. 483, “ When the record of a foreign court is 
 founded on, it must be verified agreeably to the forms in use 
 in that country. Thus, a copy or an exemplification of a 
 record of an English Court is not received with us, unless it 
 be under the seal of the court, which is the usual form of 
 authenticating copies of records by the English law. As to 
 office copies, which correspond nearly with our extracts, they 
 are, at common law, no evidence in their courts, and are very 
 rarely admitted. Accordingly, in the case of William Deans, 
 for coining, an objection having been taken to a witness, that 
 he had been pilloried in Ireland for a similar crime, and so 
 was an infamous person : and a copy of the judgment in the 
 King’s Bench in Ireland, signed, as it was said, by the proper 
 officer, having been offered in evidence of the objection, it 
 was contended, that it was inadmissible, not being an exempli¬ 
 fication under the proper seal. The court gave effect to tins, 
 and rejected the copy, in consequence of which the witness 
 was received.” So your Lordships will see, that there they 
 held the principle, for these cases must vary according to 
 circumstances; but they decided that the deed put in evidence 
 was to be authenticated according to the law of that country. 
 Mr Alison lays down the law in the same way, p. 598, 
 “ When the record of a foreign court is founded on, it must 
 be verified according to the forms in use in that country. 
 Thus, a copy or exemplification, as it is called, of a record of 
 
154 trial OF ALEXANDER IIUMPIIKYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 an English Court, is not received with us unless it is under 
 the seal as well as the hand of the court, which is the usual 
 mode of authenticating copies of records by the English law.” 
 So that you will see that it is laid down in all cases, that the 
 court must look to the evidence to be received in a foreign 
 country. Put the case that any party had gone to the records 
 in France, and produced a certified copy made by himself, 
 would you hold that copy as evidence of the commission ? 
 The best evidence is the register. If you have not the best 
 evidence, then you can lead only such evidence, which by the 
 law of that country is equivalent to the best. It would just 
 come to this, if this witness were to be allowed to speak to 
 that document. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Well, take it in another way, I ask Monsieur 
 Teulet if he has gone through a course of legal studies in the 
 University of Paris ? Yes. 
 
 How many years have you so studied ? Four years. 
 
 Are you now a licentiate of law ? Yes. 
 
 Is the register of the Secretary of State in France a regu¬ 
 larly kept and authentic register ? The collection of the 
 Register of the Secretary of State, that is to say, the collection 
 of the Register of the King’s Household, forms a series of 
 more than 118 volumes. 
 
 Is it a very authentic register ? Yes, a register of the 
 greatest authenticity. 
 
 Is it the proper register in which to record a brevet, such 
 as that of Premier Geographe du Roi ? It is the only col¬ 
 lection of documents in which such an appointment as that of 
 Guillaume de L’ Isle could have been found. 
 
 Are you assistant keeper of the Archives of which that 
 register forms a part ? I am one of the persons employed in 
 the copying of such documents belonging to that register. 
 
 Is this extract done in the formal and regular manner of 
 extracts ? It is done after the most authentic manner in 
 France. It is certified by the general keeper of the archives 
 of France, and invested with the seal of the Archives. 
 
 13o you know the subscription of the keeper of the Seal of 
 the Archives ? Yes ; I see it every day in France, and like¬ 
 wise the Seal of the Archives. 
 
 Do you recognize the signature of Monsieur Daunou ? 
 Perfectly. 
 
 Would that extract be received as evidence in the courts of 
 law in France? It would. 
 
 Did you read and compare the extract yourself, with the 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 155 
 
 original; and along with you another witness ? I have com¬ 
 pared it not only word for word, but letter by letter, with the 
 original document, and it is exactly corresponding to it. 
 
 Mr Anderson.—I am only sorry that my learned friend did 
 not stop me sooner in my objection. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — They have now done that which we 
 wanted them to do. 
 
 The Court.—It is proper, however, to state, that we should 
 have doubted your argument. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Do you learn from that record the precise date 
 of the appointment of Guillaume De L’ Isle to be Premier 
 Geographe du Roi ? Yes, it was on the 24th August, 1718. 
 
 Besides these maps of Canada have you seen a great many 
 maps of Canada by De L’ Isle ? Yes. 
 
 Have you found from the inspection of the whole that 
 De L’ Isle altered the title of his maps without altering the 
 date ? From inspection of a great number of maps, I have 
 the conviction that De L’ Isle, subsequently to the month of 
 August, 1718, after having received the title of Premier 
 Geographe du Roi, had the title engraved upon all the cop¬ 
 pers which he had in his possession, so that all the impressions 
 thrown off subsequently to this date bear the addition of First 
 Geographer to the King, whatever may have been the date 
 remaining at the bottom of the title. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—Are you, from all you have seen and 
 known of De L’lsle’s maps, perfectly satisfied and convinced, 
 and entertain no doubt, that, when you see Premier Geo¬ 
 graphe du Roi upon the title of one of those maps, that 
 particular copy must have been thrown off subsequently to 
 the month of August, 1718, and could not have been thrown 
 off before ? I am perfectly convinced, that it is altogether 
 impossible that a map of De L’lsle, where he is designed 
 Premier Geographe du Roi, could have been thrown off 
 previously to the month of August, 1718. 
 
 Mr Innes.—What was the reason in general for keeping 
 the original date of his map ? De L’lsle has preserved in his 
 coppers the date of the original publication of the map, 
 because the date was necessary to ascertain the original com¬ 
 mencement of the copyright. The privilege in the map of 
 Canada was for twenty years after its date 1703. 
 
 Was the privilege sometimes renewed ? I think the privi¬ 
 lege for some of his maps was renewed in 1745 for the benefit 
 of his son-in-law. 
 
 Do vou know, and how do you know, the date of the deatk 
 
156 trial OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, 01t ALEXANDER, 
 
 of Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray ? I have ascertained 
 the date of the death of Fenelon, because I myself made from 
 the original register of the chapter of the Metropolitan Church 
 of Cambray, an extract of the document which gives the very 
 hour of the death of the archbishop. 
 
 Did you find that Fenelon died at five o’clock in the morn¬ 
 ing on the 7th day of January, 1715. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Put it in. We do not dispute the extract. 
 (No. 35 of inventory of productions.) 
 
 Mr Innes.—Look at this other extract,—do you know the 
 date of the death of Flechier, Bishop of Nismes ? He died in 
 1711. 
 
 Do you hold in your hand an extract from the register of 
 the appointment of his successor? Yes; this document 
 proves by induction the death of Flechier, by giving the date 
 of the appointment of his successor to the bishopric of Nismes, 
 26 February, 1711. 
 
 Look again at the map ; is it possible that the line “ Pre¬ 
 mier Geographe du Roi” could have been inserted in its 
 present place in any other way than by an alteration of the 
 original copper of the map ?—Is it possible that the line may 
 have been interlined by any process upon that map which 
 might induce one to suppose that it had existed before 1718? 
 I think it is impossible that the line Premier Geographe du 
 Roi could have been inserted in that title in any other way 
 than by an alteration in the original copper of the map. 
 
 Is the original copper of 1703 still preserved? Yes; I 
 have seen it, and had it in mv hands. 
 
 Is that (shewing witness a copy) an impression from it in 
 its present state. This is a copy from the copper in the pre¬ 
 sent state. 
 
 You compared that with the original copper you have seen 
 in Paris? I have compared this very copy with the copper 
 beside it. 
 
 Have alterations been made on it down to 1783? When 
 Buache the son-in-law became the proprietor, he never 
 changed the plate. 
 
 The royal arms of France have not been taken out of that 
 map ? I have here a copy dated 1783; and I am convinced 
 that this copy is still more recent, for the armorials of France, 
 which were at the head of the vignette, have been effaced, 
 and the word “ king” obliterated ; but still it is from the same 
 copper. This copy is subsequent to 1793, the time when 
 royalty was suppressed in France. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 157 
 
 Look at the lines at the top. The wording at the title at 
 the top is also changed; from the word “ Canada” all the 
 rest has been effaced. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—Look at the title of that map, and say if 
 you do not find that the words “ Premier Geographe du Roi,” 
 are not also changed ? The title is very irregular and ill 
 arranged in this respect, that the word “ Geographe” has 
 been effaced, and its place left blank. 
 
 That gives the title an irregular appearance,—it wants the 
 balance ? Yes. 
 
 Is not the line containing the words, “ Guillaume tie 
 L’Isle” left shorter than it should or could have been in the 
 original subscription, by defacing the word “ Geographe ? ” 
 The engravers always steadily endeavour to make the lines of 
 a certain relative length the one to the other; and the line in 
 which the word “ Geographe ” had a place is now found too 
 short, because this word Geographe has been effaced, and 
 not replaced. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Is that effacing in the paper or the copper ? 
 It must have been done on the copper; if it had been done 
 on the paper it would have been easily detected. 
 
 Did you observe, when you saw the copper of that map, 
 whether it was marked with hammer marks on the back ? I 
 examined the copper in Paris on the under part, and there 
 are evident traces of liammer marks, which, of course, had 
 been done to fill up the empty space of the characters which 
 had been effaced. 
 
 Look at that note signed Philip Mallet on back of the 
 map; does it appear to have been written in ink that is com¬ 
 monly used ? The letter signed Philip Mallet, as well as the 
 letter signed John Alexander, seems to me to have been 
 written in an ink composed of China ink, of yellow, and of 
 red. 
 
 Do you observe that both these writings are considerably 
 blotted, and the ink run on the paper ? In considering 
 attentively these two documents, I have been struck with the 
 resemblance of the colour of both inks used in the two letters. 
 I have distinguished under certain words a reddish tint, 
 which springs out, and which seems to shew that these docu¬ 
 ments might have been written with the same ink which I 
 have mentioned as being composed of China ink, yellow, and 
 red. Such an ink is generally composed to imitate ancient 
 writings, and in the use of which it often happens that the 
 reddish tint springs up when the ink is dried. 
 
158 TRIAL 01' ALEXANDER HUMPHRY?, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Have you any farther observations to make on it ? When 
 examining this map, a circumstance struck me, but it is only 
 presumption. This map is spotted, as you observe, in diffe¬ 
 rent places, with a i*eddish colour; and I think it is not 
 impossible that some accident may have taken place to the 
 person who was writing this document, and that the mixture 
 which that person made use of was splashed on the map. But 
 then it is merely presumption. 
 
 The Court.—There are some seals on the map which are 
 red also ; I want to know if it is the same colour of red in the 
 seals that is on the map ? I do not know, but it may be. 
 
 Mr Innes.—You call yourself joint secretary of the archives 
 of the kingdom of France. Have you studied charters ? I 
 have studied in the school called the School of Charters, 
 (Ecole des Chartes,) in Paris, from which I have got a 
 diploma, and I now call myself a student of old writings. 
 
 Had you much acquaintance with old writings? I left the 
 school mentioned in 1823, the first pupil in the school. 
 
 And since that time you have devoted your attention to old 
 writings ? It is my business to study daily ancient writings. 
 
 Are you employed in directing fac-similes to be made in 
 imitation of ancient writings? I have not myself made fac¬ 
 similes, but I have employed others; and I have often seen 
 one of my friends, who is in the habit of imitating such 
 writings, making use of an ink similar to that which I have 
 mentioned, and to whom the same accident happened that 
 may have happened to the writer of these letters. 
 
 Generally, and from all your observations, are these 
 authentic writings of the dates they bear, or are they not ? 
 In my conscientious belief, I feel convinced, that all the 
 writings on the back of that map are false; and this I infer, 
 not merely ftom the examination of the writings, but from the 
 presence of the title First Geographer to the King, which 
 proves, that this copy could not exist till after 1718, and in 
 consequence, the individuals whose names these letters bear, 
 could not write in 1706 and in 1707, and on which no 
 writings could have been written by the Archbishop of Cam- 
 bray. 
 
 You do not mean to say that these markings by Villenave 
 and others are not genuine ? Monsieur Daunou, in certifying 
 that, has not certified the authenticity of the signatures, but 
 merely the resemblance. 
 
 Have you made search in the registers of France for any 
 such registration as that on the margin 17189, and apparently 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EAllL OK STIRLING. 
 
 159 
 
 the word “ Register” on (he top of Philip Mallet’s letter 
 “17189, 17190, Reg r . ?” Are these the marks of registration 
 in any register in France ? We have marks nearly resem¬ 
 bling these, but I cannot find what these are. 
 
 They do not apply to any register that you have been able 
 to discover ? They do not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Robertson.—You know the hand¬ 
 writing of Monsieur Daunou ? Perfectly. 
 
 What is he ? The general keeper of the archives of 
 France. 
 
 Is he a person of high respectability, and possessing a great 
 knowledge of old writings ? He is very respectable and very 
 learned in old manuscripts. 
 
 Read the attestation of Monsieur Daunou on the back of the 
 map. Witness read the attestation. (See Appendix to In¬ 
 troduction, p. lxxxvii.) 
 
 That is in the handwriting of Monsr. Daunou ? It is his 
 signature. 
 
 In whose handwriting is the certificate itself? In the hand¬ 
 writing of one of the persons employed to write in the Archives. 
 
 Are the signatures that follow genuine ? Without doubt. 
 
 Do you know Villenave ? I know him, but not personally. 
 
 Is he of great respectability ? Certainly. 
 
 What is his occupation ? I cannot tell. 
 
 Is he a person skilled in old manuscripts ? He has a col¬ 
 lection of autographs. 
 
 Look at the handwriting of Villenave ; is that genuine ? 
 
 The Court.—This is objectionable, as Villenave is alive. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I will prove that he is not in a condition 
 to come. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—By proving that that is the handwriting 
 of Villenave, I do not think that makes any thing at all, for it 
 cannot be laid before the Jury. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—It is impossible that the document can go 
 to the Jury without it, for it is upon the document. 
 
 The Court.—It does not follow that it is evidence of the 
 fact. 
 
 Mr. Robertson.—If the prosecutor is entitled to ask his 
 opinion as to the authenticity of any part of that paper, I am 
 entitled to do the same on another part. The paper is there, 
 and 1 am entitled to look at it. 
 
 The Court.—This is a question as to the authenticity of a 
 person alive, and who might have been brought here. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—If we are to have a solemn argument upon 
 
160 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 the question, I maintain that I am entitled to ask his opinion 
 on any handwriting on that document; and I am entitled to 
 read any part to the Jury. 
 
 Look at the words, “ Cette attestation est de la main 
 d’Esprit Flechier, Eveque de Nismes. Villenave.” Translate 
 that to the Jury. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—No. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Well, then, I will go on step by step. 
 Do you believe that to be the genuine handwriting of any 
 one ? 
 
 The Court.—The man is alive. The witness said he is 
 alive, and was in possession of a number of autographs, but he 
 did not know his profession. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Had I known that 1 was to be stopped in 
 this course of examination, I would not have put the question 
 about Villenave at all. Do you believe that these words 
 signed Villenave are a forgery or not ? 
 
 Lord Advocate.—There is no question about these words 
 being a forgery. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Does your opinion of the document, to 
 which you have spoken as being a forgery, arise from the attes¬ 
 tation it receives from the word Villenave at the bottom ? Not 
 at all. 
 
 Why not ? Because Villenave has been deceived. He 
 has done it in good faith. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—I put it to my learned friend to say, 
 whether this is a correct course of examination. I have stated 
 that I am ready to argue the point with my learned friend 
 when he chooses. Now, he wants to get a rash answer which 
 he would not be entitled to get by a regular examination. 
 You heard the witness state all the grounds on which he con¬ 
 ceived the documents were forgeries. 
 
 Mr Robertson.— I am not conscious that I have done any 
 thing improper in the mode in which I have conducted this 
 cross-examination. If I were, I should at once submit. I put 
 the question in the hearing of the Court; it was allowed to be 
 put, and the competency of any question is never allowed to 
 be affected by the nature of the answer the witness gives. I 
 maintain that, with respect to Daunou, that I am right to read 
 the translation to the Jury when I address them, but with 
 respect to Villenave, I have enough for what I want. 
 
 The Court.—The witness stated he knew Daunou’s hand¬ 
 writing. It is taken down, and it is ruled. But the question 
 is now, are we to go a step farther ? 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EA11L OF STIRLING. 
 
 161 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I am entitled to read it under the correc¬ 
 tion of the Court. 
 
 The Court.—Do you mean to give this in as proving the 
 handwriting of Fenelon ? 
 
 Mr Robertson.—On the contrary, the witness says that 
 Yillenave was deceived, and that he had done it in uood faith. 
 Do you know whether Yillenave has a large collection of 
 autographs ? Yillenave has a pretty considerable collection of 
 autographs, but other persons have collections of greater 
 importance and extent. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Have you seen his collection ? I never 
 did. 
 
 Do you know Charles Herald de Pages, attached to the 
 historical department of the Bibliotheque Royale? Yes. 
 
 Is he at present in Edinburgh ? Yes. 
 
 Is he a person that has the reputation of being skilled in 
 handwriting ? I believe he is a very clever young man, but 
 I do not know', seeing he is so very young, whether he has 
 enough of experience to test the identity or authenticity of 
 ancient writings, especially without having his eyes directed to 
 a great number of objects for comparison. 
 
 Mons. Stanislas Jacobs, geographical engraver, attached 
 to the Institute of France. Interrogated by Mr Innes.—You 
 have examined a great number of maps; have you been long 
 employed in engraving maps ? Two years. 
 
 Have you also studied the making of fac-similes of ancient 
 writings for publication? Yes, and for the French govern¬ 
 ment, and for the minister of public instruction. 
 
 Have you examined many maps of De L’lsle’s ? Yes. 
 
 Have you seen a great many maps of De L’lsle’s before 
 1718, without the title of Premier Geographe du Roi ? A 
 great many. I have seen a great many of double impressions 
 of maps, some having and some wanting the title. 
 
 What do you mean by double impressions ? Duplicates of 
 the same year, in the Bibliotheque du Roi and the Archives. 
 
 Was that difference effected by any operation on the cop¬ 
 per or the paper of the map ? It must have been effected on 
 the copper, not on the paper. 
 
 Was the difference between the duplicate maps produced 
 by any operation on the copper or on the paper ? The title 
 has been added by engraving on the copper after Guillaume 
 De L’lsle had been made first geographer to the king. 
 
 H ave you seen the operation performed on different plates? 
 
J62 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Sometimes by interpolating, but this interpolation only takes 
 place on those maps, the date of which is anterior to 1718. 
 In the maps published subsequently to 1718, there is no 
 interpolation ; the words “ First Geographer to the King” 
 are always regular with the other part of the title. There is, 
 in one word, no evident interpolation as in the maps before 
 1718. 
 
 Is the operation done in many different manners ? Yes. 
 
 Is that one of them in the map before you ? (From the 
 Advocates’ Library'.) It is inserted there above the line. It 
 is a map of Paris of 1716, two years and two months before 
 De L’lsle was first geographer to the king. 
 
 What is the date of this other map ? 1704. 
 
 Is the title there also inserted above the line? Above the 
 line, and united by a bracket with the words “ Of the Aca¬ 
 demy of Sciences.” 
 
 Is not that interpolation sharper, and blacker, and newer 
 than the engraving ? Yes ; it is an interpolation which took 
 place after the publication of the map, from its appearance. 
 It is subsequent to the publication of the map, in short. 
 
 Have you seen many instances in which the title “ Premier 
 Geographe du Roi” is inserted in a line by itself in that 
 manner ? (Shews the map of Canada libelled on.) Yes, 
 sometimes. 
 
 Look at that map marked B ; is that map of Canada of the 
 same date, and by the same author ? and is it a map of the 
 same copper ? Yes. 
 
 Do you observe the difference between the titles ? Yes; 
 the title of “ Premier Geographe du Roi ” is on the one, and 
 not on the other. 
 
 Has there been any alteration on this map ? Yes. 
 
 Has it been made on the copper of the engraving, and not 
 on the paper ? Not on the paper. 
 
 What do you learn from that change in regard to the date ? 
 I learn that the map on which the word “ Geographe” has 
 been suppressed after De L’ Isle has been effaced, because it 
 would have been of double use with the words “ Premier 
 Geographe du Roi,” which were added after 1718, when the 
 privilege was granted. 
 
 Can you say possibly whether that impression (map libelled 
 on) could have existed before 1718 or not? I am sure that 
 this map could only have been printed after the 24th August, 
 1718. 
 
 You have no doubt whatever of that ? No doubt. 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 163 
 
 Is it possible that there could he any other mode than 
 by an operation on the copper itself, to" insert that line in 
 the manner in which it is inserted ? I think that now there 
 are means which did not then exist of making such an 
 operation, but it is all but impossible that any ether means 
 could have been used. 
 
 Is there any operation on another plate of copper, not the 
 plate of the map, by which a line could be inserted on the 
 map after it had been thrown off? Perhaps, with a great 
 deal of care, one might add a line to the end, or below 
 another line. 
 
 As to the interpolation between two lines, I think it would 
 be much more difficult; at any rate, interpolations of this 
 nature could not be brought about on several impressions 
 without a mathematical difference being seen on that line 
 in relation to other parts of the title. 
 
 Do you observe on the map before you, that the line 
 “ Premier Geographe du Roi,” absolutely touches the line 
 above and the line below ? It is extremely close to it, and in 
 this case I would look on the interpolation which has been 
 spoken of as altogether impossible. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—If the object had been only to put in the 
 line, would that operation have taken out the word “ Geo¬ 
 graphe ?” The want of that word could not arise in the course 
 of the operation by which the lower line was supplied. The 
 word could not be taken out by means of double plates: they 
 would require to have recourse to the first plate also, in order 
 to change the engraving. The word could be left out by 
 means of a penknife, or other instrument of the same kind. 
 
 Look at the back of that map of Canada, (map libelled on,) 
 is that such ink as is generally used ? It is not such ink as is 
 in common use. It is not ink which has turned old. I think 
 it must be composed to imitate ink, which, when turning old, 
 assumes a brownish tint, and that the ink used here is for the 
 purpose of imitation. 
 
 Do you observe some reddish tints round the letters? Yes, 
 the paper having soaked in the ink, I observe a redness on 
 the edge of the letters. 
 
 AVhat does that arise from ? I have often observed, that 
 when I have been occasionally employed to make fac-similes 
 to restore pages wanting in ancient books or MSS. and 
 wanted to make an ink to resemble that of these MSS. which, 
 having turned old, had contracted a light yellowish tint, and 
 made use of China ink, yellow, and carmine in composition, 
 
](34 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 that the colours of which I have been speaking did not always 
 mix well together. It has often happened, on these trials, 
 that I have found a similar result to that which I have just 
 pointed out. 
 
 You have now been speaking to a letter bearing date at 
 Lyons. Look at the one next it, dated Antrim : does that 
 appear to have been written in a similar ink ? It is nearly 
 similar. 
 
 Has it the appearance of carmine on the edges of the letters ? 
 Yes. 
 
 In forming a judgment from the ink, and the appearance 
 you have spoken to, should you say that these are genuine 
 writings of the date they bear, or false writings ? I would 
 think them false. 
 
 Judging from the ink alone, and the appearance of these 
 writings, putting all other evidence aside, would you pronounce 
 that the documents are true or false ? There would be a great 
 presumption that they are false, but that is all. 
 
 Did you, along with a previous witness, collate the brevet of 
 De L’ Isle in France ? Yes. 
 
 That is an extract from it ? Yes, collated with the greatest 
 care. 
 
 By a Juryman.—I wish to know whether the ink you refer 
 to is a manufacture of your own, or whether it is a known 
 composition? It is not of my manufacture; it is often em¬ 
 ployed by draftsmen, and for the purpose of copying portions 
 of old MSS. 
 
 Mr W. H. Lizars. — You are an engraver, and have had 
 great experience of engraving during the whole course of your 
 life ? Yes. 
 
 Have you seen a good many maps of Guillaume De LTsle? 
 Yes. 
 
 Is it a common practice of engravers to preserve the coppers 
 of their maps ? Yes; to take advantage of making changes 
 m the maps when alterations are necessary. 
 
 Look at the title of map B, and the title of the map libelled 
 on ; are they from the same copper? Yes. 
 
 I now shew him map No. 7 of the untitled maps. (To wit¬ 
 ness.) Is that also from the same copper? Yes. 
 
 Which is the earliest of those three maps ? B is the first 
 impression of the three. 
 
 How do you know ? Because it has a sharper impression 
 than the others. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 1G5 
 
 Which is the second in point of time ? It would be diffi¬ 
 cult to answer that question, as one of those is coloured, (the 
 map libelled on,) but I think the coloured one is prior to the 
 one in the book marked No. 7. 
 
 So that B is the first, the coloured map the second, and in 
 the one in the book No. 7 is the third ? Yes. 
 
 Do vou observe a difference between the title in the first 
 and second of these maps, and have you examined a great 
 many maps of De L’ Isle, with a view to this question ? I 
 have observed in the atlas a great many without the title 
 before 1718. I did not observe any maps without that title 
 after 1718. 
 
 Would you consider that the date of the map does not beat- 
 out the printing of that map ? Not the casting off of the 
 impression, but it proves the engraving of the plate. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Robertson. — When did you first 
 see the documents on that map? I saw them first in the 
 Sheriff-Clerk’s Office. 
 
 Did you examine them there ? I did, with very great care. 
 
 What impression did they make upon you as to their 
 genuineness ? I thought they were genuine, but I declined 
 to give an opinion, because I did not consider that I was 
 required to give an opinion. 
 
 For what purpose were they shewn to you ? To compare 
 them with Lord Stirling’s hand-writing, and that of Made¬ 
 moiselle Le Normand, and see if I could trace any similarity 
 between her hand-writing and the hand-writing of the docu¬ 
 ments. 
 
 Did they appear to be in either of the hand-writings with 
 which you compared them ? The papers were shewn to me 
 by the Procurator-fiscal, and the result of my opinion was, 
 that the hand-writings were not the same; that they bore no 
 resemblance to each other. 
 
 You are a good judge of hand-writing ? \ es. 
 
 Did they appear to be written in a natural or a feigned 
 hand? In a natural hand. 
 
 Did anv other gentleman examine them along with you ? 
 * © 
 
 Yes, Mr Gavin. 
 
 By Court.—When you looked at the hand-writing, could 
 you tell what kind of ink was used in the letter signed Philip 
 Mallet, or the letter signed John Alexander ? I tried it, and 
 it struck me it resembled common water-paint.. 
 
 Did you observe any resemblance in the ink in the one 
 signed Philip Mallet, and the one signed John Alexander, on 
 the other side ? I observed a very great resemblance. 
 
16G TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRY*, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Lord Advocate.—Do you see the copy of the tombstone, 
 the corner of which is raised a little off the map—is there 
 enough of that relieved to tell us on what is the copy of the 
 tombstone written ? I think it is a part of a map of Canada. 
 
 Could it easily be detached without injuring the rest? 
 Yes; it could easily be done out of Court, or even in it. 
 
 Then vou will have the goodness to attend to-morrow 
 morning, and bring with you the means with which it can be 
 
 done. 
 
 By a Juryman.—Would age not have brought these two 
 documents, the one signed Mallet and the other Alexander, 
 to the same colour? I imagine it would. I know that 
 writings of that date are almost all of that colour. 
 
 The Court.—Are you now speaking of writings in common 
 ink ? I am speaking of old deeds such as those in the Regi¬ 
 ster House. 
 
 Lord Advocate.—Do you see any redness round the edges 
 of the letters in the document alluded to ? Yes ; as if there 
 had been water floating upon the writing. 
 
 How would that produce the red ? By softening the line; 
 the reddening is merely the consequence of the colour being 
 softened down. 1 he same thing could occur in your lord¬ 
 ship’s writing just now. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—If it is an old writing which has assumed 
 that brown colour, or if it is a writing of a composition of 
 water colours, and water is put on it, in either case it would 
 assume the reddish appearance round the edge? Yes, it 
 would have the softened tint of the dark colour. 
 
 Lord Advocate. — Do you discover any redness on the 
 notes of St Estienne and Flechier. There is no redness there. 
 It-is only on the letters signed Mallet and Alexander. 
 
 Do you observe redness round the letter dated Antrim ? 
 There is no redness visible there. 
 
 Can you tell what is the composition of the ink in these 
 two letters? If I were to form a judgment, I would say 
 sepia and burnt umber. 
 
 Are you aware there is a composition made, to resemble old 
 ink much used by persons in the manufacture of imitations of 
 old writings ? I am not aware of it. 
 
 By a Juryman.—If the ink were composed of sepia, and 
 burnt umber, and water, would it not obliterate when rubbed 
 with a moistened finger ? I must confess I did try this, and 
 I found it did so. 
 
 Did you not find what the composition of the ink was? It 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 167 
 
 ga\e me no means ol distinguishing whether it was old ink or 
 not* an o did not warrant me in drawing any conclusion. 
 
 The Court.—Would a mixture of China ink, yellow, and 
 carmine do ? It would do very well. 
 
 Suppose it was not well mixed, would the carmine come 
 out at the edge? It would be sure to do that. He would be 
 a very inexperienced manipulator in such things if he used 
 the carmine, because, being a heavy colour, it would be sure 
 to precipitate. 
 
 Suppose the writing touched with a damp camel hair pen¬ 
 cil, it would produce that effect at once ? Yes : damn would 
 produce .the effect. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Would a camel hair pencil, with water, 
 upon writing made recently for the purpose of experiment, 
 produce the effect you mentioned? It would produce the 
 effect instantly. 
 
 The Court.—In your opinion, damping would make a red 
 colour from the old brown ink ? If the ink were good, it 
 would not do that. I have seen old manuscripts very con¬ 
 siderably injured by damp. 
 
 But did you ever see the red colour on the edge of an old 
 MS. ? I have not considered the matter so particularly. 
 
 Bo you think you could take a piece of old MS. and pro¬ 
 duce the red at the edge by wetting it ? It is no more than 
 conjecture. I am trying to recollect any old deeds. 
 
 Then you conjecture it might be the case? Yes; if the 
 ink was of a soft kind in an old genuine MS. it might pro¬ 
 duce the same effect as an ink made of the same composition 
 I have mentioned. 
 
 Suppose a MS. having damp flung on it, and the ink of a 
 soft kind, the same effect would be produced that is produced 
 here ? I should think so. 
 
 Mr John Smith. Interrogated by Mr Innes.—You are 
 of the company of Leith and Smith, lithographers ? I am. 
 
 You were employed to make a fac-simile from that map 
 before you, under the superintendence of Mr Mark Napier ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Bid you do any thing to injure the appearance, or texture, 
 or colour of the paper ? No; I applied no liquid to it at all. 
 
 Have you any idea of the process by which the blotchy 
 appearance of the writing in Mallet’s letter was produced ? 
 It must have been produced by some oily substance applied 
 to the paper. 
 
 2 T 
 
(68 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER 11UMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Does it appear to you to have required more than one 
 operation ? Two at least. 
 
 Explain your meaning? First, it has been traced with a 
 much thinner line than it has now; it has then either been 
 shaded with a liquid, or else the blotchy appearance arises from 
 the ink sinking in the paper. 
 
 Did you remark in some of the letters a double tracing ? 
 No; 
 
 Do you observe whether there are any of the writings sunk 
 in that map ? Both the letters of Mallet and Alexander are 
 shaded and sunk. 
 
 Is there any resemblance between the appearance of the ink 
 in both these letters ? They resemble each other a good deal 
 in the colour, but they are not exactly the same. There is a 
 reddish line through them both. 
 
 Pierre Francois Joseph Leguix. Interrogated in ini- 
 tialibus by Mr Robertson.—Did you get any thing to come 
 here to give evidence? Nothing whatever, merely my ex¬ 
 penses. 
 
 Have you been promised any thing ? Yes ; I was promised 
 a thousand francs a-month to come hither. 
 
 What have you actually got ? Five hundred francs—about 
 L.20. If I were to stay here a month, I was to receive a 
 thousand francs, and I have received seven hundred in the 
 whole. A hundred when I started from France, a hundred 
 when I came here, and five hundred besides, and my expenses 
 from Paris. 
 
 Have you got your expenses paid over and above the seven 
 hundred francs ? It is over and above. 
 
 What expenses ? The first time I came here I received 
 L.18 by the gentleman who was engaged to pay my expenses. 
 
 What have you got altogether, expenses and all ? When 
 I returned to Paris lately, I received L.18 for expenses to 
 take me back. 
 
 How much when you came away first ? Five hundred 
 francs. 
 
 What did you get next ? Nothing but my travelling ex¬ 
 penses. 
 
 How much was that? L.18, to return to Paris. 
 
 What did you get when you came over the second time ? 
 L.18. 
 
 Have your lodgings been paid here this time and last time ? 
 This time they have not been paid, but the first time they were. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 169 
 
 When did you make your first bargain ? About four 
 months ago. 
 
 What was it ? That I should receive, besides travelling 
 expenses, a thousand francs a-month. 
 
 Was it on that understanding that you came here first ? 
 Yes, it was. 
 
 What did you get to pay your expenses in coming over the 
 first time ? They were paid for me. 
 
 By whom ? I do not know; it was the gentleman with 
 whom I came over who paid the expenses the first time. 
 
 What is his name ? Monsieur Branchard. 
 
 With whom did you make the bargain of receiving a thou¬ 
 sand francs, over and above expenses? With Monsieur 
 Branchard. 
 
 What is he ? I do not know him ; he called several times 
 on me. 
 
 Mr Innes.—The bargain, my Lord, was to this effect, that 
 witness should have, from the time of his setting out from 
 Paris, L.40 a-month during his absence from France, and his 
 whole expenses. He found it necessary to return, and re¬ 
 ceived a sum to pay his expenses, and at Paris also he received 
 L.18; and, I believe, he has received these two sums, and five 
 hundred francs. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—What are you ? At one time I was a 
 printseller. 
 
 What are you now ? I sell gentlemen’s caps. 
 
 Did you make any new bargain when you came back the 
 second time ? No. 
 
 Do you hold that bargain to be still the bargain, a thousand 
 francs a-month ? Yes, it is. 
 
 How much more do you expect ? I do not know. 
 
 Have you a written agreement in your pocket ? Yes. 
 
 Where is it ? (Witness produced it.) 
 
 Is it stamped ? Yes. 
 
 The following engagement took place on 6th February, 
 1839. (It was read.) “ I do engage to set out with Mon¬ 
 sieur Branchard on Monday, the 11th of the present month, 
 or on one of the following days which he may please to fix, 
 to set out for Edinburgh, where I am to be a witness : the ex¬ 
 penses of the journey to go and come back are placed to the 
 account of Monsieur Branchard, and I shall receive an indem¬ 
 nification of a thousand francs, five hundred before starting, 
 which I acknowledge to have received, and the remaining five 
 hundred francs will be paid after the trial is over, before leaving 
 
170 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Edinburgh.—I, Eugene Branchard, adhere to the conditions 
 already expressed, to pay the travelling expenses going hack- 
 wards and forward, and to pay the sum of five hundred francs 
 before leaving Paris to Edinburgh.” This agreement was 
 attested by witnesses. 
 
 What is your annual income arising from business ? 
 
 The Court.—Stop; he is not bound to answer that. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—He may answer it if he chooses. 
 
 The Court.—The question is incompetent. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—If your Lordships rule it to be incom¬ 
 petent, of course I shall not put it. If it is one which he 
 may decline to answer, you may tell him so. I put the ques¬ 
 tion, What is the amount of his annual income ? 
 
 The Court.—Tell him as a witness, that the question that 
 is put to him he is not bound to answer unless he pleases. 
 Witness. My monthly receipt is about a thousand francs. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—What is your monthly profit ? My 
 monthly profit is from five to seven hundred francs, but 
 I cannot state precisely. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I object to his admissibility, on the ground 
 that he has received reward over and. above what he was en¬ 
 titled to receive. 
 
 The Court.—He has received nothing but what, in the cir¬ 
 cumstances of the case, he was entitled to. The person calling 
 upon him to leave his country, was bound to give him what 
 he demanded. His trade may suffer by his absence, and he 
 was by no means obliged to come. And not one penny more 
 than is proper has been given—that is the opinion of the Court. 
 I knew a gentleman at our bar that was taken over to Ireland 
 to give evidence, and he was paid a very large sum of 
 money. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I understand the law to be-. 
 
 The Court.—We have ruled. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Where is your place of business ? On the Quai 
 D’ Orsay. 
 
 Where was your first shop ? On the Quai Voltaire. 
 
 Do you remember, in the winter of 1836 or 1837, a 
 person coming frequently into your shop in search of maps ? 
 I do. 
 
 Did you understand of what country that person was ? 
 I think he was an Englishman. 
 
 What were the maps he sought for ? Maps of Canada. 
 
 For what length of time was he paying these visits to your 
 shop in search of maps ? Five or six" weeks. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 171 
 
 Did you sell or procure him several maps of Canada ? 1 sold 
 him several. Was there any particular date he wished to get? 
 Yes, 1703. ° 
 
 Did you sell him a map of 1703 ? I did. 
 
 ^ as that after a considerable search for it ? The last in¬ 
 quiry, or last search. 
 
 Did he come any more after getting that map ? No. 
 
 W as the map ol Canada of 1703 a coloured map that you 
 sold to him ? 1 cannot exactly tell. 
 
 Look at that map—was it similar to this ? It was similar 
 to this. 
 
 Was any writing on the back of it ? None. 
 
 Did the person say who he was, or how he wished the map ? 
 No; I remember there were several troubles in Canada at the 
 time; I was led to suppose the demand for the map was in con¬ 
 sequence of these troubles. He inquired for no other map 
 than 1703. That was his object. 
 
 Did the purchaser drive a hard bargain ? No. 
 
 You see the prisoner ? Yes. 
 
 Was it he ? No. , 
 
 What did he pay for the map ? About a franc and a half, 
 or fifteen pence, but not more. 
 
 What did he pay for the other maps ? I sold to the amount, 
 previous to that, of seven or eight francs to the same individual 
 who came so often to my house. 
 
 Hugues Francois Beaubis. Examined by Mr Anderson. 
 We are anxious to bring out a fact. Have you an agreement 
 in your pocket ? Yes. 
 
 Is it the same as that? (shewing the agreement of preceding 
 witness.) Yes. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—If the amount of remuneration, sufficient 
 for one man, be given, it by no means follows that the same 
 amount, given to another, is proper. Therefore, while I now 
 proceed with this examination, 1 wish to know his station and 
 condition of life, because a thousand francs may be applicable 
 to one, while it is not applicable to another. 
 
 What are you ? A shoemaker. 
 
 Have you a shop of your own, or are you a journeyman 
 shoemaker ? I work in my own room, on my own account. 
 My room is my shop. 
 
 How many rooms are there in the shop altogether P Room 
 and closet—bed-closet. 
 
 Where is it ? Rue des Canettes. 
 
172 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HtJMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Are you a porter to a large hotel ? I was at one time, but 
 not now. 
 
 Where P No. 5 Rue tie Tournon, Fauxbourg St Germain, 
 —a doorkeeper of a gentleman’s private house. 
 
 When did you leave that service? In the month of 
 November last. 
 
 What were your wages there ? 200 francs a-year. (L.8.) 
 
 Has your income improved since ? It has increased. 
 
 Were you bred a shoemaker originally ? Yes. 
 
 Mr I tines.—Did you work at your trade when you kept 
 that house ? I worked in my porter’s lodge. 
 
 Were there a number of families to whom you acted as 
 porter ? Several. 
 
 You had a porter’s lodge free ? Yes. 
 
 So that you had your lodge, your trade, and £.8 a-year ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you live in the porter’s lodge ? Yes, with my wife and 
 family. 
 
 Did you work in it ? I did. 
 
 What was the sum you first demanded for coming to Scot¬ 
 land ? 1000 francs in all. 
 
 For how long ? For a month. 
 
 And an allowance for the time afterwards ? Yes, at the 
 same rate. 
 
 What is the date of your agreement ? 6th February, 1839. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—You said your income had improved since 
 November; in what way, when you have no wages, and no 
 lodge to live in ? I can only live by my labour, and having 
 more time to exert myself, it is improved. 
 
 What profit did you make per month, in November, De¬ 
 cember, and January, till the beginning of February, after you 
 gave up the hotel ? It is impossible for me to calculate that, 
 
 •—one day it was more than another,—it has improved, because 
 I have more time, — I cannot tell the monthly profit arising 
 out of my labour. 
 
 Are you making 100 francs per month from your labour? 
 At times I do, and at another time much above that profit. 
 
 Has it ever reached 200 francs a month since November 
 last? Yes, indeed. 
 
 Have you had any higher, and how high ? I cannot tell, 
 but I have earned above 200 francs a-month. 
 
 Mr Anderson.—The objection above stated and overruled, 
 we are inclined to state again as an objection to the credibility 
 of this witness. The facts being now different from what was 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 173 
 
 before, we take the judgment of the Court on this case. The 
 facts are these, that this man had L.8 a-year before, now he 
 earns 200 francs at best per month, and what is now offered 
 to him is L.40 a-month, besides expenses; so that this indivi¬ 
 dual, who in November, in addition to his labour and lodge, 
 was making L.8 a-year, is, in addition to his whole expenses 
 of living and travelling, paid at the rate of L.480 a-year. Mr 
 Alison says, “ As every witness must, sooner or later, be paid 
 his travelling expenses for coming to the trial, it follows, that 
 he is not to be considered as disqualified, or even suspected, if 
 he has received a sum of money adequate, and not more than 
 adequate, for that purpose, either from any of the public autho¬ 
 rities, or the private party injured. Without doubt, the proper 
 party to apply to, in the event of the witness being so indigent 
 as to be unable to advance his own travelling charges, is the 
 Sheriff or the Procurator-fiscal of the county where he resides, 
 w ho are frequently in the practice of making such advances to 
 the poorer class of witnesses who have been cited for distant 
 trials, if they are really unable to find money to transport 
 themselves. Upon the same principle, there seems no abso¬ 
 lute objection to the private party or his agent making a 
 similar advance, provided it is really required, and no more is 
 advanced than is necessary to convey the witness to the place 
 of trial. Such a proceeding, however, from the suspicions to 
 which it is necessarily subject, and the abuses of which it may 
 be made the instrument, is extremely hazardous, and should 
 never be resorted to, except in cases of real necessity, and then 
 in the most open way, and with the greatest precaution against 
 any sinister purpose being understood so that you will see 
 that the law hitherto laid down is, that there shall be such a 
 sum paid to a witness as will be sufficient for the payment of 
 travelling expenses. Hume also lays it down in nearly the 
 same terms. Is this a reasonable remuneration ? This is 
 over and above the living and travelling expenses. It was 
 stated on the last occasion, by one of your Lordships, that the 
 witness was brought from abroad, from whence you have no 
 compulsitor to bring him. It may be unfortunate for the pro¬ 
 secutor that he has to deal with French witnesses; but the 
 interests of the prisoner are not to be interfered with. 
 
 The Lord Advocate. — I am inclined to leave the objection 
 entirely to your Lordships. The rule of law, properly speak¬ 
 ing, applies to a witness of this country. In that case, the 
 witness, in coming to attend Court, is only necessarily discharg¬ 
 ing a public duty; and although he is entitled to get his 
 
174 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 expenses, when he gets more there is ground for saying that it 
 might interrupt the evidence. We are engaged in no such 
 case, nor is any question before us of this sort. This is a 
 witness brought from France, who is not obliged to obey your 
 orders, and he is entitled to have such a reasonable allowance 
 made to him as will remunerate him on leaving his country 
 and his family. Here is a witness making 200 francs per 
 month of profit, who is a married man with a family. His 
 trade depends, of course, on his keeping his customers. The 
 question comes to be, whether, allowing him L.40 under the 
 circumstances, — leaving his family, and putting in peril his 
 trade,—whether that allowance is of such a large amount, con¬ 
 sidering that he is leaving his native country, and coming to 
 another country, the language of which he does not under¬ 
 stand, — whether that is an allowance that tends to corrupt 
 and destroy his evidence, is for your Lordships to say. I leave 
 the case in your Lordships’ hands, simply with this statement. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — The simple question is, whether we are 
 entitled to exclude; and we are bound to state our objection 
 to the Court. I understand this, from the preceding judg¬ 
 ment of the Court, to be a question of degree. This witness 
 is not a professional witness, — not like a professional man 
 going to Scotland or Ireland on professional matters; he is an 
 ordinary witness, called en to give evidence to occurrences, in 
 an individual capacity, not connected with his profession at all. 
 The question, then, is this: is there any amount of payment 
 that could exclude a witness coming from a foreign country ? 
 Here there is no extreme case. The question, then, is, has 
 there been given to him a reasonable compensation ? He was 
 a servant, a porter, and shoemaker, till the month of November 
 last, and his annual wages were L.8; and he states the largest 
 sum he could now earn, 200 francs a-month of profit, by his 
 trade,— that is, L.8 a-month ; he is now to receive under this 
 obligation, besides the whole payment of expenses, at the rate 
 of L.40 a-month. There is due under that obligation, or will 
 be due on the 6th day of May, L.120 sterling, for three 
 months of a man’s attendance, whose wages were L.8 a-year, 
 and whose profit in a month never exceeded 200 francs. So 
 he gets four times a-month the amount of his whole income, 
 besides all his expenses, and more than all his wages per annum 
 each month. The question is,- does not this amount to an 
 undue payment to this witness for coming here ? I say it is a 
 question of degree, and to a man in his condition, I say a pay¬ 
 ment of L. 140 sterling, besides farther sums due, is a greater 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 175 
 
 bribe than ten times, or twenty times, that to a man in a better 
 station; and if the case be not one of an ordinary witness 
 under ordinary circumstances, can there be the slightest doubt 
 that this would have cast him had he been in Great Britain ? 
 Does the circumstance of compulsitor or no compulsitor affect 
 the purity ot the witness put into the box; and let me remind 
 your Lordships, that the purity of our law is based on this, the 
 fear that the witness shall commit perjury. I know of nothing 
 that will tend more to the introduction of perjury than French 
 witnesses coming into the country to inundate our courts with 
 testimony, on receiving beyond what their brightest hopes ever 
 entitled them to expect. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff.—Do you maintain that any thing given to 
 foreign people beyond the mere expenses, is to be taken as a 
 general rule that we shall reject ? Mr Alison rests solely on 
 witnesses in this country. 
 
 Lord Mackenzie. — To lay down a rule that a foreign wit¬ 
 ness is to receive no payment at all except expenses, that would 
 be laying down such a rule that no witness would be brought 
 here at all. He would not come on such conditions without 
 expenses for loss and inconvenience. Therefore, it is abso¬ 
 lutely impossible that we can apply here the rule laid down in 
 Alison, nor is there the least reason that we should. It is 
 plain that it never could be a general rule. I cannot say that 
 the indemnification is of such a kind as to disqualify this wit¬ 
 ness. He has been earning about 200 francs of profit per 
 month—he has a family to look after—he is resident in Paris, 
 and knows nothing about Scotland, — and the question is, 
 whether an offer of 1000 francs for one month (and the trial 
 was delayed by an accident, and delayed on the application of 
 the prisoner,) is any thing unreasonable. I cannot see, and I 
 have no reason to think, that the public prosecutor had any 
 view whatever that was unfair in arranging upon such terms, 
 and I cannot see that the terms are so excessive as in any way 
 to affect the mind of this man. I cannot, however, lay down 
 the rule that you are to give any sum you please to a witness, 
 and why ? Because, if he gets an enormous sum, the inference 
 would be inevitable, that he had got it for some undue purpose. 
 If a witness were paid L. 10,000 for coming here to give evi¬ 
 dence, there would arise a suspicion from that, because it would 
 be doubted that so large a sum was necessary. But here the 
 sum is not of such a kind as to produce any doubt. The wit¬ 
 ness asked the sum, and would not take less. I do not know 
 but that most men in his situation would have done the same. 
 
