•>%. 
 
 "^.W 
 
 s;>2%f^ '.xi. 
 
 v] 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 w 
 
 ■0 ^M ''> 
 
 ^7 >> 
 
 '^ ^ "=# ^'^ 
 
 /^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 V 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 1.0 11: 
 
 S6 
 
 Ui 
 
 I.I 
 
 2.0 
 
 £ US 
 
 1.8 
 
 fliotographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 /, 
 
 ^ .5^**. 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 J4 
 
 
 -^ 6" — 
 
 
 ► 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 

 i/.s 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canndian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 ^ 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes tachniquas at bibliographiquas 
 
 Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast 
 original copy available for filming. Faaturas of this 
 copy which may ba bibliographically unique, 
 which may altar any of tha images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 :he usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture andommag^a 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restauria Gt/ou pallicul^e 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 La titre de couverture manque 
 
 r~n Coloured maps/ 
 
 D 
 
 Cartes gtographiquas en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations an couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli* avoc d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion la long de la marge int^rieura 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que cartaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration appar^issant dans la taxte, 
 mais, torsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas itA filmtas. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplimentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ la mailleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Las details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier 
 una image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thoda normale de filmaga 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pagaa da couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagies 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages rastaurias at/ou palliculAes 
 
 r~7 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages dicolories, tachaties ou piquies 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ditachaes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality inigale de {'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materii 
 Comprend du material suppUmentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponibie 
 
 [~~| Pages detached/ 
 
 r~y] Showthrough/ 
 
 r~~l Quality of print varies/ 
 
 p~] Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 r~n Only edition available/ 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partieilement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., cnt iti filmies ^ nouveau de facon d 
 obtenir la meilleuro image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmad hare hat been raproduced thanks 
 to tha ganarosity of: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 L'axamplaira filmA fut raproduit grica A la 
 ginAroaiti da: 
 
 La bibiiothAqua das Archives 
 pubiiques du Canada 
 
 The images appearing hare are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol ▼ (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont At* raproduites avac la 
 plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at 
 da la nattetA de rexemplaire film*, et en 
 conformity avac les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est ImprimAe sont filmte en commenpant 
 par la premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 darnlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impreasion ou d'illustration, soit par la second 
 plat, aalon le caa. Tous las autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la 
 pramlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impreasion ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la darnlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparnttra sur la 
 derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre 
 fiimte k des taux de reduction diff Arents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est filmA A partir 
 da I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, 
 et de haut an bas, en prenant la nombre 
 d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrant la m^thoda. 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING: 
 
 nEINO 
 
 / • 
 
 PART II. OF THE VINDICATION 
 
 OP 
 
 THE RIGHTS AND TITLES, 
 
 POLITICAL AND TERRITORIAL, 
 
 0? 
 
 ALEXANDER, EARL OF STIRLING AND DOVAN, 
 
 HEREDITARY LIEUTENANT GENERAL 
 
 AND 
 
 LORD PROPRIETOR OP CANADA AND NOVA SCOTIA. 
 
 BY JOHN L. HAYES, 
 
 COUHSBLLOB AT LAW. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GIDEON & CO., PRINTERS. 
 
 185a 
 
 m 
 
■;t. 
 
TRIAL OE LOUD STIRLING. 
 
 t; 
 
 The remarkable fact cannot have escaped the notice of the pubh'c 
 (hat, on the very day succeeding the one on which tlie notice of Lord 
 Stirling's claims appeared in the New York Herald, long and most 
 elaborately prepared attacks upon Lord Stirling appeared simultane- 
 ously in several New York papers. That these attacks, prepared with 
 80 much care, and displaying so minute a knowledge of a most compli- 
 cated case, could have been prepared after the publication in the Herald, 
 no one can believe. A clairvoyance, more mysterious than any know- 
 ledge of the *'Satanic Press," alluded to in one of these attacks, had fore- 
 seen the announcement of Lord Stirling's case, and weeks of anxious 
 labor had been devoted lo expose the "transparent humbug. " J3ut more 
 extraordinary even than the celerity with which these rejoinders arc 
 given, is the mysterious knowledge exhibited, in one article at least, of 
 facts and circumstances which never have been published in America, 
 of events even which had never transpired beyond Scotland, and of 
 rare books which are not found in any of our public libraries. It can- 
 not be imagined for a moment that any of Lord Stirling's former 
 friends in. this country have been so base or insane as to betray his con- 
 fidence. How, then, are we to account for this mysterious knowledge — 
 this holy horror of fraud and imposture, so unusual in the most violent 
 of the assailing papers; this undue zeal to expose an imposture which, 
 according to their showing, is only ridiculous? No sooner was it known 
 in England that Lord Stirling had embarked for this country, than 
 sixty pages of Blackwood, the most venal and violent of the Tory 
 magazines, are devoted to prejudice the American public by a false 
 and distorted history of the infamous forgery trial which had occurred 
 thirteen years before. No sooner does an American paper vindicate 
 his rights, than a masked battery is opened upon Lord Stirling here. 
 How can this be explained, except by supposing that the power of that 
 mighty Government which has so vital an interest in wresting from him 
 liis formidable rights, and has pursued him with such viudiclivcncss in 
 
TRIAL OP LOUD STinLINO. 
 
 ••I' 
 
 hi I 
 
 ! 
 
 I 
 
 •r 
 
 4 
 
 % ,. 
 
 Scotland, England, and France, lias followed Lord Stirling across the 
 Atlantic, and is speaking even through the American press! Will not 
 these things open the eyes of the American people? Will not they 
 consider that a cause which is worthy of so formidable an opposition 
 must possess inherent elements of strength? 
 
 We shall not attempt to answer seriatim the charges in Blackwood 
 or the American papers. The positions maintained in a pamphlet, 
 entitled <'A Vindication of the Rights and Titles of Lord Stirling," 
 that these rights and titles have been judicially established by courts of 
 competent jurisdiction, and have been officially recognised on the most 
 solemn occasions, have never been refuted. 
 
 In that pamphlet, prepared by Lord Stirling's counsel, no attempt 
 was made to mislead the public as to Lord Stirling's position. It was 
 distinctly stated that he was o^, ■ ^d by the British Government, and had 
 been for years pursued by the officers of State with a vindictiveness 
 almost unparalleled. For how could he be here setting up claims to 
 the fisheries and the lands of Cai'.ada and Nova Scotia, except in open 
 antagonism to the Biitish Government? 
 
 No attempt was made in the statement of Lord Stirling's counsel to 
 keep out of sight the trial for forgery, for it has always been intended 
 to present the full history of this trial as Lord Stirling's strongest claim 
 upon the sympathy of a people who are quick to rouse themselves at a 
 tale of grievous oppression. The principal object in this paper is to 
 give to the world, for the first time, the true narrative of this remarka- 
 ble trial, which is destined to take its place in history. But before 
 entering jpon that narrative, we will proceed to refute the main posi- 
 tions of the British authorities, or their mouth-pieces, in Blackwood 
 and some American papers. 
 
 I. It is asserted that the Earldom of Stirling and the estates went 
 only to heirs male, while Lord Stirling, originally known before his 
 recognition as a Peer as Mr. Humphrys, claimed through a female. 
 