176 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRY8, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 He leaves his family, — he undertakes the labour and hazard 
 of a journey, — and all the inconvenience and all the conse¬ 
 quences that result from his going from home, and the public 
 prosecutor is entitled to give him a proper remuneration. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff.—I am of the same opinion. The rule of 
 our law is important, and it would be very improper if any 
 thing should interfere with it. But if we are to take such 
 objections as these, the result would be, that we could never 
 try a question in this Court, if it is to depend on the testimony 
 of poor persons resident in a foreign country. Because they, 
 being under no compulsion to come here, may say, We will 
 not come unless you pay us a sum. that shall secure us against 
 any loss that we may suffer, amply and fully, either in our 
 trade or in the affairs of our family. And there is another 
 rule in our law as important as this; and that is a rule that 
 excludes ultroneous witnesses. I would think that man 
 worthy of suspicion if he had come here from France without 
 making any stipulation as to what he should receive; because, 
 not being liable to citation to this Court, if he came upon an 
 agreement with the prosecutor to support his cause without a 
 remuneration, I should infer, that there were some other 
 motives within his mind. But what is the case here ? There 
 is no case here of an indefinite bribe or promise of reward for 
 the evidence which the witness is to give. Here we have a 
 specific written agreement. The witness would not come 
 unless they entered into a specific agreement with him. Is it 
 not plain, then, that the inevitable consequence would be 
 that we could bring no foreign witnesses here if they were to 
 be denied an ample and full remuneration. There is no 
 unfair dealing here. The result is, an agreement which the 
 man insisted on, and that being entered on he agrees to come. 
 It would never do to say that he shall receive nothing more 
 than his bare expenses. I mentioned before the fact of a 
 friend who received a large sum for going to Ireland, and I 
 presume he would think twice before he would go to France, 
 and subject himself to the hazard of the voyage, and loss in 
 his profession here. And will not this rule apply to a poor 
 shoemaker living in Paris ? Is his testimony to be rejected, 
 because, before lie will leave his trade and his family, he 
 requires that there shall be a precise stipulation for loss of 
 business and for leaving his family ? We cannot measure 
 this unfairly. Beyond all doubt there may be a case of clear 
 excess, in which it is palpable that money is given for 
 influencing the man’s mind. If there were such a case here, 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 177 
 
 I would say that the witness was on no account to be received. 
 His trade is that of a shoemaker. He had the advantage to 
 be porter to a mansion, which he left to prosecute his business, 
 by which he earned a profit of about 200 francs per month. 
 He has been withdrawn from his business to come here, and 
 no doubt the money given to him is a great deal more than 
 his earnings would amount to; but I put it to the counsel, 
 
 Is he to receive no more than he made in his own room, for 
 leaving his family and his native country, to come to a 
 foreign land, to give evidence in a court of law ? I ask, if a 
 witness could be obtained in any case on such a stipulation ? 
 The public prosecutor gives him 1000 francs for a month; and 
 he thinks that would be all he would require to give him. 
 And it would have been all if the motion for delay had not 
 been made ; but delay was craved and given, — craved on the 
 part of the prisoner; and then the objection is taken, that he 
 shall not be a creditable witness, because he may demand a 
 certain remuneration for the time he has been here. A case 
 w'ould never be tried, in which it was necessary to bring 
 foreign witnesses to this country, if such a rule were to be laid 
 down. I am clearly of opinion, that this witness ought to be 
 received. If the prisoner’s counsel thinks it hurts his credit 
 as a witness, they may make of it what they think proper. 
 To my mind it makes no difference as to the credibility of the 
 witness. 
 
 Lord Cockburn. — I concur in the opinions that have been 
 expressed, and I have little to add. The question is not 
 before us on the credit but on the admissibility of the witness. 
 The credit of the witness would be far worse with me if he 
 came without ample remuneration and a proper agreement. 
 Nothing is to be done that corrupts, or tends to corrupt, or 
 discloses an intention to corrupt; because if there was a design, 
 or the appearance of design, the witness could not be admitted. 
 But is there any thing in the facts here to shew either the one 
 or the other ? Looking at the facts of this case, I am not 
 convinced, because this man has made a good bargain, (and 
 I am not satisfied that he has made a good bargain; on the 
 contrary, had any judicious friend made an arrangement for 
 him, he would have secured for him a larger amount,)—I am 
 not convinced, I say, that because this man has made what 
 may be thought a good bargain, that his evidence is to be 
 inadmissible. I do not think he has made a good bargain. 
 The question is not, whether the witness makes an unprin¬ 
 cipled demand. I will concede, for argument’s sake, that he * 
 
178 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 has been unreasonable; but is it unreasonable in the party 
 who is in his mercy to comply with that demand. . A prisoner 
 at the bar says he is innocent; witnesses from abroad will not 
 stir a step, and how then is the guilt of the criminal to be 
 proved. The prosecutor can only overcome that repugnance 
 to leaving one’s native country and family which is quite 
 natural, by giving them a certain sum of money that will 
 satisfy their demands, and is not unreasonable. Is a man’s 
 life to be put in jeopardy, who may have witnesses to prove 
 his innocence, by laying down a rule that the witness is not 
 to get a remuneration which he demands, and is entitled to 
 have. I repeat again, that his demand is not so outrageously 
 great as to tend in the least degree to improper evidence. 
 The witness is as free to speak here as any man alive. He 
 has got a regular bargain in his pocket; and he is as indepen¬ 
 dent of the Lord Advocate as the Lord Advocate is of 
 him. 
 
 Lord Meadowbank.—I am perfectly of the same opinion. 
 
 Witness was then recalled. 
 
 You were porter at the house Rue de Tournon ? Yes. 
 
 Was Mademoiselle Le Normand one of the number residing 
 there ? Yes. 
 
 It was your duty to open the door to any one coming to 
 visit the residenters ? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember in the winter and spring 1836 and 1837, 
 an Englishman coming to visit Mademoiselle Le Normand ? 
 Frequently. 
 
 What name did the person go by among the servants of 
 the house ? The Englishman. 
 
 . Is that the person ? (pointing to the prisoner.) Yes, sir. 
 
 At what time of day or night did he use to come ? He 
 generally came at eight o’clock at night. 
 
 Did he use to stay a considerable time ? The gentleman 
 used to come and stay from eight till ten, which was the hour 
 I usually left the house. 
 
 When he did not go in did he sometimes leave letters at 
 the door P He used to give me a letter, desiring me to give 
 it to Mademoiselle Le Normand. 
 
 You say that this person came often, what do you mean by 
 coming often ? He came about eight o’clock almost every 
 evening. 
 
 How long do you think this continued ? During the space 
 of seven or eight months. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 179 
 
 At what season of the year did the visits begin, and when 
 did they end ? I saw the person in winter and in summer. 
 
 Do you remember, some short time after his visits stopped, 
 of a young man coming about the house said to be his son ? 
 Yes. 
 
 IIow long after might it be that the young man came about 
 the house ? It was about the month of October and Novem¬ 
 ber that the son began to come. 
 
 How long after the father’s visits stopped did the son’s 
 visits begin ? Perhaps three weeks or a month. 
 
 What profession was Mademoiselle Le Normand ? A for¬ 
 tune teller on the cards,—a drawer of cards. 
 
 Did she make her living by that ? She did. 
 
 Has she a sign as a bookseller ? Yes. 
 
 Did she carry on any trade as a bookseller ? No. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Robertson.—What are the words 
 of the sign ? Libraire de Mademoiselle Le Normand. 
 
 Are the words “ Auteur-Libraire” on the door? Yes. 
 
 Is there written below on the sign, “ Bureau de Correspon- 
 dance?” Yes, on the sign, and on her own door. 
 
 Tell us at what time the visits of the prisoner began ? I 
 cannot tell about the beginning, but I can tell about the end, 
 and that was nearly about the end of November. 
 
 The Court.—You said the son came in October or Novem¬ 
 ber ; how is this reconcileable ? A secession in the visits took 
 place in October or November. 
 
 And had it been for the eight months preceding that, that 
 these visits had been going on ? Almost every day preceding 
 the October or November. 
 
 Were they chiefly in the evenings ? Yes. 
 
 The Lord Advocate.—There are two persons at the bar, 
 which of them is the person who visited Mademoiselle Le 
 Normand? (Witness identified the prisoner.) 
 
 Did you know where the prisoner resided ? I did not. 
 
 You "never were charged with any letter to carry to the 
 prisoner ? Never. 
 
 A Juryman.—Seeing the prisoner called so often on Made¬ 
 moiselle Le Normand, did it never strike the witness what his 
 object was in calling on her ? 
 
 The Court.—The question is, Do you know the cause of 
 his visiting her ? No. 
 
 Juryman.—Did these frequent visits not strike you as sin¬ 
 gular? No, it did not concern me. 
 
 & Did other Englishmen call on her ? No. 
 
]80 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Did other male visiters call frequently on her ? No. 
 Lord Advocate.—How old is she? 75. 
 
 The Court adjourned at half-past seven, p.m. 
 
 THIRD DAY. 
 
 i 
 
 Wednesday, May 1, 1839. 
 
 THE COURT MET AT A QUARTER TO TEN O'CLOCK. 
 
 Mr W. H. Lizars, being called, with the approbation of 
 the prisoner’s counsel, was sent by the Court to the robing 
 room to separate the copy inscription on the tomb-stone 
 from the back of the map of Canada, which he was instructed 
 by the Court to do with the utmost care, so as to injure 
 neither the map nor the document to be operated upon. 
 
 Dr Fyfe. Interrogated by Mr Innes.—Have you made 
 your experiment on that portion of the paper given to you, 
 from the excerpt libelled, for that purpose ? Yes; and the 
 result is, that I detected in the paper a considerable quantity 
 of brown colouring matter, and upon some parts of the same 
 paper more of it than on others. 
 
 What is the colouring matter ? It seems to be vegetable, 
 or animal—organic matter. 
 
 Did you come to any other result ? Yes; there is also some 
 uncombined acid in the paper. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Is the paper destroyed ? Yes, it is boiled 
 down. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—The paper was boiled ? Yes, in a solu¬ 
 tion, to extract the colouring matter. 
 
 Court.—What acid did you detect in the paper ? Common 
 sulphuric acid. 
 
 Can you say that this brown matter is different from what 
 is found in old coloured paper ? It seems to be different from 
 paper discoloured by exposure. 
 
 Is sulphuric acid used for the obliteration of ink in paper ? 
 It may be; but other acids are more frequently employed. 
 
 1 suppose there is no formation of sulphuric acid in paper 
 merely from age ? I am not aware of it. 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 181 
 
 Mr Innes.—Was the colouring matter found in the paper 
 of the same nature with that which you detected in the out¬ 
 side ? Yes; it sterns to be of the same nature. 
 
 A Juryman.—In the process of bleaching, is sulphuric acid 
 ever used ? Yes. 
 
 Then suppose the paper to be made of rags, might not the 
 sulphuric acid employed in the process of bleaching remain in 
 the paper? In the process of converting the rags into the 
 paper the acid would be washed away. Then, diluted oil of 
 vitriol is used in the process of bleaching, but it is not used in 
 the manufacture of paper. 
 
 It is used in the bleaching of clothes, and rags are used to 
 make paper, will not a part of the acid remain in the paper ? 
 After the bleaching, a great part of it is washed away, and 
 were any remaining it would be washed away in the process of 
 converting the rags into paper. 
 
 The Court.—Can you say that any part of the oil of vitriol 
 could be derived from the rags from which it is made ? No; 
 the rags are washed in a stream of water, to carry away every 
 excess of acid; and I do not think that there could be any 
 presence of sulphuric acid in the paper. 
 
 Considering the washing in the first instance, and the pulp¬ 
 ing of the rags in the second, do you think there could 
 remain any of the acid in the paper ? I should have consi¬ 
 dered it next to an impossibility. 
 
 This is paper apparently of an ancient date; you have read 
 accounts of paper making of an ancient date ; and have you 
 met with any instances of sulphuric acid being used in the 
 manufacture of ancient paper ? I am not aware of sulphuric 
 acid being used in the manufacture of old paper, in the 
 accounts of it which I have read, and I have read of it gene¬ 
 rally. 
 
 Have you any notion of any use to which sulphuric acid 
 could be applied in the manufacture of paper? No. 
 
 Juryman.—Rags, from which paper is made, often come 
 from abroad, and are in a dirty state, and prior to being used, 
 must undergo the process of cleaning; do you know whether 
 sulphuric acid is used in the process of cleaning ? I never 
 saw it used. 
 
 In regard to the colouring matter,—suppose the colouring 
 to be in the paper before the acid that has been found in the 
 paper, would the acid have affected the colouring matter ? It 
 might; but it would depend entirely on the nature of the 
 colouring matter. 
 
182 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Would the oil of vitriol affect the colour, if applied to it 
 now ? It may be so very weak as not to affect it. Oil of 
 vitriol does affect the substance of the colouring matter in the 
 paper when it is strong; it darkens the colouring matter,,and 
 of course makes the paper darker. 
 
 Could the colour of the document have been imparted to it 
 by peat smoke ? I can speak of coal smoke, but I cannot 
 speak particularly of peat smoke. 
 
 I wish to know if you think it would affect the paper in 
 that way ? It would not affect paper as that paper has been 
 affected; for that paper is different in different parts. It 
 would have been of a uniform colour if it had been operated 
 upon by smoke. Peat smoke, in its general character, is not 
 different from smoke from other substances, and not liable to 
 be acted on by chemical agents. 
 
 Do you think the exposure of that document to damp 
 or to the fumes of burning sulphur, would leave the colouring 
 matter in it ? Not at all. 
 
 Would it leave any other acid, if the paper had been 
 exposed to the fumes of burning sulphur ? It would not 
 leave a free acid; it would absorb some small quantity of 
 the sulphur; but the sulphur, distinctly speaking, has not 
 the distinctive character of an acid. 
 
 The Court.—Would it leave any such acid as you detected 
 in the paper ? None such. 
 
 Dr Madden. Interrogated by Mr Innes.—You were 
 directed to take charge of a piece of paper taken from this 
 excerpt to make some chemical experiments upon it ? Yes. 
 
 State the result. I found very little difference in that 
 paper from other old paper apparently of the same age. 
 
 Did you find proof of the existence of any colouring matter 
 in it ? Yes ; apparently vegetable. 
 
 Did you detect any quantity of uncomLined acid in it ? It 
 did give the indication of uncombined acid. I found sul¬ 
 phuric acid in the paper. 
 
 Would it have the effect of making the colouring more 
 effectual in the paper ? Not that I am aware of. 
 
 The Court.—By effectual, you mean that it would make 
 it darker? It might.do so in some cases; but I think not. 
 
 You said you did find a material difference between this 
 and other old paper; do you find colouring matter of the 
 same kind in other old papers ? The leaves of old books con¬ 
 tain equally as much colouring matter as that paper. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 183 
 
 y found sulphuric acid in that paper, and sulphuric 
 acid in other old paper ? Yes. 
 
 Was there a difference in the nature of the colouring 
 matter in the old paper that you tried, and that which you 
 got from the Court ■ I saw no chemical difference in the 
 colouring matter. 
 
 Had you applied the same tests to other old paper ? Pre¬ 
 cisely the same. 
 
 Juryman.—W ould peat smoke give it its present colour ? 
 
 I am not prepared to answer that. I never saw it tried. 
 
 Do you think it might ? It possibly might, and it might 
 not. " ° 
 
 By Solicitor General.—Explain the process you followed. 
 
 I first used the ordinary tests, and found that all papers are 
 pretty nearly the same. I tried bleaching, and found it easier 
 than in some old papers, and not so easy as in others. I 
 macerated it, and boiled it, and satisfied myself by the usual 
 tests. 
 
 James Watson. Interrogated by Mr Innes.—You are 
 sheriff clerk for the county ? I am. 
 
 \ ou are aware that a warrant was granted by the sheriff to 
 search for documents in the prisoner’s house immediately after 
 his apprehension ? Yes. 
 
 Did you go in person to see it executed ? I did. 
 
 Did you obtain the prisoner’s keys ? I found him in the 
 dining room at breakfast. 
 
 What day ? 14th February. 
 
 Had you authority to get his keys ? One of the party, I 
 think, had authority to get them. I got certain keys from 
 the prisoner’s wife and from his sons, and opened some of the 
 drawers, and a portable writing desk, and some other lockfast 
 places, and found some papers in them which I carried away. 
 
 Are these the papers ? (From 40 to 53 of productions, 
 being a correspondence between Mad. Le Normand anil the 
 Earl and Countess of Stirling, from 17th October, 1838, to 
 4th February, 1839, inclusive.) 
 
 The Court.—Such of them as you found upon you must 
 read. 
 
 Mr Innes.—You saw markings in red ink on them ? Yes, 
 numbers. 
 
 Look at No. 40, a paper entitled, “ Translation of M eUe 
 Le Normand’s letter to the Earl of Stirling, dated 17th Oc¬ 
 tober, 1838,” (No. 40 of Productions.) Look at 41. (The 
 
 2 u 
 
184 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 papers were shewn in succession to the witness, who identified 
 the whole of them.) 
 
 Mr Robertson. — I admit that these are all the documents 
 founded on. 
 
 Mr Lizars was then called, and brought the copy inscription 
 from the tombstone, which he detached safely from the map. 
 
 The Court.—You applied moisture to the back of the map, 
 and took off this document ? Yes. 
 
 It is written on the portion of a map; look at the back and 
 see if you observe the words “ du Roi” there ? I do. 
 
 What are the other letters before “ du Roi?” They 
 appear to be ier. 
 
 Mr Innes. — There is a long writing on the map beneath 
 where this paper was pasted. 
 
 The Court. — There seems to be a document there pasted 
 on the map, and you found that under the inscription ? Yes, 
 the moment I took the inscription off I observed it. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Have you any observations to make on the ink 
 in which the tombstone inscription is written? It is a red 
 coloured ink. 
 
 Solicitor-General.—I propose this be translated. 
 
 The Court to the Jury.— Gentlemen, the paper found 
 under the inscription bearing to be taken from a tombstone 
 at Newtonards is about to be translated. 
 
 Mr Innes. — It is to the following effect: “ They have 
 shewn me a letter of Fenelon, written in 1698, in which there 
 is mention of a grandson of the Lord Stirling, who was that 
 year in France. This is the way in which he expresses him¬ 
 self on that subject: ‘ I charge you to see this amiable and 
 good Irishman, Mr John Alexander, of whom I made 
 acquaintance some years ago. Madame de Lambert will 
 present him to you. He is a man whom all admire, and who 
 has been in the best society/ S. P.” 
 
 To the Witness. — Comparing the ink of that writing now 
 discovered on the map, with the ink of the other documents, 
 or the other parts of the sheet, does it occur to you that it 
 resembles the ink in which the letter of John Alexander is 
 written ? I cannot see any resemblance. 
 
 Do you not see some reddish appearance about it ? Yes, 
 there is a reddish appearance, and there is a good deal of 
 resemblance in the hand-writing, but I should like to examine 
 it more particularly before I give an opinion. 
 
 The Court.—You can be shut up if you please to examine it. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — I have not the least objections to Mr 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 185 
 
 Lizars doing any thing he likes with the paper. I have the 
 most perfect confidence in him. 
 
 Mr Lizars then retired to examine the documents. 
 
 Mr Innes to the Jury. — Gentlemen, there was read to 
 you yesterday, a minute given in explanatory of the way in 
 which the documents proposed by the pannel to be taken in 
 evidence in his action against the Officers of State had come 
 into his possession. He afterwards gave in a specific conde¬ 
 scendence in regard to them. The Lord Advocate moved 
 that the prisoner should be examined before the Court, which 
 was accordingly ordered, and it took place in the Second 
 Division. The following declaration* was then emitted by 
 the prisoner. (The declaration was then read by the Clerk 
 of Court ) 
 
 The translation of the letter libelled on in the indictment, 
 (p. 24,) said to be left in the cabinet of Le Normand on 11th 
 July, 1837, referred to in the judicial declaration, and pro¬ 
 duced in consequence, was then read. Then two letters from 
 his son, Eugene Alexander, conveying to him intelligence of 
 the discovery of the English documents, (part of No. 4 of 
 Inventory of Productions,) then interlocutor pronounced by 
 their Lordships of the Second Division, and report, and 
 supplemental report of Mr Thomson, 3d January, and 28th 
 February, 1839,-f* were read. 
 
 The Court to the Jury. — In regard to Mr Thomson’s 
 report, you have nothing to consider but this, that such a 
 report was made to the Court. It may be true or false for 
 aught we know. It is proper to explain to the Jury, that the 
 letter sent by Eugene Alexander to his father, at Paris, with 
 the intelligence of the discovery of the English documents, 
 bears to be charged single postage in England, but double in 
 France. 
 
 Mr Lizars now returned. Interrogated by Mr Innes.— 
 What is the result of your examination of the hand-writing 
 of the paper found below the tombstone inscription P My first 
 impression is not strengthened by the examination. 
 
 The Court.—That is to say, that you are not of opinion 
 that there is reason to think the two hand-writings are the 
 same. Have you any other remarks to make ? I still think 
 that any damp substance might produce what I stated yester¬ 
 day. I tried the experiment of damping, and succeeded, 
 
 * Appendix to Introduction, p. xcv. 
 f Appendix to Introduction, pp. civ—cix. 
 
18G TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 which confirmed me in my former opinion. I found that the 
 ink could be washed off if it was not indelible. 
 
 Solicitor-General. — Look at the date 1723, on the margin 
 of that tombstone inscription, and read the connecting words? 
 “ Stratford-on-Avon, October 6, 1723.” Examine particu¬ 
 larly the number 7 ? It has been another figure, but I cannot 
 say particularly what figure it has been. 
 
 Do you not see a curvature about the middle of the figure, 
 as if it had been the figure 8? Yes, I do; but not so very 
 distinctly as to enable me to say that it was an 8. It might be 
 any curved figure. It might have been 2, 5, 6, 8, or 3. It 
 is evidently a mistake corrected. 
 
 Has it been an erasure? No; it has been superinduced; 
 just dried up with the finger or a bit of blotsheet, and cor¬ 
 rected. 
 
 The Court. — Look at it again : are you sure that it is just 
 a blot, and that the seven has been written over it? Yes, I 
 think decidedly that it has been another figure. 
 
 The whole letters of Le Normand to the Earl and Coun¬ 
 tess of Stirling were then read. (Pages 62 to 83 inclusive.) 
 
 Mr Innes. — I trust my learned friend will allow an inac¬ 
 curacy in the translation of the letter of 8th January, 1839, 
 to be amended. It is in reference to the man on the quay, 
 (e when asked if he would recognize him, I think so.” Now, 
 the words in the original are of importance. “ On lui a dit, 
 le reconnaitrez vous ? je le crois the question is, should the 
 translation be “ would” or “ could?” 
 
 Mr Robertson. — Give us both; I have no objection to 
 either. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Then I read it “ could.” 
 
 The extract from the deed under private sign manual, 
 between Le Normand and the Earl of Stirling, (No. 53 of 
 Inventory of Productions,) was then read, and an extract 
 Apprising Robert Keith against Janet Alexander* was put in. 
 
 John Tyrrell. Interrogated by Mr Innes.—State your 
 profession ? 1 am at present a general agent in London. 
 
 Were you formerly acquainted with the prisoner? Yes, I 
 became first acquainted with him in October, 1829. 
 
 Where was he then living ? In Jermyn Street, Regent 
 Street. 
 
 What were his circumstances in regard to pecuniary affairs ? 
 Very bad. 
 
 * Appendix to Introduction, p. xiv. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 187 
 
 Was he in great distress for money ? He told me so. 
 
 Do you remember particularly if he was unable to pay his 
 lodgings ? He was not; and he informed me that his butcher’s 
 bill at Worcester was unpaid; and 1 understood that his 
 family were in great distress at Worcester. 
 
 Did he tell you how he was employed after his return from 
 France ? I scarcely know how he was employed, excepting 
 for a short time before I became acquainted with him. 
 
 How was that? In endeavouring to raise money to carry 
 )n his cause, and for the support of his family. 
 
 Did you learn that previously to this he had been a bank¬ 
 rupt? I did not learn that from himself. 
 
 For what did he seek your acquaintance ? I was introduced 
 to him by another person, for the purpose of raising money 
 upon his bond — a person of the name of Morant. 
 
 What did he represent to you in regard to his affairs and 
 prospects ? He stated his prospects were very great in regal’d 
 to his claim and title, and he required a sum of money to 
 complete them. 
 
 What claim ? It was, as I understood, to take possession 
 of the lands in the state of Maine. He required to send an 
 agent there to take possession, and to prosecute his claim 
 here. 
 
 Did he say whether he had made good his claim to the 
 lands in Maine ? Certainly. 
 
 Did he say to what extent ? Very large, enormous; I 
 think eleven millions of acres altogether. The substance was, 
 that Mr Banks was out, and ascertained that he had these 
 lands, and he only required to send a person to take posses¬ 
 sion ; that part of the lands was occupied, and part not, and 
 that the occupiers were to give a quarter of a dollar per head 
 per acre, to be confirmed in their titles. 
 
 Did he say they were ready to pay that? 
 
 Mr Robertson.—The prisoner said that they were ready to 
 pay, as he understood from Banks ? I understood it from 
 both. 
 
 Did he say any thing as to the unoccupied portion of lands ? 
 It was stated to me that he was entitled to the whole. 
 
 The Court to the witness. — Observe that what is said by 
 another, unless in the prisoner’s presence, is no evidence. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Did you hear from the prisoner, or any per¬ 
 son in his presence, that he had an undoubted claim to those 
 possessions ? I understood it from himself. 
 
188 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Did he say any thing in regard to his Scotch estates, and 
 his right to them ? Certainly. 
 
 What did he give you to understand ? That if he had 
 money to prosecute his claim in Scotland, he would obtain 
 possession of Gartmore, and Tulliebodie, and Tullicoultry, 
 and Menstrie. 
 
 Did you agree to endeavour to raise money for him ? I 
 did. 
 
 How did you set about it ? By shewing Lord Stirling’s 
 claims, and that he would probably come into possession, as I 
 was instructed by himself. 
 
 A Juryman.—Did he say “ probably ?” Yes. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Did you effect several loans for him ? I nego- 
 ciated several transactions upon which he obtained money. 
 
 Do you remember the sum he obtained from Mr Ward ? 
 L. 10,000 was the sum agreed for. 
 
 Was that agreed for on the representations you made as to 
 his prospects in this matter? Mr Ward agreed to give the 
 money, and I assisted in the transaction. I had better shew 
 the commencement of the money lodged at the bankers. 
 Here is my book. 
 
 Mr Anderson.—If he read from that book, we are entitled 
 to look at it. Whether he applies to notes made at the time, 
 or to a book kept at the time, we are entitled to see them for 
 the purpose of cross-interrogation. 
 
 Witness.—I have not the slightest objection to let the book 
 be seen. 
 
 Solicitor-General.—I by no means admit the doctrine of 
 my learned friend, but it is time enough to discuss it when it 
 comes before us. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Was the money paid to the prisoner, or to his 
 bankers ? Accounts were opened with the Messrs Whitmore, 
 bankers in Lombard Street. 
 
 The witness read from his memorandum book, to the effect 
 that L.4000, to the credit of the prisoner, were discounted by 
 the Messrs Whitmore on Mr Ward’s security in February, 
 1830. The bill was drawn at twelve months on the 19th 
 January. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I do not know what my learned friend 
 wishes. The witness cannot read from his memorandum 
 book. I am making no insinuation against the book, but we 
 are here on a criminal trial, and bound to watch every thing. 
 I stop the witness from reading from his book. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Well, did he afterwards procure more money 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 189 
 
 on the same security ? I believe so; Lord Stirling and Mr 
 Ward had many interviews together. 
 
 You know the transaction which was made for L. 10,000, 
 and you know that a part of it was paid to account of the 
 prisoner ? Certainly. 
 
 How long were you doing business in this way for the 
 prisoner? From October, 1829, till February, 1831,— 
 about a year and a half. 
 
 Did you make many transactions for his behalf during that 
 time ? Several. 
 
 Can you give a rough guess of the amount of money you 
 raised on his bonds at the time ? I cannot say that. Pro¬ 
 perty was purchased on these bonds. A number of valuable 
 paintings were purchased, and the greater part of them were 
 lodged for Mr Ward’s collateral security. 
 
 Do you remember paintings being purchased on his bonds, 
 and sold immediately? Some were sold immediately by 
 auction to raise money. 
 
 The bonds were granted by the prisoner ? Yes. 
 
 And paintings were purchased with the bonds, and some 
 were kept for security to Mr Ward, and others were imme¬ 
 diately sold by auction to raise money. Is that your state¬ 
 ment ? Yes. 
 
 Can you give us some idea of the amount you raised for 
 the prisoner during the eighteen months of your acquain¬ 
 tance with him ? I should suppose altogether about L. 13,000, 
 including Mr Ward’s L.10,000. 
 
 That is the l'eal sum of money he got ? That went through 
 my hands. 
 
 In cash ? I cannot say. 
 
 But was he benefited to the extent of L. 13,000 ? I should 
 say so. 
 
 Can you tell us the nominal amount of bonds for which 
 pictures were purchased ? First, there were L.3000 in bonds 
 to Mr Philippard, L.2200 in bonds to Mr Chetwynd, 
 L.5000 to George Pennel, L.15,180 to the same, L.14,478 to 
 William Lambert Brandt. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—That is about L.50,000 in bonds, and 
 L. 13,000 in money got for them. 
 
 Mr Innes.—Do you remember his leaving London after his 
 getting some of the money, and going back to Worcester ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And after a lapse of time he returned to London ? Yes. 
 About April or June, 1830, he returned to London. 
 
190 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Did he then bring his family with him ? Yes. 
 
 Where did he live first? In Upper Berkeley Street. 
 He afterwards went to Baker Street to a larger and finer 
 house. 
 
 Did he continue to live in London so long as you were 
 acquainted with him ? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember Mr Philippard obtaining some honour 
 from him ? Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Do you know, by some conversation with the prisoner, that 
 Philippard was a baronet? No. 
 
 Have you heard of his making Banks a baronet? Not 
 from himself. 
 
 Have you heard from himself that he had the power to 
 make baronets? Yes. 
 
 Did he say he had exercised it ? Not to me. 
 
 Do you remember any proposal made in your company of 
 selling patents of baronetcy ? Not in my presence. 
 
 Did you see Banks frequently with him ? Yes. 
 
 In these money transactions, was Banks quite in his con¬ 
 fidence ? He appeared to be so. 
 
 But the prisoner transacted with you personally ? He did. 
 
 Did you ever observe any symptoms of concealment from 
 Banks? I was desired by the principal not to communicate 
 to Banks all the particulars of the money transactions. 
 
 Do you happen ever to have heard the prisoner speak of 
 Mademoiselle Le Normand in Paris? Yes. 
 
 What did he tell you regarding her? That she told his 
 fortune. 
 
 What did he say as to her telling his fortune ? She told 
 him, he said, that he should succeed in his endeavours to 
 obtain all his property in Scotland and in America ultimately. 
 
 When was this? About the end of 1829, or the beffinnincr 
 of 1830. 
 
 Having your acquaintance with him these eighteen months, 
 do you believe you were consulted in all his money matters ? 
 At the commencement I was certainly. 
 
 Did he receive, to your knowledge, any money from Le 
 Normand ? He never told me so. 
 
 In speaking of his embarrassments, did he say he was 
 indebted to her for any sum ? No. 
 
 Do you know whether he corresponded with her ? Not to 
 my knowledge. 
 
 I suppose when in Baker Street he lived in good style? 
 \es; he kept his carriage. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 191 
 
 What name did he go by in Baker Street ? The Earl of 
 Stirling. 
 
 Do you remember any transaction to purchase plate for his 
 house P No. 
 
 Did he buy plate to a large amount? Not to my know¬ 
 ledge. 
 
 From the transactions that you carried through for him, 
 what was your opinion of his abilities ? I thought that he 
 was a very clever man. 
 
 Did he shew many resources and much skill in raising 
 money ? I cannot speak of that. He left that to his agents. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Robertson.—Was the communica¬ 
 tion he made to you, about Le Normand telling his fortune, 
 in jest or earnest ? I thought it was in perfect earnest. I 
 thought he believed the prediction. 
 
 Was it by skill in divination, or by cutting cards ? I do 
 not know. She told to him his fortune, as she had done to 
 many others. 
 
 Who introduced you to Lord Stirling ? Mr Morant. 
 
 Was it not Sir Henry Digby ? No; I introduced Sir 
 Henry to the prisoner. 
 
 Did Sir Henry lend him money ? He certainly did. 
 
 The Court.—He is an admiral ? Yes. 
 
 How did your acquaintance with the prisoner come to 
 cease ? I suppose he thought that others could do better for 
 him. 
 
 Did you give up ? No; it took place on part of the 
 prisoner. 
 
 During this time, did he ever mention to you that he was 
 possessed of a charter ? Certainly ; a charter of novodamus 
 granted to his ancestor, of lands in Canada and the United 
 States, and that was the foundation of the title which he was 
 holding out to the public as a security for money. 
 
 Did he tell you how he got it ? No ; but in my communi¬ 
 cation with him I was led to believe that it had been recovered 
 in Ireland. 
 
 Did he mention any other documents that he had recovered ? 
 Not in my hearing. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Do you recollect whether Mr James Wilson 
 of Lincoln’s Inn was consulted by him ? He was. 
 
 Mr Innes. — Did you understand from him that the 
 charter he spoke of was an original or the copy of a charter ? 
 I certainly understood, at the beginning, that it was the 
 original. 
 
192 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Were you undeceived as to that? I was, about the 
 commencement of 1831. 
 
 In these transactions, when people were advancing money 
 and you were introducing them, did you call for the charter ? 
 I was shewn a written statement by Banks, but he produced 
 no title. I referred to Mr Banks. 
 
 Juryman.—In borrowing money, do you mean to say that 
 it was to prosecute his claim on the lands of America or the 
 property in Scotland ? The American property was not 
 settled at the time. 
 
 The Court.—When the application was made to him, w ? as 
 it represented that the claim to land in Maine was settled ? 
 Yes; but in regard to the estates in Scotland and the lands in 
 Canada they remained still unsettled. 
 
 Juryman.—I wish to know whether, in these bond transac¬ 
 tions, part was paid in money and part in pictures ? A small 
 part was advanced in money on the pictures; the most valuable 
 part of the pictures is still lodged in security. 
 
 Do you negociate loans ? Yes. 
 
 Is it not the custom in London for persons negociating 
 loans on hazardous transactions, not being allowed a high 
 interest, to take goods? O yes. 
 
 Were some of these pictures not given on that considera¬ 
 tion ? No. 
 
 The pannel’s declarations before the Sheriff of Edinburgh 
 (pages 86—93) were then read. So also were Nos. 26 and 27 
 of the Inventory of Productions. Spottiswood’s History of the 
 Church of Scotland, Crawfurd’s Lives of the Officers of State, 
 and other relative documents, were then put in evidence. 
 
 Here terminated the proof for the Crown. 
 
 CASE FOR THE PANNEL. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—My Lords, I think it right to state to the 
 Court that the first witness I propose to call is a gentleman to 
 prove the handwriting of Thomas Conyers. If you look at 
 Lord Cockburn’s note, which has been read to the Jury, you 
 will find reference made to an affidavit of a Henry Hovenden ; 
 subjoined to that affidavit, in the civil process, you will see a 
 certain writing (I shall not read it at present to the Jury) 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 193 
 
 bearing to be an attestation that the written affidavit is true;* 
 and then he goes on to make the same attestation about the 
 charter libelled on. That document is produced by the Crown 
 as one of the documents to be used in evidence in this case. 
 
 I am aware that it is not read as evidence, but produced and 
 libelled on. Then there is produced by the Crown, as evi¬ 
 dence, and read, Lord Cockburn’s note; now, that note con¬ 
 tains comments upon the paper to which this attestation of 
 Conyer’s is subjoined, in what is called Hovenden’s affidavit. 
 At the time these comments were made there was no evidence 
 that the name of Thomas Conyers was a genuine subscription. 
 It might have had an effect on his Lordship’s mind, and it 
 icill have an effect on the mind of those who look at this docu¬ 
 ment. I, therefore, am entitled to read (having proved the 
 handwriting) that affidavit from Conyers. I do not say that 
 it proves the truth of the affidavit; no affidavit proves itself, 
 but I say it proves that a person now dead, a hundred years 
 ago, set his hand and writing to a paper, existing a hundred 
 years ago, which gives an account of the charter libelled. 
 
 The Court.—Are there two signatures of Conyers ? 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Yes; what 1 propose to prove is Conyers’ 
 handwriting, and the attestation by Conyers. 
 
 The Solicitor-General objected.—The document was not 
 produced in evidence, and no use had been made of it on the 
 part of the Crown. The other party could only take it on its 
 admissibility, if it were admissible. If it had been a genuine 
 document there must have been means of proving it. He did 
 not admit Hovenden’s signature; and with regard to Conyers, 
 who bore testimony to the truth of the statement in the affi¬ 
 davit, unless they proved the document they were not entitled 
 to have what they demanded at all. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—There are two grounds on which I am 
 entitled to read this. Let it be understood, I have not pro¬ 
 posed to read the affidavit of Hovenden at this stage. What 
 1 propose to read is two attestations by Thomas Conyers, 
 bearing date 1723, and referring to that charter. I submit 
 that I am entitled to refer to every thing in that paper, in 
 order to take off the effect of the note of the Lord Ordinary, 
 which has been led in evidence by the crown. In the second 
 place, 1 do not say that Hovenden’s affidavit proves the fact 
 that the charter existed in 1723; but I say, if these are true 
 handwritings, they prove that the document existed then. 
 
 * Appendix to Introduction, p. xxv. 
 
194 trial OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Be it that, in a civil case, it would have been no evidence to 
 prove the existence of the charter, so as to set up a civil right 
 on it; but when we come to a criminal question, whether 
 forged documents are issued in guilty knowledge, is it not an 
 ingredient, to a certain extent, in reference to my guilt, 
 whether a paper existed a hundred years ago, referring to 
 that charter, or not ? I mean to say, in short, that there is 
 evidence of the fact, that that attestation existed a hundred 
 years ago. 
 
 The Court then retired for a few minutes to consider the 
 admissibility, and came to this conclusion : — You are entitled 
 to prove the handwriting of Conyers; but although you esta¬ 
 blish that in a competent form, the attestation to which it is 
 appended cannot be held as affording any proof of any thing 
 whatever. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—It cannot be read to the Jury ? 
 
 The Court.-—No, it cannot prove that the man wrote it 
 with the belief of its being true. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—And that it does not prove any thing at 
 all ? It is evidence that he made the statement. 
 
 The Court.—But not that he made it in good faith. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I assume that I can prove the hand¬ 
 writing. 
 
 The Court.—You cannot prove it in the ordinary way. 
 
 Mr Robertson. Yes, in the ordinary way in which the 
 handwriting of persons dead can be proved. But if your 
 Lordships are of opinion that the attestation can prove nothing 
 at all, I do not care about proving the handwriting of Con¬ 
 yers. 
 
 The Court.—You may read it if you think proper. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—But, having read it, it proves nothing ? 
 
 The Court.—No. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Then I will not trouble the Court with 
 proving it. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Your Lordships will recollect, that in the 
 examination of Mr Ephraim Lockhart, reference was made to 
 two letters of Banks to Lockhart, of 10th and 17th April. 
 The post marks were admitted, and the handwriting and 
 receipt of the letters were proved by Mr Lockhart. I propose 
 that these should be read. 
 
 Solicitor-General.—I object to this; Banks is alive; he was 
 proved by this witness to have been seen lately in the Crown 
 Office. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 195 
 
 The Court.— He might have been in your list of witnesses. 
 (The objection was sustained.) 
 
 Mr Robertson.—On the same principle, I tender the follow¬ 
 ing letter from Banks to Lord Stirling, ‘23d and 26th April, 
 2d and 6th May, 1828; 29th January, 24th February, and 
 4th and 24th March, 1829.* 
 
 Solicitor-General.—My learned friend offers to submit what 
 he knows is not legal evidence, to make an impression, it would 
 appear, on the Jury. We stand on the rules of evidence, so 
 that they may go forth to the world, and prevent constant 
 embarrassments in Courts. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—While my learned friend chooses to com¬ 
 plain of my conduct, I make none on the way the Crown has 
 conducted this case. I did not come here to tender what I 
 knew not to be competent evidence. In the present instance, 
 1 tendered what I knew by your preceding decision you would 
 not receive; but I beg to say, that I was entitled to tender 
 these letters, and I have tendered them. Your Lordships were 
 entitled to reject them, and you have rejected them; and as 
 the fact stands, there is no occasion to discuss farther about it. 
 Your Lordships’ decision in regard to Banks’ letters to Mr 
 Lockhart rules the present question. 
 
 The Court. — The Jury know a great deal too well their 
 own duty to be misled by the apparent wish to tender docu¬ 
 ments in evidence which the Court hold to be improper. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff.—Banks is alive. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Surely, my Lord. It was the Solicitor- 
 General that began this discussion. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—In the record in the civil process, reference 
 is made to an affidavit by an individual of the name of Eliza¬ 
 beth Pountney. In the process no such affidavit was produced. 
 The way it stands was this: The civil process is a reduction 
 both of a general and special service; the productions in the 
 service are retained in the Court of Canongate, and there is 
 no extract of those proceedings which contains the affidavit of 
 Elizabeth Pountney. I want to establish, that no such affidavit 
 was produced in the process. That is all. I suppose my 
 learned friends will admit that. 
 
 Mr Innes.—There is no such affidavit in the process, be¬ 
 cause it remains in the Court of Canongate. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Be pleased to take a note of that. I want 
 
 * See these letters in “ Additional Defences, &c. for the Earl of Stir¬ 
 ling,” at the end of the volume. 
 
196 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 it merely stated, that the original is not in the process, and I 
 go no farther with it. 
 
 Solicitor-General.—This lady is on the list of witnesses. 
 She is here now, and my learned friends may put her in the 
 witness-box if they can. 
 
 Mr Robertson.— If we can ? All I want is, the fact that it 
 is not in the process. We will do what we wish, and what we 
 can, of course. Call Josiah Corrie. 
 
 Josiah Corhie, Esq. Interrogated by Mr Robertson. 
 
 You are a solicitor, and master-extraordinary in Chancery ? 
 I am. 
 
 You carried on business in Birmingham for some time ? I 
 did. 
 
 Did you know the late Mr Humphrys, father of the pri¬ 
 soner ? I did. 
 
 When did he die? I believe in 1807. 
 
 Had you been his agent for many years ? For more than 
 ten years. 
 
 Did you draw his rents, and transact business for him ? I 
 did. 
 
 Where did he live ? At Fair Hill, now called the Larches, 
 near Birmingham, when I first knew him. 
 
 You were intimately acquainted with him ? I was. 
 
 Were you one of the trustees in his will ? I was. 
 
 Were you acquainted with his handwriting ? Perfectly well. 
 
 You have seen him write? Frequently. 
 
 Look at that rental-book ? It is the book which I kept of 
 his rents received during the period implied in the book. 
 
 His handwriting is in that book ? Yes, he opened the ac¬ 
 counts himself, and I continued them. There is a great deal 
 of his handwriting in the book. That is his flourish. 
 
 (Letters shewn to witness.) 
 
 These are letters addressed to you ? Yes. 
 
 Look at this parchment marked T, having written on it 
 “ Some of my wife’s family papers.” Whose handwriting is 
 that ? It is the handwriting of Mr Humphrys, Lord Stirling’s 
 father. 
 
 Have you any doubt of it ? Not the slightest. 
 
 Were you aware from the late Mr Humphrys that some of 
 the papers belonging to his family had been amissing? He 
 told me at Fair Hill, where 1 knew him, from 1796 to 1798, 
 that he had lost some valuable documents at the time he moved 
 from Digbeth House to Fair Hill. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 197 
 
 Did he tell you when he removed ? I knew the fact of the 
 removal. 
 
 How long have you known the prisoner ? For more than 
 forty years. 
 
 During all the time that you have been acquainted with 
 him, what sort of character has he borne ? I do not know any 
 man who has borne a better. 
 
 Are you acquainted with his family ? Very well. 
 
 Is a good man to his family ? I have knowledge enough to 
 say that he is. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General. — The deceased 
 Mr Humphrys did not tell you the time of his removal from 
 Digbeth House to Fair Hill ? He did not say when, but the 
 date was notorious. 
 
 What was the time? About 1794. He might tell me the 
 date, but I cannot recollect it at the distance of forty years. 
 
 You have known the prisoner for forty years, since 1796 or 
 1797 ? I knew him when a boy. 
 
 When did he go to France? In 1802. 
 
 W T hat age was he then? I cannot exactly say. In 1790 
 he might be 11, 12, or 13. 
 
 When did he go to France ? During the short peace of 
 1802. 
 
 When did he return? The latter end of 1814, or begin¬ 
 ning of 1815. 
 
 What has been the extent of your intercourse with him 
 since ? It has not been constant. 
 
 Where has he resided during the interval ? At Worcester. 
 
 Where did you reside ? At Fair Hill. 
 
 When did he cro to reside at Worcester? Soon after his 
 return. 
 
 Where did you see him after you lost sight of him in 1802 ? 
 At Worcester. 
 
 Can you tell the year ? 1815. 
 
 Did you see much of him there ? Not a great deal. 
 
 How long did he stay at Worcester? He was there in 1829. 
 
 Had you paid visits to him in the interval ? Not to him, 
 but to his friends. 
 
 Where did he go afterwards ? To London. 
 
 What did you know of him there ? It was requisite to pro¬ 
 duce some documents before Sir William Rae, about 1829, 
 and I went to London on this business. 
 
 Was he then living in good style ? He was then residing 
 
198 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 at Worcester. I saw little of him in London. He lived in 
 lodgings, where I saw him. 
 
 Did you see Mr Tyrrell there? I may have seen him. 
 
 Do you know if he was engaged in raising money for him ? 
 I do not know. 
 
 Did you know any thing of the prisoner’s means at that 
 time ? I did not know any thing of his means at that time. 
 
 What was his occupation ? He was pursuing his claim. 
 He had an establishment for education, a highly respectable 
 establishment, at Worcester. 
 
 Did you ever know him in any other occupation ? Do you 
 know of his having been in trade ? I have heard of his having 
 speculated in wine, but I do not know this of my own know¬ 
 ledge. 
 
 How long did he stay at Worcester after 18*29? I cannot 
 say. 
 
 When did you first see him again ? Perhaps two years 
 after. 
 
 How often since ? I cannot say. 
 
 How often have you seen him since 1796 ? Frequently. 
 
 Did you know him in Baker Street in London ? I visited 
 him once there. 
 
 In what style did he live ? He seemed to live like a gen¬ 
 tleman. 
 
 Had he a large establishment of servants ? I do not know. 
 
 Was he called Lord Stirling ? I think so, but I cannot 
 positively say. 
 
 Was he called Lord Stirling when he had the school esta¬ 
 blishment ? No, he was called Mr Humphrys. 
 
 Have you seen him since he left Edinburgh and went to 
 Paris last ? I cannot call to memory that I have. I never 
 was in Edinburgh with him before. I am speaking to a period 
 of more than forty years, and I cannot call to recollection 
 every thing. 
 
 Do you know of his raising money on the security of his 
 claim ? I do not know. 
 
 Court. — Do you know whether he was in France in 1822, 
 from the time you had seen him in Worcester till you saw him 
 in 1829 ? I do not know. 
 
 When first did you hear of the claim? In 1815 or 1816. 
 
 Did he say any thing to you of Mademoiselle Le Normand ? 
 I do not recollect of having heard her name till very lately. 
 