 This objection, which was never urged before the civil courts in 
 Scotland in the attempts of the officers of State to reduce his services, or 
 defeat his rights as heir to the Earl of Stirling, has been at no time 
 brought forward, except by the Crown counsel in their address to the 
 jury on the forgery trial, and then only to convey the impression that 
 a charter which had never been used by Lord Stirling to prove his heir- 
 ship, had been fabricated to overcome this difficulty in his rights ot 
 
TlllAL OF LOUIJ STIRLlNCi. 
 
 ling across the 
 
 ess! Will not 
 
 Will not they 
 
 an opposition 
 
 in Blackwood 
 1 a pamphlet, 
 ^ord Stirling," 
 ed by courts of 
 ed on the most 
 
 sel, no attempt 
 jsition. It was 
 ument, and had 
 L vindictiveness 
 ng up claims to 
 , except in open 
 
 ing's counsel to 
 8 been intended 
 3 strongest claim 
 themselves at a 
 this paper is to 
 »f this remarka- 
 Iry. But before 
 le the main posi- 
 1, in Blackwood 
 
 the estates went 
 tnown before his 
 )ugh a female, 
 civil courts in 
 |e his services, or 
 J been at no time 
 |ir address to the 
 impression that 
 io prove his heir- 
 in his rights ot 
 
 succession. This in itself is a suilicient answer to the objectioiv The 
 limitation of all the American property by the charters of l()2i , 1625, 
 and 1028, was the same, namely: "To Sir William Alexander, Itcred- 
 ibiis suis et assignatis hereditarie,^^ (his heirs and assigns heritably.) 
 There is in these charters no limitation to male heirs. Every Scotch 
 lawyer knows that the effect and meaning of this limitation has always 
 been held, according to the Scotch law of descent, to carry the enjoy 
 mont of the subject limited, in this case the estates in Canada and 
 Nova Scotia, in the first instance, to the heirs male of the body of the 
 original grantee, whom failing, to the heirs female of the last heir male 
 111 a snnilar course of succession. The right of Lord Stirling to the 
 American estates is established by the common law of Scotland, and 
 has never been seriously denied. He has uniformly foundetl all his 
 proceedings in the diflferent services on the charters of 1621, 1625, imd 
 1028, which were granted to his ancestor, Sir Wm. Alexander, before 
 his elevation to the peerage, which charters are all on record. 
 
 It is true that the patent of 1633, which created Sir William Alex- 
 ander Earl of Stirling and Viscount of Canada, limited the title to his 
 male heirs, and thus the American property was granted by the char- 
 ters to a more general and extended series of heirs than the titles. 
 
 The only question with which we have any interest, is the succes- 
 sion of the lands and rights in America. But Lord Stirling's right to 
 his titles, though this is comparatively of little importance, stands on an 
 equally strong though diflerent basis. 
 
 In 1637, by a privy seal precept, the Earl of Stirling was created 
 EarlofDovan. The limitation in this case was to his eldest lawful 
 son and his heirs male lawfully procreate, whom failing, to the heirs 
 male and assignees whatsoever of the said William Earl of Stirling. 
 Now, by the law of Scotland, it has been decided that where an honor 
 or property is limited heredibus masculis et assignatis, the general 
 heirs being included in the term assignatis, the heirs male of the body 
 first succeed, and when they have failed, ihen the heir female, com- 
 prised in the word ^' assignatis^' of the last heir male, becomes entitled 
 to the succession. This was established in the House of Lords in the 
 Polwarth case, precisely similar to this. (See Dod's Peerage, p. 409.) 
 
 Thus by charters which are undisputed, and by laws of succession 
 which cannot be denied, the Earl remains heir in special of tailzie and 
 provision to the totality of the estates, American and Scotch, and to the 
 Earldom of Dovan . 
 
i' 
 
 ■tl 
 
 
 
 
 
 D TRIAL OF LORll HTIRLINK. 
 
 We come to a statement of facts wholly unimportant as alTecting 
 Lord Stirling's rights to his American property, which have been de- 
 nied, but which are susceptible of overwhelming proof. The eldest 
 son of the Earl of Stirling having died in 1038, the Earl made a sur- 
 render of all his honors and estates lulu the hands of King Charles, 
 who, by a charter of Novo damns, under the great seal of Scotland 
 dated the 7th December, 1639, regranted them to the Earl, *'to hold to 
 himself and the heirs male of his body, whom failing, to the eldest 
 heirs female, without division of the last of such heirs male, and to the 
 heirs male of the bodies of such heirs female respectively." It is 
 admitted that the original charter has disappeared, and is not found on 
 record. But it can be shown where it was at difierent periods de- 
 posited, who were the possessors of it, where it was once on record, 
 what was the tenor of its limitations, and the casus omissionis. 
 
 That the charter of Novo damns of 1639 once existed is established 
 by historical evidence wholly independent of the other proofs which Lord 
 Stirling has adduced, and which will hereafter be referred to. There 
 is evidence — all of which we need not refer to here — that the original 
 charter of Novo damns was in possession of General Wm. Alexander, 
 known in our war of independence, who at one time set up claims to 
 the title. It is believed that after his failure in the House of Lords he 
 brought this charter to this country, and that, according to the deposi- 
 tion of some of his descendants, it was burnt with other papers in his 
 house at Albany. Horace Walpole,- in his Anecdotes on Painting, 
 vol. II. p. 19, under the head of Norgate, says: "The best evidence 
 of his abilities is a curious patent lately discovered. The present Earl 
 of Stirling (General Alexander, to whom Walpole courteously gave 
 the title which he claimed) received from a relation an old box of neg> 
 lected writings, among which he found the original commission of 
 Charles the First appointing his lordship's predecessor, William, Earl 
 of Stirling, commander-in-chief in Nova Scotia, with a confirmation 
 of the grant of that province made by James the First. In the initial 
 letter are the portraits of the King sitting on the throne, delivering the 
 patent to the Earl; and round the border, representations in miniature 
 of customs, huntings, fishings, and productions of the country, all in 
 the highest state of preservation, and so admirably executed, tliat it 
 was believed to be of the pencil of Vandyke; but, as I know of no in- 
 stance of that master having painted in this manner, I cannot doubt 
 but it is the work of Norgate, allowed to be the best illuminator of that 
 
 nge, an 
 
 patents 
 
 Norg 
 
 illumini 
 
 illumini 
 
 one gran 
 
 liam Al( 
 
 prior to 
 
 charter ( 
 
 recited a 
 
 The 8 
 
 charter 
 
 The first 
 
 grandson 
 
 ada. Th 
 
 months, 
 
 his heirs 
 
 would he 
 
 ed by an 
 
 uncle H< 
 
 creditors < 
 
 commenc 
 
 tition the] 
 
 male of 
 
 Earl of S 
 
 provision i 
 
 of the crei 
 
 vision, in 
 
 father, th( 
 
 count Cat 
 
 notoriety < 
 
 the whole 
 
 charter of 
 
 All mat 
 
 traditional 
 
 ence of th 
 
 known to 
 
 seat as Pet 
 
 ling was n 
 
TRIAL OF LORD 8TIRLINO. 
 
 int as aflfecting 
 have been de- 
 r. The eldest 
 irl made a sur- 
 King Charles, 
 1 of Scotland^ 
 irl, "to hold to 
 ;, to the eldest 
 ale, and to the 
 lively." It is 
 is not found on 
 mt periods de- 
 )nce on record, 
 issionis. 
 1 is established 
 Dofs which Lord 
 red to. There 
 hat the original 
 ''m. Alexander, 
 set up claims to 
 mse of Lords he 
 g to the deposi- 
 er papers in his 
 on Painting, 
 te best evidence 
 le present Earl 
 ourteously gave 
 old box of neg* 
 commission of 
 William, Earl 
 a confirmation 
 In the initial 
 delivering the 
 ns in miniature 
 country, all in 
 xecuted, that it 
 know of no in- 
 I cannot doubt 
 imiualor of that 
 
 age, and generally employed, says Fuller, to make the initial letters of 
 patents of peers and commissions of ambassadors." 
 
 Norgatc was appointed Windsor Herald in 1633, and soon after, 
 illuminator of royal patents. From the date of his appointment aa 
 illuminator of royal patents, it is clear that the patent nmst have been 
 one granted after 1 633. The charters of Nova Scotia granted to Sir Wil- 
 liam Alexander were, the one eight years, and the other twelve years, 
 prior to 1633. The one alluded to, then, could only be the original 
 charter of Novo damns of 1639, in which all the previous grants were 
 recited and re-confirmed. 
 