 What did he tell you ? or did he furnish you with any do- 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 199 
 
 ciuneiits ? He said he had no documents, and I declined to 
 act for him. 
 
 Juryman.—When did you first see the excerpt? I believe 
 I saw it first with Sir William Rae, when I went to London 
 with Mr Lockhart in 1829. 
 
 No question as to its genuineness was made bv Sir William 
 Rae ? No. 
 
 The Court.—When he said he had no documents, and that 
 was the cause of your declining his employment, when that 
 document was put into your possession did he inform you 
 where he got it ? I was merely an automaton. 
 
 You have no recollection how the prisoner alleged he had 
 got possession of that document ? I think he told us after 
 dinner. I think he said it came from the custody of Mr Con¬ 
 yers ; but whether immediately from himself, or somebody 
 else, I cannot say. Mr Banks was then acting for him. 
 
 Was it the prisoner that told you that, or any one in his 
 presence, after dinner ? I cannot tell. 
 
 Did he speak about the documents ? Generally. 
 
 Did you not ask where he had got them ? No. 
 
 Had you no curiosity ? I had no curiosity about it. I 
 cannot swear that he told me .where it came from. To the 
 best of my recollection I did not inquire. 
 
 You have some recollection of the name of Conyers being 
 mentioned ? I cannot swear distinctly to it. 
 
 What made you mention his name then ? I heard some¬ 
 thing of his name. I had not time to go about the matter, 
 and it was intrusted to Mr Lockhart. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—And you have no skill in Scotch charters 
 and novodamuses, I suppose? No. 
 
 The Court.—Mr Lockhart was at Worcester along with 
 you ? Yes. 
 
 What reason was there for you being employed ? Lord 
 Stirling thought it necessary io have an English solicitor as 
 well as a Scotch one. 
 
 Mr Archibald Bell. Interrogated by Mr Robertson.— 
 You are a lithographer ? Yes. 
 
 Was that book and these letters put into your hands? (The 
 rental book of Mr Humphrys, and letters shewn to last wit¬ 
 ness.) Yes. 
 
 Did you examine the writing in the rental book; and the 
 letters with the writings on the parchment, “ Some of my 
 Wife’s family papers ?” Yes. 
 
 2 x 
 
200 trial OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Did the handwriting on the parchment appear to be the 
 same with that in. the rental book ? It appeared to me to be 
 the same. 
 
 You made a minute inspection, so as to satisfy yourself? 
 Yes; and I am quite satisfied, so far as I am able to judge, of 
 the similarity between the two; and I am of opinion that they 
 were both done by the same hand. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Innes.—You observe an ornament 
 in the flourish on the parchment ? Do you see such a flourish 
 in the rental book? Yes. 
 
 Is there any difference in the w r ay in which the flourish is 
 made in the one and in the other ? Yes; the flourish on the 
 parchment does not appear to be so natural as that in the 
 rental book. 
 
 It does not appear to have been hit off so distinctly as in 
 the other? It does not flow so glibly on the parchment. 
 
 Do you think it safe to give an opinion on four or five 
 words ? I state my conviction. 
 
 Is that a common school-boy hand that any school-boy would 
 write ? Not altogether. 
 
 The Court.— Can you say it is the true hand, and not a 
 false hand ? No mortal man could say unless he saw it execu¬ 
 ted. I cannot say, nor can any other man say, that it is the 
 true hand. Had I received from the gentleman who wrote 
 that memorandum book a note, in this hand, I would have 
 believed it to be genuine. 
 
 Monsieur Charles Herald de Pages. (Monsieur 
 Duriez sworn as interpreter.) Interrogated by Mr Robertson. 
 —What is your employment ? I am attached to the historical 
 branch of the King’s Library at Paris. 
 
 Are you acquainted with, or are you any relation of the 
 Marquis Belfont ? I am nephew to the Marquis Belfont. 
 
 Has he a collection of autographs? Not, perhaps, a col¬ 
 lection, but he has autographs. They are all family papers. 
 
 When did you first hear of the Earl of Stirling? About 
 ten days before my last departure from Paris, on the 20th of 
 April. 
 
 Was any application made to you ? Monsieur Bechard 
 requested me to make some searches. Monsieur Bechard is 
 an Avocat, and a member of the Chamber of Deputies. 
 
 What did you do in consequence of this ? I visited several 
 of the libraries, and consulted several of the persons who 
 directed them. 
 
STYLING HIMSliLF KARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 201 
 
 Did you bring with you any MSS. ? Yes ; sixteen diffe¬ 
 rent MSS. 
 
 (Shewn a document.) What is that ? It is a piece of 
 writing given to me by Monsieur Villenave, as a writing in 
 the hand of Louis XV. 
 
 The Court.—This is evidence as to a piece of paper given 
 to the witness by a person not here, (Villenave,) as the hand¬ 
 writing of Louis XV. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Allow me to go on, my Lord, there is 
 nothing irregular yet. What is Villenave ? A member of 
 the Institute. 
 
 Is he an old gentleman ? About seventy-five. 
 
 Is he unable to come to Scotland ? Yes; he said if he had 
 been twenty years younger he would have come. He is quite 
 unable to come. 
 
 Have you any acquaintance from your duties and practice 
 with the handwriting of old MSS. ? Of the very ancient 
 writings I have little knowledge; but I have a greater know¬ 
 ledge of those which are more modern. 
 
 What do you mean by ancient MSS. ? Those anterior to 
 the fifteenth century. 
 
 From your own knowledge of MSS. of a more modern 
 date, in whose handwriting do you believe these lines on this 
 document to be ? It resembles the handwriting of Louis XV. 
 But I have not observed it very carefully, because I was only 
 informed as to this matter six days before my departure; and 
 it was only twenty-four hours before my departure that the 
 time was fixed when I should leave Paris. 
 
 Where did you see other handwriting of Louis XV. ? 
 I have brought a lithographed fac-simile of his writing. 
 
 Have you seen other specimens of his writing ? Yes. 
 
 Where ? In the Royal Library in great quantities. 
 
 The Court.—You say that you have seen a great deal of 
 the writing of Louis XV. ? Yes. 
 
 (Being shewn several letters, bearing to be from Flechier, 
 Bishop of Nismes.) Where did you get these? The Marquis 
 de Belfont sent them to me on my demand. 
 
 You had applied to your uncle for them ? Yes. The state 
 in which I found them proved that they had never been 
 touched since they were written. 
 
 How do you know that they were in his handwriting ? 
 Because he was Bishop of Nismes at the date which these 
 letters bear. 
 
202 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OK ALEXANDER, 
 
 Have you seen other specimens of his handwriting ? I be¬ 
 lieve I have, but I do not remember. 
 
 How do you know that Flechier was Bishop of Nismes ? 
 By all the histories of Nismes; and I have seen other letters 
 of his in the same department of the Gard. 
 
 Do you know when Flechier ceased to be Bishop of Nis¬ 
 mes ? In 1710. 
 
 Do you believe these documents to be in the handwriting of 
 Flechier ? I am convinced that they are. 
 
 (Being shewn the map libelled on, the witness thought that 
 the writing thereon attributed to Flechier was conformable to 
 the specimens which he had brought with him.) 
 
 Look at the note, bearing to be by Louis XV. ? I think it 
 is equally like the notes by Louis XV. which I have brought 
 here. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Innes.—Have you been keeper of 
 any collection of MSS. ? I have not been charged to keep 
 MSS. but to examine them. Not these papers, but MSS. 
 generally. 
 
 What is your occupation ? My duty is to examine MSS. 
 and to give an account of them. 
 
 How long have you been in that employment? Two 
 years. 
 
 Have you gone through the school of Charters in Paris ? 
 No. 
 
 Have you seen many of the writings of Flechier, Bishop of 
 Nismes ? About a hundred letters in the parcel from which 
 these were taken, and several in the same department. 
 
 Lord Meadowbank.—Did you ever read Voltaire’s History 
 of Louis XV. ? Yes. 
 
 What does Voltaire say of Louis’ writing ? I cannot say 
 very well. I think he says that he did not spell properly. 
 
 Do you know that Voltaire says he never wrote but two 
 words in his life,—“ bon” and “ Louis ?” It is possible; but 
 I do not recollect. 
 
 Do you recollect of Voltaire saying, that when he com¬ 
 municated with his mistresses he employed a secretary to 
 write his billets ? I do not know. My recollection of the 
 work is vague. I have not the work by heart. 
 
 Lord Moncreiff.—If you were assured that the map shewn 
 you did not exist till 1718, would you still say that the 
 writing was Flechier’s ? Wherever it might be placed I 
 would say that it resembled the other specimens of the hand¬ 
 writing of Flechier which I have under my eyes. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 203 
 
 Let me remind you that Flechier died in 1710, and this 
 paper had not existence till 1713. It would not be the least 
 like. 
 
 Charles Hardinge, Esq.—Lord Meadowbank.— I should 
 like to state, before you proceed with this witness, that what 
 Voltaire said of Louis XV. having never written but two 
 words in his life may be a falsehood. We have no reason to 
 believe that Voltaire is accurate in his allegation, as he is an 
 author in whom little reliance can be placed. 
 
 Mr Robertson. — I am glad that your Lordship has antici¬ 
 pated me in this, as it saves me the necessity of animadverting 
 upon it in my address to the Jury. 
 
 Mr Hardinge. Interrogated by Mr Robertson. — You 
 reside at Bole Hall near Tamworth ? Yes. 
 
 And you are a relation of Sir Robert Peel ? His first 
 cousin. 
 
 How long have you known Lord Stirling ? About forty- 
 two years. I was at school with him. 
 
 Did you know his parents ? I did. 
 
 What sort of style did they live in ? In an extremely good 
 style. Nobody in Birmingham lived better: they kept their 
 carriage and a pair of fine grey horses. 
 
 When did Lord Stirling go to France ? I do not know. 
 
 When did you last visit him ? He called at my house and 
 remained a day or two with me, twelve or thirteen years ago, 
 —three or four years before the death of the late Sir Robert 
 Peel. 
 
 Have you seen him since that? Yes; I was a day or two 
 with him in his house in London. He called at my house 
 with Lady Stirling, and spent four days with me, when he 
 went to vote at the election of Peers in Scotland. I constantly 
 correspond with him; and I know him well, so far as one 
 man can judge of another. 
 
 What is your opinion of his character ? He is a man of 
 excellent moral principle and honour. As a father, as a 
 husband, and as a friend, his character is one of the very best. 
 At school he was loved by every one. When I knew him 
 again I had occasion to know a good deal of him, from the 
 time of his first calling upon me. In his letters there is not 
 an observation that would not do honour to any one, so far 
 as the heart is concerned. There is no man In existence more 
 honourable than he is. 
 
204 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Roger Aytoun, Esq. W. S. Interrogated by Mr 
 Robertson.—How long have you been acquainted with Lord 
 Stirling? I should say from the year 1826. 
 
 Have you been familiarly acquainted with him ? Of late 
 years I have; but not at first. I got acquainted with him 
 when he first came down to prosecute his claim. At that time I 
 was engaged in an investigation on the part of Lord Rollo, 
 and through Lord Rollo I was introduced to the pannel. 
 
 And you have been intimate with him since ? I have been 
 intimate with him since 1830 or 1831. 
 
 What is your opinion of his character as a man of honour ? 
 I have a very high opinion of him as a man of honour. I 
 looked upon him as a complete gentleman. He has the very 
 mien and manners of a gentleman. 
 
 You have had intercourse with his family ? Yes. 
 
 He has visited in your house and you in his ? He has 
 visited in my house very frequently; but I never went to any 
 party in his house. He was not much in the habit of giving 
 parties ; and I not much in the habit of going out. 
 
 And you have the highest opinion of his talents ? I 
 have. 
 
 Colonel George Charles D’ Aguilar. — You are 
 Deputy Adjutant General of her Majesty’s Forces in Ire¬ 
 land ? I am at the head of the Adjutant General’s Staff in 
 Ireland. 
 
 How long have you been in the service ? My first com¬ 
 mission was dated in 1799, about forty years ago. 
 
 When did you first become acquainted with the prisoner ? 
 In 1797 or 1798. I was at school with him near Bir¬ 
 mingham ; at the Rev. Mr Corrie’s, brother of Mr Josiah 
 Corrie. 
 
 Did you visit at his father’s family ? Yes ; often. I may 
 state the circumstance. I was at that time at a considerable 
 distance from my friends. Lord Stirling’s family resided in 
 the immediate neighbourhood. We were class-fellows. His 
 place was generally immediately above me. He also shewed 
 kindness to me; and it brought us more or less together. 
 When he went home at the short vacations, he invariably 
 took me with him; so that I had the opportunity of living 
 in habits of great intimacy with him ; not only with himself 
 but with his family. 
 
 What opinion did you form of the character of Lord 
 Stirling’s family ? Their character was in the highest 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 205 
 
 degree respectable. I may be a little prejudiced, for I 
 received such affectionate kindness and hospitality from the 
 family, that I can never forget it. Their affection for me was 
 unbounded, and I am here to repay the debt of gratitude 
 which I owed to them. 
 
 After you grew up in life, did your intimacy with Lord 
 Stirling continue? I was separated from him by circum¬ 
 stances. I was out of England for many years, and in many 
 parts of the world, during the late war. 
 
 When did you renew your acquaintance with him ? A 
 long interval elapsed: I renewed my acquaintance with him 
 in 1830, after a long course of service,—in the end of 1829, 
 or beginning of 1830. I had not seen him till then since 
 1799. 
 
 After you renewed your intimacy with him, did you conti¬ 
 nue more or less to be in communication with him and his 
 family ? Constantly; I mean by that, that I corresponded 
 with him and his family. When I was in London, 1 saw a 
 great deal of him, and was frequently at his house, and he in 
 mine. His children corresponded with my children. There 
 was no event of his life, more particularly that connected 
 with the claim and title, that he did not confide to me. He 
 wrote to me on the subject with perfect openness. I took an 
 interest in all his proceedings, and he wrote to me about them 
 as they occurred. 
 
 From your long and constant intercourse with him, and 
 from your intimate acquaintance with him, what is your opi¬ 
 nion of his character as a man of honour, as a good parent, 
 and a good husband ? I think my presence here is the best 
 answer to that question. Nothing on earth could have induced 
 me to take the part 1 have taken, to stand before the Court 
 where I do,* if 1 did not think Lord Stirling to be incapable of 
 a dishonourable action. I beg to say that if the correspondence 
 of this individual is any index to his mind and character, that 
 I have in my possession the most ample proofs to enable me to 
 form my opinion of him. I corresponded with him repeatedly. 
 His early letters to me I have not kept, but latterly, and more 
 particularly since he has had the misfortune to be placed in 
 his present situation, I have heard from him regularly. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—That is the case for the prisoner. 
 
 The Solicitor-General requested the Court would adjourn 
 
 * Col. D’Aguilar declined going iiito the witness’ box, and begged to 
 be examined in the dock beside the prisoner. 
 
206 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIJRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 till the morrow, as, in consequence of the absence of the Lord 
 Advocate, the prosecution had devolved upon him, and he 
 had not had an opportunity of revising the evidence. 
 
 The Court adjourned accordingly till to-morrow at nine 
 o’clock. 
 
 FOURTH DAY. 
 
 Thursday, May 2 , 1839. 
 
 THE COURT MET AT NINE O’CLOCK. 
 
 Solicitor-General. — May it please your Lordships, 
 Gentlemen of the Jury,— 
 
 In rising to address you, I am sure I need not bespeak 
 your utmost indulgence and attention in going over the details 
 of this most important and extraordinary case. The circum¬ 
 stance under which the charge of it has unexpectedly been 
 cast on my shoulders, rendered it necessary for me to bespeak 
 the indulgence of the Court last evening, that I might have 
 an opportunity of examining some of the papers which had 
 not come under my observation, and this alone, I presume, 
 will entitle me to your indulgence. But it is to the impor¬ 
 tance of the case itself, the nature of the claim which the 
 prisoner has set up, and therefore its importance to the public; 
 the use which he has made of these pretensions in obtaining 
 loans from individuals, its importance to those who have 
 been giving these loans, and its general importance in itself, 
 are qnite'sufficient to demand your attention, and I think it 
 would be superfluous to add a word more in asking it. 
 
 The charge against the prisoner, set forth in the libel, is, 
 that he has been guilty of forgery, as also of “ wickedly anil 
 feloniously fabricating false and simulate writings to be used 
 as evidence in Courts of Law, and so using the same as 
 genuine; as also, the wickedly and feloniously using and 
 uttering as genuine, fabricated, false, and simulate writings, 
 knowing them to be fabricated, false, and simulate, bv pro¬ 
 ducing the same as evidence in the Courts of Law.” These 
 are libelled alternatively; you may take one or other, or all 
 of them. They are very grievous charges to make against 
 
STYLING IIIMSELT EAIIL OF STIRLING. 
 
 ‘20? 
 
 one; they are the charges from which the prisoner has now 
 to free himself. The proceedings against the prisoner have 
 not been rashly instituted ; they have not come upon him by 
 surprise; they have not been taken because of the uttering of 
 documents on a single occasion, but the charges against him 
 carry back through a series of years, persisted in through 
 many repeated processes, and all of them of considerable 
 duration ; charges persisted in in the face of every warning 
 that could have been given to man; and it is not until after 
 all this; until after the prisoner has been asserting his claim; 
 until after he has been actually attempting to vote at the 
 Peers’ elections ; till he has been assuming the title, and taking 
 on himself to create baronets—because in the action of proving 
 the tenor, it appears that Mr Banks was created a baronet by 
 him, being called Sir Christopher Banks, baronet,—and it is 
 not till after decree has been pronounced against him, and 
 after the fabrication of those documents which have been so 
 long under your consideration, that he has been called to the 
 bar in this Court to answer for those crimes. He addressed 
 his Canadian subjects, as he would term them, with the address 
 that we have not been allowed to put in evidence; but it is 
 sufficiently admitted in his declaration, which proves that he, 
 in the capacity of sovereign of that country, issued his address 
 to the inhabitants of Nova Scotia and Canada, which he caused 
 to be widely circulated throughout the country. Nay, more, 
 it is admitted, that he had opened an office in Parliament 
 Street, London, for the sale of grants of land in Canada; and 
 that is not all, for, as has been proved to you in evidence, he 
 brought an action of reduction and improbation of the titles 
 of the estate of Gartmore, against the present possessor of that 
 estate, to dispossess him of an estate which he and his ances¬ 
 tors have enjoyed for a century and a half. He has been proved 
 to have got loans from ignorant people, who trusted to his 
 representations, obtaining no security whatever; and as you 
 have seen, although from day to day, and year to year, the 
 defects in the title were shewn to him, he has been persisting 
 since 1829 in processes in these Courts of proving the tenor 
 of reduction, and other judicial proceedings of the greatest 
 importance. Then he has got himself served heir in general 
 and special to the first Earl of Stirling, and the Court will 
 tell you, that if these services had stood for twenty years they 
 would have been prescribed in his favour. It is not until after all 
 this has been done, in the face of deliberate forewarning, in 
 circumstances which ought to have induced him to look into 
 
208 TRIAL OF ALF.XANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER. 
 
 the matter in the same solemn light that you are now to look 
 at it; after he has persisted in maintaining the genuineness of 
 these writings, that the charges which he is now to answer for 
 were brought against him. 
 
 Then, who is the prisoner at the bar ? You have seen some 
 of those who were acquainted with him in his youth. \ou 
 have heard his parentage spoken to. His name was Humphrys 
 — his mother’s name was Alexander. He went by no other 
 name than Humphrys till some time between the years 1815 
 and 1829. It is not for me to disparage his parentage or to 
 say any thing against his respectability or those gentlemanly 
 qualities which, by the kind affection of his schoolfellows, he 
 is said to possess. He is entitled to all that they have said of 
 him; but this you will bear in mind, that whatever was the 
 respectability or wealth of his family, he is proved to have 
 been so much reduced in his circumstances as to have been 
 obliged to take up a school in Worcester. There also he was 
 unsuccessful, and we find that, before the year 1829, he was 
 in circumstances of the greatest embarrassment. He went to 
 London, where he was not able to pay his expenditure; and, 
 therefore, we begin with him a straitened man, having no 
 means to live upon, having deserted his school, and having no 
 other means of making a living; and there he resorted to 
 those pretensions of his which he is here to support before 
 you now, in order to raise the wind and obtain that living 
 which before that date he had been endeavouring to obtain by 
 the ordinary means of existence. He had no title. Has it 
 been proved that either his father or himself down to the year 
 1815, ever breathed a word or whispered a suspicion that they 
 were entitled to set forth the claims which are now before 
 you ? When his father was rolling about in his carriage, 
 living on the estate of the Larches, there w*as no insinuation 
 that he was entitled to make such a claim, or that he meant to 
 enforce it; and if it had been then thought that they were 
 entitled to make such a claim, is it not more likely that it 
 would have been done when they had the means of enforcing 
 it, than afterwards when the means were wanting? The 
 pannel’s own witness, Corrie, proved that, in 1815, when he 
 applied to him as an English solicitor to conduct these matters, 
 that he came to him without the shadow of a title, and that 
 gentleman, as a professional man, refused in consequence to 
 have any thing to do with the matter; and it is not till after 
 some time, in the course of which he is transmogrified into the 
 Earl of Stirling, that this claim does arise; and when it does 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 209 
 
 arise, does lie take the usual way to establish it ? has he gone 
 to the House of Peers to assert his right ? He has shewn as 
 yet no title. He comes before you on this excerpt. He is 
 here without a patent of peerage — without any charter of 
 right. He is here, and has assumed, for fourteen or fifteen 
 years, not only the name, but all the rights and privileges of 
 the Earl of Stirling, asserting that they belong to him, and 
 that he had the best proofs to substantiate his claim. 
 
 It is important that j-ou should follow me a little farther 
 in regard to this title. This gentleman claims to be Earl 
 ot Stirling. He cannot be Earl of Stirling unless there 
 had been a patent which could, by possibility, have descended 
 to him. Now, what have we? We have two patents of 
 nobility in favour of the family of Stirling; one of them of 
 date 14th September, 1630—another of 14th June, 1633. 
 The patent of the first date creates “ Sir William Alexander 
 Viscount of Stirling, Lord Alexander of Tullibodie, giving 
 and granting to him, and his heirs-male bearing the surname 
 and arms of Alexander, the title, honour, and dignity of 
 Viscount of our said kingdom of Scotland.” The other 
 patent of 1633, constitutes and “creates the foresaid William 
 Viscount Stirling Earl of Stirling, Viscount of Canada, Lord 
 Alexander of Tullibodie, giving and granting, as by the tenor 
 of these presents we give and grant, to him, and his heirs-male 
 for ever bearing the surname and arms of Alexander, the 
 title, honour, rank, and degree of dignity of an Earl.” 
 
 There is no patent of nobility on the record—no patent 
 spoken of to any baron whatever—no trace of any such patent 
 to be found any where except in the hands of this prisoner at 
 the bar, other than these two ; and the only manner in which 
 he can support his title is to make out that he is an heir-male 
 of the original Earl of Stirling. But, gentlemen, he comes 
 before you confessing, that, if he be any thing, he is an heir- 
 female. The excerpt on which he founds, pretends that there 
 has been a change on the original patents, to the effect that 
 this charter of novodamus, as he calls it, bears to be to the 
 first Earl of Stirling, and heirs-male of his body; whom fail¬ 
 ing, the heirs-female, See. and it is under that branch that he 
 pretends to claim. Accordingly, there is produced a tree, by 
 which he pretends to make good his claim; and it is an 
 observation not without importance, that even, as heir-female, 
 he is not an heir of the Earl -of Stirling. It is as an heir- 
 female of the last heir-male of the Earl of Stirling that he 
 comes forth with his claim. This tree sets forth the death of 
 
210 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IiUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 the first Earl of Stirling in 1640,. leaving, among others, a 
 fourth son, John of Antrim, said to be the ancestor of the 
 prisoner according to this story. .It is as the great-grandson 
 of John Alexander, whom he calls of Antrim, that this party 
 claims. This John had a son whom he calls the Rev. John 
 Alexander of Dublin, and he of Dublin had another son whom 
 he calls Alexander of Birmingham. 
 
 Not only is he not the heir-male, but he is not the heir- 
 female of the first earl. If he can make out a case, it is as 
 being the heir-female of a remote branch ; and he has nothing 
 at all to rest on except it be .that charter of 1639. 
 
 This excerpt of 1639 does not make its appearance till 1829. 
 Where is it found ? It is found in his hands. Mr Lockhart 
 proved that he got it from him at Worcester. Mr Corrie 
 went with him to London to shew it to Sir William Ilae, and 
 we are told that he approved of it. He is no evidence what¬ 
 ever that it was approved of by Sir William Rae. It is better 
 evidence of Sir William Rae’s opinion, that when he himself 
 was Lord Advocate, and when the first action of proving the 
 tenor, he thought it his duty, from his disbelief of the title, to 
 have the matter fully investigated. Sir William Rae himself 
 was sisted defender in that case. The opposition then arose, 
 and has ever since been maintained, by all the successors of 
 that eminent person holding the office. 
 
 Now, the first action of proving the tenor is proved to have 
 been brought in 1829, and dismissed by decree of the Court 
 on the 4th March, 1830. It was dismissed for want of title. 
 No service was then raised,—aio proper interest was then con¬ 
 stituted,— and therefore it was thrown out of Court. There 
 had been, however, a discussion, by which this party had pretty 
 significantly been given to understand, that it was not a light 
 affair in which he was then engaged. But no sooner is the 
 first action dismissed, than, on the 1st September, 1830, he 
 raises another action of reduction-improbation and declarator, 
 in the Court of Session, against William Cuningham Graham 
 of Gartmore, and claims the estate of Gartmore, as belonging 
 to him on the charter. The day after that, 2d September, 
 1830, he brought another action of proving the tenor of the 
 alleged charter of novodamus, against Graham of Gartmore and 
 the Officers of State, and there again he founds on this excerpt. 
 He then obtains himself served heir in general, and heir in spe¬ 
 cial, to the first Earl of Stirling, on the 11th October, 1830. 
 The reduction still in dependence by the Officers of State is 
 brought against him and Thomas Christopher Banks, claiming 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 211 
 
 to be Sir Thomas Christopher Banks, and in the course of these 
 processes, proceedings take place, at every stage of which there 
 is delay, and addition after addition made to the proof; and it 
 is not until after every opportunity has been afforded him, that 
 the proceedings took place which have given rise to the pre¬ 
 sent situation of the prisoner. 
 
 Now, after all these attempts had been made, the interlocu¬ 
 tor of Lord Cockburn, which was read to you, was pronounced, 
 —it was pronounced on the 10th December, 1836. In regard 
 to such a judgment, it is established, that all that this party 
 had done was of no avail, and that he was not what he pre¬ 
 tended to be. But it was pointed out to him in a most anxious 
 note where were the defects in the title. The whole of the 
 defender’s case depends on the genuineness of the two descents 
 mentioned by the Lord Ordinary; then a great portion of the 
 documents sought to be reduced are recovered subsequent to 
 the date of that interlocutor, to the date of that announcement 
 of the opinion of the Court where the defects lay; and they 
 were produced afterwards by this party in the Court, with a 
 view of supplying these defects. 
 
 Having briefly run over the history of the case so far, be 
 pleased now to turn to your indictment; and there, in the 
 first place, you will find that the prisoner is libelled as having 
 forged a document or writing in terms set forth in Appendix, 
 No. I. Now,-in regard to this, the first point for you to 
 consider is, Is this excerpt of 1639 a genuine or a forged 
 document ? In considering that matter, it is not requisite, in 
 the first place, that you should at all trouble yourselves as to 
 w ho is the party, who is the forger, if forgery it be; the first 
 point on which you must satisfy yourself is, whether this be 
 an undoubted forgery or not. It may be that this party is 
 not the forger of the document, or even the utterer of it; or 
 he may have uttered it in good faith, being himself deceived. 
 These are all matters for ulterior consideration; the first 
 matter by you to be considered is, whether in point of fact, 
 without reference to who is the forger, or to any thing that 
 has taken place in regard to the document, that document is 
 itself genuine or forged ? 
 
 Now, gentlemen, if ever there was evidence produced in a 
 court of law to prove any thing, surely it has been proved 
 that this is not a genuine but a forged document. It bears 
 to be the excerpt of a charter. Nov/ it is not a charter — 
 there never has been any such charter—there could not have 
 been any such charter. There are a variety of points all 
 
212 TRIAL OR ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 concurring, absolutely unanswerable, to prove that this could 
 not have been what the prisoner holds it out to be. Turn 
 first to the close of the document, where you will find gratis , 
 per signelum, free, by the signet. Look a little above and see 
 the testing clause, — “ In testimony whereof, to this our pre¬ 
 sent charter, we have commanded our Great Seal to be 
 appended. Witnesses the most reverend father in Christ, 
 and our well beloved Councillor John, by the mercy of God, 
 Archbishop of St Andrews, primate and metropolitan of our 
 kingdom of Scotland, our Chancellor.” It lias been ex¬ 
 plained to you that this testing clause is the form in which ali 
 charters are drawn up, after having been completed. It is not 
 in the signature, nor the precept from the signet on which 
 the privy seal acts, nor the precept of the privy seal on which 
 the great seal acts, — in not one of these previous stages of 
 the proceedings is there this testing clause. This excerpt, there¬ 
 fore, cannot have been taken from the signature, — not from 
 a signet precept — not from a privy seal precept — not taken 
 from any document that can exist in rerum natura. Bearing 
 this testing clause, it must have been taken from a completed 
 charter alone. Then look at the per signetum. This again could 
 not have been at a completed charter. The process was explained 
 to you step by step by all the witnesses. The Keeper of the 
 Signet, and the Deputy Clerk Register explained to you the 
 whole process, which was perfectly notorious. The first signature 
 is presented to the Exchequer; then it is rolled up in a bundle 
 in the signet office, and that is the warrant of a precept given 
 forth, directed to the privy seal; then there is a precept in the 
 privy seal, and a record; then there is a second precept; then 
 there is a third stage in the proceedings, which is a precept 
 from the privy seal to the great seal; then there is the charter 
 itself which passes from the great seal; and it is in the privy 
 seal alone that these words could have been put to it per sig¬ 
 netum, that is, by warrant of the Signet. So here is a docu¬ 
 ment, bearing, on the one hand, to be a completed charter, 
 which it could not be, having per signetum at its close; neither 
 can it be a privy seal precept, because it has the testing clause 
 of the completed charter. On the other hand, it has been 
 sworn to you that it cannot, by possibility from its evidence, 
 be taken as an authentic document known to the law of Scot¬ 
 land. What is the evidence ? This document bears the date 
 of 1639. It may be said that these witnesses were speaking 
 to a change of form in passing these writs. There has been 
 a change lately, but the records themselves prove that, pre- 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 213 
 
 vlous to that date, there was no such change as would give the 
 document the appearance which it has. We have contempo¬ 
 raneous charters. You have here before you the charter in 
 favour of the city of Edinburgh, the charter in favour of 
 Heriot’s Hospital, only four days later in date than the date 
 which this document bears, and there you find established 
 what is sworn to you in the course of proceeding from the first 
 step to the completed charter; and there you will find all the for¬ 
 malities to be precisely what the witnesses have stated to you. 
 But we have done more than this,—in reference to these char¬ 
 ters, we have gone through the different records, and we have 
 produced the whole of the warrants on which these proceed; 
 while, in this document libelled on, we have nothing but an 
 alleged excerpt of a charter, with no evidence on the records 
 regarding it. There are various records under the charge of 
 diffex’ent officers, and these have all been searched to no pur¬ 
 pose. Therefore, you have to deal with this additional impro¬ 
 bability—there is nothing whatever to support it either in the 
 signet office, or in the privy seal, or in the great seal record. 
 You have these charters, two in favour of the city of Edin¬ 
 burgh and Heriot’s Hospital in 1639, when the prisoner says 
 that the records of that year, the time of Cromwell, perished 
 in a storm at sea. In regard to these charters, there are to be 
 found the bundles of signatures, the signet precepts, the privy 
 seal precepts, and the registers. Accordingly, in regard to this 
 one in favour of the city of Edinburgh, there is produced the 
 original signature which ordains a charter “to be made under 
 his hienes great seal in dew forme, giving, granting,” &c. &c. 
 Then there is the register of signatures, and in that register, 
 which is the comptroller’s register in the Exchequer, there is 
 recorded that very signature, with the date of the register on 
 the margin. Then there is the register of the privy seal, and 
 there is the precept recorded in Latin ; then there is the Per 
 Signetum which it bears at the bottom, in place of subscription, 
 as the warrant of that precept to be handed in to the great 
 seal. The Per Signetum is alone to be found in the completed 
 charter. In the first stage of the charter we have not the Per 
 Signetum, but “ in cujus rei testimonium ,” or a command to 
 affix the great seal to this present charter. And last of all is 
 the fifth stage. Here is the original charter itself, which bears 
 the full testing clause in the same way. The same thing holds 
 good in regard to the charter in favour of Heriot’s Hospital. 
 Mr Robertson admits, that the statements here made are 
 correct. 
 
214 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Without going farther, is there not here proof that this is 
 not a genuine document, — that it cannot have been copied 
 from any document that ever existed,— that it is, in short, an 
 incongruity,— something made by one who had a glimmering 
 of what was the course to pursue, but who had made a monster 
 of the creation he intended to produce, — a monster which 
 could not have existed; and is there not here clear and decided 
 proof, that whoever made that document made a forgery, be¬ 
 cause it is impossible that it could be a genuine document. 
 
 Whilst that of itself would be sufficient to prove the docu¬ 
 ment a forgery, it is farther most important that you keep in 
 mind that this excerpt is not to be found in any register what¬ 
 ever. Searches have been made in the great seal record, and 
 in the privy seal record, and in the comptroller’s register, and 
 in the rolls of signatures at the signet office, and in the register 
 of sasines ; and no w-here, not in one of all those registers, has 
 there been preserved the smallest trace of any such document. 
 If there was an imperfection or blank in a register, it may be 
 said that it might have been amissing; but when you have 
 four or five independent registers, some of them complete, 
 giving full and direct testimony to every other document; and 
 when you find that in not one of these is there any notice to 
 be found of this alleged charter, it is incredible that such a 
 thing could happen. It is impossible, I would say. It is out 
 of the question ; it is too much to ask human nature to 
 believe, looking to all these records and the indexes, that such 
 a document ever existed. 
 
 Then there is the extraordinary circumstance, that at the 
 commencement of this excerpt there is marked on the margin 
 “ Beg. Mag. Sig. lib. 57,” meaning Register of the Great 
 Seal, book 57. And when you come to look at the document 
 in the French map, you will find also, that there is there the 
 pretence of official marking as of a register. What has mis¬ 
 led the party forging to adopt this period for his forgery, and 
 the marking of the 57th volume, is, that he had thought he 
 had found evidence that the record for that period had 
 perished or disappeared in consequence of a storm at sea. 
 But the 57th vol. has been produced; it has not gone down 
 at sea; it is here, and here we have not the want of a volume, 
 we have the want merely of twelve leaves, and that defect 
 cannot be accounted for by any storm at sea. It would not 
 have been the leaves alone, but the volume, that would have 
 perished, had there been any such loss. The volume is here, and 
 the indexes are here, and twelve leaves only at the beginning 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. *215 
 
 of it are wanting. The forger thought that, by so marking 
 the margin, it would add very much to the authenticity of the 
 document. Now, this marking is fixed by Mr Thomson, the 
 author of it, and Mr McDonald, his assistant, not to have 
 commenced until after 1806, when the registers were rebound, 
 in order that they should have one uniform title, and to get 
 rid of the various modes of naming the different volumes. 
 Mr Richard MacKenzie, a man of the greatest experience in 
 business, who has had charters innumerable passing through 
 his hands, has told you, that in the law books and every thing 
 that speaks of charters before 1806, no such marking was ever 
 heard tell of, and no such reference was ever made on the 
 margin of a charter. He told you more, that in a book 
 which he had seen, and which had gone through two editions, 
 he found a reference made to this kind of marking in the 
 second, but not in the first, and that he had gone to inquire 
 at Mr Thomson what the marking could mean, never having 
 seen it before. It is needless to dwell upon this, the proof is 
 conclusive; you heard the evidence of the gentleman who in¬ 
 troduced this marking, when the books were rebound, and the 
 whole matter is spoken to distinctly. But then we have the 
 parties who searched the different registers in the different 
 places; we have all those different stages of proceedings gone 
 through, and we have the offices gone through in the proper 
 manner, and searches regularly made, and nothing of this 
 kind is found to have been in existence. You have 
 M‘Donald’s evidence, in which he accounts for the missing 
 contents of the twelve leaves of the 57th volume. He told us 
 that in the twelve leaves there were thirty-two charters and 
 diplomas together, and that he found out this bv the two 
 indexes. That they consisted of one treaty between England 
 and Scotland, ten patents of honour, one letter of rehabilita¬ 
 tion in favour of a person of the name of Irvine, and that he 
 has traced nineteen of these charters in the privy seal; and 
 that only one of all those twenty is not so traced. When 
 you find it not in any register, and the blank is accounted for, 
 when you have a false account of the loss of that volume at 
 sea, what are you to think ? I have shewn you that it never 
 could have been an authentic writ; but even if there were no 
 objections to it,—if it appeared to be a genuine document, 
 I have proved to you that it never existed ; because it is not 
 to be found in any one of the four separate registers through 
 which it must l/ave passed had it been genuine. I have 
 proved that it could not have been in the 57th volume, which 
 
 2 Y 
 
216 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 is said to have perished at sea; because, from the indexes and 
 other materials, I have supplied the contents of the missing 
 leaves. 'This is a second branch of the evidence, fatal in itself, 
 and fatal, you must see, when combined with the others. 
 
 Then, in regard to the witnessing of Archbishop Spottis- 
 wood, the date given is the 17th December, 1639,—“ Witness 
 the most reverend father in Christ, &c. &c. our chancellor.” It 
 is in the capacity of chancellor that he is one of the witnesses to 
 this document; and no doubt, when Archbishop Spottiswood ' 
 held that character, he is to be found in all the records, and 
 in all the charters of the right date, and which were in the 
 regular form. But it has been proved to you, that so early 
 as 1638, it had pleased his Majesty “ for diverse good consi¬ 
 derations, to commit the charge and keeping of his great 
 seal to his dearest cousin and counsellor, the Marquis of 
 Hamilton, his Majesty’s commissioner, till his Majesty shall 
 be graciously pleased to declare his further will and plea¬ 
 sure thereanent.” So that he is not chancellor at this 
 date, nor after it. So you will observe, that the great seal 
 is put in commission, and the Marquis of Hamilton is made 
 commissioner on the 13th November, 1638, and this he 
 could only have been by Archbishop Spottiswood ceasing to be 
 chancellor upwards of a year before the date of this charter, 
 in which he is made chancellor in the testing clause. Then 
 there is an extract of the commissioner’s declaration anent the 
 great seal on the following day, the 14th Nov. 1638. “ The 
 
 whilk day James Marques of Hamilton his Majesties Com¬ 
 missioner Declared to the Lords of Privie Counsell that 
 according to ane warrant and direction sent unto him under 
 his Majesteis royall hand That he had receaved the resignation 
 and dimission made be John Archbishop of St Andrews late 
 lord high Chanceller of this kingdome and otheris in his 
 name of the office of Lord Chanceller And that the said arch¬ 
 bishop had delivered unto him his Majesties great seale and 
 cashett to be keeped by him during his Majesteis royall will 
 and pleasure and whill his Majestie sail be pleased to give 
 further signification of his Majesteis pleasure And that in the 
 meane time till his Majesteis pleasure be returned That his 
 Majestie allowed and willed the said Lord Commissioner to 
 append his Majesteis great seale to all infeftmentis patents and 
 other letters and writs whereunto the said great seale is 
 requisite and necessar wherethrow his Majesteis subjects sus- 
 teane no harme nor skaith be the want of the said seale and 
 cashett.” Then we have an interregnum as to the chancellor- 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 217 
 
 ship; and in 1641, we have the choice of Lord Loudon as 
 chancellor. This we have from the Act of Parliament pre¬ 
 served in the Register House, September, 1641. And then 
 on the 2d October, two days afterwards, we have another act 
 anent the delivery of the great seal to the charter, and an 
 exoneration to the Marquis of Hamilton thereanent. He is 
 thus exonered and relieved of the great seal two years after 
 the date of this deed. So here are three years, during which 
 time the great seal was in commission, and during which time 
 Archbishop Spottiswood had nothing to do with it, and did 
 not fill the office of chancellor at all. Is not this in itself then 
 a most satisfactory and clear article of proof that this is a false 
 and fabricated document ? But look to the testing clause of 
 those deeds of 16-19, in favour of the city of Edinburgh and 
 Heriot’s Hospital, which are produced in evidence, just four 
 days after the date of this fabricated document which bears 
 to be witnessed by Archbishop Spottiswood. You have James 
 Marquis of Hamilton, &c. as the witness in these charters 
 four days after the date of the pretended one; and there is 
 not one word mentioned about Archbishop Spottiswood. 
 This is a matter thoroughly conclusive. If the document had 
 been regular in its shape—if it had been found in the registers,— 
 this fact of itself would have been fatal to it as a genuine 
 document. In short, the incongruities are endless. There is 
 a grant of lands in New England, which the Scotch crown 
 could not grant; and this is one of those blunders into which 
 parties fall who meddle with matters they know nothing 
 about. This is a circumstance that could not have existed in 
 a Scotch charter. It could not have passed the seals with 
 such a clause. Such a thing would not have been allowed to 
 exist. It would have been a usurpation ; and this of itself 
 goes to prove that it is a false document. ' Then observe it is 
 addressed to a commoner; and it is quite out of the common 
 course that a commoner should be called “Our trusty and 
 well-beloved cousin,” as the grandson of Lord Stirling is so 
 designed ; and besides all these, there is the quaequidem, which 
 could not have passed ; and there is the want of the reddendo. 
 No doubt, it is said that an excerpt might exist without the 
 reddendo; but this is an excerpt founded on as containing 
 all the elements of a completed charter, and without it the 
 charter could not be expede. It would have been impossible 
 to say what was to be paid. This may not be so strong a 
 feature in the case; but putting the whole incongruities 
 together, it is absolutely impossible to avoid the force of the 
 conclusion, that it is a forged document. 
 
218 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER. 
 
 On the other hand, what have you in its favour ? Where 
 does it come from ? Have you any explanation of its exis¬ 
 tence ? We have the whisperings of a witness that it had 
 come from Ireland, and we heard something of Conyers who 
 had signed an affidavit certified by another party; but there 
 is no name—nothing proved to you as regards it. How it 
 came into possession of the pannel we know not. All that we 
 know, is, that it is got out of his hands by Mr Lockhart when 
 he went to Worcester. Let the forger be who he may, it is a 
 forgery to all intents and purposes. Jt may be open to the 
 prisoner to say that he has been deceived; but whatever he 
 may say, it is a forgery, and you are bound, so far as we have 
 yet gone, to find a corpus delicti; to find here that there has 
 been a forgery. Then not only is it a forgery, but it is a 
 modern forgery,—it is a forgery since the date of 1806— 
 since the rebinding of the charters in the Register House 
 under Mr Thomson, when that titling on the back was intro¬ 
 duced; and this is not an unimportant fact, because it brings 
 the forgery down to a date posterior to the return of the 
 prisoner from France. It is not a document which the family 
 could have known previously to his going abroad in 1802, 
 and therefore I bring it down to a period subsequent to 1806. 
 I bring it down to 1814 when the prisoner came back from 
 France. Passing over, in the meantime, the documents that 
 were transmitted through the penny-post in 1837, be so good 
 now as turn your attention to the second charge which has 
 reference to the French documents. Here again—I am not 
 going to inquire at present who may have been the forger of 
 these documents. 1 am to inquire if the documents on the 
 back of the map of Canada are forgeries in themselves. I am 
 not at present to direct your attention to the writings that 
 have been superinduced upon the map as containing internal 
 evidence of falsehood. What I wish you should confine your 
 attention to in the meantime, is, whether, in regard to the 
 dates of these respective documents, the map, the ipsissimum 
 corpus of the paper, on which these writings are made, was in 
 existence at the date of these writings, — the writings bearing 
 the signature of Mallet, in 1706,—of St Estienne, of Flechier 
 and Fenelon, and of John Alexander, in 1707. The three first 
 of these are written on the body of the map, and the two last 
 are pasted upon it. Therefore, in order to make it possible that 
 the three first in 1706 and 1707 could have been genuine, the 
 paper on which the writings are must have existed in these years. 
 Here again you see what has let! to the blunder in the title of 
 the map itself. The forger of the excerpt laboured under the 
 
STYLING HIMSELF KARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 219 
 
 mistaken belief that volume 57 of the registers had perished 
 at sea ; and here again the forger of the documents on the 
 back of this map laboured under the mistaken belief, induced 
 by the date of the title, that this paper was in existence in 
 1703, and of course that a map in 1703 might have been 
 written on in 1706 and 1707. But here the forger was not 
 aware that there was evidence, about which no Jury can enter¬ 
 tain a doubt, that though 1703 stands here as the date of the 
 map, it is, as the witnesses swore to you, the date of the copy¬ 
 right of the map—the date of the original publication—the 
 date which, in all successive impressions cast off from the 
 original, even with alterations on the title and body of the map, 
 were still to be preserved, because it was the date from which 
 the copyright was to run, and that for twenty years from 1703. 
 Now, if it had been in 1718 when the privilege of twenty 
 years would not have been run, it would not have accorded 
 with the fact. All the impressions subsequently thrown off 
 have reference to the date of the copyright, and therefore the 
 date of 1703 still remains. It is proved that this custom of 
 throwing off impressions from time to time is the practice of 
 all engravers to supply the demand for the sale; and here you 
 have accordingly before you different impressions of this map 
 thrown off at different times, bearing alterations on the title 
 and otherwise. You have one impression thrown off so late 
 as 1783, when there had been a new privilege, and the date 
 came to be altered, but in all the others you have the date 
 1703. But then you have, in accordance with that date, every 
 thing as to the title and residence of the engraver. In 1703 De 
 Lisle was not the first geographer to the king, — he was not 
 even geographer to the king, — he was simply geographer, 
 and such was his designation in the original map. Accor¬ 
 dingly, in this map of Canada, marked B, you have his desig¬ 
 nation “ Guillaume de Lisle, geographer,” in one line, the word 
 Ci geographer” coming in quite regularly in the arrangement of 
 the title, so as to fill up the line without a blank space; there¬ 
 fore you have no blank after l)e Lisle, and you have nothing 
 inserted between and the line below. Then you have a copy 
 of the map libelled on, the next in point of date, and here you 
 have a blank, the word u geographer” having been effaced, and 
 you have the insertion of the words in a crowded state, u first 
 geographer to the king.” When he became the first geogra¬ 
 pher to the king, he effaced his original title, and took the 
 title of his promotion; and as it could not have been put in 
 in the regular way, it is crowded in between the two lines, as I 
 
220 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRVS, OR ALEXANDER. 
 
 mentioned. Still 1703 remains, because this map bears the 
 privilege of His Majesty for twenty years. I do not know that 
 your attention was previously called to it, but it is worthy of 
 your observation that there are the markings, in the same line 
 as the residence, of the letters of the previous inscription that 
 had been effaced in the copper. 
 
 (Mr Adam Anderson.—It appears to be lithographed. 
 
 The Court.—What words are effaced ? 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Part of the original address ) There is a 
 space of fifteen years in which there are other changes of resi¬ 
 dence, and being in the constant habit, in all his changes of 
 residence and office, to alter the title accordingly, it is plain 
 that in the intermediate space there must have been changes of 
 a similar nature. It also goes to strengthen the evidence that 
 it was not, and could not, be a map of the same date of 1703. 
 Then there is the map in the untitled volume, which still con¬ 
 tinues to bear 1703, but at the bottom there are the words 
 “ First Geographer to the King, and to the Academy of 
 Sciences.’' This is an impression of 1745, at which time the 
 maps were the property of the author’s son-in-law. They 
 leave the original title till after the death of De L’ Isle, but 
 here is evidence that the alteration is made — a new patent is 
 given —and it is entered at the bottom. 
 
 Now, we have put in evidence the patent in favour of De 
 L’ Isle, of date 24th August, 1718: “ Patent of first geographer 
 to the king, for the S. De L’ Isle. This day, &c. The King, 
 being in Paris, having authentic proofs of the profound erudi¬ 
 tion of the S. Guillaume De L’ Isle of the Royal Academy of 
 Science, in the great number of geographical works which he 
 has executed for his use, and which have been received with 
 general approbation by the public, his Majesty, by the advice, 
 &c. wishing to attach him more particularly to his service, by a 
 title of honour, which may procure him, at the same time, the 
 means of continuing works of such usefulness, has declared and 
 declares, wishes and enjoins, that the said Sieur De L’ Isle 
 be henceforward his first geographer, to enjoy in that capacity 
 the honours, authorities, prerogatives, franchises, liberties, 
 wages, and rights, thereto belonging, which his Majesty has 
 fixed at the sum of twelve hundred livres per annum.” There¬ 
 fore, the title of Premier Geographe du Roi did not exist till 
 1718. What is the conclusion to be drawn from this ? Is it 
 to be supposed that the title existed in these maps prior to the 
 dated the appointment? \ou have Teulet—a more distinct 
 witness no Jury ever had before them—you have him speaking 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 221 
 
 to the date of his patent, and to his habit of altering the title 
 of his maps ; and you have Mr Lizars drawing his conclusions 
 in the same way, proving beyond all doubt, the practice of 
 engravers laying aside their coppers till a sale is called for. All 
 these witnesses conclude, that the paper on which this map is 
 thrown off did not exist until after the 24th of August, 1718. 
 What, then, becomes of the writings in 1706 and 1707 ? 
 They must have been forgeries, for the paper did not exist till 
 seventeen years later. It might be said, in regard to these 
 several documents, not written, but pasted on the back of the 
 map, that they might have been written of the genuine date, 
 although they are found here; but unfortunately for the pri¬ 
 soner, even this will not do ; because, although they may have 
 been written of the proper date, they are attached to the map 
 and bear attestation to it; and, therefore, unless those that are 
 written on the map itself were in existence at the dates which 
 they bear, neither can the others have been in existence, so that 
 it disproved those that are attached to it. If the writings are 
 forgeries, the pastings must be also; they must all hang toge¬ 
 ther ; if the first be false, every one of them must be false. 
 Something was said about the line marking De L’ Isle as the 
 first geographer to the king having been inserted by means of 
 a double plate ; but a double plate would not erase the word 
 “ geographer,” nor would it change the place of De L’ Isle’s 
 residence. Besides, it is proved that the copper must have 
 been struck up to be re-engraved, for the marks of the former 
 characters were still partially visible. Then we have put it in 
 evidence to you in regard to the writings under the hands of 
 Fenelon and Flechier, that one of those eminent persons was 
 dead in 1711, because we have produced an examined copy of 
 the patent for the installation of his successor for that year. 
 TV^e have proved that Fenelon died in 1715. We have pro¬ 
 duced an extract from the Register of the Chapter of Cambray, 
 stating the day and hour of his death. So that the alleged 
 witnesses to this important document were dead before the map 
 was in existence, and yet the writings are said to be theirs. 
 
 Then, in regard to Mallet and St Estienne. These are 
 men whose names were never heard of, and there is no proof 
 produced in regard to them. They are men merely ot the 
 imagination, and the map can derive no proof of its authenti¬ 
 city from their names. It depends upon the handwriting of 
 the two others, and it is proved in the most distinct manner, 
 that these two men were dead years and years before the map 
 was in existence. Is it necessary, then, to proceed further in 
 
222 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 regard to this ? Mr Lizars was asked to say which was the 
 earlier and which was the recent impression of the copper. He 
 gave them in the very order in which we find the changes 
 were made, — the one marked B was the oldest, and the one 
 libelled on was the second, just bearing out the real evidence 
 in the case. All those witnesses, likewise, concur in remark¬ 
 ing on the ink that was used in these maps. Teulet and 
 Jacobs are both minutely conversant with the process of imi¬ 
 tating old writings, which is practised to a much greater extent 
 in France than ever it has been used here. They said that 
 the ink of the writing said to be by John Alexander and 
 Philip Mallet satisfied them that it was not ordinary ink, 
 but made with a composition of china ink, yellow, and car¬ 
 mine, and in various places in these writings they detected the 
 deposition of the carmine on the edge of the letters. Jacobs 
 told you that this had often happened to himself in his own 
 experience. It was not, he said, in answer to one of your¬ 
 selves, a composition which he had invented, but one which 
 was in common use with designers who were employed to do 
 the same thing, which has been attempted to be done here, to 
 imitate old writing. Mr Lizars, also, though less experienced 
 in such matters, concurred in the view taken by these witnesses, 
 that these writings did not seem to be written with common 
 ink, and he mentioned, that in an ink so composed, the 
 carmine, being the heavier colour, would necessarily be 
 deposited. He said, too, that an ink, resembling in colour 
 that of the writings, might be made up of sepia and umber, 
 but which would be effaced by rubbing ; and that, acting upon 
 that knowledge, he had made the experiment, and found that it 
 yielded, which it would not have done had it been common 
 ink. 
 
 Then we come to the internal evidence of the documents 
 themselves, and I am now going from stronger points to 
 weaker. It is very singular that such a fuss should have 
 been made about this map of De L’ Isle. What had Philip 
 Mallet to do with the Alexander family ? What did Flechier 
 and others know or care about the family, as to make it a matter 
 of such mighty consequence to those parties, when, accord¬ 
 ing to this statement of the prisoner, the title had not opened 
 to any of his family ? There is Mallet at Lyons, St Estienne 
 at Lyons, Flechier at Nismes, John Alexsinder at Antrim, 
 and ienelon at Cambray. "Why were these brought into the 
 — men who had nothing to do with the matter ? Was 
 it dignus tali vindice nodus ? One would have thought that 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF ST IK LING. 
 
 223 
 
 some important interest of the moment was to be attended 
 to, but that interest did not exist till about a hundred and 
 forty years afterwards. It is impossible to read these letters, 
 as tar as I can judge, without holding that they are forge¬ 
 ries. Then Mallet, of whom nobody has ever heard, and 
 who writes in August, 1706, is made to die before April, 17(J7 ; 
 and then there is Estienne, of whom fame has heard equally 
 little, and we can find no trace of him. Mallet is dead ; St 
 Estienne, his intimate, we know nothing about. Mallet, in 
 this letter, says, that he took the precaution to have it duly 
 attested before his departure. Why did he get it attested ? 
 St Estienne says, that Mallet’s note is most precious. I do 
 think so, too, but not in the sense he wishes to convey. “ I 
 can certify,” he says, “ that it gives in few words an extremely 
 correct idea of the wonderful charter in question.” Wonderful! 
 and what was wonderful about it ? “ As to the copy of this char¬ 
 ter, it is attested by the keeper of the records, (P archiviste,) 
 and the Acadian witnesses, and must be in entire conformity 
 with the Register of Port Royal. While at Quebec,” (and he 
 was also at Quebec,) “ I had heard of the grants to the Earl 
 of Stirling, but my friend M. Mallet was the first who pro¬ 
 cured me a perusal of the charter.” Then he gets a perusal 
 of the charter itself at Quebec. “ This extraordinary docu¬ 
 ment extends over fifty pages of writing, and the Latin any 
 thing but classical; still, as a Canadian, somewhat interested 
 in its contents, I am bound to say, that I read it from end to 
 end with as much curiosity as satisfaction. The late M. 
 Mallet” (he is now dead) “ was a man whose good qualities, 
 and rare understanding make us regret a death which snatched 
 him so suddenly from his friends. He had foreseen that the 
 copy would not make the charter known in France.” As a 
 forgery this is quite intelligible. It is the train of circum¬ 
 stances by which one attestation is made to bear upon 
 another. Although what we have to do with it, and what 
 any body has to do with it, no one can venture to say. “ He 
 had foreseen that the copy would not make the charter known 
 in France.” But do you think that an imperfect note on a 
 map of De L’ Isle’s would make it better known in France? 
 “ Hence he conceived the idea of writing, on one of the beauti¬ 
 ful maps of Guillaume de L’ Isle, a note which all the world 
 might read with interest,” as if all the world w'ere to get at this 
 map. “ The copy of this charter would not make it known 
 in France,” and it is not one, I think, that all the world 
 would read. “ Had he lived long enough, he would have 
 
224 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMP1IRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 added to the interest, for he wished to obtain information in 
 England as to the then situation of the descendants of the 
 Earl who obtained the grants; and all the information which 
 he might have received respecting them, he would have trans¬ 
 ferred to this very map.” Why was this gentleman so much 
 interested in the descendants of the Alexanders ? Why should 
 means be taken to make all persons in France acquainted with 
 the existence of this charter ? What could it concern any body 
 but the descendants of the Earl’s family ? It is utterly out of 
 the conception of man to suppose, that any thing could inte¬ 
 rest these parties in regard to this family, when they knew 
 nothing about them. How could they come to take so much 
 trouble about this matter? This is in 1707. Mallet is 
 hardly cold in his grave — we are taken from Lyons to 
 Nismes, and we have here Esprit Flechier, Bishop of Nismes, 
 made to say, that he bore testimony to the copy of the charter 
 with the greatest pleasure. We are here back to the copy, 
 and how he came by it is not explained. This is not two 
 months after*the date of the letter of Estienne, whilst the copy 
 of the charter has been travelling as fast as the note, but not 
 in the same direction, for the charter is read at the house of 
 Monsieur Sartre at Caveirac. But why should the Bishop of 
 Nismes be evoked to give this testimony to the faithfulness of 
 this translation ? It is incredible, but it is one of the train of 
 circumstances. Two months afterwards, there is a letter of 
 25th August, from John of Antrim to the Marchioness de 
 Lambert. “ I cannot express to you, madam, how sensible I 
 am of the honour of your remembrance. My sincere thanks 
 are also due to Monsieur de Cambrav, since he, by facilitating 
 the journey of my friend Mr Hovenden,” (we heard that name 
 in the affidavit at which the hand-writing of Conyers was at¬ 
 tempted to be proved in evidence,) “ was the means of my 
 being so quickly put in possession of your letter, and the copy 
 which you have been good enough to forward to me, of the 
 note respecting my grandfather’s charter.” (The learned 
 gentleman read and commented on the letter. 
 
 Now, this is almost as much to the purpose of the party as 
 if it had been made for them. How does he account for the 
 original charter? Ilis grandmother gave'it “ to her son-in- 
 law, Lord Montgomery, in order that he might preserve it 
 carefully in Castle Comber, where he resided.” There has 
 been a succession of Earls of Stirling from the First to the 
 1* if til, and here we are told that the grandmother, who has 
 nothing to do with the charter, carries it with her to Ireland and 
 
STYLING HIMSELF FALL OF STIRLING. 
 
 225 
 
 gives it to Lord Montgomery, who has also nothing to do with 
 it. We would have thought that it would have been found 
 nearer to the proper proprietor of it ; but no, it is said to have 
 been carefully preserved in Castle Comber, where Lord Mont¬ 
 gomery resided. 
 
 Now, we come to the Archbishop of Cambray, and he writes, 
 in October, 1707, — 44 The friends of the late Mr Ph. Mallet 
 will, doubtless, read with great interest this letter of a grand¬ 
 son of the Earl of Stirling. M. Cholet, of Lyons, setting out 
 to-day, 16th October, 1707, on his way home, will have the 
 honour of delivering it to Mr Brossette on the part of Madame 
 de Lambert. To authenticate it, I have written and signed 
 this marginal note.” To authenticate what? To authenti¬ 
 cate, 16th October, 1707, a letter written on the 25th August 
 of same year to Madame de Lambert, who was the person to 
 whom that letter was addressed ! The thing passes all credi¬ 
 bility. This is nothing but to get the Archbishop’s name on 
 the document. Then there is said to be a seal on the inscrip¬ 
 tion of the tombstone which is on the map. A mighty matter 
 has been made of this seal. I take the prisoner’s statement, in 
 regard to it, in the eleventh article of his minute, — 44 That 
 the document, No. X. is the letter holograph of Mr John 
 Alexander of Antrim to the Marchioness de Lambert, above 
 referred to : that part of the letter and the seal still remain ; and 
 that the impression of the seal is the same with that on the 
 parchment cover above referred to.” The parchment cover 
 is the document that was found in London, and on which 
 there are three impressions of the seal, and the prisoner’s 
 statement is, that the impression of the seal is the same with 
 that on the parchment cover. It is not only a seal of a like 
 kind, but the impression must have been made with the same 
 seal. In the prisoner’s declaration, accordingly, his attention 
 was called to it, and he declares, on being interrogated if he 
 has examined the seals upon the packet above mentioned, 
 44 that he has not, and is not certain that he ever saw them.” 
 And the cover of the packet, being No. 83 of process, being 
 shewn him, declares, he does not think he ever saw it before; 
 but he now recognizes the indorsement as in his father’s 
 handwriting, and that the seal attached is an impression of his 
 grandfather’s seal. The words he so recognizes are, 4 some 
 of my wife's family papers' He had seen that seal many 
 years ago; not later than 1825. It is in possession of his 
 sister, Lady Elizabeth Pountney.” Now, this Lady Elizabeth 
 Pountney is on the list of witnesses given in for the defender. 
 Gentlemen, the use of the seal there one can easily divine, 
 
226 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 but that the seal should have been considered of such moment 
 in 1707, within a month or two after the letter was written, is 
 not so easy to divine. But there is here an important remark 
 to be made,—if, as the prisoner says, his sister was in possession 
 of the seal from which all these several impressions were taken ; 
 if there is any forgery in any one of these documents; if we 
 connect the prisoner with this seal; is this not a proof that 
 he was connected with these forgeries. How comes it that 
 this seal is in possession of his sister; and how comes it that 
 this sister, being in the list of the prisoner’s witnesses, has not 
 been brought forward to explain in regard to that seal ? 
 The next document to be found in the map is that detached 
 from it by Mr Lizars. The inscription on the tombstone 
 bears to be attested by a writing of date 6th October, 1723. 
 “ This is a faithful copy of the inscription to the memory of John 
 Alexander, Esq. upon the tablet over his tomb at Newton-Ards, 
 county of Down, Ireland. Stratford-upon-Avon, October 6, 
 1723. W. C. Gordon, jun.” Then there is another document 
 which bears no signature, but which is on the back of the map. 
 “ This inscription has been communicated by Madame de 
 Lambert. Since the death of Mr Alexander in 1712, this 
 lady has not ceased to bestow on the son of this distinguished 
 man marks of her good will and friendship. This son is 
 favourably known in England as a Protestant clergyman, and 
 a learned philologist. In the knowledge of oriental languages 
 he is almost without a rival. He is at the head of a college, 
 for the education of young clergymen, established at Stratford- 
 upon-Avon, in the county of Warwick.” This, gentlemen, is 
 just another proof of the observation I have been making to you 
 throughout; that it is impossible to conceive how all these things 
 came to be accumulated here for a purpose of the object of which 
 there is no trace whatever. You have Madame de Lambert 
 taking all this interest for nothing. She makes inquiries when 
 there is no occasion for it; and what can be the meaning of 
 all this; but that these documents were accumulated to fill up 
 the links that were said by the Lord Ordinary to be wanting 
 in the prisoner’s claim ? It is an extraordinary fact that, 
 on removing this document, there should be found an extract 
 from a letter of Fenelon, written in 1698, which you have 
 heard read. There is here an asterisk, which must have been 
 intended to refer to something; and at the bottom of John 
 Alexander’s letter there is also an asterisk. You will look at 
 these, and you will see whether it is a matter you can bring 
 yourself to believe, that, at this point of time, all these 
 things should have been going on in 1706,^ in reference 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 227 
 
 to this document, as if the public in France had taken an 
 interest in the matter. From the beginning to the end there 
 is nothing in these documents that could be of use to any 
 mortal man but to this prisoner. And just, last of all, look 
 at the figure 7 at the upper corner. Look at that figure nar¬ 
 rowly, and you will find that it has been originally a different 
 one. The conclusion I draw from that is, that one is not apt 
 to mistake the date of the century in which they are writing, 
 although sometimes the year. If you were writing in 1723, 
 it is not likely you would make 1623; and if you were fabri¬ 
 cating a document in 1823, of date 1723, you might very 
 readily write 1823; and this is a circumstance of no small im¬ 
 portance when taken in connection with the other evidence. 
 To my eye, it looks as if it had been originally 1823, but 
 whether it be so or not, may not be determined ; but, at all 
 events, you will be satisfied upon examination that it has been 
 a different figure. It looks as if the party had forgot his lesson 
 when engaged in the fabrication of the document. And then, 
 on the back of this tombstone inscription, we have the trace of 
 another map of Canada. We heard from the evidence of 
 Leguix, that there were frequent applications for maps of 
 Canada by an Englishman ; and here you have, on the back 
 of one of the documents, pasted over a writing which was 
 meant to be kept out of view, a portion of another map of 
 Canada; and, in all likelihood, this tombstone inscription was 
 written on the back of this portion of the map to prevent you 
 from seeing what was below it; as, had the inscription been 
 written on an ordinary piece of paper, the writing below 
 would have appeared through it. Well, then, you have here 
 a portion of another map of Canada; and it is a circumstance 
 for you to decide whether this may not have been a cutting 
 from one of those other maps of Canada which had been 
 bought by this party. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I have shewn you that it is impossible 
 that any of these writings could have existed of the date 
 they bear, because they bear reference to others of a similar 
 date, by which they are proved to be forgeries. I have 
 proved to you that the ink is a composition, and not a 
 natural ink ; and when you look to these letters, and consi¬ 
 der the object for which they were brought up, and see 
 how completely they are crowded together on a map bearing 
 the autographs of eminent men, in a manner such as never 
 was before presented in like concatenation, am not I entitled 
 to tell you, that this is a forgery by this party for his own 
 
228 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 purposes ? And see how well they tally with that which was 
 necessary to promote his end ! He may himself have been 
 deceived, let me say ; but see how completely they tally in 
 furtherance of his interest! Observe, his title had been 
 reduced because of a defect in two descents which these docu¬ 
 ments go to supply. They could not have come at a more 
 opportune time, — they could not have filled up the blank 
 more naturally. There was a second marriage to be made 
 out between John of Antrim, whose first wife was the heiress 
 of Gartmore, and Miss Maxwell, to serve the interest of the 
 prisoner; and in his action against Graham of Gartmore, he 
 averred that he was the great-grandson of the marriage 
 between John of Antrim and the heiress of Gartmore. But 
 then in the course of the process it was found that he could 
 not be the heir. In the defences originally it was admitted 
 by my learned friend, that in no part of the record was there 
 any allegation of a second marriage of John of Gartmore; 
 and when he was driven from his stronghold, he says, that it 
 was only by the documents since discovered that he came to 
 the knowledge of his descent from the alleged second marriage. 
 When every thing was struck beneath his feet, he was obliged 
 to take this new ground; and is not that circumstance of great 
 importance, even in the question of a forgery ? The appear¬ 
 ance of the former case was desperate, and a new ground was 
 in consequence taken, and an attempt to make a new mar¬ 
 riage, which was never before known or heard of. Taking all 
 the facts together, I say that such combinations are so incred¬ 
 ible as to justify any one in concluding that it was absolutely 
 impossible they could take place. 
 
 The bookseller proves to you that there were repeated inqui¬ 
 ries at his shopTy an Englishman, for a map of Canada by De 
 L’ Isle of 1703; that he came repeatedly, and bought several 
 maps of Canada, not giving a large price for them, but buying 
 this “ beautiful map” for about fourteen pence; and this was 
 the “beautiful map” that was to be treasured up to instruct the 
 whole of France. It is a map of 1703 that is asked for, and 
 searched for; and why any body should be peculiarly anxious 
 for a map of that date, is a matter which you are entitled to 
 take into consideration. Then this map is got in the house 
 of Mademoiselle Le Normand. Is he acquainted with her? 
 Look at his declaration. He there admits he is acquainted with 
 her. You have all things concurring to support the conclu¬ 
 sion that this forgery took place there. This map, in its pre¬ 
 sent shape, we are told, was brought by two ladies, fashionably 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 229 
 
 dressed, to the house of Mademoiselle Le Normand, and left on 
 a sofa in the room ; and this is all the history that we have of 
 these documents. \ou have no other account of how it was 
 found. You have a dark allusion to a Minister of State, who 
 is supposed to have had the documents in his possession, and 
 to have sent them to this fortune-teller. In her letter of 
 13th August, 1838, to the prisoner, she gives this account of 
 it: “ Subsequent to the year 1789, it (the map of Canada) was 
 sold with a number ol other papers. A dealer in old books 
 resold it to an amateur ; this amateur presented it to a Minister 
 of State, who was curious in autographs, &c. &c. The fact is, 
 that this map is worthless, as far as French politics go.” If 
 “ worthless,” what was the use of a Minister of State departing 
 from his duty, and robbing the Archives of France, to put 
 into the hands ol Mademoiselle Le Normand this document, 
 to advance the prisoner’s interest. One proof of its fabrica¬ 
 tion, independently of all others, is, that there was here no use 
 for concealment. It was “ worthless so far as French politics 
 go,” and why should there be any concealment. But it could 
 not be accounted for, and, therefore, it dropped from the 
 clouds, like the excerpt from the charter, and like the English 
 documents. You have not one particle of evidence that can 
 account for the discovery in an honest way, but the forgery 
 does account for them. Let the forger be who he may, this 
 excerpt and these writings on the back of the map are each 
 and all of them forgeries. 
 
 Now, without troubling you farther upon this point, I shall 
 go back to the fourth and fifth charges; and I think we may 
 proceed to inquire how these two forgeries bear upon them. 
 There is certainly no direct evidence that the prisoner at the 
 bar was actually the hand by which they were forged; but if 
 the excerpt 1639 is proved to be a forgery, just see how im¬ 
 portant an element that single circumstance is of itself, in 
 proving also that the French documents must be forged also. 
 The two things reflect light on each other. There is no such 
 thing as a French charter proved; it never existed any where. 
 You find it reviving again in a distant place, and coupled with 
 a thousand details, that strangers could not be conversant with. 
 If the excerpt of 1639 be false, then the French documents 
 fall to the ground. If the charter 1639 falls to the ground, is 
 it not strange, that you find in a document published in France, 
 all the important clauses of that charter,—this being only the 
 destination, for nothing else is given useful to this prisoner— 
 revived and brought forth again. It is of consequence that 
 
230 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 you should satisfy yourself whether there was a charter of 1639. 
 Nobody can have a doubt of its being a forgery. Then how 
 were strangers, at the distance of a century, to fall upon those 
 details, about a family of whom they knew nothing, which you 
 find in the heart of this document ? Who cared about the 
 family of Alexander, and, above all, who knew them ? It 
 must have been some one who had a knowledge of the matter 
 that forged or directed these forgeries; and who could it be 
 but some one who had the elements of information necessary 
 for filling up the details which are in the body of that forgery of 
 Mallet’s ? Who could be the forger ? Who could have known 
 about Hovenden, and about John Alexander, and all the other 
 parties brought forward in the civil action, and which were so 
 necessary for the accomplishment of his design ? Who could 
 have known in 1706 of things that were necessary for the 
 prisoner to have proved in 1837 as having happened then ? 
 Whether the forgery w T as done by the actual hand of the 
 prisoner or not, is it not clear that it was for his ends, and his 
 ends alone, that this took place ? It was from information 
 that he possessed that this fabric was reared. Was it not to 
 raise up a new case in consequence of the failure of the former 
 one? It was necessary for his purposes, then, that this for¬ 
 gery was made. Then, gentlemen, his being alone cognizant 
 of the necessary information, no other person being concerned 
 in the matter, brings the forgery down to himself. Is he 
 not in France after the first interlocutor of Lord Cockburn 
 is pronounced, which actually demolished his case ? You 
 find that he leaves this on 18th December, 1836, Lord Cock- 
 burn’s interlocutor being pronounced upon the 10th. He 
 goes to France under a borrowed name—he will not tell his 
 purpose in going there—he will not tell where he staid—he 
 will not state his name in his passport—he throws Made¬ 
 moiselle Le Normand overboard in his declaration until she 
 is forced upon him—he is found then in communication, in 
 daily and constant communication, at night with that lady— 
 he makes repeated motions for delay after the interlocutor is 
 signed. 
 
 (The Court.—No part of that was read. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—My attention was not called to it, my 
 Lord. 
 
 Solicitor-General.—Well, then, it is no matter.) 
 
 The interlocutor is pronounced on the 10th December, the 
 English documents were found in April, and the French 
 documents were found in July. Where? In the house of 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EAUL OF STIRLING. 
 
 231 
 
 Mademoiselle Le Normand. The documents are not put into 
 the prisoner’s possession. He sends over his son to Paris, and 
 the documents are given to him by that lady, and they are 
 produced here in November. Now, when these forgeries are 
 for his ends—when the civil case rendered it necessary that 
 they should appear at that time—when you find him in close 
 communication with the party from whose house they came,— 
 I submit to you that it is proof, with which any Jury ought to 
 be satisfied, that this prisoner was art and part in that forgery. 
 He puts them into the civil action for his own purpose, and 
 he is liable to all the suspicions that would attach to a party 
 in such a situation ; and my conclusion is, that if he is not the 
 actual hand that forged them, he is so mixed up with the 
 forgery, and so much in the knowledge of it, that you cannot 
 deal with him otherwise. 
 
 It is not enough, however, to hold him to be the forger, or 
 to prove that the documents were foi’geries, unless you hold 
 him also to be the utterer with the guilty knowledge that they 
 were forgeries. It is not disputed that he put them into Court. 
 It has been proved, and it is admitted, that the excerpt was 
 uttered by him, and it is proved that the other documents were 
 delivered by the hand of his own son. These are forged 
 documents, and you have his own admission that he is the 
 utterer of them. It was he alone who was connected with the 
 act of uttering. Feeling the importance of what had been 
 transacted in Paris, he comes to Court with the document— 
 the seal is broken in open Court,—he even adds to its authen¬ 
 ticity in this way, and he cannot shake himself quit of it,— 
 he takes the whole responsibility on himself—he obtained the 
 document in France—he brought it here and put it into the 
 hands of the Court himself. This is a most important ele¬ 
 ment for your consideration. It will not do to convict him, 
 even although you were satisfied that the documents were 
 forged, till you are satisfied that he has been the utterer in 
 guilty knowledge. If he is the forger, he must have been the 
 utterer; and if he has been forging and uttering, there can be 
 no question as to his guilty knowledge. But if you should 
 hold that there is not such evidence as to make him the actual 
 fabricator of the instrument, or art and part, and cognizant 
 of the fabrication, then it is necessary that he uttering the 
 document be proved to have so uttered them in the knowledge 
 and belief that they were forged. Now, on that point I think 
 there is the strongest evidence. The presumption is always 
 against the utterer, unless he clear himself to the satisfaction 
 
 2 z 
 
232 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHKYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 of the Jury, and give a satisfactory account of how the docu¬ 
 ment came into his possession. It was for him to explain 
 how he was deceived. He is on his proof, and he must free 
 himself from the delinquency. The onus is upon him, and 
 upon him alone. Then, again, here is not only the legal pre¬ 
 sumption against this prisoner, but it is his interest that is 
 alone advanced by this instrument. You have heard it proved 
 what he did between 1829 and 1831 by the evidence of Tyrrell, 
 who shews how much money he raised on the plea'of that 
 fabricated excerpt. He raised L. 13,000 upon it, and made 
 use of it in eighteen months. From being an obscure school¬ 
 master in Worcester,, poor in circumstances, his family in 
 distress, all at once he starts up the Earl of Stirling, and on 
 no better ground than in that excerpt. He possesses himself 
 of the property of others to the extent of L. 13,000. He tells 
 us in his declaration that he opened an office in Parliament 
 Street, London, for the sale of lands in Canada, and he 
 admits that he issued an address to his Canadian subjects. 
 All this was to advance his own end, and to enable him to 
 get money without any thing in return. He does all this at 
 a time when he had nothing to go upon. All these doings 
 are for the purpose of advancing his own interest under cir¬ 
 cumstances which no honest man could have thought of 
 adopting for such an end. He gets money advanced to him 
 on a shadow—on a document that has turned out to be a 
 forgery. He raises L. 13,000 to benefit himself under cir¬ 
 cumstances which would be considered usurious on the part 
 of the lenders, by what one of yourselves called a contract of 
 hazard. He gets a number of paintings, and sells them again. 
 It is out of the ordinary course that he goes to deal with the 
 matter, and all that he does is grounded on this fabricated 
 instrument. At this time he was proving the tenor in Court. 
 The first action was brought in 1829. It is dismissed. Is 
 he staggered by that? Hoes that cause him to give up his 
 practices? He enters into a second process in 1830, and 
 again he makes use of the same documents as adminicles of 
 evidence, which he was told would not sustain him. Not only 
 does he do that, but he raises an action of reduction-improba- 
 tion and declarator in the Court of Session against William 
 Cunningham Graham of Gartmore; and it is to support that 
 reduction, and to enable him to raise money on the security 
 of the Canadian and Scotch estates, that all these acts take 
 place. Is it possible, then, that there could be other than 
 guilty knowledge of the forgery of those documents in this 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EAR], OF STIRLING. 
 
 233 
 
 individual ? See the necessity under which he was labouring, 
 —see also his interest in advancing them. He had no other 
 means to prosecute his alleged claim than by forgery. He 
 was a man of desperate fortunes. He had become a mere 
 adventurer in the market, and I say it is utterly impossible to 
 give him the credit of good faith in this matter. An honest 
 man, having a just claim, would first have established his title. 
 It was impossible that the prisoner could do this; but if he 
 had believed it to exist, he would have gone to work in a 
 totally different manner. He would have gone to establish 
 his right to the peerage in the first instance, and his right to 
 the titles in the second. If a person goes from shop to shop 
 —a poor man say—passing a pound here, and a pound there, 
 and a third in another place, and they are found out to be 
 forged, the repetition of the fact, and the impossibility of 
 giving a good account of how he came by them, is a proof of 
 his guilt. These are the circumstances that fix the crime 
 upon this prisoner. When you find him in possession of 
 nothing but forgeries, when you find him uttering them again 
 and again, what is he but a person in the same circumstances 
 with many others whom you have seen so often convicted of 
 forgery at the bar on evidence not of so striking a kind, con¬ 
 victed by the mere repetition of the crime ? Look at the pro¬ 
 ceedings, and how they began. He is proved in 1815 to 
 have had no title. Corrie says, “ I won’t be your solicitor, 
 because you have shewn me nothing that can support your 
 title.” In 1829, what had he but the excerpt, and was he 
 entitled, on that miserable document, to rear himself into the 
 Earldom of Stirling ? He issues his proclamation to his Cana¬ 
 dian subjects, he passes his service, and still he has nothing but 
 that excerpt. This title is challenged in the most solemn 
 manner. The Officers of State bring an action to shew that 
 it is false and forged,—he is put on his guard, and does he 
 now take benefit of the knowledge and warning forced on 
 him ? No; he still perseveres. Ilis title was knocked from 
 under him in 1836. The Lord Ordinary puts the case on 
 grounds which he must have seen utterly demolished his 
 claim, which, for twenty-one years of his life, he sought 
 to maintain. All was a falsehood during these twenty-one 
 years, and now he saw that it would not serve his pur¬ 
 poses. The title which he sought to maintain, from the 
 date of that interlocutor he was forced to renounce. 
 Does he now depart from a plea raised on a grant which he 
 saw to be false—does he do any thing to make reparation for 
 
234 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IiUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 the sums of money he had obtained unworthily -does he stop 
 in his practices ? No, his story now is,—and is it not a proot 
 of guilty knowledge ?—“ I will prove a second marriage a 
 marriage with Miss Maxwell. I am now descended ftom 
 Miss Maxwell.” Should he not have been cautious before he 
 changed, and took up a new position, when he found that 
 Gartmore was a family with which he could not connect 
 himself? When he found that all would not do, should he 
 not then have changed his course, and made amends for all 
 the evils he had done, by at least proving the second marriage 
 before he went farther ? The Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor is 
 dated on the 10th December, 1836; and he leaves this for 
 France on the 18th December. On the 10th December, his 
 family are in the management of his case. They are resident 
 in Edinburgh — they are here on the spot; but he is not 
 proved to be resident in Edinburgh, living with his family. 
 He is found leaving this country on the 18th, and on the 21st 
 he is in Paris. Where was he then ? Has he told you ? 
 What do you know of him except this, that he was staying 
 nobody knows where, and that he was doing nobody knows 
 what, unless he was engaged in this very forgery ? He 
 was in constant communication with nobody except Made¬ 
 moiselle Le Normand. Beaubis told you that he called upon 
 that lady almost every evening at eight, and remained till ten 
 o’clock. In his own declaration he says, that lie occasionally 
 did visit her. There he is then at her house, even on his 
 own declaration. He is there frequently daily, and it is the 
 only house in which you find him, and the only person with 
 whom you find him in communication is this Mademoiselle 
 Le Normand. These French forgeries were then executed. 
 This map is discovered, and it is produced for his purposes. 
 His attention is called by the Court to his acquaintance with 
 Le Normand, and he is required to explain how the document 
 came into his possession. He makes a declaration which has 
 been laid before you, and though now put upon his guard, he 
 adheres to every thing that he said before, and maintains that 
 he is in good faith in regard to this document. The forgeries 
 were committed when his case was desperate — when, unless 
 something additional was done, he must have gone to the 
 wall. It is not immaterial to notice, that every thing he has 
 gone upon is anonymous. The similitude of the hand-writing, 
 which is nothing, has been talked of, and all that can be said 
 of the document is, that it is a good forgery. It is written 
 with an ink of a certain composition — there are colouring 
 
STYLING HIMSKLF KARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 235 
 
 matter, and acids found in the paper, and every tiling was 
 found that was expected to be found under such circumstances. 
 It is impossible, then, to say, that he was not connected with 
 the forgery. His claim is utterly done away with by the 
 Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor, and nothing but the interposi¬ 
 tion of Providence could have come to his aid. He departs 
 from this to make up the links found to be wanting in his 
 descent, and he brings no more than what is necessary to bring 
 out his case. Has he given always a right account of those 
 matters? Look at his declaration in the Civil Court. (The 
 learned gentleman then read over the prisoner’s judicial decla¬ 
 ration before the Court of Session, and his declarations before 
 the Sheriff, pointing out various discrepancies, particularly 
 with regard to the debt to Mademoiselle Le Normand.) He 
 admitted that he was in debt to her 400,000 francs, that is, 
 L. 16,000, but stated that it was to be paid in fixed instal¬ 
 ments, and without any reference to his success in the action ; 
 while, from a document found in his desk, it was proved that 
 he had become bound to pay her 100,000 francs within six 
 months after he had recovered his estates, and the remainder 
 in instalments thereafter. This was a matter that could not 
 have escaped his recollection. He said, in his declaration, 
 that she trusted to his honour; but the search of papers made 
 at his house completely disproved that. He refused to tell 
 under what name he travelled, and where he stayed — he 
 refused to give the information that might establish his inno¬ 
 cence, if he was innocent, and he had not, down to the present 
 moment, told any thing in regard to these matters, and was 
 contented that the case should go to the Jury under all those 
 suspicious circumstances. In what manner could any body 
 be compromised by his disclosing under what name he travelled, 
 and where he lived—and for what conceivable reason did he 
 conceal this information from the crown, if his proceedings in 
 France were innocent, and when he knew that, if innocent, 
 his case would have been benefited by the disclosure? He 
 had thus brought a charge against himself, and would not 
 enable the crown to deal with the question of his innocence. 
 He had not told how the advances were made to him by 
 Mademoiselle Le Normand. The obligation he gave her for 
 L. 16,000, was totally unaccounted for. He said it was for an 
 absolute debt, and had no reference to the present proceed¬ 
 ings. On the search, there was found in his house the fol¬ 
 lowing document under his sign manual. (The Solicitor- 
 General then read the Extract, No. 53 of Productions,—p. 82.) 
 Where now was the statement in his declaration, that this 
 
236 TRIAL 01*’ ALEXANDER HUMPI1RYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 debt bad no reference “ to the present proceedings.” He 
 and she were joint fabricators of those French documents, 
 and both of them interested in the proceedings. Do you 
 then believe that you would have heard a word of the 
 truth of these obligations, if the prisoner could have helped it ? 
 Do you believe, that in his declaration, he was speaking the 
 truth. Why did he not tell the truth ? What occasion was 
 there for fabrication ? Could it have been any disgrace to him 
 that Mademoiselle Le Normand had been enabled to accom¬ 
 modate him with L. 16,000, and that he was to pay it back to 
 her. His declarations are contradictions from beginning to 
 end. Another suspicious circumstance is, that in his cor¬ 
 respondence with Mademoiselle Le Normand, she had inti¬ 
 mated to him that they had found out the man at the quay, 
 and that they wished him to go to Scotland. This was the 
 man who had sold the map to the prisoner. Another suspi¬ 
 cious circumstance was, that Mademoiselle Le Normand 
 cautioned him to destroy all papers and letters that might be 
 prejudicial to him. These are points which I merely wish 
 you to keep in view. The Solicitor-General then com¬ 
 mented at some length on the letters of Mademoiselle 
 Le Normand to the prisoner, which, he maintained, brought 
 the two parties distinctly into contact in the fabrication of 
 the document. Then as to the English documents, they, 
 too, had been found in the very nick of time, to be pro¬ 
 duced in Court. It was for the Jury to look at those docu¬ 
 ments with the rest, and say whether they were not forged as 
 well as the others. It was impossible, he conceived, that they 
 could find the one set of documents forged, and the others 
 not. Was it not odd, continued the learned gentleman, that 
 precisely at this time they should get, through the twopenny 
 post, another set of documents, which, when dovetailed into 
 the other, acted their part in the filling up of the defects in 
 the pedigree which the Lord Ordinary proved to be wanting? 
 
 The Court. — Do you mean to say that the writing on the 
 back of the parchment is a forgery ? 
 
 Solicitor-General.—We think there is evidence to go to 
 the Jury as to these English documents being a forgery. I 
 admit that there is no direct evidence in regard to them; but 
 see how closely they rivet and dovetail with each other. I 
 say there is real evidence in the case, by which you can come 
 to the conclusion that they are forgeries. They are all parts 
 of the same grand machinery ; and I leave them, gentlemen, 
 in your hands without farther comment. 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 237 
 
 I am now about to relieve you from the case, so far as I am 
 concerned, in which I fear I have taken up more of your 
 time than I would have required to do, had I been more 
 thoroughly acquainted with all the details. Unless something 
 else is discovered, it is clear as light that the pretensions or 
 the prisoner are a mere shadow. All that you have here is 
 excerpt from an alleged charter of 1639, said to have been 
 lost. Its loss has not been accounted for, and its existence 
 has been demonstratively negatived by all the records and 
 registers in which it must have been expected to be fount 
 had it ever been in existence. The excerpt itself has been 
 proved to be a forgery. Its history —how it dropped from 
 the clouds—remains a secret. You have the whole pretensions 
 of the prisoner struck down by the interlocutor or Lord 
 Cockburn, after the most patient and anxious deliberation, 
 and after every opportunity had been given to the prisoner to 
 prove his case. That brings us down to 1836. Ihe pri¬ 
 soner’s case was now desperate,—it was lost beyond all powers 
 of recovery ; and while it is in this condition, lie flies to i mice 
 for the concoction of other documents. \ou find lum in 
 France, and remaining there for no purpose assigned, lou 
 find him with Mademoiselle Le Normand when we say the 
 fabrication of the documents were going on. The declarations 
 of the prisoner shew his unwillingness to tell the truth, and 
 they are full of contradictions. Then you have the obligation 
 for 400,000 francs unaccounted for. You have Mademoiselle 
 Le Normand dreading his apprehension, and telling him to 
 destroy such of his papers and letters as might be injurious to 
 him. ‘Then you have letters proved to have been made up 
 for double purposes: one set for the private eye of the int i- 
 vidual, and another that they might be laid before the judge; 
 reduced into English, the originals being destroyed, it is said, 
 for the purpose of being laid before counsel; just as it his 
 counsel were less qualified than he is to translate the letters of 
 Mademoiselle Le Normand. Then we have the evidence 
 that Leguix, the man on the quay, was at this moment selling 
 a map of Canada, of date 1703, by Guillaume De L Isle. 
 Then you have the letter about “ 1’ horn me du quai, it is 
 before you,—read it and deal with it as you think fit. Then 
 you have the prisoner giving contradictory accounts of tie 
 debt of 400,000 francs to Mademoiselle Le Normand; and 
 there is found in his repositories what utterly falsifies his 
 statements, that it was left to his honour, and that it was to 
 be paid by fixed instalments; and this fixes down Made- 
 
238 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 moiselle Le Normand with having a hand in these forgeries, 
 and shews her interest in the success of the proceedings, on 
 which the payment of her 400,000 francs was to depend. 
 And when all these forgeries are still defended, not given up, 
 and the defence is not that the prisoner was deceived, — that 
 Le Normand had deceived him, and had got from him the 
 obligation of 400,000 francs,—it is impossible for you to come 
 to the conclusion, that he was not in the guilty knowledge of 
 these forgeries. 
 
 Of the character that was given of this individual by his 
 friends I have little to say. I am not here to refuse my assent 
 to the friendly testimony that has been borne by all those 
 parties. I believe that all of them have stated the honest senti¬ 
 ments of their breasts. It is impossible, looking at what they 
 are, to doubt for a moment that they were speaking what 
 they believed to be truth. I am only sorry that the prisoner 
 is in so peculiar a predicament, that that character, excellent 
 its it is, can hardly avail him when there is evidence of the 
 fact of the forgeries, and of his guilty knowledge of them. 
 The crime with which he is charged is not one which would, 
 necessarily' make a man a cruel father or an indiscreet hus¬ 
 band, or place him in a predicament to prevent him from 
 fulfilling his ordinary duties in society. On the contrary, the 
 game he had to play made it necessary that he should preserve 
 the good character which he had. He was aiming at honours, 
 lands, and estates; and it was necessary that he should be 
 careful to conduct himself in every way as a gentleman. I 
 have not the least doubt that he could easily manage to carry 
 on the correspondence which has been talked of, as success¬ 
 fully as if he had never been charged with the commission of 
 a misdemeanour. It is proved that he is a clever man. I 
 have no doubt, in short, that he deserves much of what has 
 been said in his favour; but if these be forgeries, he being the 
 forger, what are you to think of him, engaged as he has been in 
 such a correspondence with Mademoiselle Le Normand, the 
 fortune-teller, as has been proved to you, and giving her a bond 
 for £16,000 for we know not what ? What are you to think of 
 the man who raises £ 13,000 on a false document, and spend¬ 
 ing it in an extravagant manner ? Is it conceivable that a 
 person of right feeling would have led the life that he has 
 done ? All at once, like a fly bursting into life, he becomes a 
 flutterer in the streets of London, spending other people’s 
 money. Was that honest ? If the gentlemen who gave him 
 the character, which we have heard, were not in a situation 
 
STYLING HIMSELF KAUL OF STIRLING. 
 
 209 
 
 to know how he was living, I put the evidence which lias 
 been adduced before you in opposition to all their characters; 
 and I give him the full weight of every thing they have said. 
 I ask of you no verdict but that which is necessary to protect 
 the public. I ask no verdict than that which will prevent this 
 prisoner from going back to his former practices, — raising 
 actions against the proprietors of Gartmore and Tullibody, to 
 deprive them of their possessions, on the fabricated documents 
 which are before you. I ask you to do nothing against him 
 which you do not think he deserves. But if you believe him 
 guilty of the charges laid against him, do notout of cowardice 
 or good nature yield to the high character which has been 
 given of him by gentlemen who are not proved to have been 
 in a situation for a length of time to know him intimately, 
 and who only saw him at intervals. All I ask of you is to 
 deal with him as the justice of the case demands. 
 
 Mr Robertson.— May it please your Lordships, Gentlemen 
 of the Jury.— Had this been an ordinary civil case, I should 
 at once have departed from the arrangement which I have 
 intended to follow in addressing you on this occasion, and have 
 begun by making some remarks on the very extraordinary 
 tone of several of the observations, in the concluding part par¬ 
 ticularly, of the very able and very long address of six hours, 
 now concluded by the prosecutor. Even yet, gentlemen, now 
 that I have risen to address you, I can hardly restrain myself 
 from departing from that arrangement, and making some re¬ 
 marks on the extraordinary circumstances, the pushing and 
 twisting of judicial proceedings founded on by the solicitor as 
 proof of the guilty knowledge of the prisoner at the bar. But 
 my duty to the Court, my duty to you, bids me restrain my own 
 feelings, and keep back to the conclusion that which, in spite 
 of all my efforts, is rushing at this moment into my mind. I 
 proceed, then, to look at this case in as calm a tone as my 
 feelings, almost overpowered, will permit me; trusting that 
 that special Providence which watches over the interests of 
 truth and justice, will guide me through the heavy task I 
 have yet to perform; trusting that the light of truth will dart 
 through those narrow crevices within which much of the case 
 has necessarily been confined; confident that you will return 
 no verdict from “cowardice or good nature;” sensible that 
 you see that the prisoner has undergone the utmost rigour of 
 examination ; aware that there has been the most abundant 
 
240 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 search, the most careful examination of all his documents, 
 even down to the little scratch on a letter from his son, where 
 the prosecutor, with my permission, may put in any word he 
 pleases; resolved while the breath remains within me to rebut 
 the charges that are here made, and to express my confidence 
 that no ability, even if greater than that already displayed,— 
 no expenditure of time or eloquence, will concuss you into a 
 verdict that will doom this gentleman, hitherto of unsullied 
 reputation, to disgrace and infamy; to leave no inheritance to 
 his children but that of an outcast from society; because, of 
 all the cases I have heard or read, I have seen none more 
 w’eak, none more pressed,—none, with deference, more insuffi¬ 
 ciently pressed,—than the present case, the issue of which you 
 now have to try. What is it that I ask ? What have we to 
 do here with the sovereignty of Canada, with the estates of 
 Gartmore and Tillicoultry, with the protection of the pro¬ 
 prietors of these estates ? The pursuer stands on the docu¬ 
 ments ; and the issue between us is not, shall he be Earl of 
 Stirling ? shall he make baronets ? shall he have his posses¬ 
 sions, and borrow money on these possessions ? If that were 
 the issue, I am not sure that I would not instantly walk 
 out at that door. That is not the issue, nor any part of the 
 issue. I am claiming nothing here but your protection, your 
 justice. I am seeking no estates; I am in competition with 
 no party; I am defending myself against the gravest charge 
 that can be made at the instance of the crown. I admit the 
 circumstances connected with the proceedings may be com¬ 
 petently referred to to make the case intelligible, but beyond 
 that, it signifies not a farthing to this issue, whether my client 
 has claimed the vast territories of Nova Scotia, and of New 
 England, or an old house belonging to his father in one of the 
 most obscure burghs of Scotland. The issue is—it is one 
 issue,—has he forged, or, what is the same thing in the law, 
 has he not guilty knowledge of forging a variety of documents 
 now before you ? Gentlemen, I shall go through them in 
 detail presently, but at the outset, let us look to the nature of 
 the case generally as stated by the crown. There is but one 
 prisoner at the bar; you know well the honourable position 
 occupied by the gallant officer now near me. There is no 
 accomplice stated in the indictment; there is none named in 
 the course of the proceedings; there is, of course, no socius 
 c riminis produced ; none of the persons in contact with the 
 prisoner—excepting Mademoiselle Le Normand, of whom we 
 have heard so much—is said to have had any thing to do with 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 241 
 
 the forgery. My friend Mr Lockhart is not an accomplice; 
 my excellent friend near me,* who committed many of these 
 acts of guilty knowledge, is not an accomplice; Mr Banks, 
 who was last seen in the crown office, and who ceased to have 
 communication with the prisoner in 1834, is not said to be an 
 accomplice either of the forgery of the charter which made its 
 appearance in his day, or in the forging of the French and 
 English documents, which did not come for several years after. 
 All is charged as the act and deed of one man, so far as the 
 charter is concerned, and of one man with the assistance of 
 one aged woman, why not brought here, the public prose¬ 
 cutor has not explained. And with these means what is 
 the nature of the charge of forgery in the indictment ? 
 Besides the few incidental forged documents stated in the 
 record, we have in this indictment a forged Latin charter, (I 
 call it a charter generally, just for the sake of the word,) not 
 certainly formed with all its quaequidem clauses and reddendos, 
 —of which you know about as much as the prisoner, although he 
 did keep a school at Worcester, where they do not teach 
 Chancery Latin,—of a great many pages in length, shewing not 
 such a profound knowledge of the law of Scotland as my 
 eminent friend, Mr M‘Kenzie, who has all his life been study¬ 
 ing Hope’s Minor Practicks, and by virtue thereof has gone 
 beyond the crown lawyers, I mean of a past day,—whether he 
 has excelled those of modern days, experience does not enable 
 us to say,—with a knowledge of Scotch history, in which he 
 has made no mistake save one—with a knowledge of the whole 
 history of France, introducing, as my friend well expressed it, 
 the names of the most eminent individuals of that age, in regard 
 to none of whom has he committed a single slip, with the 
 exception of the date of the appointment of William De L’ Isle, 
 not a very important fact in the history of France. There are 
 altogether forged, besides the charter, ten French documents 
 of various — apparently various — handwritings, all bold and 
 free, as one of your own number observed, besides six docu¬ 
 ments sent by the twopenny post, one of which, by the way, 
 the prisoner has proved, although the crown contends still 
 that it is a forgery,— all these ten without an accomplice, and 
 without suspicion, written, some of them in the French tongue, 
 some in the English tongue, and not one of them sworn to by 
 a single man of skill as resembling the writing of the prisoner 
 or Mademoiselle Le Normand. Mr Lizars, giving a decided 
 opinion, says, there is not a trace throughout the whole seven- 
 * Mr Adam Anderson. 
 