 The succession of the estates in 1640, according to the terms of the 
 charter of 1639, proves incontestably the existence of the charter. 
 The first Earl died in February, 1640, and was succeeded by his infant 
 grandson, only son of his deceased eldest son, William, Viscount Can- 
 ada. This William, second Earl, survived his grandfather scarcely six 
 months, when he died, under eight years of age, leaving three sisters, 
 his heirs portioners, by the Scotch common law, t. e., thesn heirs 
 would have been entitled to divide his estates had they not been limit- 
 ed by an entail which cut them off, and gave their inheritance to their 
 uncle Henry, who, in fact, succeeded as third Earl. Again, some 
 creditors of the first Earl presented a petition to Parliament for leave to 
 commence certain legal proceedings against the third Earl. In this pe- 
 tition they thus describe him, << Harrie, Earl of Stirling, son and heir 
 male of tailzie and provision (or of entail) to umquile William, 
 Earl of Stirling, his father and brother, and heir male of tailzie and 
 provision to the said William , Lord Alexander, &c. " The application 
 of the creditors in charging Earl Harrie as Ae«r male of tailzie and pro- 
 vision, in the very terms of the charter of Novo damns, hot only to his 
 father, the first Earl, but to his brother, the deceased William, Vis- 
 count Canada, puts on the journals of Parliament the evidence of the 
 notoriety of the charter; for there was not any record of any entail of 
 the whole of the Stirling estates to warrant such a description, if the 
 charter of Novo damns did not exist. 
 
 All matters relative to succession of honors are carefully preserved as 
 traditional knowledge by the nobility of Scotland. The former exist- 
 ence of this charter, and the nature of its limitations, were perfectly 
 known to the Peers of Scotland; so that, when Lord Stirling took his 
 seat as Peer in 1825, no objection to his right to the Earldom of Stir- 
 ling was raised by his associate Peers. On the contrary, he was asked 
 
 *!-';.' ft I 
 
 
TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 U 
 
 on every side why he hnd not resumed his rnnk nt an cnrhcr dntc, hit^ 
 right ns the grnndson of the Rev. John Alexander, sixth FinrI, being 
 well known to them. He took his scat umjuestioncd, just as the pres- 
 ent Duke of Wellington has taken the seat of his late father. By voting 
 as a Peer for a period of twelve years, he became de facto flarl of Stir- 
 ling; for if a Scotch Peer takes his seat by virtue of a royal proclama- 
 tion unopposed, and votes at elections, though it were in error, his title 
 is as much acquired thereby, as were, under writs of summons in the 
 time of Charles the Ist, the title of Baron Strange, by which James, 
 eldest son of William, Earl of Derby, and the title of Lord Clifford, by 
 which Henry, eldest son of Francis, Earl of Cumberland, were re- 
 spectively summoned to Parliament. These baronies were at the 
 time presumed to be vested in the fathers of the young men so sum- 
 moned; but although it was afterwards ascertained that the said ba- 
 ronies were not so legally vested, yet as the persons summoned had 
 taken their seats, the House of Lords was obliged to admit that the 
 writs operated as new creations. (See Cruise on Dignities, p. 43.) 
 
 Lord Stirling was not bound to go to the House of Lords for recog- 
 nition of his title. This title is as firmly founded as that of the Earl 
 of Newburgh, the Earl of Cassilis, the Earl of Dundonald, the Earl 
 of Kintore, the Earl of Breadalbane^ the Earl of Stair, and many 
 others who assumed their titles on the deaths of distant cousins; none 
 of whom have gone to the House of Lords for confirmation of title. 
 (Vide Debrett's Peerage and hoAge, passim.) 
 
 Eminent counsel among others, James Wilson, a celebrated Scotch 
 advocate, now chief justice of the Mauritius, have dissuaded Lord 
 Stirling from going to the House of Lords. Judge Wilson in a written 
 opinion now before us says, <' In my humble opinion, were he, (Lord 
 Stirling,) to go to the House of Lords by petition for allowance of dig- 
 nity, he would be confessing a doubt of his own character, surrendering 
 the rights of the Scotch nobility, and recognising a jurisdiction in this 
 particular not made imperative by the treaty of union. Still, a party 
 claiming the dignity of a Scotch Peerage may, if he choose, try the 
 experiment, whether the House of Lords will entertain his claim, or 
 decide upon it; and there are instances in which the party has so ap- 
 plied, and the House so acted. But as far as Scotch authorities ena- 
 ble me on principle so to judge, I consider such applications, except in 
 cases utterly distinct and different from the present, to have been merely 
 
 J-ll: 
 
TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 9 
 
 snrlicr dfttc, his 
 th Knrl, being 
 list ns the prcs- 
 >er. By voting 
 :to FiUrl of Stir- 
 oyal proclama- 
 n error, his title 
 uinmons in the 
 Y which James, 
 ,ord Clifford, by 
 jrland, were re- 
 33 were at the 
 \g men so sum- 
 lat the said ba- 
 summoned had 
 5 admit that the 
 lities, p. 43.) 
 Lords for recog- 
 that of the Earl 
 [lonald, the Earl 
 Stair, and many 
 It cousins j none 
 irmation of title. 
 
 elebrated Scotch 
 dissuaded Lord 
 Ison in a written 
 , were he, (Lord 
 lUowance of dig- 
 ter, surrendering 
 irisdiction in this 
 Still, a party 
 e choose, try the 
 lin his claim, or 
 party has so ap- 
 authorities cna- 
 ations, except in 
 lavc been merely 
 
 optional in the party, and probably resorted to from motives of con- 
 venience. 
 
 If the present Earl of Stirling has formally, legally, and on suffi- 
 cient evidence, proved his character, as ex facie appears from the ser- 
 vice and retour, &c., he, until successfully challenged by a competitor 
 nearer in blood, is and must remain the Earl of Stirling, whether he 
 seeks for and obtains from the House of Lords the allowance of digni- 
 ties or not." The opinion of— 
 
 JAMES WILSON. 
 
 That the charter of Novo damns is not registered in Scotland is no 
 objection to Lord Stirling's right to his title, even if he claimed under 
 that charter alone. By referring to the return of the Lords of Ses- 
 sion to the order of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament 
 assembled, of date June 12, 1739, it appears that, at the period in 
 question, searches were vainly made for the patents of creation to nu- 
 merous Scotch Peerages; and among others those of Ochiltree, Borth- 
 wick, Spynie, Cardross, Jedburgh, Maderlzy, Baigany, had entir'ely 
 disappeared. It also appears that the patent of Lord Forester, dated 
 in 1651, was not entered in the register till 1683; and that of the Earl 
 of Breadalbane, sealed in 1682, had never been registered at all. 
 The patent of Lord Ruthven is stated to have been burnt when the 
 family residence was destroyed by fire; and although there was no re- 
 cord of it, no vestige of any authentic proof of its limitations, yet the 
 ancestor of the present Lord succeeded on the demise of the then ex- 
 isting Baron, without heirs male, unchallenged to the honor. The 
 enjoyment of these and other titles was, as in the case of Lord Stirling, 
 secured by services of heirship^ and by voting without challenge at 
 elections of Peers. 
 
 We repeat that the right to the estates in Canada^ Nova Scotia, 
 and the fisheries, resting, as it does, on existing and undisputed 
 charters, is whoUy independent of the title; we have dwelt thus long 
 upon this point only to show that Lord Stirling has assumed no posi- 
 tion, either with respect to rights to lands or titles, on which he is not 
 perfectly impregnable. 
 
 II. It is asserted that the son and heir of the first Lord Stirling 
 granted all the possessions of the family in America to De la Tour. 
 This statement is only thus far true: 
 
 In 1630 a grant was made by Sir Wm. Alexander to Sir Claude 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 Jy 
 
10 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 •St. Gslienne, Knight Lord of La Tour, and his brother Charles de St. 
 Eslienne. This grant is recorded in the records of Suffolk county, 
 Mass., lib. No. 'S, fo. 265. The grant covered only a portion of the 
 southwestern coast of Nova Scotia. This grant was on condition that 
 this Knight Oe la Tour and his brother should be good and faithful 
 Vassab of the sovereign Lord the King of Scotland. The condition 
 Was not complied with, and the lands reverted to the grantor. There 
 ii no evidence of any other deed. The grant to De la Tour was in 
 1630. In 1632, King Charles, by his royal missive, sending a signa- 
 ture for ten thousand pounds as a compensation for the surrender of 
 I'ort Royal, says, <<it is in nowise for quitting the ti'le, right, or pos- 
 session of New Scotland, or of any part thereof, but only for the satis- 
 faction of the losses, &c.; and we are so far from abandoning of that 
 business, as we do hereby require you and everie one of you to afford 
 your best encouragement for farthering of the same," &>c. 
 
 Moreover, M. D*AnvilIe, the accurate French geographer, in his 
 groAt chart of North America, published in 1735, and the memoir rela- 
 tive thereto, says: "Nova Scotia, usurped by the French in 1603. 
 They were forced out by Orgal in 1613, Granted in 1621 to Sir Wni. 
 Alexander, and the boundaries were St. Lawrence River on the north, 
 and on the west St. Croix. By a second grant in 1635 it was en- 
 larged to the Kenebec River, to co-extend Nova Scotia with Acadia." 
 Sir William Alexander could not have wanted a grant in 1635 to en- 
 large a country which he hud disposed of in 1630. 
 
 III. It is asserted that the rights of the Stirlings to Nova Scotia and 
 Canada were lost by the conquest of these countries by France; that 
 they were restored to Great Britain by the treaty of Utrecht of 1713 
 on a new basis, as if they then became British for the first time. 
 
 By the very terms of the charters no efTective cession of those coun- 
 tries could have been made without Sir Wm . Alexander's assent. The 
 King had renounced all lands, privileges, jurisdiction, <kc., "together 
 with," following the terms of the charters, "all right, title, &c., which 
 We or our predecessors, or successors, have had, or any way can have, 
 claim or pretend to." This point was very gravely considered by 
 lawyers the most distinguished for their knowledge of national law. 
 We have before us ihe joint opinion of the distinguished Privy Coun- 
 cillor, the Right Honorable Stephen Lushington, 1). C. L., Judge of 
 
TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 n 
 
 !harles de St. 
 iffolk county, 
 )ortion of the 
 :ondition that 
 d and faithful 
 rhe condition 
 intor. There 
 I Tour was in 
 tiding a signa- 
 e surrender of 
 , right, or pos- 
 j for the satis- 
 []oning of that 
 f you to afford 
 .c. 
 
 ;rapher, in his 
 B memoir rela- 
 unch in 1603. 
 )21toSirWm. 
 r on the north,. 
 (35 it was en- 
 with Acadia." 
 in 1635 to en- 
 
 ova Scotia and 
 f France; that 
 trecht of 1713 
 rst time, 
 of those coun- 
 assent. The 
 ic, "together 
 lie, &c., which 
 Iway can have. 
 ] considered by 
 national law. 
 |lI Privy Coun- 
 L., Judge of 
 
 the Oonaislory Court, and Judge of the High Court of Admij-alty, d&c, 
 and Hon. James Wilson, now Chief Judge at the Mauritius. 
 
 After giving their opinion that the rights of Lord Stirling had not 
 been lost by non user, and that the estates had not been alie!?-«ted by 
 his ancestors, the learned counsel cautiously proceed to ^'consider the 
 effect of the territory of Nova Scotia and Canada having by conquest 
 and cession passed into the power of another State." 
 
 <<We are of opinf.n," say they, *<that the additional information 
 with which we have been furnished has greatly diminished some of 
 the difficulties which rendered the result uncertain. The difficulties 
 diminished are those arising from the treaties; and the case is greatly 
 assisted in another respect by the reservation in King William's char* 
 isr. In these respects the case certainly staflds more favorably. It is 
 held that, if a colony be conquered by the enemy during war, and 
 given up at the peace by treaty, all rights existing previous to the con- 
 quest revert to the proprietors, with some exceptions not material to this 
 case. If a colony be ceded by treaty, the right of the Crown ceding 
 such colony is wholly extinguished. The rights of individuals, as we 
 formerly stated, depend on the State to which the cession is made; and 
 if hereafter the same colony should be given back by treaty to the 
 State whicli formerly held it, that State will take it back precisely as it 
 stood at the time when so last ceded, free from all rights, titles^ an(| 
 encumbrances which may have existed at the time of the first cession, 
 and annihilated before the retrocession. 
 
 "Presuming that the claim of the grantees is not extinguished by the 
 different cessions, we think that nothing appears to have been done 
 by the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain which can have tho 
 effect of destroying those rights." 
 
 ly. It is urged that the proceedings by which Lord Stirling was 
 judicially served heir to Sir Wm. Alexander are entitled to no weight. 
 
 It is stated in the longest and most serious attack made on Lord 
 Stirling, and one containing such minute references to circumstaices 
 not known out of Scotland, although distorted and falsely stated, t'iat 
 it bears intrinsic evidence of its foreign origin, as follows: "In Scot- 
 land, by old practice, on going through certain formalities, a man who 
 claims tide or land, or both, may be served heir before the macers, 
 (officers in attendance on the Supreme Court,) on putting in his claim, 
 producing documents which were not examined, except when they 
 
12 
 
 TIlIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 ■* I 
 
 9 
 
 ..m 
 
 $ 
 
 (J! 
 
 M 
 4 
 
 
 ill 
 
 attempted to obtain property and were challenged; and this service 
 (usually made with a free circulation of the whiskey bottle) obtained a 
 public and judicial certificate of his pedigree, which, if subsequently 
 questioned, has to be disproved by evidence. Mr. Humphrys, before 
 this drunken tribunal, (of macers,) whose occupation in sucii matters 
 has since been abolished, thus asserted his descent," &,c. Further on 
 it is said, Mr. Humphrys had really been so served ''before the 
 
 macers.' 
 
 ii 
 
 In BelFs Dictionary of the Law of Scotland, under the word 
 "macers," is the following passage: "Brieves for serving heirs where 
 the Judge Ordinary is incompetent, or where expediency renders it 
 necessary, were formerly directed to the macers of the Court of Ses- 
 sion as the sherifTs in that part, under a special commission from the 
 Chancery office. This practice, however, was abolished in 1821 ; and 
 by statute 1 and 2, George IV, c. 28, §11, those services which were 
 in use to be conducted before the macers are directed to proceed before 
 the sheriff depute of Edinburgh, or his substitute, under a special 
 commission from Chancery, similar to that in virtue of which the 
 macers formerly acted." • 
 
 Lord Stirling's services were commenced and completed, one in 
 1826, one in 1830, and two in 1831; each before a jury of fifteen, all 
 under the amended system established in 1821, and none of them 
 before the macers. Of the last jury, before whom the most important 
 service was made, two were eminent advocates, ten others lawyers 
 well known and respected, and the three others a distinguished physi- 
 cian, an heir to a baronetcy, and a respectable accountant. Even 
 Lord Meadowbank, who five years afterwards figured so disreputably 
 in the forgery trial, on an application for a trial by jury in the civil 
 case of reduction of the services, in giving the decision that there 
 should be no jury trial, bore testimony to the high character of this 
 jury. He says: "After fifteen gentlemen, forming the respectable jury 
 empannelled for Lord Stirling's services, had given their verdict, as 
 they appeared on this record, it would be inconsistent to submit those 
 verdicts to the revision of twelve men, who might be selected from th« 
 shopkeepers of the city.' 
 
 >> 
 
 y. It is said that there are other descendants of Sir William Alex- 
 ander who are better entitled to the estates and honors. 
 Those mentioned are the heirs of Gen. Alexander, of revolutionary 
 
 memor; 
 
 tion at 
 
 Stirling 
 
 pretensi 
 
 ander ( 
 
 Stirling 
 
 to the p 
 
 show th 
 
 In 18 
 
 Mr. Wa 
 
 rights of 
 
 papers t< 
 
 opinion. 
 
 first Ear 
 
 the presc 
 
 after he 1 
 
 promisin 
 
 had relie 
 
 TheJV 
 
 dant of t 
 
 the prese 
 
 scendant 
 
 she has 
 
 a suit to ] 
 
 in vain, c 
 
 mother, t 
 
 heir. Tl 
 
 issue is a 
 
 a legal rij 
 
 Finally 
 
 Lord Stirl 
 
 although 
 
 tained fn 
 
 arms of A 
 
 practice ir 
 
TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 13 
 
 this service 
 3) obtained a 
 subsequently 
 jhrys, before 
 such matters 
 
 Further on 
 « before the 
 
 ler the word 
 r heirs where 
 ey renders it 
 Court of Ses- 
 sion from the 
 in 1821 ; and 
 3 which were 
 )roceed before 
 der a special 
 of which the 
 
 >leted, one in 
 of fifteen, all 
 tone of them 
 lost important 
 jthers lawyers 
 ruished physi- 
 ntant. Even 
 disreputably 
 ry in the civil 
 Dn that there 
 aracter of this 
 spectable jury 
 eir verdict, as 
 submit those 
 eted from th« 
 
 memory, and< the la(e Marchioness of Downshire. We meet this objec- 
 tion at once by referring to the four services by which the present Lord 
 Stirling was served heir without a competitor. With regard to the 
 pretensions of the heirs of Gen. Alexander we remark, that Gen. Alex- 
 ander did not claim to have descended lineally from the first Lord 
 Stirling, but from a collateral branch of the family, and that his claim 
 to the peerage was rejected by the House of Lords because he did not 
 show that the lineal descendants were extinct. 
 