•242 trial OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 teen forged documents, of any resemblance to Lord Stirling’s 
 writing, or Mademoiselle Le Normand’s; and in that condi¬ 
 tion of the case, at the very outset, you are by virtue of che¬ 
 mistry— whereof more anon — by virtue of comparison of ink 
 — whereof considerably more anon — to come to this conclu¬ 
 sion, that a man of unsullied reputation, or, rather, as my 
 learned friend seems to put it, as one who got up a false good 
 reputation for villainous purposes, — like a man I once heard 
 of who was said fraudulently to conceal his own insanity, — 
 you are to believe that, forgetting all his reputation — forget¬ 
 ting all his classical Latin got at Worcester—forgetting, during 
 seventeen different forgeries, his own handwriting, and allow¬ 
 ing no trace of similitude to escape,—he has forged the whole 
 of these seventeen documents, or got them forged by somebody 
 unknown. (As to the charter on which he founds his claim, 
 I suppose the art of divination did not enable Le Normand 
 to forge the Scotch charter.) You are called upon to believe 
 that he has forged all these, and uttered them in guilty 
 knowledge, — and you are called upon to prevent him from 
 picking the pockets of more innocent men who gave L. 13,000 
 and took security for L.50,000 in return, and an honest woman 
 who took bonds for 400,000 francs for that which is of no 
 value, and to protect the public against all such fraudulent 
 depredators. You are called on, in an address of six hours, 
 to investigate — what even to the eye of a lawyer are terrible 
 in extent — thirty-eight documents, and God knows how 
 many processes to boot. And you are to wade through che¬ 
 mistry, and every thing except the black art, in order to give 
 a verdict against this prisoner. My feelings are now a little 
 relieved — my nervousness is gone — and 1 am not so angry 
 with the public prosecutor as 1 was, because from your coun¬ 
 tenance I already gather the cheering light of an acquittal. I 
 would not be much afraid to stop now. I do not believe there 
 is a man within these walls, nor a lady either, who is ready to 
 return a verdict condemning the man to infamy in such a case 
 as this, even before the prisoner’s counsel has entered into 
 details. But I have only begun. And first, in regard to the 
 charter of 1639. I am not going through more of the mass 
 of legal phraseology than is necessary to explain the case—I 
 am not going to make the slightest attack on the accuracy of 
 the law, as proved by the witnesses, with respect to charters 
 of novodamus. I admit at once, that a completed charter 
 passing the great seal is a totally different thing from a pre¬ 
 cept or warrant for that charter. I also admit that there is 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 24:3 
 
 pretty good evidence, although by no means do I admit that 
 there is all the evidence that there ought to have been in regard 
 to the charter of 1639 not having been entered into the record ; 
 but the paper before you is not a charter, and never was sta¬ 
 ted to be a charter. When or where it was forged, as the 
 prosecutor says, is not stated in the indictment. The time 
 and place are unknown to the public prosecutor. It was pro¬ 
 duced in a process called a proving of the tenor, in the month 
 of January, 1830; and that all these papers were put into 
 Court is a matter I am not disputing. It made its appearance 
 in Court in the proving of the tenor. One would have 
 imagined, if it had been so plainly and palpably forged, so 
 bungled a forgery, that the crown would at once have stated 
 — this is a forged instrument. Lord Stirling, as he called 
 himself most unwisely, wished not to produce this as a charter 
 to give him a right, but as an adminicle to prove the tenor of 
 the charter. In the indictment before you, it is described as 
 an ancient and authentic excerpt or abridged copy — it never 
 was said to be any thing more. Had it been a charter, the 
 proving of the tenor would have been ridiculous, because you 
 all understand the proving of the tenor is to prove the con¬ 
 tents of an instrument that once existed, by certain adminicles 
 of less authority that now do exist; it was therefore because 
 there was no charter that the proving of the tenor became 
 necessary—it does not follow that the document may not be a 
 forgery, but it follows necessarily from it that the document is 
 not, and never was said to be, a charter. Being so convinced 
 that I state this correctly, I do not trouble you by referring to 
 the words of the summons. It is produced as an excerpt, and 
 said to have been found in Ireland, and tested by a Thomas 
 Conyers. One would have imagined, if it had been so plain 
 a forgery, the crown would have said so. It was the interest 
 of the crown to plead so — the duty of the crown to say so — 
 to have the crime instantly detected ; to say so in the first 
 action of proving the tenor, for there never was a process of 
 reduction of the charter at all — there never was an allegation 
 that the copy charter was forged till this indictment was served. 
 The defence against the first action of proving the tenor was 
 this — you call yourself Earl of Stirling, you have not suffi¬ 
 ciently established your title as Earl, and therefore we shall 
 not hear you; you shall not be allowed to state your case under 
 that name, and therefore we dismiss the action. That action 
 was dismissed. Then came a new action of proving the tenor, 
 in which, although he still continued to call himself Earl, lie 
 
244 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 stated first, he had a right to certain landed estates in Scotland. 
 What was the defence against the second action ? Was it, your 
 instrument is neither one thing nor another, it is a gross 
 forgery ? No, there were a variety of preliminary defences 
 there also. The fifth defence was in substance this, — The 
 instrument is not a charter; it appears only to be a precept 
 for a charter. Accordingly, the Court, in March, 1833, pro¬ 
 nounced a judgment finding that, as this only appears to be a 
 precept and not a charter, it cannot be held to be a sufficient 
 proof of success in the tenor of the charter that is lost. Well, 
 there was no forgery alleged in that action. It had been seen 
 first in private by Sir William Rae, who, although I have no 
 doubt he never admitted that it was a valid instrument to give 
 the prisoner the title, never suspected that it was forged, else 
 he would not have betrayed his public duty by not ordering 
 an immediate investigation into the forgery. It is in Court 
 from 1830 till 1833; it is unsuspected by all the lawyers; 
 whether they have taken chemical means, and followed such 
 as they have done to prove its incorrectness — whether they 
 have studied all the books to see whether it was a true docu¬ 
 ment or not—they never suspected that it was not genuine; 
 and it lay there from 1830, up to the institution of these 
 proceedings, in which we are now engaged. It stood for ten 
 years unchallenged, deceiving the wisest, and the best, and 
 most experienced in matters of this description. It does 
 not follow that it may not be an absolute forgery; but there 
 is a mighty difference between a plain and palpable forgery, 
 and an obscure and difficult forgery. Is it then a forgery as 
 proved now ? Let us look at it. Gentlemen, there are a 
 variety of objections to it. The first that I refer to, is the one 
 containing the marking as having been registered in the great 
 seal. Gentlemen, I do not dispute that a charter of that date 
 could not have the contractions Reg. Mag. Sig. I admit that 
 no charter with a testing clause could have per signetum ; I 
 admit the signet precept could not operate in the great seal; 
 and having made these admissions, I think it is unnecessary 
 to enter into the evidence on that subject; but be pleased to 
 observe that it is not a charter but an excerpt copy of a 
 charter. It appears to be so ; the words in the summons are, 
 the pursuer is possessed of an abridged copy or excerpt of a 
 charter. Now, an erroneous but genuine copy is a very 
 different matter from a forged principal. Now, look at the 
 instrument, with what is in it, and what is not in it; look at 
 the proper parts of the instrument; look at what is below and 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 245 
 
 what is at the top of the instrument— where do you find Reg. 
 Mag. Sig. ? At the top and on the margin. Mistakes in the 
 Record Office, it seems, are out of the question ; office men are 
 always correct; they never can go wrong. The Reg. Mag. 
 Sig. according to Mr Whytock, is of a blacker shade of ink than 
 the rest of the deed; Macdonald differs from him; which of the 
 two do you wish to believe? which of them is the more accu¬ 
 rate ? is either of them infallible ? But if the Reg. Mag. Sig. 
 be a shade darker than the rest of the deed, then it is no part 
 of the copy according to their theory. Then, so far as the 
 instrument is concerned, it does not bear that the charter ever 
 was recorded: therefore it is consistent with the theory of there 
 being no charter upon the register. Reg. Mag. Sig. is not 
 in the body of the deed, only at the corner, and if an ex post 
 facto operation, all this about the register vanishes at once. 
 But, was it in the register ? It is a little curious that a part 
 of the register of that day is amissing—some blockhead 
 imagined that it was carried off in the times of Cromwell; and 
 some I might even say greater blockhead,—for I do not know 
 who drew the summons,—but some other blockhead put it 
 into the summons; and my notion is, that somebody, fora 
 jest, — perhaps some malignant against Mr Thomson’s new 
 regulation, — stuck the Reg. Mag. Sig. on the corner of the 
 old Irish bungled copy, and on that theory away go the city 
 of Edinburgh charters registered, and all the searches. They 
 were all made in the usual way; yet it is a little odd that 
 Robertson searched the minute-book in one place, and the 
 full register in another place; he searched the register of 
 signatures, privy seal, great seal, register of sasines, &c. and, 
 as brought out by examination, there are instances, rare I 
 admit, of sasines recorded which are not in the minute-book. 
 
 Then there are blanks in the register; they are supplied by 
 the indexes, we are told. Nice things these indexes are. 
 Mr Thomson told you the indexes were not proper records, 
 that they were made up by inferior persons at the office—not 
 made up at the time. One of them had wandered to the 
 Signet Library ; it was traced there, and had been charmed 
 back to its original pasture as a sheep, with a view to this 
 trial; it was found to be more accurate than the one kept in 
 the office. There was only one blunder in the one that came 
 from the Signet Library—there were six in the one that was 
 kept in the office itself. The one, and that one the more 
 accurate of the two, was made subsequently to 1721—eighty 
 years after the date of the charter, of which it is to be the 
 
*246 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER tlUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 proof. The indexes are, according to Mr Thomson, made 
 by inferior officers. But, gentlemen, it is of very little conse» 
 quence if these are accurate or inaccurate: take away Reg. 
 Mag. Sig. from the corner of the paper—that explains the 
 whole mystery. Per Signetum is a most suspicious horrible 
 looking thing—Macdonald started at it. It is from the Per 
 Signetum and Reg. Mag. Sig. that they draw the conclusion 
 that this could not be a recorded charter, and a precept from 
 the signet office. This Per Signetum is at the end of the 
 deed—it forms no part of the deed, although we have had a 
 mighty flourish about it. The “ Gratis” is a little farther up, 
 and we were told that it was not likely to be there, but might 
 have been there. The whole of the suspicion as to the 
 genuineness of this document arises from the title Reg. Mag. 
 Sig. at the corner, and Per Signetum subjoined; and had 
 these two little things not been there, at least a day’s proof 
 might have been dispensed with. Will you, on such trifles 
 as this, unless there is more in the matter, hold that this 
 blundered Irish excerpt, (for no man ever said it was more,) 
 got from Conyers, was a deliberate forgery. It is very odd 
 if that man who put the Reg. Mag. Sig. there knew that the 
 57th volume had sheets awanting, and so wants to prove—it 
 is very odd that he should have invented the story of Crom¬ 
 well—it is strange, if Cromwell’s story was to be the thing, that 
 they did not compare this with the register, and see whether 
 it is in the register to-day. What have I to do with Crom¬ 
 well ? Is the prisoner to be responsible for all these writs— 
 writs which he could no't read, could not understand, unless 
 otherwise as good a lawyer as M‘Kenzie, and a better lawyer, 
 I suppose, than those who had it before them, but who never 
 suspected forgery for ten years. But there are things in the 
 copy itself, independent of the Per Signetum and Reg. Mag. 
 Sig. —the reddendo is awanting, most terrific circumstance ! 
 Was there ever a charter seen without a reddendo ? Never 
 in the world! says M‘Kenzie—never in the world, every lawyer 
 re-echoes. There never was an excerpt with a reddendo, 
 says Mr Thomson. This is not a charter—it was never said 
 to be a charter—it is an excerpt from a charter—and excerpts 
 without reddendoes are innumerable; but the qucequidem has 
 gone wrong—the resignation is not made by the right fiar, 
 therefore it is forged ; why did they not see that at first, when 
 produced in the proving of the tenor ? It would have been an 
 odd error in the original, but in a blundered Irish copy it 
 does not seem to me at all singular. The reddendo was of 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 047 
 
 little consequence to him, it was the grant in his favour; 
 therefore the omission of the reddendo in an excerpt is in 
 itself of not the slightest importance in the matter. Gentle¬ 
 men, there was another discovery made by the acuteness of 
 one of their Lordships, that the commoner was called “ con- 
 sanguineus.” We have heard a good deal of Scotch cousins, 
 probably there are Irish cousins also, and there maybe a mis¬ 
 take in that copy—and remember it is but a copy — nobody 
 said it was more. It is of a date nearly two hundred years 
 ago; and because we cannot explain every little defect in this 
 excerpt, you are to jump to the conclusion that it is a forgery. 
 Spottiswood is an attesting witness. I suppose when you 
 heard this you imagined that he had subscribed it. No; the 
 testing clause is not subscribed by any body—it does net say 
 John Spottiswood. I am not founding on this as a valid 
 charter—I never did—it says “ John, by the mercy of God,” 
 and there follow six or seven testing witnesses. It is not said 
 that these other witnesses are placed there improperly ; so that 
 all that takes place is this, — for I admit that they believe that 
 Spottiswood had demitted at that time,—that Archbishop 
 Spottiswood’s name appears on this Irish copy by mistake, 
 
 . while all the other six witnesses in the testing clause are there 
 placed as they ought to be, for not one of them is impeached; 
 and considering the prodigious care exhibited in this case, 
 depend on it, if the Marquis of Hamilton had not held that 
 situation, then this would not have proved itself to be, what it 
 is sard to be, an actual and deliberate forgery. What is said 
 of this excerpt ? It is held out only as an Irish copy, and 
 one or two things have been overlooked. Certain red lines 
 are not applicable to a deed bearing this date—the red lines' 
 did not exist till 1780 in his office. This is in favour of the 
 instrument — it is an Irish copy, and produced as such, and so 
 stated to be. It is not in a Chancery hand, we are told ; but 
 it is like the hand in England or Ireland. Then there are 
 erasures and rubbing- — Whytock and M‘Donald attach no 
 suspicion to this, but yet the Crown, as if that were conclusive, 
 try to bolster up their success, by proving rubbing and erasing, 
 which even their own witnesses do not think suspicious at all. 
 Thomson thought the ink too brilliant; and if any man will 
 venture to pronounce an instrument lbrged by the appearance 
 of the ink, he will, indeed, be a bold man. What is the 
 age ? Mr Thomson does not think it so old as 1806—thirty 
 years ago. It did not make its appearance till 1829: was 
 it buried np from 1806 till 1829, when we were told it was so' 
 
 ■3 A 
 
‘248 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPI1RYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 essential for this party to produce a title ? Whytock cannot 
 swear that it is more than fifty years of age. And then it was 
 examined by Dr Fyfe and Dr Madden ; the proceedings taken 
 were unusual — I do not say improper — fortunately they were 
 taken; most fortunately for the interests of the prisoner, these 
 gentlemen examined it apart; and hereafter, unless scientific 
 witnesses are to be exempted from courts of justice, which I think 
 would be no great loss either in criminal or civil cases, let especial 
 care be taken that they be examined apart. One of your own 
 number put some questions to Dr Fyfe, and we got very 
 singular answers to some of them, I am not surprised at the 
 difference of opinion among scientific men, for in the last long 
 case in which I was engaged, one set of witnesses swore that 
 certain water was the purest they ever saw, and certain others 
 swore that it was the most impure, but that the nearer they got 
 to the discharge of a dye-work, the purer it became. I am not 
 going to follow Dr Fyfe—it might have been necessary had he 
 stood alone, but it is unnecessary, where there is so much labour 
 still before us, to go into such case now. All those grand 
 theories about sulphuric acid, and investigation by liquids, and 
 God knows what, all come back to this—that Dr Fyfe thought 
 that it was not old paper, and Dr Madden thought it was. 
 And, in this aw’ful case, the separate mysteries so obscure, 
 and separate registers and indexes, and lawyers drawing con¬ 
 clusions from extrinsic marks,. they take their last and final 
 stand on the chemical evidence. These gentlemen are enclosed 
 —they get a night and morning to operate with their che¬ 
 mistry—the result is, that by the same experiments, one says 
 it is ancient paper, contradictory of the other, who says that 
 it was not older than 1806, But look at the folly of this. Be 
 it that there are many matters of history that I cannot explain 
 in the Irish bungled copy—the Crown attack it, on the ground 
 that the paper is new—the paper turns out to be old paper, 
 according to Dr Madden, and supports the document as an 
 old document. If it is old, I do not care whether it give me 
 Nova Scotia or Canada—I care not what it gives me, in this 
 case. It does not follow that because the paper is old, the 
 writing must be newer. If the paper be old, the whole case 
 has broken down, and in a case of forgery that is most impor¬ 
 tant for your consideration. The charter, as I told you, never 
 was produced in the process of reduction—it was* produced 
 in the proving of the tenor, but never in the process of reduc¬ 
 tion. 'Fhe reduction that was brought at the instance of the 
 Crown, was a reduction of the general and special services— 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OE STIRLING. 
 
 249 
 
 not the reduction of a charter. In that process, certain instru¬ 
 ments were produced in order to keep up the pedigree esta¬ 
 blished. I shall endeavour to keep as close as possible within 
 the evidence emitted to the Court—it is my duty, if I differ 
 from the Court, to say so; but in that process of reduction, 
 Lord Cockburn pronounces a certain interlocutor, and that 
 refers to a certain record. In the record to which the docu¬ 
 ments belong, are a variety of affidavits, particularly an affi¬ 
 davit by Hovenden, a statement by Gordon, and an affidavit 
 by Pountney. These are stated in three articles of conde¬ 
 scendence to be all false and fabricate. Gentlemen, it was 
 admitted that the affidavit of Pountney was not produced in 
 the process—there was an excerpt of the proceedings before 
 the Canongate, where the original remained. The original 
 was not produced ; and I must say it was a little Irish to 
 challenge the certificate of Pountney as forged, without seeing 
 it. The Solicitor stated, we might have brought her in evi¬ 
 dence—she is in our list of witnesses; if we had adduced the 
 sister of the accused in evidence, we should have had a pretty 
 flourish about it; but if the certificate of Pountney is forged 
 as stated, and if she is here, as my learned friend says,- 
 
 Solicitor-General.—There is no charge against Pountney. 
 It is not in the indictment. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I know it is not in the indictment. We 
 are told that Pountney is here. Would it not have been 
 more reasonable to have brought her to prove that she never 
 signed that document. They say it is forged, and they do 
 not attempt to prove that it is so, but twit me because I do 
 not bring my own sister to prove that it was not forged. 
 Lockhart swears that Hovenden and Gordon’s statement, with 
 Conyer’s attestation, were produced long since, in 1826, with 
 the first summons, three years at least before the alleged 
 getting up of the charter stated to be forged in 1829. What 
 does Lord Cockburn’s note bear ? After referring to another 
 affidavit, “ the affidavit of Henry Hovenden, which is a little 
 better in one respect, and a great deal worse in another.” It 
 bears to be taken before a person of the name of Pocklington, 
 who (though it be not otherwise proved) was admitted to have 
 been a baron of Exchequer in Ireland at the time. It is 
 signed by Hovenden, whose signature bears to be attested by 
 a notary public. All this is respectable enough. But it is 
 said by the pursuers that the paper on which the body of the 
 affidavit is written, had previously been covered with some 
 other writing; that it was this original writing which was 
 
250 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRY!?, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 sworn to before Baron Pocklington ; and that that original 
 has been removed chemically, and the existing affidavit inserted 
 in its place above the signature. I take it, that his Lord- 
 ship is no greater admirer of chemical evidence than I am. 
 “ Hovenden’s affidavit is chiefly occupied by an account of a 
 translation made by him of an alleged charter; and all that 
 he says about the pedigree is, in the following introductory 
 sentence, ‘ that he is intimately acquainted with the reverend 
 minister, John Alexander, grandson and only male represen¬ 
 tative of John Alexander of Gartmore, the fourth sotr of 
 'William, first Earl of Stirling in Scotland ; which said John 
 Alexander was formerly of Antrim.’ This is liable to the 
 same observation as the last document. It merely contains 
 the general assertion of the deponent, who, no doubt, describes 
 the pedigree agreeably to the wishes of those who made him 
 take the affidavit, but states no ciixnimstance to warrant his 
 opinion.” Well, there was an affidavit of Hovenden’s in the 
 original service; there was an affidavit referring to a charter 
 as the note proves; it bore to be dated in 1723; it was not 
 established to the satisfaction of the Ordinary, but it was far 
 more worthy of credit than another one, because it bore the 
 attestation of Pocklington and Meredith; but yet it was liable 
 to the suspicions of Fyfe and Gregory, and whether they ex¬ 
 amined it together I cannot tell, but they agree it was dated in 
 1723, and bears reference to a charter. Do not suppose that 
 I maintain that this would set up the charter in a civil right; 
 but how valuable is that little point that I have got! It is 
 Hovenden’s affidavit that Lord Coekburn referred to. It is 
 liis affidavit that Lockhart knew was substituted. Tyrrell also 
 spoke of it; therefore there was evidence, extrinsic of the do¬ 
 cument itself, of the existence of a charter in 1723. No one 
 had attached the least suspicion to the ink of this copy; and 
 yet, under all these circumstances, the Crown demands a 
 verdict of forgery, and of guilty forgery, not as an abstract 
 question, but as an absolute and plain forgery, by deductions 
 of history, by long examinations, by discussions in law; upon 
 these they ask you to hold that this instrument is a plain 
 forgery, done deliberately and purposely to set up a title to 
 those possessions. 
 
 I have almost concluded what I have to say on the subject 
 of this charter. I will return to it briefly in the conclusion of 
 what I have to say to you. Be pleased, then, to bear in mind, 
 that this charter was spoken to by Lockhart,—it was first seen 
 by him in May 1829. He had received a letter from Ireland 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 251 
 
 on the 1st April, 1829, from Banks. He got the charter from 
 the prisoner in 1829. The letter from Banks is not in evi¬ 
 dence. I am not going to say what was in that letter. It was 
 dated Carlow, lOth April, 1829, bearing the post mark. It 
 was produced ; the crown might have consented, if so advised, 
 to the reading of that letter. They did not consent to this ; it 
 is closed and shut up by the law from your eyes ; but it was in 
 consequence of that letter that Mr Lockhart went to Nether- 
 ton House, where he got the charter, and in company with Mr 
 Corrie, he proceeded to London, and under the authority of 
 the prisoner, where did Mr Lockhart and Mr Corrie go with 
 the forged charter ? When a thief steals from a dwelling- 
 house, does he run to the police-office ? When a forger is 
 armed with his false instrument, does he take immediate refuge 
 in the arms, the gentle arms, of the public prosecutor ? Mr 
 Lockhart had no suspicion, Mr Corrie had no suspicion; they 
 were not conspirators. Mr Lockhart, a skilled man in char¬ 
 ters,—but not so skilled, undoubtedly, as Mr Thomson, or Mr 
 M‘Kenzie. — had no suspicion when he saw those enigmatical 
 words upon it which have been so much spoken of. They go 
 to the Lord Advocate for Scotland, “ fine bold-faced villains 
 as you see them,” with this Pierre at the head of the conspi¬ 
 racy, and they present this forged instrument to the Lord 
 Advocate. Mr Lockhart knew that there was a person of the 
 name of Hovenden, who certified it in 1723. Corrie could 
 not judge of it, — he is not skilled in matters of that kind. 
 Notice of it comes from Banks, who was last seen in the crown 
 office, Edinburgh. He might have been a witness for the 
 crown, and might have explained much of this case. We 
 might have brought the man we quarrelled with, to be sure,— 
 we did not prove the quarrel, but we proved the cessation of 
 intercourse between him and the prisoner in 1834, not a very 
 usual thing on the part of a defender, in such circumstances, 
 even in a civil case; but the crown, who has no interest but to 
 bring out every thing, produces no Banks, and will not allow 
 you to read the letter by which the original charter was com¬ 
 municated to Mr Lockhart. Had that letter told against the 
 prisoner, cautiously as the prosecution has been conducted, I 
 doubt very much if they would have abstained from exhibiting 
 it; but so it is, that there terminates for the present the history 
 of this document, which remained from that period downwards 
 as the groundwork of the action of proving the tenor, put into 
 the hands of the public prosecutor to attest, and remained 
 
252 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 from that unchallenged as a forgery, till the present proceed¬ 
 ings were instituted. 
 
 Now, the action of the reduction of the service then went on. 
 Le Normand has not yet appeared on the field. It was not 
 from her repository of forgeries that the crown alleges the 
 charter came from. She was no accomplice to the forgery of 
 the charter. Banks wrote something, Lockhart did something 
 in consequence of what was in that letter, and that something 
 was to go to Netherton House, where he got the charter. 
 Banks has nothing to do with the subsequent proceedings of 
 1838. Lockhart is not accused of having any thing to do with 
 any of the forgeries. He and Corrie go to London, and there 
 the matter drops. The reduction of the service goes on, and 
 in that service you see what is challenged as forged, — several 
 of these certificates, and among others, the non-produced affi¬ 
 davit of Elizabeth Pountney. The service is set aside, because 
 the links of the chain of pedigree are not sufficiently proved. 
 Lord Cockburn issued the note in December, which I read to 
 you, and in that state of the matter we come to the second 
 charge of the indictment. 
 
 The second charge relates to the French documents, and 
 the last charge also relates to a French document, in all ten 
 in number. Not one of these documents was ever seen in the 
 prisoner’s possession, and not one witness has sworn that any 
 one of them resembles his hand-writing. The place stated in 
 the indictment where the forgery was committed is Paris, and 
 the time between December, 1836, and July, 1837. You are 
 then to consider whether there has been legal evidence of the 
 forgeries upon the map. Gentlemen, the map itself is not 
 alleged to be forged; it is described in the indictment as an 
 ancient map, and the date on the face of it is 1703. The date is 
 not alleged to be false. The documents written or pasted 
 upon the map are various. They are all before you, and I 
 am not going to trouble you with reading them. The paper 
 of the map is not said not to be genuine. It bears on it 
 Mallet’s account of the charter of 1706, St Estienne’s attesta¬ 
 tion of 1707. Who Mallet is, and who St Estienne is, at the 
 distance of one hundred and thirty years, no man can tell, 
 and therefore I do not accuse the Crown of any impropriety 
 in not having evidence touching these persons. The next 
 writing is that of Flechier, dated at Nismes, 1707. Flechier’s 
 hand-writing, as well as his character, are well known. He 
 did not die, as the Crown has proved, until 1711 : therefore 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 233 
 
 Flechier was alive in 1707, and might, so far os he is concerned, 
 have written the note- Then we have John of Antrim’s letter 
 of August, 1707, mentioning Hovenden and the charter, and 
 to that we have attached Fenelon’s attestation of October, 
 1707. Fenelon did not die until 1715; therefore he was 
 alive in 1707, and might have written that document. Then 
 we have the inscription on the tombstone, and the attestation 
 by Gordon in October, 1723. We have a note after this 
 inscription, and we have a note alluding to the charter in the 
 hand-writing of Louis XV. without date. Then the last 
 document charged as a forgery is the anonymous note of ]0th 
 July, 1837. These are all said to be forged; but there is 
 also written on the instrument an attestation by Villenave, 
 of the hand-writing of Flechier, dated 1837 ; and there is the 
 attestation bearing to be in the hand-writing of Daunou, of 
 the subscription of Fenelon, also Villenave’s and Daunou’s 
 attestation are not challenged as forged; whether they be true 
 certificates or subscriptions is another matter, but they are 
 not challenged as forged. Now, what is the case of the Crown 
 upon the map ? It rests, I think, upon the appointment of 
 De L’ Isle alone. De L’ Isle was not appointed, we are told, 
 to be first geographer till 1718, and he did not take the title 
 till 1718; it necessarily follows that the paper on which the 
 map itself was written was not in existence till 1718, and 
 therefore the writing in 1707 upon the map was forged. I 
 admit that De L’ Isle did not publish that map till 1718; that 
 there are forgeries upon the map. Well, then, the question 
 is one of evidence, and I say of contradictory evidence. Do 
 not let me be misunderstood. If you assume that the map 
 was not in existence till 1718, then, of course, the writings 
 prior to 1718 could not be on that map; but I say there is no 
 .real, conclusive, and irrefragable evidence, that that map did 
 not exist till 1718. There are strong reasons to conclude that 
 it did not exist till then ; but there is a mighty difference 
 between strong reasons for a fact, which may be affected by 
 .an accumulation of other reasons, and which strong reasons 
 may be overset by stronger reasons if they exist. I illustrate 
 my meaning thus. Suppose the water mark on the paper is 
 1808 — suppose it bears a writing of 1806, I think that writ¬ 
 ing, on its production, would not be genuine unless it could 
 be proved that for some extraordinary device that parti¬ 
 cular piece of paper was manufactured of a false date. The 
 paper there would speak the truth for itself — the paper here 
 tells no tale either true or false: you are therefore taken out 
 
‘254 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER. 
 
 of the instrument, in order to be satisfied that there is an 
 error in the date. The map is dated more than a hundred 
 and thirty years ago; it is published in a foreign country ; and 
 without giving notice in the indictment as to the date of the 
 map, they produce the appointment of De L’Isle in 1718; 
 they produce an excerpt authenticated according to the law 
 of France, as they proved from the register, certified, be 
 pleased to bear in mind, by Daunou, the very person whose 
 name is upon the certificate in the map itself. I think it 
 proves that the appointment of De L’ Isle was registered in 
 1718. Have they produced a search to prove that there was 
 no previous appointment, and that this was the first commis¬ 
 sion ? The commission, therefore, is not conclusive; it is a 
 fact standing in opposition to other facts. 
 
 Mr Innes. — It is right to mention, that when we'were 
 about to tender other evidence which would have fully esta¬ 
 blished the fact, it was stated on the other side, that they were 
 satisfied that this was completely established. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—Most undoubtedly not. Mr Anderson 
 stated the objection that it was not competent till they proved 
 the law of France. He stated the objection, and the Court 
 was about to dispose of it, when the witness was called and 
 proved the fact. 
 
 Mr Innes.—I then misunderstood my learned friend's 
 remark at the time; but we were prepared with evidence 
 from books to establish the point. 
 
 Mr Robertson.—I cannot tell as to books. I cannot speak 
 for myself, I watched the question carefully. They have not 
 proved that they made a search as to any previous appoint¬ 
 ment. They have not proved to me that there was no prior 
 appointment of De L’ Isle’s, and you cannot believe that they 
 have any such evidence. It is my point, and I stand by it. 
 They have not brought the best evidence on that on which 
 the whole case stands. It stands upon that alone; and even 
 if they had brought their books to prove no prior appoint¬ 
 ment, the evidence might have been valueless. Do not 
 suppose that I am done with him yet; they have not put 
 their foot upon the right ground. Without De L’ Isle’s appoint¬ 
 ment in 1718, and not till then, beyond the shadow of a 
 doubt, (which is not proved by the instrument,) without that 
 bw'ing established beyond a doubt, it comes after all to be a 
 case of contradictory evidence. Contradictory evidence in a 
 criminal trial! I am not arguing as to who had the best 
 right to the lands in Canada; there are disputes enough about 
 
STYLING HIMSELF HAUL OF*STIRLING. 
 
 ‘255 
 
 that elsewhere, without introducing it into this discussion. 
 
 I am not molesting Gartmore, Tillicoultry, and Tulliebodie; 
 
 I am resisting a charge of forgery, and if the Crown have 
 omitted what would turn the scale but by the tithe of a hair, 
 that is enough. They are bound to give you the best evi¬ 
 dence ; but to rest on De L’ Isle in so far as the appearance 
 of the instrument is concerned, is entirely out of the question. 
 You must hear what I have to say on the other side in 
 regard to this map, I am not foreclosed. It is possible that 
 these writings may have been there, and it is also possible that 
 De L’Isle was appointed prior to 1718. I would illustrate 
 this in another way. We had a trial which lasted several 
 days about the question of a date, not of 1702, but of 1802. 
 The question was, whether an old lady died in 180*2. One party 
 produced her marriage lines, and it w’as said that she died 
 before their date ; another produced her husband’s discharge 
 as a soldier, of the same date, and it was said that she died after 
 that. Some of the registers were conclusive of the fact the 
 other way; and it came to be a question of contradictory evi¬ 
 dence, and the result was, we had to weigh which preponde¬ 
 rated. But in the Criminal Court, although you must weigh 
 in the sequel what preponderates, you must look at what is 
 fairly, and fully, and exclusively brought out. They do not 
 content themselves with De L’Isle alone; they attack parts of 
 the instrument; they attack the letters of John Alexander and 
 of Mallet, more particularly with respect to the ink. Teulet 
 is a most respectable witness no doubt, and not the less free 
 from suspicion that he has not got his additional one thousand 
 francs. He says that the ink is a composition for the imita¬ 
 tion of old writing, china ink, yellow, and red. Jacobs con¬ 
 curs of course. Mr Lizars thinks the ink is sepia and umber. 
 I fancy that china ink, yellow, and red, is a different compo¬ 
 sition from sepia and umber. I dare say you may have got 
 chemists to prove that they were the same things for aught I 
 know. They confine the experiments of the chemists to the 
 paper; they confine the composition of the ink to the twq 
 French gentlemen and Mr Lizars, who are not chemists; 
 they differ, and this is a circumstance to set aside those two 
 parts of the evidence. Then they tear off the inscription 
 from the map, and find something very marvellous below it, 
 and it was thought to be very like the writing of John 
 Alexander. Mr Lizars goes to examine it, and he tells you 
 when he comes back that he does not think it at all resembles 
 the handwriting in the letter signed John Alexander. Mr 
 
256 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 Lizars tells you that he examined the writings carefully 
 and that they appear to him to be natural hands, — that he 
 first thought the instrument to be genuine, and he attached no 
 suspicion to the instrument at all, until he was assured that De 
 L’ Isle was not appointed first geographer to the king till 1718. 
 Mr Gavin examined the writings along with him. He has not 
 been called by the crown, and therefore must be held to have 
 concurred with him; probably he might have differed with 
 him about the plate. All kinds of men differ, even lawyers, 
 except plain common sense men, who generally agree. But 
 then, this inscription was written on a map of Canada; and 
 there were three maps of Canada bought at a frank and a-half 
 a piece, out of the shop of the man of the Quai. How rapidly 
 some men jump at conclusions. Gentlemen, it is not written 
 on a map of Canada,—it bears internal evidence that it is not, 
 — it contains Canada cum multis aliis loots. Canada is but a 
 very little bit of it, and a part of the title is torn away; the 
 words that I have read shew that this map contained many 
 other places. North America is a little bit of it, and a map 
 of Canada it is not. This is a most suspicious thing, — this is 
 like one that Leguix sold. But here the Public Prosecutor 
 breaks down, for it is not a map of Canada, and it is not a map 
 of De L’ Isle; therefore it is uot got to be connected with this 
 case. How they would lrnve jumped if the ink in which the 
 letter below it is written resembled the ink of the letters of 
 Mallet and Alexander ! But the ink is different, and instead of 
 doing damage to the map, it supports it. 
 
 Is there any thing else they might have done? Could they 
 not have proved the case farther, by the production of other 
 evidence of handwriting? The best evidence as to the hand¬ 
 writing of a living man is to adduce the man himself. If the 
 man be dead, the next best evidence is to bring those who 
 knew the handwriting. Louis XV. Fenelon, and Flechier, are 
 names famous in history. They appear ex facie to have writ¬ 
 ten on this map. It may be strange, but look at the map for 
 a moment; you see the handwriting of Flechier, a very marked 
 one, when contrasted with that of Louis XV. which is a plain 
 current hand. They have produced no specimens of the hand¬ 
 writing of Louis, Fenelon, and Flechier. They say that Louis' 
 handwriting was rare. We called one gentleman, who brought 
 specimens out of the repositories of a most regular collection 
 in France. The learned Judge said he put no weight on the 
 statements of Voltaire, and I have nothing to say on that part 
 of the matter. They have brought nothing to impeach tlte 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 257 
 
 testimony of that gentleman, — they have brought nothing to 
 impeach the handwriting of Louis, Flechier, and Fenelon. 
 Oh ! but the forgery was well executed, — it is skilfully done, 
 and we are deceived. Gentlemen, that will explain any thing. 
 Assume that there is a forgery, and there is an end of the 
 argument. But the question is, have they proved it to be a 
 forgery ? Have they asked a single witness, from the begin¬ 
 ning to the end of the trial, a question as to their belief of the 
 handwriting of Louis, Fenelon, and Flechier ? They all pin 
 their faith upon the misprint on the back of the map, — their 
 theory is, that the map was not published till 17Id. Assume 
 that, and there is an end of the case. But if you cannot assume 
 that as the beginning and end of it, why not go to the other 
 parts of it? They do go. They try the ink on the writing 
 of Mallet and Alexander. The ink theory fails them. They 
 try the ink on the tombstone, and here the ink theory fails 
 them too. They ask no witness about the handwriting of 
 Fenelon and Flechier, amongst all their men of skill. This is 
 a blank they were bound to supply. In a case of contradic¬ 
 tory evidence, they were the more bound to supply the blank, 
 but thev have not. We stand unchallenged in regard to these 
 handwritings, and we go a step farther. We produce speci¬ 
 mens of the handwriting of Flechier, unsuspected specimens, 
 brought by one of our witnesses from France. He is saitl to 
 be a young gentleman. I did not ask his age with the view of 
 putting him up as a man of skill. I wanted to shew that he 
 was a person of respectability who brought these specimens, 
 and I did shew this by their own witness. I supply the blank 
 which the crown should have filled up. I offer you specimens 
 of the genuine handwriting of Flechier; and they tell me with 
 a sneer, Ay, you have done the thing very like, it is a clever 
 forgery. There is conclusive evidence for you! Every 
 thing that I do is wrong. To the jaundiced eye every thing 
 is yellow; but to the clear eye of truth, every thing is clear 
 as day. Have they set down this map ? Have they scattered 
 it on a piece of evidence to the four winds of heaven ? They 
 have not, — they have not done what was incumbent on them 
 to do, either as to the map or the charter. Take Flechier’s 
 letters, — look at them, — you are just as good judges as any 
 engraver that ever scratched on copper. Well, is the prisoner 
 punished on a charge of forgery ? Not a bit of him, if that 
 were the issue, but that is a very small part of the issue. The 
 issue is, did he forge, or knowingly utter the forgery ? If the 
 crown lias not set its foot on ground that is untouchable, both 
 
*258 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 as to the fact of the forgery of the charter, and the fact of the 
 forgery of the map, we may go no farther. Contradictory 
 evidence in a criminal trial on the main fact, iaworth nothing. 
 I have shewn, that there is strong contradictory evidence, and 
 it is contradictory evidence on which no man can speak. The 
 grave has closed over all the persons named in these transac¬ 
 tions ; the veil is not rent asunder by the evidence they have 
 brought. It is suspicious — it is inexplicable. What is the 
 effect of it ? I say, that in a criminal prosecution such as this, 
 the Public Prosecutor by his evidence cannot touch a hair of 
 the prisoner’s head. He is protected by the want of proof of 
 the main fact alone. You dare not, upon your oaths, convict, 
 unless the fact is proved beyond the possibility of a doubt, and 
 you dare not proceed a step farther in the inquiry. 
 r But, gentlemen, we have more forgery, we have the forgery 
 of the English documents. The learned Judge who presides 
 asked the Solicitor-General if he stood on the charge of 
 forgery relative to the writing on the parchment cover, “ Some 
 of my wife’s family papers.” He answered that he did, to 
 my surprise. I will venture to say that no case was ever 
 disclosed, where a demand of a verdict of forgery was made 
 upon such evidence. What is the ground of forgery of the 
 words, “ Some of my wife’s family papers ?” Because within 
 the packet there was a black edged letter giving an account 
 of the thief. W T ill this do in a Court of Justice in a case of for¬ 
 gery ? I say it is proved to be genuine ; to be so genuine, that 
 if we were in a civil process it would be held as evidence in sup¬ 
 port of what it was to prove. How can you prove the hand¬ 
 writing of a dead man, but by those who knew his handwriting ? 
 This poor gentleman, whose poverty has been the greatest ac¬ 
 cusation against him, has not the means to combat with the 
 Crown, — we have not the power to combat with that mighty 
 battalion which was brought against us. We brought all the 
 troops in our power—we brought one sturdy English gentleman, 
 worthier, in my eye, than many French porters; and we take 
 his evidence, and we are bound to take his evidence as to the 
 handwriting of the prisoner’s father. A verdict of forgery is 
 demanded on that paper. The other papers in the packet 
 are said to be all forged too; and one is said to be forged, 
 because we prove it to be genuine ; and the others are said to 
 be forged, because they know nothing about them at all. 
 These are the English documents, and I bid them good bye. 
 If you bring a verdict of forgery upon the English documents, 
 all that I have to say is, that you must have had a communi- 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 25!> 
 
 cation from Mademoiselle Le Normand in the black art. I 
 dismiss this part of the case, and now for the guilty know¬ 
 ledge. 
 
 Have I shaken the case in the least on the forgery ? Is it 
 wavering ? Has a breath ruffled its leaves P I think it has. 
 But if all I have said hitherto were to go for nothing, — to be 
 buried in the tomb of John Alexander,—I still say that there 
 remains behind a case as invulnerable as walls of adamant. 
 Guilty knowledge! Upon what ? Guilty knowledge, or 
 connection of the forging of the charter of 1G39, that never 
 raised a suspicion in the mind of the experienced Mr Lock¬ 
 hart, a charter which was taken directly to the Public 
 Prosecutor in the company of the accused, tendered to him, 
 and no step taken. Hid Sir William Rae betray his duty ? 
 or did he not believe the instrument to be genuine ? And is 
 the prisoner a better judge of such an instrument than Sir 
 W illiam Rae ? It is ridiculous to talk of guilty knowledge in 
 regard to this charter. It remained for ten years untouched, 
 unchallenged, — it was fingered by counsel after counsel; and 
 it required more knowledge and more learning than all who 
 had seen it, during so long a period, to find out that it was a 
 forgery. And ii it is to be supposed that it is a forged 
 document, and deceived these men, might it not deceive that 
 man at the bar ? But then we raised money upon the charter. 
 A pretty transaction this ! These honest creditors were 
 taken in by this gentleman, so low in his circumstances that 
 he could not pay his butcher’s bill. He had taken in the 
 knowing ones of London ! He had swindled those who were 
 willing, on speculation, to take bonds for L.50,000, and to 
 fork out L. 13,000 on old pictures and otherwise ! Honest 
 dealers in old pictures of great price ! And this adept in 
 Scotch conveyancing — this learned pundit in black letter — 
 this skilful man in the history of France, and in all other 
 matters,—swindles these Jews and deceives the Lord Advocate, 
 by putting knowingly into his hands a forged instrument, for 
 the uttering of which, at that time, he must, if I am not 
 mistaken, have been capitally punished ! 
 
 But then we have had dealings with Mademoiselle Le 
 Normand. This, gentlemen, is a crown prosecution. The 
 forgeries are alleged to have been committed in the house of 
 Mademoiselle Le Normand. Where is this lady ? By their 
 own theory, she is an accomplice in the forgery, if not the 
 actual perpetrator of the forgery. Why is she not called ? 
 Was it for me to bring her ? This may be common enough/ 
 
260 TRIAL OP ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 in a civil case, but certainly it is mighty rare in a criminal 
 prosecution. I am not bound to bring evidence — I am set¬ 
 ting up no adverse right. Were you not entitled to see this 
 French sorceress ? Was not the Crown bound to bring this 
 woman when the forgery was charged to have been done in 
 her house? Where is Triboul, the student of medicine, that 
 they put questions about ? Why is he not here ? I have 
 not my 1000 francs a-month to pay all these people. Where 
 is Villenave and Daunou? Where again and again and again 
 is Mademoiselle Le Normand, and Triboul, and all the ser¬ 
 vants ? And where is one lady that we saw in the list here, 
 M Amedee Melanie Fontaine, lately residing in No. 2, Rue de 
 Tournon, Paris, and now or lately residing in India Street, 
 Edinburgh,” L’ hotel de M. Le Normand. Where is she ? 
 She is either in Scotland or not. My learned friends will 
 admit that she was in Scotland, that she was in the other 
 room, and why is she not brought? Is it a mistake? I 
 should have thought she would have known more than the 
 porter that sat at the gate. Site is kept back by the Crown. 
 She is not excluded by my objection. She is kept back by 
 the Crown, who objects to the reading of Banks’ letters to Mr 
 Lockhart, and of Banks’ letters, ten or tw’enty of them, to the 
 prisoner? Is this fair dealing with you, gentlemen? Are 
 you to be called on to blast this man, and all these witnesses 
 kept back, and purposely kept back? They “ intended to 
 call her,” I hear it whispered. Why then did they not call 
 her ? She was brought here, and she ought not to have been 
 brought here without being well paid. She is well paid, and 
 she returns to Paris unexamined. I shall not inquire how 
 she may have conducted herself since she came to Scotland. 
 