 In 1840, after the forgery trial, which we shall hereafter describe, 
 Mr. Watts, a grandson of Gen. Alexander, undertook to establish the 
 rights of his family to the Stirling titles and estates. He presented his 
 papers to the most eminent counsel in London, and paid ^200 for an 
 opinion. They advised him that he did not show a descent from the 
 first Earl of Stirling, and that bis papers went to confirm the rights of 
 the present Earl. We have before us ihe letters of Mr. Watts, written 
 after he had abandoned his claim, addressing Lord Stirling by his title, 
 promising to place in his hands the documentary proof upon which he 
 had relied. 
 
 The Marchioness of Downshire was unquestionably a lineal descen- 
 dant of the first Earl; and one of the strongest proofs of the rights of 
 the present Lord Stirling is the fact that, although an undoubted de- 
 scendant of the first Earl; and the wife of a rich and powerful peer, 
 she has never appeared to compete in his services or has brought 
 a suit to reduce them. Lord Stirling has repeatedly and publicly, but 
 in vain, challenged the late Marquis of Downshire, representing his 
 mother, to compete with, or try by a legal issue, who was the nearest 
 heir. The refusal of other descendants of the first Earl to meet this 
 issue is a distinct acknowledgment that the present Earl of Stirling has 
 a legal right to the honors of the family. 
 
 Finally, let us point out as evidence of the sjurit of these attacks on 
 Lord Stirling that his opponents persist in calling him Mr. Humphrys, 
 although they knew well that, previous to assuming his title, he ob- 
 tained from King George lY his royal license to take the name and 
 arms of Alexander. This taking of the mother's name is a common 
 practice in England when the mother happens to be an heiress. 
 
 Villiam Alex- 
 revolutionary 
 
■li! 
 
 14 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 -i 
 
 
 
 1 '■! 
 
 
 We have stood long enough on the defensive. The ncciisere shall 
 now become the accused. We will give a narrative of political op- 
 pression such as the records of the Star Chamber cannot parallel. 
 This true history is all the reply that need be given to Blackwood. 
 We ask our readers to look on that picture and on this, and we will 
 abide by their verdict. 
 
 Let the position of Lord Stirling be remembered. He claimed 
 under royal charters the right of ownership and government over Eng- 
 land's most cherished colonies. He aimed to seize the brightest jewels 
 of the British Crown. All the pretences first set up against these 
 claims, some of which we have already considered, were found so 
 frivolous that they could not be sustained. Although Lord Stirling's 
 position had been fully recognised before the extent of bis claims was 
 known, political necessity demanded his ruin. The task was a formi- 
 dable one for the Crown. His position seemed impregnable. His 
 heirship and title had been acknowledged by the English Government, 
 through the Lord Chancellor, Lyndhurst, two Prime Ministers, Earl 
 Grey and Lord Melbourne, Lord Stanley, Secretary of the Colonies, 
 the Lords of the Treasury, and the Lords of the Committee of (he 
 Privy Council, which last was the act of the King in Council. It 
 had been established according to Scottish usage and precedent. Sixty 
 intelligent men had pronounced upon his condition. The sympathies 
 of the people were with him. Their Jiereditary knowledge of the 
 descent of ancient families, no where so well preserved as in Scotland, 
 had satisfied them as to his rights; and it may be remarked that the 
 popular sympathy was with him to the very last. The bui^hers of 
 Stirling had welcomed him to the seat of his family, and had presented 
 hiiti the freedom of the city. He had been invited to appear at the 
 gathering of the clans Alexander and McAllister, and assume his posi- 
 tion as chieftain. The Baronets of Nova Scotia were about to call 
 him to his place as the head of their order. The bioadest domain pos- 
 sessed by a subject was his right; the proudest place in the peerage of 
 Scotland, and precedence as hereditary viceroy of the nobility of Eng- 
 land, was his inheritance. 
 
 <' A bold stroke " to save these colonies was that of the ofiScers of 
 State when they determined, under ^the shelter of the ermine, to out- 
 rage law and justice, and by legal forms to oust Lord Stirling from his 
 just rights. 
 
 The 
 his serv 
 refuses 
 could cl 
 and a d 
 dered al 
 
 This 
 
 of the ii 
 
 terized a 
 
 advised, 
 
 summon 
 
 reduce 
 
 EX'chan 
 
 Crown h 
 
 rested fir 
 
 protectinj 
 
 done, th( 
 
 commem 
 
 the grour 
 
 this cours 
 
 of the Ci 
 
 mented, i 
 
 tleties of i 
 
 Months 
 on increac 
 vernment 
 Lord Stiri 
 in purpose 
 of the Cn 
 leaves of 
 proofs in I 
 before the 
 were stagj 
 evidence J : 
 
 The pri 
 filed in coi 
 from the C( 
 ments, alle 
 filing vvhic 
 
TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 15 
 
 iccnserB shall 
 political op- 
 
 not parallel. 
 Blackwood, 
 and we will 
 
 He claimed 
 ent over JEng- 
 ightest jewels 
 against these 
 rere found so 
 jord Stirling's 
 lis claims was 
 c was a formi- 
 sgnable. His 
 I Government, 
 dinisters, Earl 
 the Colonies, 
 nmittee of the 
 I Council. It 
 cedent. Sixty 
 'he sympathies 
 wledge of the 
 IS in Scotland, 
 arked that the 
 le bui^hers of 
 had presented 
 appear at the 
 )ume his posi- 
 about to call 
 It domain pos- 
 Itbe peerage of 
 (bility of Eng- 
 
 Ithe officers of 
 [rmine, to out- 
 lirling from his 
 
 The first act was to bring a suit in the name of the Crown to reduce 
 his services, in defiance of the maxim of Scotch law, that ''the Crown 
 refuses no vassal," and the well settled principles of law that ho one 
 could challenge the service who did not claim to be nearer in blood, 
 and a direct violation of the charters whereby the Crown had surren- 
 dered all right to the territory. 
 
 This suit was broU|^ht in May, 1833. From that remarkable fear 
 of the influence of the Crown, which seems to have palpably charac- 
 terized all the acts of his counsel in Scotland, Lord Stirling was not 
 advised, as he should have been, to take no other notice of the 
 summons of reduction than pleading that the Crown had no right to 
 reduce his services. The opinion expressed by the Chancellor and 
 Ex-chancellors afterwards in the House of Lords, in 1845, that the 
 Crown had no right to reduce his services, shows that he should have 
 rested firmly on the res Judicatas of the completed services, and the 
 protecting clauses of the charters of the family. If this had been 
 done, the Government would have been baffled, and the proceedings 
 commenced by its servile adherents in Scotland would have fallen to 
 the ground. Most unfortunately, the courage or sagacity to pursue 
 this course was wanting, and the cause went on according to the will 
 of the Crown. Meanwhile Lord Stirling was doomed to be *' tor- 
 mented, and handed over to chicaners, who deal in all the fatal sub- 
 tleties of a jurisdiction worn out by time and fallen into decay." 
 
 Months and years passed away. The expenses of the cause went 
 on increasing. Delays succeeded delays; for the purpose of the Go- 
 vernment was accomplished by keeping the cause in court. But 
 Lord Stirling, strong in the knowledge of right, tenax propositi, firm 
 in purpose as only a just man could be, and fearless of the tyranny 
 of the Crown, well knowing, too, the marvellous traces which truth 
 leaves of herself, continued his researches for new documents and 
 proofs in Ireland, America, and France. These proofs were exhibited 
 before the court, and were so overwhelming^ that the officers of Stale 
 were staggered. As Blackwood acknowledges, "the documentary 
 evidence, if genuine, established hi^ claims irrefragably.^' 
 
 The principal of these documents, obtained by him in France, was 
 filed in court by Lord Stirling only for the purpose of getting an order 
 from the court for a commission to France to verify the French docu- 
 ments, alleged to be noviter vcnicntes, according to the Scotch law; a 
 (liiiig which obviously could only be done in the country where they 
 
 n\ 
 
 m 
 
16 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 m:'' 
 
 r t 
 
 :.fi!!' 
 
 M 
 
 i 
 
 were known, and ia whose language, and by whose countrymen, they 
 were written. 
 
 Again and again did Lord Stirling press for a commission. This 
 reasonable request was most unjustly refused; for the officers of State 
 believed the documents genuine, and some of them congratulated Lord 
 Stirling's law agents for having such irrafragable proofs of their client's 
 rights. .;,■ ■ .''''' -■^-y-"' 
 
 If the officers of State had seriously doubted the genuineness of the 
 French documents, they would have submitted them to an exami- 
 nation in France, where the imposture, if it existed, would instantly 
 have been exposed. The judges in the Crown's interest evidently 
 feared to assume the responsibility of deciding against Lord Stirling 
 in the face of these overwhelming proofs. They dared not risk the 
 the result of a commission to France, where the authenticity of the 
 documents would have been established. The officers of the Crown 
 ventured, therefore, upon the hazardous step of endeavoring to make 
 them appear forgeries. In order to build up and fortify this shameful 
 accusation, they pursued a series of singular manoeuvres which we 
 will hereafter expose, and finally concluded, after much hesitation, to 
 pursue the desperate and illegal course of commencing a criminal suit 
 against Lord Stirling for the forgery of documents which they feared 
 to encounter in the civil court. 
 
 When this course was resolved upon, the officers of State had none 
 of the obstacles in their way which would have intervened in Eng- 
 land, for the Lord Advocate of Scotland is not only the public prose- 
 cutor, but has the power which in England and this country belongs 
 to the grand jury. Thus any one can be put on his trial in Scotland 
 at the will or caprice of the Lord Advocate, and thus the innocent ac- 
 cused is deprived of the first defence against the tyranny of the Crown. 
 
 Lord Stirling was warned of the intention of the officers of State, 
 but his English and Scotch legal advisers assured him that it was im- 
 possible that the judges of the court of session, having never pro- 
 nounced a judgment for or against his rights, would permit the inter- 
 vention of a criminal action before they had themselves come to a de- 
 cision. "The English laws," wrote his London adviser, "would 
 afford your Lordship efficacious protection under such circumstances." 
 " Our laws," said the Scotch agent, " have provided against the pos- 
 sibility of an attempt to deprive any person engaged in litigation of his 
 liberty at the instance of his adversary. Jt is what they do not tolerate 
 
 under a 
 
 These 
 
 was res( 
 
 conslitiii 
 
 Mark 
 
 outset. 
 
 ments in 
 
 commiss 
 
 practice 
 
 suit, inv( 
 
 civil cou 
 
 otherwise 
 
 kept for I 
 
 for Drepai 
 
 investigat 
 
 found, bi 
 
 of seven . 
 
 petent to i 
 
 age and p 
 
 not be bro 
 
 This w 
 quickly fo 
 
 On the 
 
 rested in h 
 
 bailiffs to t 
 
 mean time 
 
 counsel, wl 
 
 mission the 
 
 other resou 
 
 sanctioned i 
 
 proceedings 
 
 What fol 
 
 by counsel > 
 
 the sheriff o 
 
 bimself con 
 
 and althoug 
 
 dignity. A 
 
 lefreshment 
 
 ■i 
 
TRIAL OP LORD STrRUNO. 
 
 17 
 
 try men, they 
 
 ission. This 
 kers of State 
 atulated Lord 
 f their client's 
 
 ineness of the 
 to an exami- 
 }uld instantly 
 jrest evidently 
 Lord Stirling 
 id not risk the 
 lenticity of the 
 of the Crown 
 /oring to make 
 f this shameful 
 vres which we 
 h hesitation, to 
 a criminal suit 
 ch they feared 
 
 under any circumgtnnces, pending a suit tmdecidedin the civil court." 
 These words of the Scotch and English counsel were nil vain. It 
 was resolved that the criniinnl issue should proceed, in outrage of all 
 constitutional rights. 
 
 Mark how oppression is stamped on these proceedings at the very 
 outset. A commission to examine (he authenticity of French docU' 
 ments in France, where alone they could be properly examined; a 
 commission demanded in pursuance of the laws of Scotland, and the 
 practice of the court of session, is refused. The Crown, a party in a 
 suit, involving some of its most valuable rights, takes the cause from a 
 civil court, and to throw disgrace upon documents which it cannot 
 otherwise impeach, incriminates them in a criminal court. The cause is 
 kept for months in the civil court without a decision, tliat the means 
 for nreparing the criminal prosecution may be fully perfected. The 
 investigation is brought from Paris, where the only proofs could be 
 found, but where the Crown influence could not prevail, to a distance 
 of seven hundred miles froui the place where the only witnesses com- 
 petent to testify in such case resided, and whither the witnesses, whose 
 age and position would throw the most light on this investigation, could 
 not be brought. 
 
 This was but the first step in this arbitrary business, which was 
 quickly followed by other outrages. 
 
 On the morning of the 14th February, 1839, Lord Stirling was ar- 
 rested in his own house at Edinburgh. He was taken by the sheriff's 
 bailiffs to the county hall, where the sheriff holds his court. In the 
 mean time, a son of Lord Stirling had communicated with two of his 
 counsel, who indignantly demanded permission to see him. This per- 
 mission the Crown officers refused; and Lord Stirling's counsel had no 
 other resource than to protest in writing against a tyranny which was 
 sanctioned neither by the laws of the country nor the practice in criminal 
 proceedings. ,; . 
 
 What follows will hardly be believed. Lord Stirling, unsupported 
 by counsel or his friends, was submitted to a rigorous examination by 
 the sheriff on questions prepared by the Crown counsel. He believed 
 himself compelled to answer the insidious questions of his adversaries, 
 and although he should have been silent, answered with boldness and 
 dignity. At eight o'clock in the evening he was allowed to take some 
 refreshment, and after two hours suspension the examination proceed- 
 •3 
 

 18 TRIAL OP LORD STtRLINO. 
 
 c(), and was continued till midnight, when lie wn» committed (o prison. 
 Pour days afterwards he was brought again to court at ten o'clock in 
 the morning, and submitted to repeated examinations, which were con- 
 tinued till two o'clock on the following morning. 
 
 In the mean time the sheriff's oflicers demanded from Lord Stirling 
 the keys of his cabinets, and a written authority for the officers to 
 have free access to the deed chests, boxes, writing desk, and other re- 
 positories in his house; and this authority, with the keys, he was 
 compelled to give, as he was assured that otherwise they would break 
 open the doors and force the locks. The officers of the law ransacked 
 the house of their victim from attic to cellar, and seized all papers 
 which they thought important; another act directly in contravention 
 of the constitution and laws, which secure the house of a subject 
 from violation, except in cases of treason. 
 
 These acts, be it remembered, occurred in the year 1839, on British 
 soil. AH that was wanting of the inquisition were the instruments of 
 physical torture; and yet no indignant press, and no outraged people, 
 lifted up their voices against this oppression. These facts have been 
 published in England, and have never been denied. The words 
 wrung from the victim by the inquisitors, and the papers seized in 
 his house, were used against him, though happily with no effect on 
 the trial. Even the casuistry of Blackwood offers no excuse for this 
 outrage; although acknowledging the fact, it mildly speaks of the pro- 
 ceeding as "wnt^swa/." 
 