 Well, what next is suspicious ? The prisoner granted an 
 obligation to Mademoiselle Le Normand for I do not know 
 how many 1000 francs. Poor foolish man ! He who would 
 grant an obligation for L.50.000, receiving *L. 13,000, would 
 grant an obligation for many thousand francs receiving 
 nothing. Is he a man of ability it is asked ? This was an 
 unusual question to ask, and the answer returned by Mr 
 Tyrrell is, Certainly he is a man of great ability. A man of 
 ability—a believer in the black art in the nineteenth century l 
 It was not a jest that he thought Le Normand told his fortune. 
 He believed in her predictions. The Crown does not impeach 
 the credibility of their own witness. You may believe he has 
 ability, but the extent of his gullibility is almost beyond human 
 belief. Cut the cards for a future earldom ! In his first and 
 
STYLING IILMsKLF KAKL UF MTKL1NG. 
 
 ‘261 
 
 second declarations, he is asked if he ever purchased maps 
 from Leguix on the Quai D’ Orsay ? lie says no, I never 
 heard of him. The first time Leguix is ever mentioned is by 
 the Lord Advocate, in his judicial examination. The prisoner 
 never heard of him before. Leguix is brought, aud confronted 
 with the prisoner; and Leguix says, not only that he did not 
 know him, but that this prisoner was not the man who had 
 purchased the maps from him. “ He did not drive a hard 
 bargain," he is asked, “ Non, Monsieur.” There he stopped. 
 
 I took the liberty of asking him in bad French, what was the 
 price paid for this precious map of Canada, “ Un franc, et 
 demi.” And he bought some more maps; and the bit that 
 was taken off the back of the map of Canada is one of them— 
 and it is not a map of Canada ! The identification of the 
 map by Leguix has turned out a downright failure to the 
 Crown, as bad as the result of the chemical investigation. 
 Beaubis, the porter, upon my word, is not worth his money. 
 Eight months L’ Anglois came every night to Mademoiselle 
 Le Normand. Good God, gentlemen, why not bring the 
 people with whom he was sitting ? Why not bring the in¬ 
 mates ? For what purpose select the porter only to prove what 
 is of no value, for the prisoner admitted that he was in Paris, 
 and admitted that be had seen Le Normand, and had granted 
 the bond ; and what a blank is this in a criminal prosecution of 
 such vast extent—the one thing needful is altogether neglected. 
 The guilty knowledge is the one thing, the only point, the 
 punishing point,—it is a blank, a total blank. But then we 
 correspond with Le Normand, and write about the man of the 
 Quai—to be sure we did. The Crown had been making 
 searches, and this correspondence is altogether subsequent to 
 the judicial examination of the prisoner by the Lord Advocate 
 in the civil case. Had there been letters about the man on 
 the Quai before this? No; we had no other agent there, and 
 we had very little means to get up evidence, and where could 
 be the harm of corresponding with a friend, with a view to 
 getting up evidence for the defence ? 
 
 What more, gentlemen, is in the case ? I am told that we 
 had asked time to make more discoveries; that the prisoner 
 put in note after note to obtain time to make these discoveries. 
 Gentlemen, this is a very odd thing. With a gravity which 
 my learned friend had the merit of maintaining, he says, as a 
 proof of the guilty knowledge, that the prisoner put in three 
 notes with the name of Ephraim Lockhart, the name of his 
 agent, the name of an esteemed friend and coadjutor, cravings 
 
262 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 more time to make investigation, dated in May, June, and 
 December, 1837 , during the time he was in Paris forging the 
 instrument. Why his agents in Edinburgh were asking time 
 to make investigation without any communication from him, 
 and yet this craving of time is gravely brought forward as a 
 proof of guilty knowledge ; all these pleadings are not worth 
 a farthing, and have nothing whatever to do with the case. 
 
 Gentlemen, I feel so confident of the verdict, that I shall 
 trouble you with but one or two topics more. The character 
 of the accused, is that nothing in a criminal trial like this ? 
 Is it nothing to have the reputation of a kind husband, an 
 affectionate parent, an esteemed friend, an honest man ? 
 Gentlemen, in a case of doubt this is every thing. You have 
 heard his character described by his two most confidential 
 agents at the beginning and end of his career, Mr Corrie 
 and Mr Lockhart ? You have heard it in the more dignified 
 language of Mr Hardinge, who had known him in the days of 
 the splendour of his father. You have heard it in what was 
 the more homely, but not the less affecting language of my 
 friend Mr Roger Aytoun. You have seen it in a moral spec¬ 
 tacle unexampled in a court of justice. You have seen it in the 
 testimony of the gallant colonel (D’ Aguilar) near me, whom 
 I should be proud to call my friend. With the gallantry of 
 a British officer, with the pride and generosity of a British 
 gentleman, he, not like the cold world, remembered the days 
 of his boyhood, recollected all that had passed between the 
 prisoner and himself in early life; he saw the rising friendship 
 of their children, and he rushed to his defence; as a bark 
 tossing amidst the breakers, he rushed to support it, and he 
 will bear it at last to a haven of safety. Tire contemplation 
 of that spectacle was electrical to me, and to you, and to all 
 of us; and the embrace that these two men shall have when 
 the prisoner quits the bar, is one that I envy that gallant 
 officer more than I envy all the treasures of wealth and 
 splendour, and more even than the wreath of laurel that so 
 honourably adorns his brow. Do not think, gentlemen, 
 that character is a light matter. I look back on the whole of 
 his days, and I look at the prisoner as an unfortunate man, 
 whether I contemplate the past or the future. When I look 
 to the past, I see nothing but days of anxiety and care, nights 
 of golden dreams dissipated with the morning sun, his rising 
 family who had been taught to look to nobility and to wealth 
 as their birthright, seeing nothing but disasters before them, 
 calling aloud to the parent to give them bread, when he has 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 263 
 
 nothing to give them but a stone. When I look forward to 
 the future, I see nothing still but a glimmering of hope that 
 the prisoner will pass the balance of his days in pursuits more 
 useful—in the attainment of objects more solid. Let the 
 visionary coronet of vain ambition be plucked from his bewil¬ 
 dered brow,—let the visionary prospects of vast possession and 
 boundless wealth vanish into empty air; but leave, oh leave 
 him that better nobilit}’, that more valuable title which con¬ 
 sists in an honest name and in an upright character. Gentle¬ 
 men, I am one of those whose party prejudices, and whose 
 principles all combine in the admiration of hereditary rank 
 and high title, — in the admiration of those whose names have 
 been brought down to these more modern times in the annals 
 of fame and chivalrous actions, and who venerate those new 
 names who, by their piety, their patriotism, or their learning, 
 have raised themselves to be enrolled in the lists of those who 
 sit in the house where meet the dignified nobles of the land ; 
 but without truth, character, and honour, all these things are 
 worth nothing. Without such concomitants, to my eye the 
 glitter of the coronet has no splendour — to my ear the rustling 
 of the silken robe has no music. I trample on the tarnished 
 ermine with disdain. Do not add to the pangs of this man 
 more than he deserves. Leave him in possession of his good 
 character, without which the crown and the sceptre are but a 
 bauble. Do not imbitter his cup with the punishment of 
 crime, where there is no guilt; for, on my conscience, I 
 believe him to have been the dupe of the designing, and the 
 prey of the worthless. 
 
 Mr Robertson concluded at half-past six p.m. 
 
 Lord Meadowbaxk. — Gentlemen, you have heard speeches 
 of great ability by the counsel on either side, and the last is 
 certainly calculated to make a great impression on your minds. 
 I shall endeavour to go over the case plainly, and to bring the 
 evidence back to your attention, without attempting more. 
 
 It has been most justly and properly stated by Mr Robert¬ 
 son, that we had nothing to do here with the rights of the pro¬ 
 prietors of Gartmore, Tulliebodie, and Tillicoultry, or with 
 any other party, or with the right of the prisoner to the title 
 which he claims. The simple matter in your hands is, whether 
 or not the charge of forgery, first of a peculiar document, and 
 then of a great number of documents of an inferior description, 
 is proved against the prisoner,—.whether these documents were 
 forged by him, — or whether he was aiding and abetting in the 
 
 3 15 
 
264 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRY?, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 forgery of them,—whether he uttered them, and uttered them 
 knowing them to be forged, if he was not the forger. 
 
 The charges may be stated in a very few words. There is, 
 first, the allegation made by the Public Prosecutor of the pri¬ 
 soner’s having conceived the felonious intention of having him¬ 
 self falsely received as the Earl of Stirling; and in pursuance 
 of his designs to have himself so received, and to obtain a right 
 to large landed estates, both here and in other dominions of 
 the crown, that he forged, or was art and part in the forgery 
 of those documents, or of uttering them, knowing them to be 
 forged ; that he forged, or was art and part in the forgery of 
 an instrument bearing to be an excerpt from an ancient char¬ 
 ter, granted in favour of William first Earl of Stirling, by 
 Charles I. in the year 1639; that he had forged on that docu¬ 
 ment, or was accessory to the forgery, a signature which he 
 meant to represent as the name of Thomas Conyers. The 
 indictment then proceeds to state, that a reduction of services 
 had been brought, and that Lord Cockburn had issued a note 
 on the 10th December, 1836, pointing out several links in the 
 descent of the prisoner from his supposed ancestor, which were 
 not sufficiently corroborated, and the truth of the essence of 
 which was questioned by his Lordship; that this note having 
 been put into process on the 10th December, the prisoner, 
 between and the month of October or November following, 
 had been guilty of forgery, or had been accessory to the forg¬ 
 ing of several documents. One set of these documents are 
 those so often mentioned, bearing to be writings on the back 
 of a map of Canada ; the map itself is not alleged to be a for¬ 
 gery ; on the contrary, it is simply with reference to the papers 
 on the back of it, that the allegation of forgery is made ; and 
 that this was for the purpose of supplying the links wanted ; 
 and that for the purpose of satisfying the Court that these links 
 were sufficiently made up, he farther was accessory to the 
 forgery, or, at all events, to the issuing, knowing them to be 
 forged, of certain English documents, enclosed in a sealed 
 packet, accompanied by a note bearing to be from a person of 
 the name of Mrs Innes Smyth ; then there is the allegation that 
 he was guilty of the forgery of a letter, corresponding to a letter 
 said to be addressed to Madame Le Normand, and said to have 
 been enclosed in the same packet which contained the map of 
 Canada, and left at her Cabinet on the 11th July, 1837. 
 
 Now, you must be aware, that in all criminal cases what¬ 
 soever connected with the crime of forgery, where a charge of 
 forgery is brought, the first question of all is, to determine 
 whether the documents are or are not genuine. In trying this. 
 
STYLING III.MSKLK KARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 265 
 
 point, we in the meantime put the prisoner out of the ques¬ 
 tion, and the question which first of all ought to occupy your 
 minds is, are these documents genuine or not ? In determin¬ 
 ing this point, I have a few general observations to make here. 
 The crime of forgery, where the instrument has not been seen 
 in the act of fabrication, can only be proved by a detail of 
 facts and circumstances. It is only by going through the 
 documents minutely, examining the writings, examining the 
 papers, examining the formation of the letters and the words 
 that are in it, and all that is intrinsic in the document itself, 
 and that you can gather from it, that you can come to a con¬ 
 clusion ; and not only so, but there are a great many other 
 circumstances that must also be taken into account in the con¬ 
 sideration cf this part of the question. You are to look to 
 what the nature of the instrument purports to be, — whether 
 there is nothing peculiar to the character of such instruments, 
 — the manner in which they are framed, — and the place in 
 which they are recorded. All these things it is the duty of a 
 Jury to consider, — in such a question minutely and seriously 
 consider. They are not to be led away by dividing all these 
 circumstances, as was done with great ingenuity, I must say, 
 by the prisoner’s counsel, Mr Robertson. It will not do to 
 take one of these circumstances, and then another, and ask if 
 this is enough, or is that enough, to prove the forgery of the 
 documents, and so go through and dissect them indivi¬ 
 dually; but you are to come to the consideration of them 
 all together; and you are to ask yourselves whether you ever 
 saw in any one instrument so great a number of circumstances, 
 all of them combined, which could not have existed in a genuine 
 instrument, and which are totally incompatible with a genuine 
 instrument. You are to take the whole of the circumstances 
 together, and judge of them dispassionately, in order to arrive 
 at a just conclusion. You are to judge whether there is such 
 a combination of circumstances occurring in one case, which, 
 if any of them were occurring separately, would be of compa¬ 
 ratively little moment, but would require almost the aid of a 
 miracle to bring them together; and finding this to be the case, 
 you are to consider what effect is to be given to that combi¬ 
 nation. 
 
 Gentlemen, a good deal was said at the commencement of 
 the trial in regard to the appearance of the paper on which 
 the excerpt is written.- Not much is to be taken from that, 
 with this exception, that where men have their minds and 
 attention devoted to any one particular subject, the impres- 
 
260- TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHItYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 sion they take at first sight is much to be depended upon.- 
 There are some things that can not be proved by evidence, 
 and yet in regard to which you may at once be satisfied. 
 Take your own letter, for instance, which you may have 
 forgot you wrote, and you cannot tell the grounds that you 
 now recognize it to be your own handwriting. You are 
 satisfied that it is your handwriting, although you cannot tell 
 the grounds of your recognition. Looking to this paper 
 before you, you have here two of the most experienced gentle¬ 
 men in old writings to be found either in this empire, or any¬ 
 where else, Mr Thomas Thomson and Mr M‘Donald, the 
 former of whom was, you recollect, consulted by the prisoner. 
 You have these two gentlemen telling you without doubt or 
 difficulty, that on looking at that document they did not 
 believe it to be genuine. On the other hand, you have had 
 experiments performed on the documents, in order to test the 
 cause of the colour of the paper, and to ascertain if there was 
 in it anv extraneous substances. If chemists differ in their 
 conclusions, it is safer for you to throw out of view their 
 evidence altogether; but it does not follow that it taints the 
 evidence for the crown. The crown has no other object than 
 to bring the whole case, and the best case before the Jury,— 
 the crown believing, and thinking, and knowing, and having 
 reason at least to believe, that an experiment might be made 
 which might have the effect of bringing the question more 
 distinctly to your view. Experiments were made on this 
 document, and the chemists differed in opinion. Now, an 
 experiment may fail, and it may succeed. When all the 
 parties are agreed, you are to take their evidence; but if they 
 do not agree, you are to throw the evidence aside. It may 
 be as well that I should recall to your recollection Mr Thom¬ 
 son’s evidence, because it seems to me to have been given in 
 distinct and positive terms. (His Lordship then read the 
 evidence of Mr Thomson, bearing upon the colour of the ink 
 and paper, and the peculiar and unusual handwriting of the 
 excerpt.) 
 
 Gentlemen, I leave this part of the case, stating this much 
 to you, that instead of there being any thing in favour of the 
 document being genuine, from the complexion of the ink, 
 paper, writing, and general effect produced, that the witness 
 stated to you that his impression was against the genuineness 
 of the document. 
 
 In looking to the composition of the charter, a good deal 
 was said by the counsel for the prisoner, as to its being but an : 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 ‘ 2(57 
 
 excerpt from a charter; and that you are not to test it by the 
 same rules that you would test a complete charter. This 
 may be quite true to a certain extent; but then, on the other 
 hand, if in a paper purporting to be an excerpt of a document 
 of a particular description, you find things occurring in such 
 numbers, not only apparent blunders that would have made 
 the instrument itself unintelligible, but portions of it so totally 
 inconsistent with the nature of a charter, from which it is 
 purported to be excerpted ; and above all, if you find things 
 included in that document or affixed to it which could not have 
 been in a charter of such a description, then you are called on 
 to exercise your own intelligence, and ask yourselves what is the 
 effect it produces on your minds, coupled with all the circum¬ 
 stances relative to the productions. There are a great many, as 
 it was termed, inaccuracies; but which, I say, are utter inconsis¬ 
 tencies in that document, with the style of a charter in this 
 country, and which were particularly pointed out by Mr McKen¬ 
 zie. I am not speaking now as to whether the prisoner at the 
 bar might in good faith have been under the impression that 
 it was a genuine document; but the question is, whether there 
 are things in that document, which, to persons of intelligence, 
 must prove that it could not have been copied from a genuine 
 document. There are things that are quite as well known 
 in regard to charters, as in regard to the form of a criminal 
 indictment. Mr M‘Kenzie told you, that in charters them¬ 
 selves the dates of particular resignations are invariably given ; 
 and that in this document there are no dates applied to the 
 resignation at all. He told you that in a charter that goes 
 through the forms of a charter in Scotland, under the intelli¬ 
 gent eye of the king’s officers in the Exchequer, there is no 
 chance or possibility of such blunders occurring as have 
 occurred here; and that there is a resignation said to be by 
 the grandson of William Earl of Stirling, which is totally 
 inconsistent with the forms of resignations in genuine charters. 
 Besides, this document gives lands and provinces in New 
 England; and I ask how it is possible that a signature 
 that passed the Barons of Exchequer could have conveyed 
 away a province which never belonged to Scotland ? This is 
 utterly inconsistent with all notions of an instrument of such 
 a description. 
 
 But there are other things in the internal parts of the 
 charter to be noticed. There is one part of it which, the 
 very moment I looked at it, seemed to me conclusive, which 
 is this, that while this excerpt bears to convey to the Earl 
 of Stirling the title and dignity of the earldom, it assumes 
 
<268 TRIAL Ofr ALEXANDER HUMPHRY'S, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 and takes for granted that that was necessary to be done, 
 which was not necessary to be done. He resigns the Earl¬ 
 dom of Stirling, and the king conveys it back with pre¬ 
 cedency from the date of the original grant of the honours. 
 By so doing, he did not lose his precedency. Such a stipula¬ 
 tion is not to be found in genuine charters. Mr Thomson 
 told you, that he never saw such a thing, and that the prece¬ 
 dency of honours, as from the date of the original grant, 
 struck him as singular, it being quite unnecessary. Then in 
 this charter the king is made to address a commoner “ consent- 
 guineus noster” This occurs twice over. It is the invariable 
 practice of the crown in all public instruments to address the 
 peers of the realm as “ consanguineus noster ; but here a com¬ 
 moner is so addressed, and Mr Thomson told you that he had 
 never seen such a thing. Then we come to an extraordinary 
 circumstance which occurs in the document, and that is the 
 testing clause. This clause bears, that it was executed by the 
 king at Whytehall before a certain number of witnesses, on 
 the 7th December, 1639, One of these witnesses is John, 
 Archbishop Spottiswood, “ our chancellor.” It was proved to 
 you by the production of the life of Archbishop Spottiswood, 
 which was not objected to as legal evidence, that he died on 
 the 26th November of that year, and his was no death that 
 took place in a corner. It is a matter of notoriety that he died 
 at Westminster, and that his remains were interred at West¬ 
 minster, and his funeral attended with eight hundred torches; 
 and the date of his death was also found on an inscription on 
 his monument in Westminster Abbey. If there >vas nothing 
 more to prove his death, this would prove it. An inscription 
 on a monument is good evidence as to the date of the death 
 of an individual. It has been so ruled by the judges of 
 England. The fact of the death of Archbishop Spottiswood, 
 before the date of this document, would, of itself, have excluded 
 the possibility of its being received as genuine evidence. Be¬ 
 sides, you have two documents that have been referred to 
 taken from the privy seal of Scotland, in which it appears that 
 the charge and keeping of the great seal was committed to the 
 Marquis of Hamilton on the 13th November, 1639. I need not 
 read these documents to you. Your attention has been directed 
 to them already, and they will be laid before you. Even if 
 the archbishop had not been in his grave at the date of this 
 document, he could not have been a witness, because he had 
 resigned the great seal, which was put in commission, and 
 committed to the charge of the Marquis of Hamilton. 
 Therefore, taking the charter as it stands with its multifarious 
 
STYLING lUMSELF EAllL OF STIltLtNG. . 269 
 
 Sunders, or with reference to what I have stated to you with 
 respect to the testing clause, in which Archbishop Spottis- 
 wood’s name is taken as a witness, I submit to you that it would 
 not be safe to hold that there could be any doubt whatever 
 as to the conclusion that it is a fabricated document. 
 
 Then there comes the addition of “ Per Signetum.” To 
 this I call your attention in a few words to remind you of the 
 utter impossibility of this being appended to a completed 
 charter, because, in passing the great seal, the authority of 
 ihe signet is not recognized. The form of passing a charter 
 may be stated in a few words. The party presents first his 
 signature to the Exchequer. If it requires a sign manual, it 
 obtains it; if it does not require it, there is a signet applied to 
 it in the king’s name, and it passes to the barons. Having 
 fixed the sum to be paid, the composition and the reddendo, 
 it comes to the comptroller’s office, and is there registered, and 
 there it must be registered. Then that signature, with the 
 marking after registration, goes to the signet. The signet 
 has no record, but requires that it should be itself protected 
 against question for having issued that which it had no 
 right to issue; and therefore, having no record to point 
 at .as evidence of the grounds on which it proceeded, the 
 signature is retained at the signet. Having got possession 
 of the signature, the keeper gives a precept or deed (this 
 was the form in 1639, and lor a century afterwards) to 
 the keeper of the privy seal to issue his precept to the 
 keeper of the great seal to expede the charter. At the 
 privy seal that precept is recorded, and then a new precept 
 issues which goes to the great seal, and the precept which 
 went to the great seal, being under the privy seal, has all 
 the authority to make the great seal move. Therefore, on 
 that which purports to be a patent, the mark at the end 
 could not be per signetum, but per preceptum Signeti. 
 These things, therefore, putting aside all the blunders in the 
 body of the charter, which could not have crept in by incautious 
 or illiterate transcriptions, plainly and manifestly prove that 
 it is not a genuine document. No man could have taken in 
 to the testing clause the long designation ol “John, by the 
 mercy of God, Archbishop of St Andrews, Primate and 
 Metropolitan of our kingdom of Scotland, our Chancellor,” 
 unless he had seen these words before him ; and no one, unless 
 he saw it appended to the charter, could have put down the 
 words “gratis, per signetum” on an instrument of which he 
 knew nothing. It is one ot the greatest beauties in matters 
 of this kind, that, in this country, registers and records have been 
 
270 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 kept for centuries with a degree of regularity and precision 
 altogether unknown in any other part of the empire. You 
 have here the comptroller’s register, the register of the privy 
 seal, the register of the great seal, and the bundle of signa¬ 
 tures, and one and all of these have been searched ; and there 
 is not a vestige either on the record, or on the index to the 
 record—not the vestige of any instrument, purporting to be 
 an instrument corresponding with this, is found to have exis¬ 
 ted. Now, in confirmation of all that I have stated, you 
 have these two charters,—the one in favour of the city of 
 Edinburgh, and the other in favour of Heriot’s Hospital, of 
 date four days after the date of this document. You find 
 that these charters have gone through all the stages which 1 
 have detailed to you at length. They went through the 
 Exchequer, through the comptroller’s register, through, the 
 signet, through the privy seal, and last of all through the 
 great seal, and then issues the charter with a regular testing 
 clause at the end of it. It is material for you to keep in view 
 that, in the first stages of a deed, there is never a full testing 
 clause. It does not bear the names of the witnesses, it does 
 not state them fully, or iheir designations; and it is only in 
 the charter itself, when it has passed the great seal, when it 
 comes to have authority in the courts of law, that it has this 
 testing clause; and therefore it is, that this document, which 
 has the full testing clause, could not have been copied from 
 any early stage of the progress, either at the signet, or at the 
 privy seal. I take leave of this part of the question by point¬ 
 ing out to you that there is no subscription of witnesses to the 
 charter ; there are merely the names of the persons who acted 
 as witnesses to the king’s subscription, but no actual writing 
 of the individuals themselves appended. The great seal is 
 appended to it, and it has thus all the authority that it can 
 have. 
 
 You will observe that, at the beginning of the document, 
 on the margin, there are the words “ Keg. Mag. Sig.” Now, 
 on that subject we have proof positive and conclusive. The 
 witnesses who examined it have no doubt that it is coeval with 
 the document, but one of the gentlemen said that he thought 
 it was a little darker than the writing in the body of the 
 document. You are not bound to take any evidence as to 
 that, but from your own eyes; and you will judge from your 
 own eyes whether you will have any difficulty in concurring 
 with the opinion of those witnesses. If you do so, you have 
 this additional fact, that, until 1807, such a designation of 
 the registered instrument passing under the great seal did not 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 271 
 
 exist. There were various designations given to it; but there 
 never was, either in or out of the Register Office, such a refe¬ 
 rence upon the margin of a charter till 1807. 
 
 Then there is reference made to the loss of a portion of the 
 Records of Scotland during the civil war under the usurpa¬ 
 tion of Cromwell. It is a curious fact, that the reference to 
 volume 57 is a reference to a volume from which there are 
 twelve leaves cut out at the beginning; and it is another 
 curious fact, that the book in which a charter of 1639 ought 
 properly to be recorded, is not in volume 57, but in volume 
 56; but volume 56 is complete, and if there was a fabrication 
 of this document, the party fabricating takes a volume, of which 
 there are twelve leaves left out, and not a volume in which, 
 according to its date, it ought to have been found. But what 
 is more strange still, in one of these certificates to which I shall 
 speak immediately, it was stated that the charter seen by 
 Mallet was very long, extending to about fifty odd pages. 
 Charters are all of the same size. Now all the leaves awanting 
 in volume 57, and the indexes, tell you the documents that are 
 amissing; and supposing that they had not told you any thing at 
 all, can you believe, having found that there is no evidence of 
 a charter having existed in these records in which it ought to 
 have been found, that it could per saltum have been crammed 
 into twelve pages, which is all that is awanting in the volume? 
 In short, it does appear to me to be an extraordinary allega¬ 
 tion; but, gentlemen, it is for you to consider, whether you 
 have ground to come to the conclusion that this is a fair and 
 genuine document. In my opinion, a document, liable to 
 such insurmountable objections staring upon the face of it, 
 cannot be genuine; but it is for you to consider, whether it 
 would be safe for you to arrive at the conclusion that it is a 
 genuine document. I have heard nothing said in support of 
 its being genuine. It may be possible to roll off one objec¬ 
 tion, and roll off another; but, as I said, it is the union and 
 combination, and the variety of coincidences, that render it 
 morally and utterly impossible that this excerpt could have 
 been taken from a genuine charter. 
 
 The next point to which I have to direct your attention is the 
 alleged fabrication on the map of Canada, and here I will state 
 the case to you as it has been brought before you in evidence, 
 and afterwards consider the evidence stated in defence. The 
 allegation of the Crow'n is, that on the 10th December, 1836, 
 Lord Cockburn issued a note, in which he pointed out two 
 defects in the descent of the prisoner. This was in an action 
 of reduction and improbation raised by the Officers of State 
 
272 TRIAL 01-' ALEXANDER HUMl’llUYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 in behalf of the Crown against the prisoner at the bar, “ for 
 reducing inter alia the brieves and retours of the said general 
 service, and special service, and the precept of Chancery, and 
 infeftment following thereon.” It was denied, first by the 
 Crown, that the Reverend John Alexander was the son of 
 John Alexander of Antrim, who had died in 1712, or that he 
 again was the son of John of Gartmore. His Lordship 
 detailed in his note the grounds of his opinion; and it there¬ 
 fore became a matter of vital importance to the interests of 
 the prisoner, that he should prove that John Alexander, the 
 first of these Johns, had had a son, because it was proved that 
 he had had a daughter who had been served as heiress to 
 Gartmore, and this was utterly exclusive of the notion of his 
 having had a son. Till this was produced at the Lord Ordi¬ 
 nary’s bar, it is stated, and not denied, that it had never been 
 alleged that this gentleman had entered into a second mar¬ 
 riage. His Lordship issued this long note which you heard 
 read, pointing out every step that required to be supplied. 
 Then there is produced in the month of December, on the 
 table of the Court of Session, the map of Canada, that would 
 establish beyond all question the truth of the allegation made 
 by the prisoner in that process of reduction, but which they 
 failed to substantiate as genuine when the process came to be 
 advised by the judge. It is very manifest, and is really so 
 manifest that it does not require to be mentioned, that while 
 these documents on the back of the map bear the date of 1706 
 and 1707, the map itself did not exist till after 1718. I 
 must say that on this part of the case it seems to me that 
 there is little room for entertaining a difference of opinion, for 
 no point of evidence that ever came before a Court or a Jury 
 could be clearer. Observe what that proof is. You have, in 
 the first place, a regular extract made from the proper record 
 in France, of the appointment of De L’ Isle to be first Geo¬ 
 grapher to the King. It is of the utmost importance to look 
 at the terms of it, because in the very able address made in 
 behalf of the prisoner, he stopped short at a word that com¬ 
 pletely extinguished his argument. The nomination of De 
 L’ Isle to be first Geographer to the King, bears to be the 
 24th August, 1718; the words of his patent are,. “ This day, 
 the King being in Paris, having authentic proofs of the pro¬ 
 found erudition of the 8. Guillaume De L’ Isle of the Royal 
 Academy of Science, in the great number of geographical 
 works which he has executed for his use, and which have been 
 received with general approbation by the public, his Majesty, 
 by the advice, &c. wishing to attach him more particularly to 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 273 
 
 his service, by a title of honour, which may procure him, at 
 the same time, the means of continuing works of such useful¬ 
 ness, has declared and declares, wishes and enjoins, that the 
 said Sieur De L’ Isle be henceforward his first geographer.” 
 The word translated henceforward is “ doresnavant” in the 
 original. It is only henceforward, and from that time, that 
 his pay begins. Now the map has been sworn to by two 
 witnesses, one of them an engraver of maps, and the other 
 one of the keepers of the Archives of France, who is him¬ 
 self, from what you see, cognizant with matters of this de¬ 
 scription. This gentleman tells you that, after the 24th of 
 August, 1718, there never was a map ofDe LTsle’s published, 
 thrown off, engraved, or printed, which did not bear on its 
 face the title of Premier Geographe du ltoi. But he told 
 you, at the same time, that although they bore that title after 
 that date, it was still necessary to retain the original date of 
 the map, because the privilege of printing this map extended 
 only to twenty years. He said he had examined multitudes of 
 these maps, and had brought a number of them over with him. 
 You will find that, whether the original date was 1703, if 
 they were thrown off subsequent to the date of his being made 
 first geographer to the king, the title and dignity which he 
 then enjoyed was invariably applied. But where the plate 
 was an old one, the word Geographer was taken out of it, 
 and a new line introduced in a different form ; and the wit¬ 
 ness said he had seen duplicates of the very same map, where 
 he found the same thing, all down to 1718, without the 
 title, and invariably subsequent to that date, they all had it. 
 When you come to look at the map before you, you will see 
 that, to make the line “ Guillaume De L’ Isle” correspond in 
 length with the other, the word Geographe ought to have been 
 after “ De L’ Isle;” but it is obliterated, and left out, not in 
 the paper but on the copper, and there there is introduced 
 « De L’ Academie Royale des Sciences.” Then there is a 
 line obviously put in, “et Premier Geographe du Roy.” If 
 you believe this gentleman, or if you believe your own eyes, 
 when you examine this volume of maps, and this document, 
 you must be satisfied,—except you believe that you have heard 
 a tissue of falsehoods from this respectable witness, and unless 
 you believe that the maps which he brings before you were 
 fabricated for a particular purpose,—that that instrument, lying 
 before you, must have been manufactured after 1718. He 
 could not, under the despotic government of France, have 
 assumed the title unless he had a legal patent and right to 
 that appointment—and he did not enjoy it till 1718. This 
 
‘J74 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 was spoken to by three witnesses, confirmed by the testimony 
 of Mr Lizars, who is an engraver himself, all of them affirm¬ 
 ing the fact, and that upon it the words of the new title were 
 engraved, and the other word was erased. It is, therefore, 
 altogether impracticable, utterly inconsistent, to believe that 
 this document existed sooner than 1718. It is for you, there¬ 
 fore, to consider this point, and to make up your minds about 
 it. You have your notes, and you will see the credibility 
 you are to give these witnesses; and taking all this into 
 consideration, you will take common sense along with you, 
 and see whether the evidence is perfect and entirely com¬ 
 plete. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I think it would be a great waste of your 
 time to enter upon a minute consideration of these different 
 documents; at the same time, they are well worthy of your 
 consideration, and you will see when you come to look at them, 
 the result you would have arrived at, supposing there had 
 been no such conclusive evidence as we have had at all. 
 
 I must tell you that Mr Robertson stated the law incorrectly 
 when he said that you must have decisive, conclusive, and 
 irrefragable proof on every one part of the case. I say that. 
 you must take all the facts and circumstances together; and 
 it is your business as a Jury, to weigh these facts and circum¬ 
 stances, and see if they amount to that which comes to be 
 moral proof of the fact. Looking at these documents, there 
 are some parts of them so extraordinary, that it would not be 
 right in me if I did not call your attention to them. Take 
 the first document on this map, dated Lyons, 4th August, 1706. 
 He says, “during my residence in Acadia in 1702, my curio¬ 
 sity was excited by what I was told of an ancient charter, 
 which is preserved in the archives of that province; it is the 
 charter of confirmation, of date 7th December, 1639,” &c. 
 Now, the gentleman who is supposed to write this note, de¬ 
 scribes this in 1702 as an ancient charter. According to the 
 evidence itself, the charter was then only sixty years old; and 
 I ask you whether you ever heard, or whether any mortal 
 man ever heard, of “ancient” being applied to a document of 
 sixty years old. Can you, by any construction or credulity, 
 believe that such a thing could have taken place ?” Then 
 the note goes on to state “ from this authentic document,— 
 
 I am about to present some extracts, (translated into French, 
 for the benefit of such as do not understand Latin,) in order 
 that every person who opens this map of our American pos¬ 
 sessions, may form an idea of the vast extent of territory which 
 was granted by the King of England to one of his subjects.” 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 275 
 
 Now, observe that a great portion of all this territory is the 
 property of France, and the only portion of it which belongs 
 to England was Nova Scotia; and, in evidence of that, there 
 are two statutes in 1634 or 1635, praying the king that he 
 would not alienate the province of Nova Scotia. There is not 
 a vestige in any other document on which the Crown of Scot¬ 
 land ever claimed any thing else. Then it says, “ If the fate of 
 war, or any other event, should replace New France and Acadia, 
 under the dominion of the English, the family of Stirling 
 would possess these two provinces as well as New England.” 
 It might give him Nova Scotia, hut as to any thing else it 
 was an absurdity. As far hack as 1640, the whole of this was 
 conveyed over to the French, and had remained, at the date 
 of this note, two-thirds of a century in the possession of 
 France, and there was no more prospect of its being given 
 up to England, than there was the prospect of any other 
 place in the world being given up to them. Such a 
 notion never could have entered the mind of any French¬ 
 man. To talk of this being a certificate, or to say that any 
 man could have sat down and written, at that period, that 
 such a thing was likely to happen, seems to me to be totally 
 inconsistent. Then the next document is that signed Estienne, 
 who tells you that he heard of the grants to the Earl of Stir¬ 
 ling, and that Mallet had procured to him a perusal of the 
 charter. It is a singular fact, that here is a charter conveying 
 estates in Scotland as well as in America. The estates in 
 Scotland were something to be got at, but the estates in 
 America were not so easily to be got at; but the story here 
 
 is, that while the Earl of Stirling did not record this charter 
 in that country where he could get something by recording 
 
 it, he carries it out to America where he could get nothing. 
 It seems to me inconsistent with all the rules of probability, 
 that any man in his sound senses, if he had got a charter 
 executed altering the designation of estates, would leave it unre¬ 
 corded in the proper place. The first thing he would have 
 thought of, would be to procure the evidence of that altera¬ 
 tion, and of having it duly recorded. He was an old man, 
 certainly, but a man of very great talent. Then there is the 
 letter bearing to be written by John Alexander, dated Antrim, 
 in tlvhich he says,—“ The charter was at one time registered 
 in Scotland as well as in Acadia, but during the civil war, 
 and under the usurpation of Cromwell, boxes containing a 
 portion of the records of that kingdom were lost during a 
 storm at sea; and, according to the ancient tradition of our 
 family, the register in which this charter was recorded was 
 
•276 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMI'HRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 among the number of those that perished.” I his storm at 
 sea was in 1666 or 1667, about forty years before the man 
 was writing, and yet he talks of the ancient traditions of our 
 family. Who ever talked of the ancient tradition of a thing 
 that happened forty or fifty years ago ? But, above all, the 
 charter itself is said to be in existence, and who would, in such 
 a case, be dreaming of the record ? The whole documents 
 seem to me to be an absurdity, and have, one and all of them, 
 been put together in order to the supplying of those links in 
 the pedigree which the Lord Ordinary had pointed out to be 
 awanting. 
 
 There was a matter which came out yesterday without any 
 suspicion, which struck me very forcibly, and I call your at¬ 
 tention to the writing which appeared under the tombstone 
 inscription when it was taken off by Mr Lizars. It is of very 
 great importance, indeed, supposing always that you are 
 believing the possibility of Fenelon, in 1707, writing a certi¬ 
 ficate on paper that did not exist till 1718. Observe what 
 are the contents of this writing. The object of the whole of 
 the certificates was to get evidence of the existence of a docu¬ 
 ment of the Earl of Stirling — to get hold of Fenelon, one of 
 the most virtuous men that ever existed, and to produce a 
 certificate of his. It would be strange, indeed, if the letter 
 could have been written by Fenelon; and still more strange, 
 that, if it were his production, it would have been covered 
 over and obliterated. This letter has been read to you. It says 
 of this John Alexander that “ he is a man of real merit, and 
 whom every one sees with pleasure at Court, and in the best 
 society in the capital.” Fenelon appeared more in his diocese 
 than in his court. If the party had dared to produce that 
 letter, he would have done it; and it is for you to consider 
 whether this was one of the first attempts to bring the denoue¬ 
 ment into operation, and having fabricated the document, and 
 finding that it had not been successfully done, it was put out 
 of view. It is written on a piece of paper, and pasted on the 
 map, and it appears that an attempt had been made to take 
 it olf again, but without success. Then this inscription was 
 written on a bit of a map, and whether a map of Canada or 
 not, Canada appears upon it, and pasted down upon this 
 document that had not been successfully fabricated. I do dot 
 know that, in all my life, I have ever seen any thing that 
 tended more conclusively to satisfy my mind of any thing, 
 than this fact satisfies me that this is an entire fabrication from 
 the beginning. 
 
 Now, the next question that I put to you is this,—Here is 
 
STYLING HIMSELF KAUI, OF STIRLING. 
 
 277 
 
 the document, and where did it come from ? And a most 
 important question it is to answer; and what I am going to 
 say, is merely for the purpose of following out the ground 
 that the Jury are entitled to go on, in considering the forgery. 
 You will recollect that Lord Cockburn’s note was issued to 
 the parties on the 10th December. It appears from the 
 prisoner’s declaration that a communication had been made 
 by Lady Stirling to Le Normand, desiring her to employ her 
 resources in searching out a paper he was desirous to discover. 
 There is no part to the south of Edinburgh that a letter would 
 not reach in ten days. Now, he goes off immediately after 
 the issuing of Lord Cockburn’s interlocutor ; and the story he 
 tells is, that in the month of July he was at Mademoiselle Le 
 Normand, and that he there saw the map ; that she would 
 not part with it; and he travels off to England and leaves it 
 behind him. Here are two extraordinary facts; he has a 
 suit of magnitude going on, and judgment is pronounced 
 giving the grounds on which it was against him ; but he 
 travels away, totally and entirely ignorant, as he tells you, of 
 what the Judcre had done. Then he goes to Paris in the 
 month of July, and he has this production exhibited to him. 
 In the meantime he is informed of the Lord Ordinary’s note; 
 he travels off to give his vote at the Peers’ election in Scot¬ 
 
 land, and leaves in the hands of a common fortune-teller, 
 this production, which would remove all objections,—a docu¬ 
 ment on which so much of his future prosperity was to de¬ 
 pend. This appears to me to be one of the most singular 
 facts that ever I met with in the history of any party or liti¬ 
 gation. Then he sends his son to Paris, who brings the map 
 over; it is of importance to observe, that the envoy is the 
 prisoner’s own son ; and considering that the document is so 
 recovered, and brought over in this way, out of the hands of 
 a common fortune-teller, it is for you, weighing all these 
 things, to say if you have any ground whatever for doubting 
 that the whole of the documents on the map are an entire and 
 complete forgery. 
 
 Then, last of all, in regard to this point, we have at the end 
 of the indictment the supposed anonymous letter to Le Nor¬ 
 mand, which must follow the fate of the document itself. 
 You can have no difficulty or ground for doubting that this 
 letter is a forgery also. 
 
 Then comes the packet to Messrs De Porquet and Co. 
 booksellers in London. Observe how this is found. There 
 are two letters of another son of the prisoner’s, who tells the 
 story how they were found. (Here his Lordship read the 
 
278 TKIAL OF ALEXANDER IIUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 letters of Eugene to his father, dated London, April 22 and 
 23.) Observe this young gentleman has no information as to 
 what is in the packet. lie does not know, and has no reason 
 to know, that it had any thing to do with the claim of his 
 father to the titles or estates. All that he gets here is a letter 
 addressed to his father. For aught he knew, it might have 
 contained matters of strict confidential communication with 
 which he had no right to interfere. He sat down to con¬ 
 sider what he should do. What was the natural thing 
 for him to do? Why, either to send his father the packet, 
 or ask him what he was to do with it. It struck him all at 
 ' once to go before some public functionary to have it opened 
 in his presence. Did you ever hear of such a thing being 
 done before ? In regard to the parchment bearing, <£ Some 
 of my wife’s family papers,” I am bound to state to you, that 
 Mr Corrie deponed, that he knew the handwriting of Mr 
 Humphrys perfectly, and recognized the writing on the 
 cover to be that of Mr Humphrys, the prisoner’s father. 
 There is a book produced to shew the similarity of the writ¬ 
 ing to that of the writing of Mr Humphrys. The young 
 gentleman, on seeing this parchment packet, in an instant 
 exclaimed, “ That is my grandfather’s handwriting.” The 
 notary says his duty is now at an end, — he will not venture 
 to witness the parchment packet. The son then goes to a 
 proctor to have his father’s letter opened. I want to know 
 what was more sacred in the seal of the parchment than in 
 the seal of the packet. You heard that the map was accom¬ 
 panied by an anonymous letter, and the person sent to recover 
 the map, and to bring it over, was one of the prisoner’s sons. 
 It is a singular coincidence, that this packet came two or 
 three months before, of equal importance, pointing to the 
 same issue, and the person who gets it into his hands is 
 another son of the prisoner’s, and he writes the letter which I 
 have read to you. What effect that may have on you on 
 another ground is what I shall notice after. But here is a 
 letter of an extraordinary nature exhibiting a piece of con¬ 
 duct which I believe to be altogether unexampled; and in 
 turning it in every way in my mind, I am at a loss to account 
 for it in any one tangible or reasonable view I can take of the 
 matter, I do not think it of much importance that you 
 should deeply consider whether the writing on the parch- 
 meut is genuine or not. The writing on the parchment may 
 be genuine, and the documents which were under it may 
 be forged. There may have been papers of his wife’s under 
 that cover, but it does not follow that if the other documents 
 
STY UNO IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 279 
 
 are brought forward under suspicious circumstances, that 
 those documents may not have been taken out and thrown 
 aside, and others put in their place. It is for you to con¬ 
 sider whether they are worth any credit whatever. 
 
 These, gentlemen, are all the documents that I have to 
 comment upon ; and, in considering the question of forgery, 
 you should consider the extraordinary coincidence of two 
 packages of such vital importance to remove the obstacles in 
 the way of the prisoner’s success, coming both of them by 
 anonymous letters,—one by post, and the other by two ladies 
 fashionably dressed, who secretly laid them down on Made¬ 
 moiselle Le Normand’s cabinet. It is a matter for your con¬ 
 sideration to say whether there are any grounds for your 
 doubting that the English documents are forged also. 
 
 Before going into the question as to whether the prisoner 
 was the forger of these documents, or was art and part, I put 
 it to you wltether you will hear me on that point now, or 
 adjourn till to-morrow. 
 
 The Jury, after consulting among themselves, stated, that 
 even if his Lordship finished that night, they would require 
 some time to examine the documents, and consider their ver¬ 
 dict, and requested his Lordship to adjourn till the morrow’ at 
 nine o’clock. 
 
 The Court accordingly adjourned. 
 
 FIFTH DAY. 
 
 Friday, May 3, 1839. 
 
 This day the Court met at nine o’clock, and his Lordship 
 resumed his address to the Jury. 
 
 Gentlemen, I called your attention last night to the docu¬ 
 ments alleged in the indictment to be forged, and stated to you 
 the grounds on which it appeared to me to be your duty to look 
 narrowly to them in order to enable you to judge whether the 
 charge of forgery respecting them is well founded or not. I 
 had little to add on this branch of the case, when the proceed¬ 
 ings stopped last night. The principal defence made for the 
 prisoner w'as various statements of counsel founded on the 
 documents that were produced by De Pages, in order to exhi¬ 
 bit a similarity between the handwriting of Fenelon in the cer¬ 
 tificate on the ancient map, and his handwriting in those pro¬ 
 ductions which were brought by De Pages from France. You 
 will observe that the whole of these observations presuppose that 
 
 3 c 
 
280 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 you are of opinion that there is no evidence before you that the 
 map of De L’ Isle was not in existence before 1718. If you 
 believe that the authenticity of tire map is not invalidated, look¬ 
 ing to the appointment of De L’ Isle, and to the evidence of the 
 witnesses who have spoken so decidedly on this point—if you 
 are of opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to satisfy your 
 minds that this map could not have existed till 1718—then you 
 are entitled to look at these comparisons of writing. But if, 
 on the other hand, you are of opinion that the evidence is 
 sufficient—that it leaves no doubt that these documents are a 
 fabrication—that the map on which they are was not in exis¬ 
 tence till 1718,—then the evidence as to the comparison of the 
 writings can be of no avail. 
 
 The prisoner’s counsel, in concluding his observations, 
 made various complaints against the public prosecutor. He 
 said that witnesses were not called that might have been 
 called; that evidence had been objected to that should not 
 have been objected to ; and that an affidavit was charged to be 
 a forgery which should not have been charged to be a forgery; 
 and he expressed regret at the judgment of the Court in 
 regard to the production of a certificate. It is always a matter 
 of deep regret to me, when a counsel of such eminence as my 
 learned friend Mr Robertson brings forward statements of 
 that description against the public prosecutor, or makes a 
 proposition to the Court for the admission of evidence that he 
 could not for a moment believe the Court would entertain. 
 I do regret it on this account, because it seems to infer, what 
 I know of my own experience to be impossible, that the juries 
 of this country can be misled by insinuations. I am quite 
 sure, and I speak most sincerely and advisedly, that the desir¬ 
 ing evidence to be produced which the counsel knows cannot 
 justly and legally be received, in order to found an argument 
 on it, will have no effect on the jury, who know that rules 
 are laid down and fixed for the purpose of maintaining the 
 ends of justice; and in regard to some of those certificates 
 that were tendered in evidence, I shall say no more than this, 
 that in determining the point of law before them, the Court 
 were actuated not more by considerations of law, than by con¬ 
 siderations of what was just and due to the prisoner. 
 