 The motives of the inquisitors for pursuing this desperate course 
 is obvious. The conspirators had not completed their plans for 
 the accusation; they looked.for some acknowledgment, some con- 
 tradiction or confusion, which might serve their purpose. But most 
 signally did they fail. The answers were all consistent. Nothing 
 having the trace of a suspicion was found among the papers. Who 
 cannot sefe already in the boldness with which the accused submitted 
 to this fearful ordeal, in the absence of any contradiction or inconsist- 
 ency in his answers to questions insidiously prepared to entrap him, 
 and in the want of the slightest evidence of fraud among papers and 
 correspondence accumulated through twenty years, during which he 
 had been collecting and preparing proofs of his descent, convincing 
 proof of his innocence? 
 
 But we must hasten to the trial, the approaches to which are over- 
 shadowed by suspicions, if not proofs, of such foul wrong. 
 
 Sixd 
 
 alleged 
 
 suit, w( 
 
 him kn( 
 
 ments, \ 
 
 and the 
 
 directed 
 
 Guillaui 
 
 of this 
 
 1712, ai 
 
 Bishop G 
 
 as these 
 
 accused 
 
 ence, ten 
 
 est impor 
 
 But tal 
 
 tion and I 
 
 trinsic evi 
 
 of the difl 
 
 there was 
 
 names in 
 
 the genea 
 
 from the 1 
 
 knowledg 
 
 chancery 
 
 the forger 
 
 achieved t 
 
 was natun 
 
 Whatrr 
 
 wished to 
 
 writing an 
 
 was alteate 
 
 the archive 
 
 most renov 
 
 and writing 
 
 other writit 
 
 of the Pres 
 
 colled ion o 
 
 VVJiat gf( 
 
TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 19 
 
 led to prison, 
 en o'clock in 
 ich were con- 
 Lord Stirling 
 Lhe officers to 
 and other re- 
 keys, he was 
 
 would break 
 law ransacked 
 sed all papers 
 
 contravention 
 3 of a subject 
 
 339, on British 
 
 instruments of 
 
 jtraged people. 
 
 Facts have been 
 
 1. The words 
 
 ipers seized in 
 
 th no effect on 
 
 excuse for this 
 
 aks of the pro- 
 
 esperate course 
 
 [their plans for 
 
 nt, some con- 
 
 »se. But most 
 
 ilent. Nothing 
 
 papers. Who 
 
 used submitted 
 ion or inconsist- 
 
 to entrap him, 
 Long papers and 
 luring which he 
 
 nt, convincing 
 
 Iwhich are over 
 
 Six documents — translations of which will bo found in the appendix — 
 alleged to have been produced by Lord Stirling as evidence in his civil 
 suit, wcro charged as forgeries, and declared to have been uttered by 
 him knowing them to be forged. The most important of these docu- 
 ments, which if genuine, contained conclusive proof as to his right, 
 and the one upon which the attacks of his adversaries were principally 
 directed, was a map published in 1703 by the celebrated geographer 
 Guillaume de L'Isle, of the Academy of Sciences. On the back 
 of this map are several original documents, dated in 1706, 1707, 
 1712, authenticated by attestations written and signed by Fiechier, 
 Bishop of Nisraes, and by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray. Now, 
 as these documents furnished important proof of the descent of the 
 accused from the first Earl of Stirling, and established the exist- 
 ence, tenor, and limitations of the missing charter, it was of the high- 
 est importance to brand them as supposititious. 
 
 But taken as a whole or in detail, having regard both to the execu- 
 tion and tenor of these documents, there was no blemish, error, or in- 
 trinsic evidence of falsification. Not only was there a perfect harmony 
 of the different parts, and a perfect imitation of various writings, but 
 there was displayed so vast a knowledge of facts, of places, of real 
 names in Scotland, Ireland, and America; such an acquaintance with 
 the genealogy of many great families; so vast an erudition extending 
 from the literary history of France to tiie style of the stonecutter; such 
 knowledge of geography, heraldry, and even the barbarous Latin of 
 chancery writings, that it was a miracle surpassing all that the art of 
 the forger had ever attained to, for one or many falsifiers to have 
 achieved the work. Viewed as authentic, the execution of the work 
 was natural; viewed as false, it was hardly less than miraculous. 
 
 W hat must have added more to the embarrassment of those who 
 wished to assail these documents was, that the authenticity of the 
 writing and signature of Fenelon, which formed one of the documents, 
 was attested at Paris, in 1837, by M. Daunou, the keeper general of 
 the archives of the kingdom, a member of the Institute, and one of the 
 most renowned scholars of Europe. The authenticity of the signature 
 and writing of Fiechier, Bisliop of Nieines, and of Louis XV, and 
 otlier writings on the n)ap, was attested in IS37 by M. Villenave, one 
 of the Presidents of the Historical Institute, and possessing the largest 
 collection of autographs in France. 
 
 WJiat ground, then, had the olUccrs of State on which to rest ihcij" 
 
 i 
 
'^?!-i' 
 
 21 > 
 
 TKIAI, OK LOKIi H'l'IULINli. 
 
 ■.i'^' 
 
 attnck? It was this, and this nionc. The ninp of Cnnaila was pub- 
 lislicil ill 1703. On the incriminated copy we rend "par Gnillaumc 
 de L'lsle, premier geogrnphe du Roi," (by Guillnumo dc L'lslc, 
 first geographer of the King.) Uut the title was not conferred on the 
 author by patent until 1718. Tfic writings of Fenclon and Flechier, 
 which are on the map, bear the date of 1707, before GuiHaume dc 
 L'IsIe had obtained his patent, and could take by virtue of that patent 
 the title of first geographer of the King. Flechier had died in 1710, 
 and Fenclon in 1715; therefore, say the Scotch lawyers with much 
 apparent force, the writings purporting to be those of Flechier and 
 Fenclon must have been forged. We have endeavored tu state with 
 perfect fairness the grand charge against the genuineness of the docu- 
 ments. Without this apparent contradiction in the date of the patent 
 of j)c L'lslc, and the date of the deaths of Flechier and Fenclon, no 
 one would have dared to impeach the documents. 
 
 The only testimony impeaching the map in other respects was that 
 given by two French witnesses, M. Teulet, one of the secretaries of 
 the archives of the kingdom of France, and M. Jacobs, geographical 
 engraver, attached to the Institute of France. M. Jacobs, in reply to 
 a question from the Crown counsel, (we adopt the Crown report,) 
 says: ''In my conscientious belief, 1 feel convinced that all the writings 
 on the back of the map are false; and this I infer, not merely from an 
 examination of the writings, but from the presence of the title, First 
 Geographer of 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 170G and 1707, and on which no 
 writings could have been written by the Archbishop of Cambray." 
 
 He also observes that two of the letters, one signed Philip Mallet, 
 and another signed John Alexander, seemed to have been written in 
 ink composed of China ink of yellow and of red. He observes under 
 certain words a reddish tint which springs out, and which seems to 
 show that these documents might "have been written with the ink 
 composed of China ink, yeliow and red; such ink is generally com- 
 posed to imitate ancient writings, and in the use of which, it often 
 happens that the reddish tint springs up when the ink is dried." He 
 also observes that the map is spotted in different places with a reddish 
 color, and that the mixture made use of in writing the map was 
 splashed upon it. 
 