 In regard to the statement that one witness for the crown 
 was not produced who was in the list, I must tell you this, 
 that it is more than twenty years since, for the purpose of 
 aiding in the defence of persons accused, but whose circum¬ 
 stances did not enable them to bring forward witnesses, it was 
 Wade a rule, that wherever a witness was stated to be neces- 
 
STYLING IIIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 28 l 
 
 sary for the defence of the prisoner, the crown, though he did 
 not mean to call that witness himself, put him on the list that 
 the prisoner might avail himself of his testimony. That is not 
 the case with the prisoner; but in consequence of that rule, 
 witnesses that the crown believes may be necessary for the 
 prisoner’s defence are called by the crown, that the prisoner 
 may avail himself of their evidence. Accordingly, all those 
 witnesses that are stated to have been brought here, if the 
 prisoner had chosen to call them in his defence, he had an 
 opportunity of producing them before you. I state this to 
 you, that you may see there is no vestige or ground of com¬ 
 plaint that that servant of Le Normand’s, or any other wit¬ 
 ness, was improperly withheld by the crown, because, if 
 improperly withheld, the prisoner had the means of bringing 
 them. 
 
 I now- call your attention to what is the heaviest part of the 
 case. Gentlemen, in my life I never addressed a Jury with 
 greater anxiety than I do now. You all heard the testimony 
 given by Mr Hardinge, and by another witness from England, 
 and by the gallant officer who has attended the prisoner at 
 the bar during the whole of this trial, in regard to the cha¬ 
 racter of the prisoner. The testimony particularly of the 
 gallant officer did not reflect more credit on the prisoner than 
 it did on himself. The feelings of obligation, long ago con¬ 
 ferred, never had been obliterated from his mind by the lapse of 
 years, and he gave his testimony with a degree of earnestness and 
 effect which, if it told on your minds as it did on mine, must in¬ 
 deed have produced on you a powerful impression. Therefore, 
 gentlemen, I have little to say on the point; I believe every tittle 
 of it; and that those gentlemen who gave their evidence must 
 have firmly believed every word that they said, and every 
 feeling that they expressed. But taking it at best, it is but 
 the evidence of persons who were not in close contact with 
 him. If the case is doubtful, the prisoner is entitled to the 
 benefit of it; but you must take the case exactly as you get 
 it. You have the evidence of the gallant officer, of Mr 
 Hardinge, and of Mr Corrie. These gentlemen mention that 
 the family of the prisoner was highly respectable; that the 
 prisoner’s father lived in a very good style; and the first thing 
 you hear of the prisoner is, that after a long interruption in 
 his correspondence with the Colonel, he had been in France; 
 that he had been a detenu by Bonaparte, and there remained 
 till 1814. He states that he was married to a French lady; 
 and the first thing you hear of him afterwards is, as Mr 
 Corrie told you, that he was at the head of a school in the 
 
282 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPJIRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 town of Worcester. He was then in reduced circumstances. 
 This witness tells you of his having certain claims upon the 
 Earldom of Stirling; that he went to London and saw Mr 
 Tyrrell. He tells Tyrrell that he is in the greatest possible 
 difficulty, unable to pay his butcher’s bill; that he had left his 
 family in great depression ; and he employs this person to 
 borrow money for him. This is in 1829. At that period it 
 is manifest that he was in possession of no property whatever, 
 yet he tells him that he has settled his concerns in the State 
 of Maine, where part of the domains of the Earl of Stirling 
 was situated, — tells him that there were belonging to him 
 there no less than eleven millions of acres; that part of 
 the territory was occupied, and part of it not; and for the 
 portion that was occupied, occupants were willing to pay him 
 at the rate of half a dollar per acre. This is the representa¬ 
 tion he makes when he employs Tyrrell to borrow money for 
 him. The first observation I make on this is, that there has 
 not been the vestige of evidence produced to you that he was 
 at that time in possession of a single acre in the State of 
 Maine, or that he had had any communication with the 
 occupants of the land. But he holds that out as a ground for 
 raising money, and Tyrrell tells you that, not understanding 
 the matter himself, when persons applied to him in regard to 
 these money transactions, he handed them over for the necessary 
 information to Mr Banks. Mr Banks explained matters, and 
 there was a sum raised equal to L. 13,000, by granting bonds 
 to the extent of L.50,000. Whether the persons lending 
 their money were persons willing to take an undue advantage, 
 is a matter with which we have no concern ; but when a 
 character is produced and brought forward in order to give a 
 leaning to the side of the prisoner, you must take the facts 
 and consider well what is to be the inference from these facts. 
 Here there can be no question that you have a representation 
 made in regard to property that is not confirmed; and you 
 have money borrowed which, to that moment at least, the 
 prisoner had established no claim to borrow. It is for you, 
 then, to consider these matters, and to say whether or not the 
 evidence of character that has been given of the prisoner is 
 counterbalanced by the evidence of facts to which I have 
 alluded. 
 
 In proceeding to consider the circumstances which are to 
 connect the prisoner either with the forgery of the documents 
 in question, or with the uttering of them, knowing them to be 
 forged, there are some parts of the case that are totally and 
 ^entirely undoubted. In the first place, on the 10th Decern^ 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EAIIL OF STIRLING. 
 
 283 
 
 her, the Lord Ordinary issues his note; and by his own 
 declaration, we find that he leaves this country on the 18th, 
 and that ten days thereafter he goes to Paris. Where he 
 went to he does not tell, — under what name he went he does 
 not tell,—how he got his passport has never been discovered, 
 because he conceals the name under which he travelled. But, 
 gentlemen, he remains in Paris from the 21st December till 
 August following, when he returns to vote, as he says, in the 
 Election of Peers. On returning to this country he despatches 
 his son to Paris. The son returns with the map, which, I 
 am assuming, you are to hold to be a fabrication, in the 
 month of October, having all these documents either written 
 or pasted on the back of it. Upon that document there is a 
 seal, which is said to have been cut off the letter of John 
 Alexander. It is a very extraordinary circumstance, that in 
 1707, the seal in the ordinary use of an individual carrying 
 on a correspondence, should have been cut from a letter and 
 pasted on the back of this map, with a certificate that it was 
 the seal cut off the letter, though the mark where that seal was 
 cut off is not to be found. But, gentlemen, what is that seal ? 
 — and this is the matter that you have to compare with your 
 own eyes when you come to consider this case farther. In 
 the judicial examination of the prisoner, observe what he says 
 of it. He is asked by the Judges of the Second Division 
 if he has examined the seals on the packet containing the 
 English documents, and he “declares, that he has not, and is 
 not certain that he ever saw them. And the cover of the 
 packet being shewn him, declares, he does not think he ever 
 saw it before; but he now recognizes the indorsement as in 
 his father’s handwriting; and that the seal attached is an 
 impression of his grandfather’s seal. The words he recognizes 
 are, ‘ Some of rny wife’s family papers.’ He had seen that 
 seal many years ago, not later than 1825. It is in the pos¬ 
 session of his sister Lady Elizabeth Pountney.” Then there 
 is the seal on the back of the fabricated map. He admits 
 that the seal on the packet is taken from a seal in the posses¬ 
 sion of his own sister, that he saw in 1825; and, therefore, 
 what you have here is the admission that the seal on this 
 packet is the same as the seal that is in the possession of his 
 own family. Now, you find an impression of that very seal 
 on this fabricated map, and you have a corresponding seal on 
 one of the letters produced, said to be an original letter of 
 John Alexander. Now, suppose there was not another tittle 
 of evidence in the case to connect the prisoner with the 
 knowledge of what was going on, look at these facts and see 
 
284 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 whether they will not lead you to the conviction that he did 
 know what was going on. Suppose the name of Made¬ 
 moiselle Le Normand had never been heard of, — sup¬ 
 pose he did not know that such a female adventuress existed, 
 — look at this, you find him in that part of the world 
 from whence issued these fabricated documents — he con¬ 
 nects himself with the knowledge of them in the month of 
 July, 1837 —you have preserved as genuine a seal which he 
 admits is the seal in the possession of one of his own family, 
 and would not any man of common sense say, that if that seal 
 on the map is a fabrication, it could only have been appended 
 to it when he had the means of access to that seal, which is in 
 the possession of the sister of the prisoner ? Gentlemen, that 
 is a very short view of this part of the case, and it is for you 
 to consider well, what are the inferences to be drawn from it. 
 I am stating to you facts as they appear in the evidence, but, 
 in addition to these, if you take in the other circumstances 
 connected with it, it was proved by Leguix, that during the time 
 this fabrication was going on, he, Leguix, was a mapseller in 
 Paris, and that an Englishman frequently was in his shop 
 inquiring after a map of De L>’ Isle of 1703. In regard to 
 the evidence of Leguix, you recollect that it was objected to, 
 but admitted by the Court; and although, in regard to his 
 particular case, there was no discussion as to his admissibility, 
 because the matter appeared so plain and palpable, and so 
 perfectly recognized in the principle of the law, that the 
 counsel thought it unnecessary to press it; but in regard to 
 the next witness, their objection was heard at length, and the 
 Court repelled the objection. With the exception of this 
 single circumstance, there was not a word stated against the 
 testimony of Leguix, which could expose it to any suspicion. 
 Well, then, you have the evidence of Leguix, telling you that 
 although he does not connect the purchase of the map with 
 the prisoner himself, that there was a map of Canada, corres¬ 
 ponding with the one libelled on, disposed of by him to an 
 Englishman. Now, I say, it is for you to consider this fact, 
 when you come to look at the other part of the case in regard 
 to his connection with the whole of this procedure. If this 
 paper be a fabrication, and it is in that view of the case that 
 I am now stating the matter to you, there can be no question 
 that it was during the months that intervened between De¬ 
 cember, 1836, and July, 1837, that this fabrication must have 
 been made; and it is for you to consider, as you find him at 
 that time in Paris, and the map coming from Paris, what is 
 the result. 
 
STYLING llLMSKLF EAUL OF STILLING. 
 
 265 
 
 In considering the declarations of the prisoner, on a ques¬ 
 tion ot bona Jides, it is of the utmost importance that a Jury 
 should weigh not only the general import of the declarations, 
 —not merely the sentences, but the words and the letters; and 
 it is next important that you should attend, first, to what he 
 says in the beginning of his declaration before the Court. 
 (His Lordship then went over the declarations^f the prisoner 
 before the Court of Session and the Sheriff, pointing out and 
 commenting upon the various discrepancies in the several 
 admissions, and especially in regard to the bond which he had 
 granted to Mademoiselle Le Normand for 400,000 francs. 
 His Lordship then proceeded to read and comment on the 
 letters from Mademoiselle Le Normand to the prisoner, 
 pointing out the mysterious and suspicious hints and expres¬ 
 sions which they contained, proving that she had a knowledge 
 ot the forgery—that they were inconsistent with fair and open 
 dealing, and directing the attention of the Jury to the circum¬ 
 stance, that if these 400,000 francs had been given to Made¬ 
 moiselle Le Normand, in consideration of the part she acted 
 in the fabrication of the documents on the back of the map of 
 Canada, the prisoner was to all intents and purposes art and 
 part in the forgery.) 
 
 Now, gentlemen, you find him negociating with this sibyl 
 during the whole part of this intermediate period, negociating 
 with a notorious adventuress in Paris, who says she never 
 allowed a falsehood to pass her lips, telling fortunes, and 
 extorting money out of the pockets of persons, under no 
 honest pretence whatever, and telling one lie after another, 
 every day and every night in her life. The counsel for the 
 prisoner argued the prisoner’s belief of the black art, in testi¬ 
 mony of his being a dupe. Look to her letter in regard to 
 his visit to Paris. They had been in constant communica¬ 
 tion with each other, and there is this letter produced of the 
 19th April, 1838, from Mademoiselle Le Normand to the 
 prisoner, in which she says: “ It is said that your children, 
 and you yourself, came to Paris in 1836 under assumed 
 names. My answer was, ‘ had my Lord come to Paris, I 
 should have seen him. It was not till the end of October, or 
 about the 1st of November, that I received a visit from his 
 son Charles. He remained but a few days in the capital. I 
 gave him the map of Canada carefully wrapped up on receiv¬ 
 ing Lord Stirling’s receipt.’ ” Here you have him receiving 
 letters from this person daily, stating to him the deception 
 she was practising by holding out to those who made inquiry, 
 whether he had been in Paris, that he had not, while she 
 
286 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRY8, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 knew that he had been there, that she had seen him everyday 
 and every evening. Now the conduct of this woman is such 
 — mixed up as she is with this document — the person out of 
 whose hands it comes — the individual who first produces the 
 document according to his own statement, — a document 
 which is forged and fabricated, as I am assuming it to be,— 
 that it is of in^jortance to know what are her feelings on the 
 matter. She is desirous to avoid investigation. Why investigate? 
 she says. The document is either true or false: if it is not 
 true, then there is an end of the story. Why investigate ? 
 Then she gives an account of how that document came into 
 her possession. Her amanuensis (Triboul) he had only seen 
 twice. He had only seen herself twice ; but he afterwards tells 
 you that he employed this Triboul to make copies of this docu¬ 
 ment, in a room in which he had forgot whether there was ink or 
 not. On being interrogated what the letters M. T. signified on 
 one of these letters, the prisoner said, that it was to put him in 
 remembrance of a communication he had then made. Now, 
 observe what is stated of him in Mademoiselle Le Normand’s 
 letter to the prisoner, dated 13th August, 1838: “ As to M. 
 T. he could have wished to have been sole negociator ! Confi¬ 
 dence ought to he discreet , and not unlimited ; beware of giving 
 offence; he is a Janus, but to be carefully treated ! Money 
 will be rather scarce. Some partial loans, but M. T. has 
 paralyzed. Your sons ought to employ the language of per¬ 
 suasion to convince. But your enemies have the effrontery to 
 say, that your last title is your own handywork, &c. that you 
 have returned to Paris ; my answer has been No ! for I should 
 have seen him.” Then she goes on in the language of a sibyl : 
 “ You will be much pinched to reach the month of November. 
 A little money will be given.” In regard to the letter about 
 the man on the Quai, I have no observations to make. Read 
 it your own way; and whether it was the one party or the 
 other that wished him to go over, is, I presume, of very little 
 consequence. 
 
 There is a letter from this lady to the prisoner, of 9th Ja¬ 
 nuary, 1839, which 1 cannot pass over. On the 8th, she 
 writes to him by his son, stating that he would receive by post 
 a letter from him, and on the 9th she writes this letter by post, 
 and you will judge whether it was written to be seen or not. 
 She says, “ 1 have lent my money in the most generous way, 
 and they would accuse me of simony, — horrid, horrid.” In 
 another part, she says, “ Subornation and idle talk can have 
 no weight with your Judges, who, after all, are honourable 
 men, who would not betray their conscience for the purpose 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 
 
 287 
 
 of robbing a family, as well as the creditors of a family, whose 
 head is under the yoke of persecution.” This draws you back 
 to the nature and extent of the obligation to her. It is an 
 obligation altogether contingent on the success of the prisoner 
 in obtaining funds, eitlier by success in the suit that was pend¬ 
 ing, or in some other way. 
 
 Gentlemen, this is a question altogether for you to deter¬ 
 mine. We can only take the evidence before us, and can go 
 no farther. Such are the circumstances from which you are 
 now to enter on the guilty knowledge of the prisoner. The 
 question is not, whether he forged them with his own hand, 
 but whether he was art and part in the forgery; whether or 
 not he was cognizant of a forgery going on in Paris during the 
 eight months he was there, for the purpose of aiding and 
 abetting him in the conspiracy he had formed of obtaining the 
 Earldom of the Earl of Stirling. And in doing so, you are to 
 consider all the contradictions in his statements, — all the 
 grounds of suspicion arising from concealment, — his commu¬ 
 nication with Mademoiselle Le Normand, proved and admit¬ 
 ted during the whole of the period he was in Paris at this 
 time ; and you are to consider the fact of his having granted 
 to this woman, this notorious fortune-teller, the sum of 400,000 
 francs, and whether it was given in remuneration for what she 
 was engaged in, namely, in completing this document; and 
 you are to consider whether this does not immediately bring 
 him in contact with the fabrication of that document. And 
 you are to consider farther, the effect of finding attached to 
 the back of this map a seal, which he admits is in the pos¬ 
 session of his family, and which he says is an impression of 
 the actual seal that had belonged to his grandfather. All 
 these are matters for you to weigh, maturely and deliberately 
 to consider ; and then you will also consider the weight of the 
 exculpatory evidence. In regard to the charter, w-e have the 
 evidence of Mr Lockhart. It is no very great imputation on 
 any one, that if a forgery is conducted with ability it should 
 not be immediately detected. I recollect well a case that 
 occurred in the Court of Session some thirty years ago, and 
 what is very strange, it was the case of a person of the name 
 of Alexander, and that is probably the cause that it has been 
 brought to mv recollection. A tailor of that name in Ayr, 
 found that a family of that name had died without heirs appa¬ 
 rently existing. He got access to the garret, and found a 
 number of old letters. He took them out, and produced a 
 number of letters written as if recognizing the connection of 
 his great-grandfather with the family, and they .were all tabled 
 
288 TKIAL OF ALEXANDER HUMPHRYS, OR ALEXANDER, 
 
 before the Court, to prove his connection, and the Lord Ordi¬ 
 nary decided the case in his favour. The case came into the 
 Inner House. There were a number of circumstances, which 
 I need not detail, which led me, then a young man in the pro¬ 
 fession, to entertain great doubts of the authenticity of some of 
 the documents; and some of these were, that there were a 
 number of words and letters purporting to be from different 
 individuals, spelled in a similar way, and it seemed to me 
 strange that some ten or twelve individuals should misspell in 
 the same way. Besides, in looking at the letters, I had not a 
 doubt that they were all written by the same hand. There 
 was another small circumstance which had its weight, and that 
 was, that the letters had apparently been closed by very small 
 wafers, which I suspected had not been in use at the date which 
 these letters purported to bear. From these, and other cir¬ 
 cumstances, the case came to attract the attention of the house. 
 The party was brought up to the table, and examined in 
 presence of the Court. He was directed to sit down, and 
 to write over some of the letters that had been misspelled, 
 and it so happened that he misspelled them precisely in the 
 same way as in the letters, which proved to a demonstra¬ 
 tion that he had fabricated one and all of them himself; 
 and we had engravers swearing, to the best of their belief, 
 that they were written by half-a-dozen of different people! 
 Well, is it any thing strange that this fabrication should 
 have escaped the eyes of the Court or the agents at 
 first? Not at all. It is subsequent examination that leads 
 to the truth ; and I am not very much surprised that an agent 
 not in practice in criminal courts should even overlook the 
 most palpable defects in these fabrications. Therefore I have 
 nothing to say in regard to Mr Lockhart farther than that I 
 am surprised that he should have told us that, after having 
 examined this charter, that he still entertained a doubt as to 
 whether it was genuine or not. This does not apply to the 
 other documents; and if you think that you are entitled to 
 take this as good evidence that the prisoner was in bona Jidc 
 in uttering this excerpt, good and well. But take this with 
 the fact, that he not only uttered the charter, but the map; 
 and you are to consider, not whether Mr Lockhart considered 
 them to be fabrications, but whether the prisoner knew that 
 they were fabrications. 
 
 There is another topic which I had occasion to revert to 
 last night, viz. the letter of Eugene Alexander to his father 
 communicating to him the evidence said to have been reco¬ 
 vered in London. I read it to shew you that when the party 
 
STYLING HIMSELF EARL OF STIRLING. 289 
 
 •who wrote the letter took the extraordinary steps that he did 
 take, he must have suspected, if he did not know, what was 
 within the envelope when he took it to a notary to have it 
 opened in Doctor’s Commons. It is for you, gentlemen, to 
 read that letter patiently and considerately, and to shew 
 whether it bears on the evidence, however it may condemn 
 Eugene; whether it is not a letter that was sent to the 
 prisoner to make him believe that they were genuine docu¬ 
 ments, and to get his authority for the production of them in 
 process. You will couple this with the whole facts of the 
 case, the declarations of the prisoner, the contradictions and 
 the admissions made by him, and judge whether they do not 
 couple and connect him with the fabrication of the documents 
 on the back of the map; and, in my mind, I must tell you 
 that there does not rest the shadow of a doubt of its being a 
 forged document. 
 
 Gentlemen, that is the whole of the case which occurs to 
 my mind. 1 am sure I have never bestowed more careful 
 attention to any case in my life—I have never stated a case 
 with feelings of greater pain. I am sure if feelings were to 
 operate with me, I should have stated this case very diffe¬ 
 rently ; but neither you nor I have any right to give way to 
 feelings. Our business is to do nothing but justice, to weigh 
 the evidence which has been brought before us, and if we have 
 a doubt, to give the prisoner the benefit of it. But neither 
 you nor I are entitled to give way to doubts that are not 
 reasonable. We are not to require in this case what has 
 never been required in any other, clear and direct proof of all 
 and every one of the facts set before you. You are bound to 
 take the whole circumstances together, and to draw the legal 
 and reasonable inference from them without looking either to 
 the right hand or the left. That it is a most serious case for 
 the prisoner is, alas! unquestionable, and which, if proved, 
 would, a few years ago, have brought against him a capital 
 punishment. That law is now at an end in such questions as 
 this. The punishment that can be awarded here does not 
 extend beyond that of an arbitrary punishment. I state this 
 to you as an additional reason, if any is necessary, why you 
 should patiently, calmly, and deliberately go over this evi¬ 
 dence, that a punishment of a very high description would 
 attend a conviction of the prisoner ; but neither you nor I can 
 take that any farther into consideration in weighing the evi¬ 
 dence, except to cause us more minutely to enter into it. We 
 are not responsible, it is the law that is responsible for the 
 punishment; and because the law may give a punishment more 
 
290 TRIAL OF ALEXANDER HL’AII’HRYS, OK ALEXANDER. 
 
 severe than individuals may think the case requires, God for¬ 
 bid that either you or I should so far forget our duty, that we 
 should so far forget the obligation of our oaths, as to be swayed 
 from giving an honest conviction of the evidence from consi¬ 
 derations of punishment. As I have said before, this is a most 
 grave and solemn question ; and I am sure, in addressing you, 
 who have paid such unwearied attention to every word of the 
 evidence, and to every word that has been uttered, that it 
 would be useless to press upon you another sentence. 
 
 His Lordship ended his address at Eleven o’clock. 
 
 After an absence of five hours, the Jury returned and 
 delivered the following verdict, w’hich was read by George 
 Hogarth, Esq. their Chancellor, as follows:— 
 
 1. We find unanimously that the excerpt charter libelled on 
 is a forged document ; and find, by a majority, that it is not 
 proven that the prisoner forged it, or was guilty art and part 
 thereof; and also, that it is not proven that he uttered it as 
 genuine, knowing it to be forged. 
 
 Here there was a general burst of applause, particularly 
 from the gallery. 
 
 Lord Meadowbank. —The gallery must be cleared imme¬ 
 diately ; and those that don’t go out will be committed by the 
 Court. [The gallery having accordingly been cleared, his 
 Lordship proceeded to say,—] The under part of the Court 
 has not been cleared; but if there is the slightest attempt to 
 express either approbation or disapprobation, the individual 
 will be marked, and unquestionably will be sent to jail, for 
 attempting to infringe upon the propriety and decency of the 
 Court. You may depend upon it that this will be the case, 
 whoever is the individual, be it one person or another. Let 
 me, therefore, recommend nothing but decency and silence. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Jury proceeded to read the remain¬ 
 ing part of the verdict: — 
 
 2. We find unanimously, that the documents upon the 
 map libelled on are forged, and by a majority find, that it is 
 not proven that the prisoner forged them, or was art and 
 part thereof; and not proven that he uttered them as 
 genuine, knowing them to be forged. 
 
 3. We find unanimously, that the documents in De Por- 
 quet’s packet are not proven to be forged, or that they were 
 uttered by the prisoner as genuine knowing them to be forged. 
 
 4. We find the letter of Le Normand, in the 5th charge, 
 not proven to be forged, or uttered as genuine by the 
 prisoner, knowing it to be forged. 
 
TRIAL 01' ALEXANDER HUMPIIRYS, OR ALEXANDER. *28!) 
 
 Immediately on the verdict being pronounced, the prisoner 
 fell forward upon the railing of the dock, hut was caught in 
 the arms of his friend Colonel D’Aguilar, who, assisted by the 
 officers, supported him, and by the directions of a medical 
 gentleman, laid him on his back upon the seat. For a minute 
 or two the unfortunate gentleman appeared to be greatly 
 convulsed, uttering deep groans. Dr Campbell then came 
 to his assistance ; and, at the suggestion of Lord Meadow- 
 bank, he was carried, still insensible, into an adjoining apart¬ 
 ment. 
 
 In a few minutes Mr Adam Anderson, one of his counsel, 
 came in and stated to the Court, on the authority of the 
 medical gentlemen, that the return of the prisoner into Court 
 might be attended with danger, by producing a recurrence of 
 the attack. He therefore prayed the Court to dispense with 
 his attendance. 
 
 Lord Meadowbank said, that in these circumstances the 
 Court would order the verdict to be recorded, and pronounce 
 the judgment, assoilzieing the prisoner, which was accordingly 
 done. 
 
 Lord Meadowbank then addressed the jury, saying, that 
 they were now discharged. They had had a laborious atten¬ 
 dance, and had given, he was persuaded, every attention to 
 the case. The Court would therefore pronounce an interlo¬ 
 cutor, absolving them from attendance as jurymen for the 
 space of two years. 
 
 The Chancellor then said, I have been requested to convey 
 to your Lordships and the officers of Court the thanks of the 
 jury for the kindness they have received, and the great atten¬ 
 tion which had been paid to their comfort throughout the 
 proceedings. 
 
APPENDIX TO TRIAL. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 [No, 7. of Inventory of Productions, Search A.] 
 
 4 COPY SEARCH for any Charter of Novodamus under the Great 
 4 Seal, or other Charter or Patent, more especially any Charter 
 4 or Patent, containing a Grant of Honours under the Great 
 4 Seal in favour of William, Earl of Stirling, (or any other Earl 
 4 of Stirling,) after a Patent, dated 1633 (14th June) and down 
 4 to the Union 1707. 
 
 4 Where a hiatus occurs, state the fact (if so) that the Keepers 
 4 of the Records are enabled to state precisely from Indexes 
 4 contemporary, or other authentic sources, the charters which 
 4 formerly stood in that part of the Record, and if any of these 
 4 were such as required in the Search ordered. 
 
 4 C. 1/ 
 
 Index of Great Seal Register from 16th June, 1832. 
 
 Willielmi Comitis de Stirling Vicecomitis de Canada, Diploma, Lib. 
 Domini Alexander de Tullibodie, dated at Dalkeith, 54 » No * l35 * 
 14th June, 1633. 
 
 Willielmi Comitis de Stirling et Willielmi Domini carta, Lib 54, 
 Alex r . eius filii Terrarum et Baronie de Tillicultrie, &c. No - 268 * 
 Dated at Edinburgh, 12th July, 1634. 
 
 Willielmi Comitis de Stirling Terrarum et Baronie de carta, Lib. 55. 
 Gairtmoir, &c. Dated at Edinburgh, 23d January, 1636. 191 - 
 
2 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Caroli Alexandri Filij litimi quond. W ml . Comitis de Stirling 
 Terrarum et Baroniae de Tilliebodie aliorumque. Dated 27th 
 June, 1642. 
 
 T, George Robertson, one of the deputy-keepers of the Records 
 of Scotland, Do hereby certify, that I have searched the Index of 
 the Great Seal Register, from the 16th day of June, 1632, being 
 the date of the first charter recorded in the fifty-fourth volume, to 
 the 8th day of July, 1710 years, being date of the last charter 
 recorded in the 84th volume of that Register, but found no Charter 
 of novodamus under the Great Seal, nor any other Charter nor 
 Patent under the Great Seal; and in particular, no other Charter 
 nor Patent containing a grant of honours in favour of William 
 Earl of Stirling, nor any other Earl of Stirling than those above 
 noted. 
 
 (Signed) Geo. Robertson. 
 
 I, George Robertson, before designed, do likewise certify, that 
 I have searched the Principal Record of the 57th Volume of the 
 Great Seal Register, and that at the beginning of the said 57th 
 volume, twelve leaves have been destroyed or lost. The Charters 
 originally recorded on these missing leaves are, however, ascer¬ 
 tained with precision from two ancient indexes of the Great Seal 
 Record. I have examined these, and can state as the result, that 
 the twelve leaves now lost did not contain any charter, diploma, 
 patent, nor other grant in favour of William Earl of Stirling, nor 
 of any person of the name of Alexander. 
 
 [No. 7 of Inventory of Productions, Search B.j 
 
 « SEARCH in the Register of Signatures for any Signature in 
 ‘ favour of William Earl of Stirling, from the 7th day of 
 * December, 1639, to the 31st day of January, 1641 years.’ 
 
 Register of Signatures 
 From 7th December 
 1639. 
 
 I, George Robertson, one of the Deputy Keepers of the Records 
 of Scotland, Do hereby certify, that I have searched the Register 
 of Signatures from the 7th day of December 1639, to the 31st 
 day of January 1641 years, but found no signature in favour of 
 William Earl of Stirling recorded during that period. 
 
 (Signed) Geo. Robertson. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 3 
 
 [No. 7 of Inventory of Productions, Search C.] 
 
 SEARCH in the General Register of Seisins for any Seisin in 
 favour of William Earl of Stirling, from the 7th day of Decem¬ 
 ber, 1639, to the 31st day of January, 1641 years. 
 
 General Register of Seisins 
 From 7th December, 
 
 1639. 
 
 I, George Robertson, one of the Deputy-keepers of the Records 
 of Scotland, Do hereby certify that I have searched the Minute 
 Book of the General Register of Seisins, from the 7th day of 
 December, 1639, to the 31st day of January, 1641 years, but 
 found no Seisin in favour of William Earl of Stirling recorded in 
 that Register during that period. 
 
 (Signed) Geo. Robertson. 
 
 [No 7 of Inventory of Productions, Search D.] 
 
 SEARCH in the Privy Seal Record for any Precept of Charter 
 in favour of William Earl of Stirling, from the 7th day of 
 December, 1639, to the 31st day of January, 1641 years. 
 
 Privy Seal Record 
 from 7th December, 
 
 1639. 
 
 I, George Robertson, one of the Deputy Keepers of the Records 
 of Scotland, Do hereby certify, that I have searched the Record 
 of the Privy Seal, from the 7th day of December, 1639, to the 
 31st day of January, 1641 years, but found no Precept of Charter 
 in favour of William Earl of Stirling, recorded in that Register 
 during that period. 
 
 [No. § of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 EXTRACT from Diploma Willielmi Vicecomitis de £?*; 5 ” a £. §£• 
 Stirling domini Alexander deTulliebodie &c &c. No. 135. 
 dated, 4th September 1630. 
 
 Dominum Willielmum Alexander de Menstrie militem vtriusq. 
 recrni nrj. consiliarium regni nrj Scotie principalem secretarium ac 
 regionis et dominii nrj nove Scotie in America nrum liereditarium 
 locum tenentem in variis magnis et seriis negotiis sibi comissis 
 
4 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 prestitum Et quiem ipse primus fuerat dicti regni nrj Scotie qui 
 Coloniam magno patrie sue decori et bono publico in regiones 
 transmarinas duxerat quern conatum his annis elapsis ingenti 
 sumptu et labore subiit ac variis expeditionibus et negotiationibus 
 pro plantatione dicte regionis nove Scotie fovit et audaxit Igitur 
 nos regii nrj favoris et gratie tesseram in eum conferre volentes 
 fecimus creavimus et constituimus tenoreq pntium ex regia nra 
 potestate et authoritate regali facimus creamus et constituimus 
 prefatum Dominum Willielmum Alexander Vicecomitem de Stir¬ 
 ling Doium Alexander de Tullibodie dando et concedendo sibi et 
 heredibus suis masculis cognomen et arma de Alexander gerenti- 
 bus titulum honorem gradum et dignitatem vicecomitis dicti regni 
 nrj Scotie &c. 
 
 [No. § of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 Reg Mag. Sig. 
 vol. 54. No. 135. 
 
 EXTRACT from Diploma Willielmi Comitis de Stir¬ 
 ling Vicecomitis de Canada dnj Alexander de Tullie- 
 bodie, &c. dated 14th June 1633. 
 
 Willielmum Vicecomitem de Stirling Dum Alexander deTullie- 
 bodie nrm Secretarium principalera regni nri Scotie et quond nro 
 clarissimo patri nunquam inter moriture memorie prestita et im- 
 pensa eiusq. periculosam et sumphiosam detectionem possessionem 
 et additionem Nove Scotie et Canade huic antiquissimo regno nro 
 Scotie vt alij ejus exemplo ad similes virtutum vias instigentur 
 prout liquet cum ex eo quod ipse scripsit turn ex eo quod de ipse 
 scriptum est Igitur nos ex autate regali et ptate regia fecimus con¬ 
 stituimus et creavimus tenoreq pntium facimus constituimus et 
 creamus prefatum Willielmum Vicecomitem de Stirling Comitem 
 de Stirling Vicecomitem de Canada Dum Alexander de Tullibodie 
 dan et conceden prout tenore pntium damus et concedimus sibi 
 suisq heredibus masculis imperpetuum &c. 
 
 [No. § of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 EXTRACT from CARTA Willielmi Comitis de 
 R*gm. Mag. Sigiiu. Stirling et Willielmi Domini Alexr eius filij 
 Lib. 54 , No. 208 . Terrarum et Baronie de Tilliecultrie &c. dated 
 
 12th July 1634. 
 
 Predilecto nro consanguineo et consiliario W mo Comiti de Stir¬ 
 ling Vicecomiti de Canada Domino Alexr de Menstrie et Tulli¬ 
 bodie nro Secretario principali regni nri Scotie in vitali reditu pro 
 omnibus sue vite diebus ac predilecto nro consanguineo \Y mo Dno 
 Alexr eius filio in feodo ac heredibus masculis de corpore suo ltime 
 procreat. seu procreand Quibus Deficien. heredibus masculis dicti 
 nri consanguinei et consiliarij Wmi Comitis de Stirling et suis 
 
A PPKNPIX. 
 
 5 
 
 assignatis quibuscunq. herie et irredemabiliter Totas ct integras 
 terras et Baroniam de Tullicultrie viz. & c. 
 
 [No. ^ of Inventory of Productions*] 
 
 EXTRACT from CARTA Willielmo Comitis de 
 
 Sterling Terrarum et Baronie de Gairtnioir &c. No. m. 
 dated 23d January, 1636. 
 
 Predilecto nro consanguineo et consiliario W rao . Comiti de Ster¬ 
 ling Vicecomiti de Canada Domino Alexander de Tullibodie et 
 Menstrie nro Secretario dicti regni nri Scotie heredibus suis et 
 assignatis quibuscunq hereditarie omnes et singulas duodecim 
 mercatas terrarum antiqui extentus de Gairtmoir. &c * 
 
 [No. f of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 CARTA Caroli Alexander trarum et Baronie de Mag. Reg. sig. 
 
 Tullibodie alioruq subscript, dated 27th June voi. 57, No. ins. 
 
 1642. 
 
 Delecto nro Carolo Alexander filio ltimo quondi VVmi. Comitis 
 de Stirling heredibus suis successoribus et assignatis quibuscunq 
 here rie omnes et singulas tras baronias aliaque particularit. subscript, 
 viz. Totas et Integras tras et baroniam de Tullibodie &c. 
 
 Et similiter totas et integras tras et baroniam de Tillicultrie viz. 
 
 Terras & c. 
 
 [No. 11 of Inventory of Productions.] 
 
 CERTIFICATE of Search of Signatures under Letter S. from 
 1623 to 1653, dated 9th March, 1839. 
 
 I, Robert Webster, Assistant Clerk and Extractor, Signet 
 Office, Edinburgh, Do hereby certify, that I searched the Index to 
 the Record of Signatures, under the Letter S. and bundle first 
 relative thereto, from sixteen hundred and twenty-three, to sixteen 
 hundred and fifty-three, and found no signature in favour of William 
 Earl of Stirling, of Nova Scotia, and other lands in America, and 
 of Tullibodie, Tullicultrie, Gartmore, and others, in Scotland, 
 said to be dated seventh December, sixteen hundred and thirty- 
 nine. 
 
 (Signed) Robert Webster. 
 
 Signet Office , Edinburgh , 
 9 th March , 1839. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 6 
 
 No. II. 
 
 Edinburgh, 25th April, 1839. 
 
 ADDITIONAL DEFENCES for Alexander Alexander, Earl 
 of Stirling, — Pannel. 
 
 The pannel has nothing to add to his original defences, to which 
 he adheres. 
 
 He subjoins a list of witnesses and documents to be adduced on 
 his behalf, and has to state that he may also adduce some of the 
 witnesses in the Crown list, and use some of the documents already 
 produced by the Crown. The witness No. 2, Charles Herald De 
 Pages, has not yet arrived from Paris, but is hourly expected, 
 and is to bring with him certain writings, which will be produced 
 on his arrival. The witnesses Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8, are not yet 
 arrived, but are hourly expected, and are to be sent to the hotels 
 mentioned. Two clerks from the General Post-office, whose names 
 will be afterwards furnished, are also to be called to prove the 
 post-marks on the various letters produced, if necessary. 
 
 In reject whereof, fyc. 
 
 Patrick Robertson. 
 
 LIST OF WITNESSES. 
 
 1 . William Bc-nner, Professor of Languages, lately residing at 
 
 number 36 Rue Ponthieu, Paris, presently residing at the 
 Waterloo Hotel, Waterloo Place, Edinburgh, 
 
 2 . Charles Herald de Pages, attache aux travaux Historique in 
 
 the Bibliotheque Royale, Paris, presently residing at the 
 Waterloo Hotel, Waterloo Place, Edinburgh. 
 
 3. Josiah Corrie, Solicitor and Master extraordinary in Chan¬ 
 
 cery, lately residing in New Street Birmingham, and pre¬ 
 sently residing at the Waterloo Hotel, Waterloo Place, 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 4. Thomas Wilson Barlow, Solicitor to the Court of Chancery, 
 
 and to the Board of Ordnance, Ireland, and presently resid¬ 
 ing at the Royal Hotel, Prince’s Street, Edinburgh. 
 
 5. William Cotton Landry, Assistant to the said Thomas W’ilson 
 
 Barlow, and presently residing at the Royal Hotel, Prince’s 
 Street, Edinburgh. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 7 
 
 6 . Mrs Eliza Humphrys or Pountney, spouse of Charles Pount- 
 
 ney, Esq. of Manchester, and now residing at the Waterloo 
 Hotel, Waterloo Place, Edinburgh. 
 
 7. Colonel George Charles D’Aguilar, Deputy Adjutant-General 
 
 to the Forces in Ireland, and now residing at the Royal 
 Hotel, Prince’s Street, Edinburgh. 
 
 8 . The Right Honourable John Lord Rollo, now residing at 15 
 
 Albany Street, Edinburgh. 
 
 9. Charles Harding, Esq. of Bole Hall, near Tamworth, Stafford¬ 
 
 shire, now residing at the Waterloo Hotel, Waterloo Place, 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 10. Roger Aytoun, writer to the Signet, now residing in Aber- 
 
 cromby Place, Edinburgh. 
 
 11. Major James Pearson, of the Honourable East India Compa¬ 
 
 ny’s Service, now or lately residing in Drummond Place, 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 12. John Taylor, cabinet-maker, now or lately residing in No. 25 
 
 India Street, Edinburgh. 
 
 13. Mrs Marion Miller or Taylor, spouse of, and now or lately 
 
 residing with, the said John Taylor. 
 
 14. Janet Mitchell, now or lately servant to, and now or lately 
 
 residing with, the said John Taylor. 
 
 15. Elizabeth Menzies, now or lately residing in India Street, 
 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 16. Robert Kerr, now or lately clerk to David Cleghorn, W.S., 
 
 now or lately residing in Castle Street, Edinburgh. 
 
 17. John Johnstone, engraver and printer, and now or lately 
 
 residing at number ninety-four South Bridge, Edinburgh. 
 
 18. Archibald Bell, lithographer, and now or lately residing at 
 
 No. 2 Gabriel’s Road, Edinburgh. 
 
 19. Samuel Leith, lithographer, residing at No. 13, St James’ 
 
 Square, Edinburgh. 
 
 20. John Skirving, punch-cutter, now or lately residing at Mrs 
 
 Stevenson’s lodgings, Nicolson Square, Edinburgh. 
 
 21. A. Allison M‘Leish, accountant, and now or lately 
 
 residing in number twenty-eight, India Street, Edinburgh. 
 
 22 . Two Clerks of the General Post-Office, to prove post-marks 
 
 of letters, if objected to. 
 
 INVENTORY OF PRODUCTIONS. 
 
 1. Book entitled an Atlas, consisting of three volumes folio. 
 
 2 . Fifteen or thereby loose Maps, by G. De LTsle. 
 
 3. Book entitled Crawfurd’s Lives of the Officers of State. 
 
 4 . Book of Accounts, titled on the outside 1 W. Humphry’s 
 
 accounts with his tenants, &c. 1798.’ 
 
 5. An engraved Copperplate. 
 
 6 . Three or thereby modern Maps. 
 
8 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 7. Letter Thomas Christopher Banks, dated 23d April 1828, 
 
 addressed to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 8 . Letter T. C. Banks, dated Dublin, 26th April 1828, addressed 
 
 to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 9 . Letter T. C. Banks, Dublin, 2d May 1828, addressed to the 
 
 Earl of Stirling. 
 
 10. Letter T. C. Banks, dated Antrim, 6th May 1828, addressed 
 
 to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 11. Letter T. C. Banks, dated Trevor Square, 28th Jan. 1829, 
 
 addressed to E. Lockhart, W.S. 
 
 12. Letter T. C. Banks, dated Netherton House, 15th Feb. 1829, 
 
 addressed to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 13. Letter T. C. Banks, dated Dublin, 24th February 1829, 
 
 addressed to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 14. Letter T. C. Banks, dated Donaghedy, 3d March 1829, 
 
 addressed to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 15. Letter T. C. Banks, dated Donaghadee, 4th March 1820, 
 
 addressed to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 16* Letter T. C. Banks, dated Carlow, 17th March 1829, addressed 
 to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 17. Letter T. C. Banks, dated Dublin, 24th March 1829, addressed 
 
 to the Earl of Stirling. 
 
 18. Letter T. C. Banks, dated Netherton House, 10th April 1829, 
 
 addressed to E. Lockhart, W.S. 
 
 19. Letter dated Netherton House, 17th April 1829, addressed to 
 
 E. Lockhart, W.S. 
 
 21. Letter Win. Humphrys, dated Henwick, 10th May 1800, 
 
 addressed to the said Josiah Corrie. 
 
 20. Letter Wm. Humphrys, dated Henwick, 9th May 1800, ad¬ 
 
 dressed to Mr Josiah Corrie, Attorney-at-law, Birmingham. 
 
 22. Letter ditto, dated Henwick, 13th March 1801, addressed to 
 
 ditto. 
 
 23. Letter ditto, dated Henwick, 3d March 1801, addressed to 
 
 ditto. 
 
 24. Letter ditto, dated Verdun Sur Meuse, 17th September 1806. 
 
 25. Letter ditto, dated Henwick, 16th May 1800, addressed to the 
 
 said Josiah Corrie. # 
 
 26 Letter Wm. Humphrys, dated Cheltenham, 23d July 1799, 
 addressed to ditto. 
 
 27. A copy of the North British Advertiser Newspaper, dated 23d 
 
 September 1837, 
 
 28. A copy of the Morning Herald Newspaper, dated 25th Sep¬ 
 
 tember 1837. 
 
 29. A copy of the Morning Chronicle Newspaper of 25th Septem¬ 
 
 ber 1837. 
 
 80. A copy of the Dublin Evening Post, of date 26th September 
 
 1837. 
 
 81. A copy of the Times Newspaper (London,) of date 27th Sep¬ 
 
 tember 1837. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 9 
 
 32. A copy of the Staffordshire Advertiser, of date 30th Septem¬ 
 
 ber 1837. 
 
 33. A copy of Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, dated 2d October 1837. 
 
 * CORRESPONDENCE between Mr Thomas C. Banks, Lord 
 Stirling, and Mr Lockhart, in 1828 and 1829. 
 
 MR BANKS TO LORD STIRLING. 
 
 Dublin , 23 d April , 1828. 
 
 My dear Lord,—On this Irish sheet of paper, I have the 
 satisfaction to say that I arrived here yesterday, after a very 
 squally tedious passage, accompanied with a great deal of rain 
 and thunder. I met with a Mr Harvey, Receiver-General for 
 Wexford, by whom I was recommended to a good hotel, at 
 Tuthills, 31 Dawson Street, no great way from Mr Hogan’s. I 
 remain at the hotel, Mrs H. being very unwell. Mr H. was 
 much pleased with your letter and its contents, and has desired 
 me to communicate its receival, but he w ill write to you by me 
 on my return. We have found the will of Merefield who died in 
 1724, and the will of Conyers who died in 1726. It is singular 
 that both these persons were sick at the time of making their 
 wills, so that their signatures, though in every respect correspond¬ 
 ing with their handwriting in the depositions, have that degree 
 of variation which may be naturally expected between a person in 
 sound health, and one on a bed of sickness. 
 
 We intend to get the Inspector of Franks of the General P. O. 
 to examine the depositionary writing with the registered signa¬ 
 tures, and verify their correspondence by a proper affidavit, to be 
 certified by a notary and sworn before the Lord Mayor. We 
 have examined several rolls of judgment, to which Baron Pock- 
 lington’s name is subscribed, in the same year, 1723, and after¬ 
 wards in 1729. This verification will be also certified by affidavit, 
 the same as the other of Conyers and Merefield. We have 
 ordered a copy of the patent by which Pocklington was constituted 
 a Baron of the Exchequer, in order to prove that he was a Judge, 
 and that he acted judicially in the aforesaid, affixing his name to 
 the records of the court in which he presided. We are now pre¬ 
 paring to follow up the inquiry about Hovenden and Jonas Percy, 
 and the correctness of the paper and stamps of the day, and hope 
 to succeed therein by perseverance. I have suggested a case tor 
 the opinion of the Attorney-General of Ireland, as to the effect of 
 these documents when duly verified upon the practice of the court, 
 with regard to the establishing the validity and tenor of deeds 
 thus shewn to have existed, but now not to be found. Mr Hogan 
 
 ♦ [In every point of view these letters of Mr Banks are the most refreshing 
 ji,i the annals of genealogy. -— Ed.] 
 
10 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 highly approves this, and considers that the approbation of such a 
 man as the Attorney-General, as to such adminicles being good 
 and legal evidences in Ireland, the same principle must apply to 
 the same efficient purpose in England. The expenses of researches 
 and extracts or office copies are very great, which I dare say 
 prevented Mr H. from acting with that energy before, which he 
 seems now very readily to exert. As I pay every thing, I am afraid 
 I shall fall short when all to be done shall be perfected ; but I 
 think what is doing, and the success which has attended all as yet, 
 will amply and satisfactorily be an equivalent for the great trouble 
 and great disbursements. I am in great hopes, through the assis¬ 
 tance of Mr Harvey, to trace Conyers’ family, which if I do, and 
 find his representatives, it is most probable a great deal of infor¬ 
 mation might be obtained, for his papers might mention when and 
 to whom he gave the charter, and not improbably even a copy 
 might be found amongst them . He had two sons, Edward and 
 Christopher, and in his will, desires his seat and personal property 
 to be divided among his children. I hope you have arrived safely 
 at Worcester, and found all well. I perfectly satisfied Mr H. 
 about your not voting. He seems very friendly and kind. Mrs 
 H. is a pretty pleasing woman in manners , and inquired after you 
 in very friendly terms. I shall write to your Lordship again in a 
 day or two, and hope to announce the completion of what is 
 wanted. My best regards to Lady Stirling, and all the dear 
 family, and I remain, my dear Lord, yours most faithfully. 
 
 (Signed) T. C. Banks. 
 
 MR BANKS TO LORD STIRLING. 
 
 Dublin , 2 6th Aprils 1828. 
 
 My dear Lord, — Since my last announcing my arrival here, 
 and what I had so far done, I am happy now to communicate that 
 I consider the signatures of all the parties, viz. Conyers, Mere- 
 field, and Percy can be proved most satisfactorily. This morning, 
 after a most laborious research, taking me from half-past 10 to 3 
 o’clock, turning over the very dirty rolls of affidavits filed in the 
 Court of Chancery for 1722, I found the signature of Jonas Percy 
 corresponding in the nicest degree with that of his name to Sarah 
 Lyners’s deposition. In the same roll I was so fortunate as to 
 find three affidavits sworn before Mr Conyers as a master extraor¬ 
 dinary in Chancery, each signature completely proving the identity 
 of his writing to Gordon’s statement and Hovenden’s affidavit, and 
 shewing (a most important point) who he was. Of all these I have 
 ordered office copies. I have also found that Conyers was a man 
 of property , and (exclusively of his professional respectability) 
 was concerned for families of consequence, there being in the 
 Register-Office a deed executed by him, along with Brigadier- 
 General I have found the writing of Baron Pock- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 11 
 
 lington in many years, but have confined the comparison of hand 
 to his subscription at the foot of two rolls in Hilary and Michael¬ 
 mas terms of 1723. At present 1 am uncertain whether the 
 Inspector of Franks in the General Post-office will condescend to 
 examine and compare these records with our documents; but if 
 not, I hope to get one of the examiners of the Bank to do so, and 
 make affidavit thereupon. The gentleman, Mr Harvey, of whom! 
 made mention in my last, has informed me that he hears there is 
 a Mr Hovenden, now an attorney, living at Carlow, who probably 
 is a descendent of Henry of Ballynakill, and he recommended me 
 to go immediately there, where he also has informed me, that there 
 was a Miss Conyers, an ancient maiden lady, living a few years 
 since. This seems to indicate a prospect of finding out something 
 yet more favourable. The fees to the notary-public on each 
 deposition w ill be one guinea, and the same I find to each examina¬ 
 tion of the inspector. This I think enormous. I have got an 
 inquiry going forward at the Stamp-office respecting the stamps 
 on Hovenden’s affidavit. There are none to Sarah Lyners, and no 
 stamp duty seems to have been enacted in Ireland. This is rather 
 a point of consideration. 1 view it, that as Hovenden’s affidavit 
 was to be sent to England to Mr J. Alexander, then residing there, 
 it was put upon English stamps , and verified by the public notary 
 on that account, for Sarah Lyners’s is not corroborated in the same 
 official manner. 
 
 I have made a draft for a case for the opinion, as I mentioned, 
 of the Attorney-General of Ireland, but I find I cannot give a less 
 fee than ten guineas for an opinion, and three extra for a consulta¬ 
 tion, to explain personally the contents, object, and meaning for 
 which the case is laid before him, and on which his opinion and 
 advice are requested. Mr Hogan is so taken up in court, being 
 term-time, that the researches have been left to me, and I am now 
 covered with dirt and dust that neither the colour of my hands or 
 clothes can be readily made out. I have dined with him twice. 
 I fear I cannot lay the case before the Attorney-General, as he 
 will take at least three or four days before he writes his opinion, 
 and thus I certainly shall not have money enough to cover all 
 expenses, thus Mr Hogan’s hitherto shyness accounts for itself. I 
 have had a letter from Mr Pountney to which I have replied, and 
 I hope that he will be successful in what he proposes to do at 
 
 Liverpool. a 
 
 Mr H. expresses a high confidence in your weight or evidence, 
 as legally and well established by the verifications of the admi¬ 
 nicles, of which he had not before an idea of their coming up so 
 perfectly to the proof of the charter, and of your pedigree. I am 
 at a loss what to do, as 1 think I could leave Dublin by Thursday, 
 were it not for the Attorney-General’s opinion, and for this I 
 cannot give a case until I know your approval, and have the 
 means, nothing of which I can well expect to have before that 
 day. But I shall see what can be done to the best advantage 
 
12 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 on my return from Carlow on Monday afternoon or Tuesday 
 morning. 
 
 What has now been ascertained must set all the Scotch cavillers 
 at rest, and the registrar in the Probity of Writs office, and the 
 entry in the Lyon office, I trust will so evidently shew your rights, 
 that hereafter you will not hear more of their base suspicions. My 
 best regards to Lady S. and the dear family. I hope she keeps 
 up her spirits; she must by no means let them droop . I am, my 
 dear Lord, yours most faithfully. 
 
 T. C. Banks, 
 
 SAME TO THE SAME. 
 
 Dublin , 2d May y 1828, 
 
 My dear Lord,—By your last letter, I am glad to find that mine 
 have been safely received, as I write in the evening, and date 
 them accordingly: they are after the day post, and can only go 
 excepting by that of the following morning, but whether by the 
 way of Holyhead or Liverpool I do not know. 
 
 As, when I wrote to you last, I mentioned I was going the fol¬ 
 lowing morning to Antrim, you will be surprised to have this from 
 Dublin, but I could not get the copies of the records from the 
 several offices, and have them compared and certified by the 
 notary before yesterday, nor could 1 get Mr West, the Inspector 
 of Franks, to attend the respective offices, and make his examina¬ 
 tion of the several handwritings before yesterday. He has, how¬ 
 ever, now completed the comparison, and his affidavit I was in 
 hopes would have been sworn before the Lord Mayor this day. 
 It could not be prepared, nor he able to attend, till after five o'clock, 
 when the Lord Mayor could not receive any applicants, having to 
 dress fort dinner with the Corporation of the City, to go to the 
 Castle. Thus the matter waits for to-morrow, when I hope all 
 this portion of the business will be completed, and I be able to set 
 out on Sunday morning at six for Belfast, where I must stop for 
 the coach to Antrim, about sixteen miles off. I this day visited 
 the cabbage-garden, and seen the tombstone inscription, which, 
 although copied in full by Mr Hogan, was not copied de facto as 
 inscribed, but I made a fac simile inscription, so as to be able to 
 embody it in my deposition on my return. I have been to Mr 
 Stewart, the keeper of the old books, but without being able to 
 meet him, though I waited at his house from half-past three to five. 
 I have left an appointment for to-morrow morning at ten, as I wish 
 to see the entry of the baptism of the Rev. J. A.’s children. In¬ 
 deed, I think much better evidence will be obtained, to prove 
 clearly and absolutely the facts, than you have hitherto had. The 
 intimations given to me by Rev. Mr Armstrong, leads me to a 
 conclusion, that I shall collect on my journey to Antrim and to 
 Londonderry proofs of all that is wanted; and if the pedigree can 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 13 
 
 he thus supported by legal evidence, neither Lord Redesdales 
 Irish observations, nor the cavillers of Edinburgh, can be of any 
 detrimental weight. Most implicitly do I place great confidence 
 in your late Parisian information, and I believe that all the latent 
 windings are about to be brought to light ; and I think our Edin¬ 
 burgh agent (Mr Wright,) when it can be done, should be paid 
 off, but in good harmony, if possible. His anxiety for the Ameri¬ 
 can inquiry I never liked. He pushed it too zealously for to seem 
 not to have some object in sinister view, or why want to take it 
 from the hands he was told it was in ? It is most material all in 
 the way of research should be absolutely concluded while I am 
 here, and nothing left for a future day, or a second visit to this 
 country. I think I have well succeeded at present, and shall do 
 so in all that remains for investigation. I fear at least six or seven 
 days must still transpire before I can return hither, and then 
 embark for England; but I shall curtail the time to the narrowest 
 moment, for I cannot say I like Ireland so much as Scotland. My 
 absence, I fear, has much embarrassed Mrs B. as I left her with 
 very narrow resources, and I am very uneasy about her. But as 
 I did not leave her any address where to write to me (not wishing 
 to hear melancholy news,! I know not how she is getting on. 
 Your extracts are most encouraging; and indeed it is more than 
 extraordinary that so much truth has been mentioned where the 
 circumstances of past events were never told. Thus, what is to 
 come may be most fairly looked up to as a surety of the wonderful 
 works of Providence in the way of retribution, which, though slow 
 in occurring, is nevertheless true in taking place at the due time, 
 but which human endurance in the interim can rarely be brought 
 to have the patience to await or sustaining severe trials with forti¬ 
 tude. I doubly have pleasure in what has been announced, from 
 the hope that Lady S. will now for herself, her dear family, and 
 you, be confident that the hour of suffering is wearing away, and 
 eternity of happiness and prosperity is about, though at some 
 distance, to be enjoyed. My best regards to her and all. And I 
 remain, &c. 
 
 (Signed) T. C. Banks. 
 
 SAME TO THE SAME. 
 
 Antrim , Qth May , 1828. 
 
 My dear Lord,—I left Dublin on Tuesday by the mail for Bel¬ 
 fast, where I arrived about 7 in the morning, and 8 proceeded on 
 by the Derry coach to this place, and arrived about half-past 11. 
 I went immediately to the llev d . Mr Carley, to whom I had a 
 letter from Mr Armstrong. He readily shewed me all his books, 
 but there was no mention anywhere of the name of Alexander or 
 Livingston. We went to the parochial church, but there are no 
 registers earlier than 1823, which purports to be continued from 
 
14 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 one for 1816, which is now no more to be found. We went round, 
 with the sexton, the churchyard for tombstone inscriptions, of 
 which there are many very old, and tolerably legible, but none to 
 any one of the Alexander name. The man who keeps the Antrim 
 Arms, where X am, was ch.-warden some years back. He says, 
 that the old registers then consisted of loose papers much decayed, 
 and are totally lost now. Mr Carley then accompanied me to 
 Lord Ferrard, who married the heiress of Massareene, but he in¬ 
 formed me that the old papers of the family were so confused, so 
 dirty and inaccessible, that it would take a very long time indeed 
 to look them over. He had never heard of the name of Living¬ 
 stone as a chaplain to the ancient family, nor of the name of 
 Alexander. He, however, very politely referred me to Collward 
 at Bangor, and Mr Montgomerie at Grey Abbey, for information, 
 the former being a great collector of old family documents, and 
 the latter the representative of the Lord Viscount Alexanders 
 family. Mr Carley has given me a letter for the Reverend Dr 
 Bruce at Belfast, who, he says, has the best account of the Pres¬ 
 byterian ministers, and all relating to them, of any person in Ire¬ 
 land, and is a genealogical and well-informed man. It is much to 
 be regretted this inquiry, as I observed in my last, had not been 
 undertaken sooner, as it is, the most must be made of it. I am 
 now leaving Antrim on return to Belfast, where, of course, I shall 
 see Dr Bruce, and hope to get some information. Donaghadee is 
 about 16 miles from thence, and Comber, Bangor, and Gray Abbey 
 nearly in the same line. I wish I could establish this link of the 
 evidence, as the deposition of Sarah Lyner would then be fully 
 supported by the fact of corresponding statements. Indeed, it ap¬ 
 pears the chief weak part, and one on which Mr Hogan lays the 
 greatest stress of objection. 1 had drawn the case for the opinion 
 of the Attorney-General to be taken during my absence, but Mr 
 H. savs that, on reflection, he entertains much doubt as to the ad¬ 
 missibility of Sarah Lyner’s testimony, not as suspicious from de¬ 
 fect of being genuine, and even true, but as having been made by 
 a servant, under the influence of a member of her master’s family. 
 Therefore, before an objection was taken, he thought it should be 
 suspended till other evidence confirmatory of hers could be procu¬ 
 red ; and, upon the whole, as the case was not Irish, an Irish lawyer 
 might not be so good a judge of the practice of the English Courts, 
 with regard to the legal w r eight of such evidence. This position may 
 in some respects be correct, but on reading your letters, which I 
 have done with great earnestness, I do not know whether it is not, 
 at any rate, better to avoid the Irish A. G. The case must con¬ 
 tain the copies of all your documents. Your name and the object 
 for which his opinion is asked. This may strike him and not im¬ 
 probably may lead him to mention the subject which, if so, might 
 tend to the Marquis of D. hearing of it. He would then be very 
 anxious to fling every impediment in the way, and to frustrate the 
 resources of intelligence in the places where the same is to be sought 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 15 
 
 and acquired. He is very popular in Ireland. Lord G. Hill is a 
 great favourite with the Lord Lt. He came into TuthilPs and made 
 inquiry who I was , but that I consider was curiosity, perceiving I 
 was a stranger. All the documents are now' verified in a very 
 ample manner, but at a very great expense. I have paid the notary- 
 public near L.l 1, besides having had all the searches to pay, and the 
 office copies of the several documents. 1st, The faculty by which 
 Merefield w^as appointed a notary-public. 2d, The patent by which 
 John Pocklington was constituted a Baron of the Exchequer. 3d, 
 An affidavit sworn at Carlow before Thomas Conyers as a master 
 extra in Chancery. 4th, An affidavit sworn before Jonas Percv, as a 
 master extra in Chancery. Those official records thus prove the 
 identity and handwriting of the respective parties. The Rolls of 
 Judgment, filed in the Court of Exchequer, for Hilary and Mi¬ 
 chaelmas .terms 1723, signed by J. Pocklington, are referred to in 
 Mr West, inspector of frank’s deposition, who had to be paid for his 
 attendance to swear the same before the Lord Mayor, and also to 
 be paid for his several attendances to examine and compare the 
 documents, in the respective registers, with those of Conyers, Mere¬ 
 field, Percy and Pocklington, a most tedious business altogether, 
 and now' fortunately achieved. I hope to get back to Dublin on 
 Thursday, and be at Liverpool by Saturday; could I succeed in 
 the objects now' under inquiry, all would be most effectually accom¬ 
 plished. So soon as I arrive in Dublin, I will write all that has 
 transpired, and the time of my departure for England. My best 
 regards to Lady S. who, I hope, continues to revive her spirits, 
 and to all the dear family, I remain, &c. 
 
 % 
 
 P.S.—I have written to the Lord Chancellor, and if any notice 
 of the Leigh patronage is made in the Sun, I wish your Lordship 
 would put by the paper for me. 
 
 MR T. C. BANKS, TO MR LOCKHART. 
 
 Trevor Square , 28/7* January , 1829. 
 
 My dear Sir,—Yours of the 7th instant I duly received, and 
 subsequently thereto have been informed of the contents of your 
 letter of the 13th instant to Lord Stirling. These tw o letters I 
 have since submitted to Mr Wilson, w ith some farther observations 
 in elucidation of his former opinion, and in this case I have incor¬ 
 porated the gist of your remarks, in order that the whole subject 
 to which his attention was wanted might be brought under one 
 view, and thereby form the basis of a new case for a more decisive 
 opinion. This has now been given, and I herewith have the 
 pleasure of transmitting it with the amended case for your inspec¬ 
 tion. At page 7 you will perceive I introduced an explanation of 
 the Errol cause, and at page 9 an argument upon your remarks as 
 to the act of 1685. What Mr W. has now' written comes more 
 
16 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 immediately to the point, and, as he coincides with your general 
 ideas and mode of procedure, I shall be anxious to have your fur¬ 
 ther sentiments upon the subject. 
 
 I must observe that Mr Wilson does not now advise an opinion 
 of Mr Thomson, but recommends that he should be consulted in 
 drawing the summons of reduction, which would thereby draw 
 from him the light in which he considered the merits of the claim 
 to be founded and sustainable. I must confess that I still adhere 
 to the technicalities of description which I pointed out in my for¬ 
 mer letter as an essentially necessary identification of the lands 
 adjudged. But every thing taken together may be hereafter con¬ 
 sidered and applied to render this claim of a nature to which none 
 of the cases of decision, not even Robertson against Atholl, can be 
 cited as a precedent in negation of right. 
 
 The manner in which you so warmly take up the invocation I 
 made in behalf of Lord Stirling has afforded him as it has myself 
 great satisfaction indeed. Your zeal has been always strongly 
 evinced, and could we get all to move in a similar way, with the 
 golden ball at command, I daresay you will join with me in thinking 
 that ultimate success would prevail. 
 
 With the joint compliments and good wishes of Mrs Banks to 
 Mrs Lockhart and yourself, I remain, my dear Sir, yours 
 
 (Signed) T. C. Banks. 
 
 P.S. The Portmore titles I conceive were totally personal and 
 unconnected with any incorporation of land. The first creation 
 was not twenty years before the union, and the earldom nearly 
 about the period of it. 
 
 MR BANKS TO MR LOCKHART. 
 
 Netherton House , 15 th February , 1829. 
 
 My dear Sir,—Your two letters, the one to myself, and the 
 other to Lord Stirling, of the 4th instant, are now before me, and 
 I certainly cannot help expressing the satisfaction I have at finding 
 that the amended case, with Mr Wilson’s opinion thereon, have so 
 fully acquired your approbation of their respective contents ; and 
 here, by the bye, I must observe, that when 1 sent you the copy 
 of the case and opinion, I had not had time to compare the 
 stationer’s copy with the original, but on looking over my copy 
 when I had more leisure to do so, I found that there was omitted 
 a portion rather material. I mean material, so far as it went to 
 strengthen the doctrine laid down, viz. that the lands w'ere inse¬ 
 parable from the title. The passage omitted is in my copy at page 
 Jive , after the citation of that part of the Charter of Novodamus 
 erecting the earldom of Stirling, and concluding secundum datam 
 dicti comitis supra memorat , §c., the addition should have been viz. 
 *—‘ Tenendas et habendas prnefatas dignitates cum titulis et hono- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 17 
 
 4 ribus comitis tie Stirling vicecomitis de Stirling et de Canada 
 4 domini Alexander de Tullibodie, &c. cum omnibus aliis proroga- 
 4 tivis privileges libertatibus et immunitati- 
 
 4 bus pertinen. vel ad comitem intra dictum regnum quovis tempore 
 4 praeterito seu futuro pertinere et spectare valent praefat dominia 
 4 terras baronias aliaque supra memorat praedicto Wilhelmo Comite 
 4 de Stirling suisque supra script/ &c. These words cast the 
 strongest shield round the incorporation, and inseparability, because 
 they respond to the first entailment of the honours and estates, 
 inasmuch as the charter, 1st, recites the course of succession and 
 tailzie of the titles ; 2d, designates the lands cotailzied to the same 
 series of heirs ; 3d, erects the lands and domains into the Earldom 
 of Stirling, 4 cum titulo stylo et dignitate, &c.and, 4th, the 
 habendum contains that the titles 4 et praefatas dominia terras/ &c. 
 shall be holden and enjoyed by the Earl and his heirs aforesaid, 
 
 I am sorry to see this paragraph omitted in my copy, but I hope it 
 is not in yours; if it should, have the goodness to supply the defect 
 by what I have above written, that the whole may be perfect^ as you 
 must perceive the force thereof. Since I wrote you, I have heard 
 from a friend in Ireland, mentioning that since I was there, many 
 more of the Montgomery papers have been found, and that it is 
 probable were I to go over, I might be able to find some of the 
 Stirling manuscripts which the old Countess, (widow of the first 
 Earl,) who died there at her daughters, the Viscountess Mont¬ 
 gomery, left behind her. It certainly would be very desirable to 
 have an inspection of these papers, if they can be found. I have 
 therefore communicated the contents of a copy I have had sent me 
 to Lord Stirling, and I am now at Netherton House, that it may 
 be determined whether I shall go over on this affair or not. Should 
 I do so, and any thing very important result, I shall not fail com¬ 
 municating it to you whatever, if any good fortune should occur. 
 
 Your draft of reduction is very ably drawn. Mr Wilson approves 
 of it, and continues to advise that Mr Thomson should settle the 
 same before proceeding, I may add, that Mr Wilson compliments 
 you highly on the manner in which you have seen and entertained 
 the subject; and here, my dear Sir, I shall only superadd, that 
 could we have succeeded in an adequate loan, we should not have 
 delayed proceeding before the Lord Advocate so long on the order 
 of reference made to him by the King in August last. Your sug¬ 
 gestion about taking out a charter on the signature (torn) is de¬ 
 serving consideration, but in my present (torn) I think it would be 
 better to be (torn.) My reasons are too long here to detail; but 
 as I hope something will soon arise that we may meet together, I 
 can then more minutely discourse with you thereon, and probably 
 satisfy you that this signature has a particular bearing to the sub¬ 
 sequent charter, which took place 7th December 1639. Your draft 
 of reduction I may call a commencement of business. Lord Stirling 
 feels most truly the warmth, zeal, energy, and promptitude, with 
 which you have come forward, and continue to act. I feel gratified 
 
18 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 at the same, inasmuch as you so harmonize with my own invocation, 
 and with unity of exertion and confidential explanations, I shall 
 never doubt but of eventual success, and that our labours will be 
 crowned over the malignant interposition of all opposers. With 
 respect to any loan in Scotland, Lord Stirling is aware that it would 
 be nugatory to press any application. We have a negotiation going 
 forward in Town (not through Messrs Swayne and Company,} 
 which at this moment looks well; the termination, of course, is 
 uncertain, for I never think any thing done till absolutely completed. 
 Pray, do you have any, or have you had any, correspondence with 
 Mr Dillon lately? What were his last sentiments on the case? 
 Would you recommend a copy of the last case and opinion to be 
 sent to him; and if so, would you send yours, requesting it, however, 
 to be returned to you ? Lord Stirling desires me to mention him 
 with all kindness to you : and believe me, my dear Sir, yours very 
 truly, 
 
 (Signed) T. C. Banks. 
 
 MR BANKS TO LORD STIRLING. 
 
 Royal Hotel , College Green , Dublin r 
 24th February 1829. 
 
 My dear Lord,—I arrived here yesterday about \ past 4, after 
 a very fine passage of nearly 8 hours, in which, much to my sur¬ 
 prise, I was not affected by the usual sea nausea. I went in the 
 evening to the P. O., but did not find any letters for me. As the 
 mail leaves at 3, I now write to inform you where I am. Last 
 night I called at Mr Hogan, but did not see him. This morning 
 it rains so heavily as to render it impossible at present to stir out, 
 but I hope that in the course of the afternoon it will clear off, that 
 I may proceed in what I have to do here. 
 
 This hotel is very full, the mail I came by to Holyhead, as also 
 the coaches, were all full; so that at the head there was a very 
 crowded house, which is one of the worst and dearest that can well 
 be, and obtained from all the company perfect disgust and dis¬ 
 satisfaction ; but there being only one inn, the traveller has no 
 choice. All officers being ordered to join their regiments in this 
 country, has occasioned the absent thus to be proceeding from 
 England to their respective quarters. Great preparations are 
 making to receive the new viceroy, and party appears to be very 
 high in the city, and at this hotel ft silent tongue is necessary. I 
 shall leave by the Belfast mail, morning mail, on Thursday, so as 
 to be at Donaghedy on Friday morning by eleven, unless I am 
 delayed till the next morning at Belfast, in the inquiry after the 
 Montgomery MS. So soon as I can, I shall write and inform you 
 particulars of progress. In the interim, I hope you will have had 
 Home good and satisfactory accounts from Mr Corbett. 
 
A!»PENI)IX. 
 
 ]y 
 
 My best regards to Lady S., and all the dear family, who remain 
 my dear Sir, yours mo. faithfully. 
 
 (Sigd) T. C. Banks. 
 
 M R BANKS TO LORD STIRLING# 
 
 Donaghady, 3d Mar. 1829. 
 
 My dear Lord,—I should have answered your letter, No. I., but 
 I had just before written to you, so that our letters crossed each 
 other, and must have been reciprocally received much about the 
 same time. In my letter I mentioned how extremely wet the day 
 then was. Indeed, so dripping a rain, that not one gentleman went 
 out of the hotel, and no Christian would even have turned out a 
 dog. Wrote, however, by the penny post to the Rev. Mr Cooper, 
 stating what I wanted, and requesting him to favour me with an 
 answer as to what time it would be convenient for me to see him 
 the next day. In the evening, when the rain had somewhat 
 abated, went to Mr Hogan, who was at home, and apologized for 
 being out the evening before. He inquired kindly after Lady S. 
 and yourself, said Mrs H. was very unwell, and regretted that he 
 could not ask me to his house. He then entered into conversa- 
 tion. I shewed him the case and opinion, and left the same with 
 him to read over. I then referred to what I wanted from Mr 
 Cooper, he said he was afraid I should not get the registers, as the 
 books were very defective; and when he looked into them he 
 could not find any such entries. I shall, therefore, now give you 
 a journal of proceedings,—February 25th, after breakfast took a 
 car (it continued to rain so, not so heavily and constantly as yes¬ 
 terday) and went to Mr Cooper’s in Prussia Street, about two 
 miles from College Green, found him at home, he said he had just 
 sent to the Post-Office an answer to my letter, informing me that 
 the book was in the possession of Mr Hewatson, Portobello, with 
 whom, when he left Ireland last year, he had left it, and had not 
 had it delivered back since his return. Said he had had a para¬ 
 lytic affection of his head which had affected his speech, and 
 rendered him incapable of attending his ministerial functions. 
 Went from Prussia Street to Portobello, two miles in a contrary 
 direction, saw Mr Hewatson, who is one of the elders of the 
 congregation, which he said was in a pitiable state of poverty. He 
 shewed me the book, and I there found every entry corresponding 
 with the extract certified by Croasdel. I then made an exact 
 literatim copy of each baptism, as remaining written in the book, 
 which is in very good condition , and commences in 1672. On return, 
 late to the hotel, found that Mr Hogan had sent back the case and 
 opinion, not inclosed but open , without any letter, note, or remark 
 whatever, accompanied only by his card, so that waiters and the 
 public might peruse the contents, in the interval of its being left 
 and my coming back. 
 
•20 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 26. This day wet: having called yesterday evening on Dr Doyle 
 (who was out,) and seen Mrs D., she requested me to call about 
 11 this morning to see the Doctor; went accordingly, but he was 
 not come home, having been detained all night at an accouchment. 
 
 . She appointed 4 o’ clock, when she hoped he would be returned ; 
 went again at 4; the Doctor was returned; apologized for his 
 having disappointed me; said that, since I was in Dublin last year, 
 he had been looking over his papers respecting the Hovenden 
 family; that Mrs D. was great grandaughter of Henry H. of 
 Ballynakill; he gave me a full account of the family descent, which 
 is highly respectable, and connected with the Earl of Upper Ossory 
 family. He then wrote me a short letter, reciting Mrs D. as 
 above, and subscribed the same M. D. He mentioned that Mrs 
 D. had a cousin, Hovenden, a barrister in Line. Inn. This is very 
 important, as the barrister most likely, if asked, would attend the 
 Lord Advocate, arfd thus fully establish the reputation of Hen. H. 
 and the credibility due to his deposition. 
 
 27. Having deemed it right to make every thing as strong as 
 possible with regard to Mr Conyers as well as Hovenden, went 
 to Mr Moore the grocer, in James* Street, nearly 2 miles from 
 College Green, who married the widow of Edward C., the grand¬ 
 son of Mr G. C. of Carlow. He was out, but Mrs M. said if I 
 would call again in the evening, he would most likely be at home, 
 and would inform me what further information he had acquired 
 since my calling last year. Went again in the evening, but Mr 
 M. was not at home, being engaged to dine out ; he however left a 
 letter for me, certifying the respectability of the Conyers family. 
 Mrs M. having told me in the morning, that Mr Eades the builder, 
 at Harold's Cross, in whose house the last Captain Conyers (her 
 former husband’s 1st cousin) died, certainly must have papers of 
 the family, as lie took possession of every thing belonging to the 
 captain; went there, but Mr Eades was out of town, and would 
 not return for some days. 
 
 28. Having done every thing in Dublin possible, so as not to 
 render my return there necessary, unless by disappointment at 
 the other places it might be expedient to try to trace again the 
 Conyers papers, left Dublin, and went to Drogheda, having been 
 told that Lord Ferrard was at his seat near there, and not at Antrim. 
 Conceiving that, if this ivas correct, I might probably get an order 
 from him to his steward at Antrim to let me look over his papers, 
 stopped at Drogheda, having appointed to be taken up there by 
 the Belfast morning mail to-morrow. 
 
 Ma. 1. Having inquired after Lord F., learned that he had 
 gone to England about 2 or 3 weeks since ; proceeded therefore by 
 the Belfast morning mail, and arrived in Belfast at ^ p. 9 p.m. 
 
 2 . Called on Dr Murray about the Montgomerie MS., but 
 could not obtain more information than already ; nor any certain 
 account in whose hands what is extant of the original now is. 
 Mr Joy’s copy being only a copy of a copy ; but Dr M. has promised 
 
appendix. 
 
 21 
 
 farther inquiry against my return. Left Belfast by the Donagha- 
 dee afternoon coach, and arrived there at ^ past 8 p.m. 
 
 8 . Have called at Mr Delacherois, but neither of the brothers 
 is at home, being gone to Dublin, and will not return for some 
 days. Have just got a letter of introduction to William Mont¬ 
 gomerie, Esq. at Gray Abbey, from Mr Hely Hutchinson, nephew 
 to the Earl of Donoughmore. Shall hire a car to-morrow to set off 
 early for that place, which is 9| Irish miles distant. 
 
 Having thus given you a full detail, I have only add, that, having 
 been successful in all other points, I hope to accomplish the one 
 remaining, which done, shall immediately set out on my return, 
 for I assure you that I am very anxious to get back. 
 
 I am far from well, for the weather having been so exces¬ 
 sively wet till within these three days, I have a violent cold and 
 oppression on my lungs, to which came on last night a very 
 troublesome attack on my bowels. I trust, however, that I shall 
 not be laid up on my journey, for the accommodation in this place is 
 very poor and scanty; and indeed, every where the sleeping rooms 
 are intolerably dirty. As I d» not suppose I shall cross from here 
 to Portpatrick, I should imagine I shall be back at Dublin by 
 Saturday, and leave the following day for Howth and Holyhead, 
 so that any letter in answer to this had better be directed P.O., 
 Dublin. Though the delay in getting to Holyhead was {torn,) yet 
 it neither created more expense or delay, for, had I been in Dublin 
 on the Sunday, I would not have done any thing, while the charges 
 would have been far above what they otherwise were. At this 
 time, exclusively of the run for Holyhead, there is a great stir 
 among the commercial travellers. For going from Drogheda to 
 Belfast on Sunday, the number of persons who could not get room 
 was very great at Dundalk, Newry, Dromore, and other places ; 
 and, had I been booked through, I could not have got forward. 
 I beg my best regards to Lady S. and all the family circle. 
 Hoping they are all well, and that you have received some good 
 tidings from Corbett, I remain, my dear Lord, yours most faith- 
 fully, 
 
 (Signed) T. C. Banks. 
 
 P.S. — Have the goodness to remember me kindly to the 
 Tyrwhitts. 
 
 MR BANKS TO LORD STIRLING. 
 
 Donaghadee, 4th March , 1829. 
 
 My Bear Lord,—I wrote to you yesterday, stating my arrival 
 at this place; and my intention of going this morning to Gray 
 Abbey. I engaged a car and went thither; but, much to my 
 disappointment, on my arrival at that ancient seat, 1 was informed 
 that both the Mr Montgomeries were on a visit at Lord Dufferin’s, 
 
 3 E 
 
2 2 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 where there was assembled a large party—that they would return 
 to the Abbey positively on Saturday, post-horses having been 
 ordered to be sent to fetch them on that day. I went over the 
 venerable remains of the once magnificent fabric, but could not get 
 access to the parts where the monuments are. I learnt at the inn, 
 that Mr Wm. M. to whom I have the letter of introduction, is a 
 very liberal, open man, is fond of family antiquity, and rather 
 proud of his genealogy, has a great deal of such kind of information, 
 and would receive me, if at all recommended to him. I therefore 
 hope I shall find all this account realized, and that the object 
 wanted may be completed. Yet it is a mortifying circumstance 
 to experience this delay, and the more so when time and expenses 
 are consumed thereby. These, how ever, must be submitted to, or 
 the grand object left unaccomplished. 
 
 I cannot but regret, when business of importance is undertaken, 
 that limited means and circumscribed time should interfere, as the 
 interruption of these circumstances is neither satisfactory to the 
 employed nor to the employer. I should have liked to have met 
 all parties at once, on going to them. That I cannot do, so is not 
 my fault; yet I know, where all does not happen according to cal¬ 
 culation, the same contentment does not follow as if the rat fell 
 into the trap which was laid for him. 
 
 There is only one coach from Belfast to Gray-Abbey, i. e. passing 
 through it to Porto Ferry. This is not a mail, and does not run 
 on a Sunday, so that I must consider in going there on Saturday 
 how I am to get away again on Sunday morning, not to lose or 
 spend a day unnecessarily. It is now nearly 8 p.m. This must be 
 in the post-office by half-past 10 ; so I cannot add much more. I 
 find Colonel Ward is very ill at Bangor, but whether so much so 
 as not to see any one, I cannot ascertain. I mean to write to him 
 by to-morrow morning’s coach, which may bring me in an answer 
 in the evening, for I shall not leave any possible channel unex¬ 
 plained. I had fully expected to have found a letter for you here, 
 but as you probably had nothing very material to communicate, I 
 attribute your silence thereto. 
 
 I shall write so soon as I have seen Mr Montgomerie, or any 
 party w ith whom I have been fortunate. My best regards to Lady 
 Stirling, and all the family, and I remain, my dear Lord, vours very 
 sincerely, 
 
 (Signed) T. C. Banks. 
 
 SAME TO TIIE SAME. 
 
 Carlow , March 17, 1829. 
 
 My dear Lord,—In consequence of having found, on my return 
 to Dublin on the 10th instant, a parcel enclosing an old document 
 which appears to he an excerpt from the Charter of Novodamus, 
 7th December 1639, and bearing on it an indorsement witlr the 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 23 
 
 initials, as they seemed, of Mr Conyers, I went to Mr West, the 
 inspector of franks in the General Post-Office (who examined and 
 certified the former documents of Gordon, Hovenden, and Sarah 
 Lyner) and shewed the same to him in order that he might 
 give me his opinion as to the initials being those of the same Mr 
 Conyers who subscribed his name respecting the original charter. 
 He instantly expressed that they were, but wished to re-examine 
 Mr Conyers’ will. He accordingly went to the Prerogative Office, 
 and looked at the original will, when he reconfirmed his opinion 
 of the identity of the initials and the signature. After this, I 
 requested him to make a deposition, which he did, before the chief 
 magistrate of Police in Dublin, and I have had it duly certified by 
 Mr Boyle, the notary-public, in proper official form. 
 
 Not having any communications as to the person who sent this 
 document, it occurred to me, that as it evidently had been in Con¬ 
 yers’ possession it would only come from some one who must have 
 had his papers. I therefore resolved to come to this place in order 
 to ask Mr Fairclough, whom I had seen when at Carlow last year, 
 and who then promised, that if he had any papers relative to what 
 I inquired after, he w’ould let me have them, provided they did 
 not affect any thing of the Conyers family. 
 
 On my arrival, I went to Fairclough’s house, but he was gone 
 to Wexford or Wicklow (I am uncertain which,) and would not 
 return till Saturday. I inquired of Mrs Fairclough (who recol¬ 
 lected me,) but she said she knew nothing of the circumstances. 
 She shewed me an old family Bible with the entry of a baptism 
 of a daughter of Mr Conyers, and the names of the sponsors ; also 
 several other irrelevant entries, but denied having any other papers, 
 excepting the copy of the will of Mrs Conyers, to whom her 
 husband was executor, and a deed of settlement of Capt.-Lt. 
 Conyers (son of Mr Thomas Conyers) on his wife. Now, I have 
 6 trong reasons for believing the parcel came from this quarter, 
 for Mrs Moore, who was the wife of Mr Gordon Conyers, son 
 of the said Capt.-Lt. Conyers, told me that Fairclough w>as a very 
 great rogue, had got the widow' of her husband’s father to make 
 a will, appointing him (Fairclough) executor, and leaving to him¬ 
 self all her property. This will was open to contention, but when 
 Fairclough found he was likely to be proceeded against, he became 
 a bankrupt, and thus rendered it useless for law proceedings to be 
 made where nothing w'as to be had therefrom. Under these 
 circumstances, Fairclough most probably sent the parcel to me 
 without any communication, that his name might not be brought 
 forward and be exposed thereby to questions or investigations as 
 to the Conyers’ concerns, which he might not choose to answer. 
 Such are my surmises ; however, the excerpt is certainly of great 
 importance, as the identity of its having once belonged to Mr 
 Conyers’ who had the original Charter of Novodamus, is so well 
 proven and established. 
 
 Mr Lakie can give no farther information than before. I hav# 
 
24 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 set him to inquire after the Hamiltons of Carlow, and he is to send 
 me the result of his inquiries either to me at Dublin or after the 
 24th inst. directed to me at Nethertown House. 
 
 I shall take to-morrow’s mail back to Dublin, where I shall 
 await hearing from you in answer hereto, and determine thereby 
 my further proceedings or return to England. 
 
 I do not know what more I can do. I think I have been very 
 fortunate ; could I perceive a chance of more good any where I 
 should certainly resort to it; but I do not view any opening, 
 and therefore what I say here must be either acted upon or 
 suspended, according to what, on further consideration after my 
 return, may be judged most expedient. My best regards to Lady 
 Stirling and all the family, with those to yourself, of, my dear 
 Lord, yours most faithfully, 
 
 (Signed) T. C. Banks. 
 
 MR BANKS TO LORD STIRLING. 
 
 Dublin , 24 th March , 1829. 
 
 My dear Lord,—Not having any letter from you in answer to 
 my last, I have to mention that I shall leave this place to-morrow 
 morning at seven a. m., for Howth, and thence to Holyhead, so 
 that I suppose I shall be with you on Friday by the Salop coach. 
 I have not had any letter from Mr Montgomery nor Lord Dufferin, 
 but have had an answer from Mr Conyers at Charles Ville, that 
 his and the family at Carlow were not connected. This reply ter¬ 
 minates all further inquiry after Conyers. I ought to have noticed 
 before the kind attentions of Mr Armstrong to promote your suc¬ 
 cess in every way possible to him. He has published an ordination 
 with an appendix of all the eminent presbyterian ministers, and 
 has noticed the deceased J. A. very particularly. He has presen¬ 
 ted you, through me, with a copy, and 1 have brought three others 
 for all tends to confirm and corroborate the series of your docu¬ 
 ments of descent. Yesterday, I went to Harold’s Cross with a 
 letter from him to the Rev. Philip Taylor, who was a schoolfellow 
 with your uncle the Rev. J. A., ol whom he spoke in a great strain 
 of eulogy, but does not recollect of ever hearing him mention his 
 descent from the Stirling title. He is very old, but in perfect 
 recollection. This moment I am returned from a very long and 
 interesting interview with Hamilton Rowan, a most delightful old 
 man, who received me with great complacency, and has let me 
 have his family pedigree to peruse. I am afraid of being too late 
 for the post, and since I shall see you soon, I must defer all other 
 detail till you meet. I am very hoarse from my cold. With best 
 regards to Lady Stirling and all the family, I remain, my dear Lord, 
 yours most faithfully. 
 
 (Signed) T. C. Banks. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 25 
 
 MR BANKS TO MR LOCKHART. 
 
 Netherton House , \Qth April , 1829. 
 
 My dear Sir,— I dare say you are rather surprised at not having 
 heard from me long before this, but I have been so much engaged 
 in several material respects with regard to myself, and others with 
 reference to Lord Stirling’s business, as to have occupied the 
 greatest part of my time; while the other was waiting in great 
 anxiety to hear from him, and be enabled to proceed from Ireland 
 to you at Edinburgh, according as we had arranged. The impor¬ 
 tant primum mobile of action not having been yet achieved, I found 
 it requisite for me to return hither, instead of crossing to Port 
 Patrick ; and thus I deemed it was more advisable to hear at this 
 place what had been going forward, or passing between you, than 
 to write on a subject touching which, for the present, we are in a 
 state of suspense. I must however observe, that, during my stay 
 in Ireland, I was very fortunate in some points of high conse¬ 
 quence, all particularly confirmatory as well of his Lordship’s 
 descent, as of the identity of the Charter of Novodamus, an 
 original excerpt from which I have had put into my hands of a 
 most undoubted nature and authenticity. 
 
 I call this fortunate, because, since I came from Ireland, I have 
 been at Birmingham, where, upon going to Mr Harold, (the son 
 of the gentleman who acted for Lord Stirling in America before 
 I went there,) I learnt that the letter and parcel which I had 
 sent to his father several months ago, had never been received, so 
 that I am under great apprehension that the copy of the charter, 
 which I had retransmitted for certification, has been lost, and if 
 so, would at this crisis be a serious misfortune. I therefore con¬ 
 sider what I have so unexpectedly met with, to be of very estima¬ 
 ble service, as I should think it would amply prove the tenor of 
 the original charter; and when you come to see its very copious 
 contents, I dare say you will be of my opinion; but you, from 
 better experience, must judge of that more competently than 
 myself. 
 
 Lord S. expects to be able to go before the Lord Advocate 
 during the ensuing vacation ; but he would wish to have you 
 present, and as such, requests you will have the kindness to 
 answer, by return of post, whether you would forthwith come to 
 him, on having a letter from him for that purpose, and appointing 
 the time. 
 
 I have been looking over Mr Dillons letter in observation upon 
 the case and opinion you sent to him. I cannot say that he seems 
 to enter into the strength of the case, but, on the contrary, to be 
 confused in what he writes, and in the view taken by him of the 
 subject at large. This is of no consequence, as it is not by his 
 judgment Lord S. intends to proceed. You have embraced the 
 
26 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 bearings in a strong light, and your draft of the Summons of 
 Reduction seems well drawn for the object to be entertained by 
 its process. There may be some points for us to consider when 
 we meet, which I hope will be very shortly. 
 
 I am very desirous you should see all I have collected and 
 arranged for the occasion ; when together, we could do more in 
 twenty-four hours, than twenty-four letters could explain or settle. 
 Lord Stirling desires me to make his compliments to you; at the 
 same time I beg to add, that I hope Mrs L. and your little family 
 continue well, and that you will remember me kindly to her,— 
 remaining, my dear Sir, yours very truly. 
 
 (Signed) T. C. Banks. 
 
 P.S .—What side is your friend the baronet taking at this 
 moment? If favourable to the Ministry, it would be a good 
 opportunity to ask the Wharton peerage as a boon by patent, as 
 was accepted by Thomas Egerton in the case of the barony of 
 Grey de Wilton. 
 
 MR BANKS TO MR LOCKHART. 
 
 Netherton House, 1 7th April , 1829. 
 
 My Dear Sir,— Lord Stirling not being prepared to go before 
 the Lord Advocate as he had expected he would have been when 
 I wrote to you last, (though he hopes he shall be very shortly,) I 
 have considered it might be desirable that in the interim you 
 should see the arrangement of the case, and evidence intended to 
 be submitted to him, and for this purpose I now send you the 
 draft drawn out for the occasion. You will perceive I have divided 
 the subject into several heads, for the purpose of applying the 
 evidence distinctly to its own particular point of bearing. Thus, 
 the descent and right of succession, under the course of pedigree, 
 are supported by their appropriate documentary proofs : what 
 relates to the charter, is detailed under its own line, to be sus¬ 
 tained : and what relates to the copy of the charter coming from 
 America, is shewn by the particular circumstances by which that 
 country was a very natural place for every thing appertaining to 
 the Earl of Stirling to be found in. I am in great hopes we shall 
 be able to get matters afloat, by going before the Lord Advocate 
 soon, and commencing the proceedings recommended by you, and 
 approved by Mr Wilson, at an early day after the Lord Advocate’s 
 report. I cannot but feel uneasy respecting the copy of the 
 charter returned to America for verification. What I wrote to 
 you, that my letters and parcels for Mr Harvey had never reached 
 him, I am sorry to say seems confirmed, by Mr Hunt never having 
 received any answer to the case, or had it returned, as he desired, 
 which he sent at the same time to Mr Pickering. However, I 
 think we must, ere long, be set at rest upon this topic. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 27 
 
 As to the excerpt I so unexpectedly got in Ireland, it appears 
 to have been either taken by, or to have belonged to, Mr Conyers, 
 who had the original charter; for, his initials are on the back of 
 it, and those initials I have had examined with his original writing 
 to several documents, in the several courts at Dublin. 
 
 Having made a copy of this excerpt, I also send it for your pe¬ 
 rusal, that you may judge how far it maybe an adminicle adequate 
 to maintain the application for a new charter, before the Lord 
 Advocate ; or to sustain an action to prove the tenor, in the 
 Court of Session at Edinburgh. When you have looked over the 
 whole of what is now forwarded, I will thank you to return them, 
 with such of your remarks, observations, and amendments, as you 
 may deem more or better calculated to promote the object in view ; 
 for, as I am sure we have only one general and self-same motive, 
 on behalf of Lord Stirling, I cannot but be pleased with your sen¬ 
 timents and advice, even if they differ from my comprehension of 
 the case. I fully trust that, by the time of your answer hereto, 
 either Lord Stirling or myself will be able to announce to you the 
 day which the Lord Advocate may appoint, for entering on the 
 order of reference, and when his Lordship would wish you to 
 come to town. 
 
 His Lordship much appreciates the kindness and readiness with 
 which you always have attended to his business; and desires me 
 particularly to express his best compliments to you. Have the 
 goodness to remember me to Mrs Lockhart; and believe me, my 
 dear Sir, yours very truly. 
 
 (Signed) T. C. Banks. 
 
 [The affidavits of Lyner and Hovenden, the deposition of Mrs 
 Pountney, and the statement by William Gordon, which follow 
 the above letters, are not reprinted, as they are to be found in 
 No. II. of Appendix to Introduction.] 
 
 EXTRACT from Crawford’s Lives, as to Death, &c. of 
 Archbishop Spottiswood. 
 
 In his last Sickness he behaved with great Piety and Resigna¬ 
 tion, gave an Account of his Faith, with which he declared him¬ 
 self fully satisfied, now that he was upon the Verge of the other 
 World. After this he received the blessed Sacrament, which he 
 told those who visited him had exceedingly fortified and refreshed 
 his Mind, and advised them to apply to this support upon the 
 same Occasion. A few Days after he surrendered up his Soul to 
 GOD on the 27th of December, 1639, aged 74.* His Body, for 
 
 Rcliqiue Sancti Andrcap, MS. penes me. 
 
28 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the greater State, was, by His Majesty’s Appointment, conveyed 
 by Torch-light from his Lodgings to Westminster-Abbay^ where 
 lie was buried near his beloved Master King James , coming to 
 the Grave in peace, and in a good old Age, without being Witness 
 to those Calamities, which afterward happened to his Country, 
 whose Affairs, by long Experience, he knew as well as any Man 
 whatsoever. Over his Grave was erected a decent Marble Monu¬ 
 ment, with this inscription. 
 
 MEMORISE SACRUM 
 
 DOMINUS JOANNES SPOTISWOOD, ECCLESUE SANCfl ANDREW 
 ARCH IEP1 SCO PUS, SCOTDE PRIMAS, ET REGNI 
 CANCEL LARIUS. 
 
 V1GINTI ANNOS PRESBYTER, UNDECEM ANNOS ARCHIEPISCO- 
 PUS GLASGOENSIS, VIGINTI QUINQUE ANNOS S. ANDREiE, 
 
 ET PER 
 
 QUATUOR ANNOS REGNI SCOTIA CANCELLARIUS, EX HAC VITA 
 IN PACE MIGRAVIT ANNO DOMINI 1639 , 
 
 SEXTO CALENDAS DECEMBRIS, REGNI CAROLI 15 . 
 
 ^TATIS SIDE 74 . 
 
 THE END. 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 
 i'lintcd by Andrew 1 Siiortrkdk, Thistle Lane. 
 

 * 
 

 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
%sim