 M. Jacobs, the French engraver; also teslificb that the ink on the 
 
 
 above 1 
 is not ir 
 talc ink 
 the ink 
 this witi 
 
 "Q- 
 
 have sp( 
 date the 
 
 "Q- 
 
 writings 
 
 the doci 
 
 "A.- 
 
 but that 
 
 Only 
 
 ined. H 
 
 the ink i 
 
 ander," 
 
 "like CO 
 
 Mr. S 
 
 stated th 
 
 "They i 
 
 exactly t 
 
 We ha 
 
 the spuri( 
 
 It mus 
 
 pressed a 
 
 opinions, 
 
 Hon in th 
 
 letters on 
 
 We sh 
 
 destroy th 
 
 it, upon ) 
 
 witnesses 
 
 We will I 
 
 the unfaii 
 
 ♦Mallet 
 
Ilia WM pub- 
 ir Giiillnumo 
 c lie L'lslc, 
 ferreil on the 
 ml Flechier, 
 Juillaume ile 
 )f that patent 
 died in 1710, 
 s with much 
 Flechier and 
 I to state with 
 I of the docu- 
 of the patent 
 I Fenelon, no 
 
 pccts was that 
 secretaries of 
 , geographical 
 bs, in reply to 
 /rown report,) 
 ill the writings 
 lerely from an 
 the title, First 
 ;ould not exist 
 te names these 
 on which no 
 lambray." 
 hilip Mallet, 
 en written in 
 (bserves under 
 lich seems to 
 with the ink 
 enerally com- 
 lich, it often 
 dried." He 
 with a reddish 
 the map was 
 
 ink on the 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 21 
 
 above named document is not such ink as is generally used. <<It 
 is not ink which has turned old. I think it must be composed to imi- 
 tate ink which, when turning old, assumes a brownish tint, and that 
 the ink used here is for the purpose of imitation." All elicited from 
 this witness, as to the genuineness of the writings, is as follows: 
 
 <<Q. — In forming a judgment from ink, and the appearance you 
 have spoken to, should you say that these are genuine writings of the 
 date they bear, or false writings? 
 
 "yl. — I should think them false. 
 
 '<Q. — Judging from the ink alone and the appearance of these 
 writings, putting all other evidence aside, would you pronounccfthat 
 the documents are true or false?* 
 
 "il. — There would be a great presumption that they are all false; 
 but that is all." 
 
 Only two Scotch experts, Mr. Lizars and Mr. Smith, were exam- 
 ined. Mr. Lizars stated that there was '^a great resemblance between 
 the ink in the writing signed Ph. Mallet and the letter signed John Alex- 
 ander," the two referred to by the two French experts, that it was 
 »' like common water-paint." 
 
 Mr. Smith, who was employed to make fac-similes of the map, 
 stated that both the letters of Mallet* and Alexander were shaded. 
 "They resemble each other a good deal in color, but they are not 
 exactly the same. There is a reddish line through them both." 
 
 We have given here all the reasons and evidence urged to support 
 the spuriousness of the multifarious writings. * 
 
 It must be borne in mind that only two witnesses on the trial ex- 
 pressed an opinion against the genuineness of the writings; and these 
 opinions, it will be seen, rested wholly upon the apparent contradic- 
 tion in the dates, the color of the ink, and the red sJiading under the 
 letters on two only of the documents impeached. 
 
 We shall now fully explain the contradictions of the dates, and 
 destroy the grand objection, the "astounding fact," as Blackwood calls 
 it, upon which the accusation rested. We will establish by the very 
 witnesses called for the Crown the genuineness of the documerils. 
 We will show by testimony judicially taken, but suppressed through 
 the unfaithfulness or timidity of Lord Stirling's counsel, that all the 
 
 *MaIlvt's note is written on the map itself, and is not a letter, as stated in report. 
 
 ill 
 
 
22 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 m 
 
 suspicious marks upon the documents were collusivcly placed there to 
 give to them the appearance of forgeries. And, finally, wo shall prove 
 tliat tliis map of Canada, containing on its back the various writings 
 im|)eached, and declared to have been fabricated at Paris, in 1837, 
 existed with the same autographic documents more than thirty years 
 before that date, and twenty years before Lord Stirling asserted his 
 claims in Scotland. 
 
 We shall not only refer to the evidence produced at the trial, but to 
 documents and evidence, fully verified, obtained since the trial, and to 
 testimony taken before the trial, and suppressed through the influence 
 of the Crown. To understand the nature and value of the latter evi- 
 dence, which has never before been published , and which throws such 
 a fiood of light upon this mysterious trial, it will be necessary for the 
 reader to be informed as to the nature of a preliminary judicial exami- 
 nation, unknown in our law, and called a precognition. <<This," 
 says Bell, "is an examination by the judge ordinary, or justices of the 
 peace, where any crime has been committed, in order that the facts 
 connected with the oiTence may be ascertained, and full and perfect 
 information given to the public prosecutor, to enable him to prepare 
 the libel and carry on the prosecution." In this investigation the wit- 
 nesses are not usually put on oath, and they must be examined sepa- 
 rately. Nor is the moused or any person in his behalf admitted to be 
 present when the precognition is taken. The testiYnony written down 
 by the magistrate is also called a precognition. We have before us 
 copies of the precognitions, from which we shall quote, on stamped 
 paper, duly certified. 
 
 Proceeding to analyze all this evidence, we shall show: 
 
 1st. AU the documents written on the back of the map of Canada 
 tDere believed to be genuine by the artists in Edinburgh who expressed 
 any opinion upon them. 
 
 William Home Lizars, a celebrated engraver at Edinburgh, after 
 having examined the writings with great care, declares, <4 thought 
 them genuine." 
 
 "I have already said that I did not think them other than genuine. 
 They appeared to be in a natural hand." (Examination during 
 trial.) 
 
 Samuel Lcith, lilhographcr, Edinburgh, head purUier of the firm of 
 Leith cand Smith, who had been employed by thcoflicers of the Crown 
 to make a facsimile from the map and documents, declares, ''Gene- 
 
laced there to 
 ^c shall prove 
 ious writings 
 aris, in 1837, 
 n thirty years 
 ^ asserted his 
 
 e trial, but to 
 le trial, and to 
 
 the influence 
 the latter evi- 
 li throws such 
 essary for the 
 idicial exaini- 
 m. "This," 
 justices of the 
 
 that the facts 
 ill and perfect 
 tini to prepare 
 jation the wit- 
 i;aniined sepa- 
 idmilted to be 
 
 written down 
 lave before us 
 on stamped 
 
 p of Canada 
 oho expressed 
 
 nburgh, after 
 "1 thought 
 
 ban genuine, 
 ation during 
 
 )f the firm of 
 of the Orowu 
 arcs, "Gcnc« 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD BTfRLINn. i^ 
 
 rally the writings on the map arc free and unconstrained; and there is 
 nothing in the writings, as they appear to have been originally execut- 
 ed, to induce an opinion that they are forgeries." And he begins by 
 pointing out as genuine the principal document, which gives an analysis 
 of the charter of Novo damus of 1639, an analysis made in 1706, and 
 signed Ph. Mallet. (Precognition signed Samuel Leith.) 
 
 We have before us a certificate signed by H. Maxwell Inglis that 
 the copies of precognitions, from which we quote, were reaa over to 
 the witnesses, and signed by them since the trial; so that they retain 
 their opinions despite the verdict of the jury, • * . 
 
 2d. The writings on ifie map are in different Imnds. 
 
 This is an important fact to be established, because Lord Stirling 
 was accused of being the only falsifier, or at least to have had no ac- 
 complice but a woman — Mademoiselle Le Normand — from whose hands 
 he received it. 
 
 Archibald Bell, lithographer and engraver, Edinburgh, though in 
 the interest of the Crown, declared <Uhat these autographs on the map 
 of Canada appeared to be written by separate hands; that by great 
 study any one person might by possibility have written the whole; but 
 this is not likely." Precognition not signed after trial. 
 
 John Johnston, engraver and printer, equally interested in sparing 
 the Crown lawyers, declares "that he does not think that any one indi- 
 vidual could have written all the autographs on- the map, and that 
 Lord Stirling could not have done so." 
 
 3d.^ The writings on the map bear no resemblance to the writing 
 of Lord Stirling or t/iat of Mademoiselle Le Normand. ^ 
 
 Three Scotch experts make this declaration on the trial and when 
 precognosed. 
 
 William H. Lizars interrogated during the trial: 
 
 Q,. — For what purpose were they (the documents on the map) 
 shou'n to you? 
 
 A. — To compare them with Lord Stirling's handwriting and that 
 of Mademoiselle Le Normand, and see if I could trace any simi- 
 larity between their handwritings and the handwriting of the docu- 
 ments. 
 
 Q. — Did they appear to be in either of the handwritings with 
 which you compared them? 
 
 A. — The papers were shown to mc by the Procurator- Fiscal, 
 

 m-' 
 
 34 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 and the result of my opinion wns, thot the handwritings were not the 
 same, that they bore no resemblance lO each other. k. 
 
 Archibald Bell in his precognition declares, that he exairiined the 
 writings on the back of the map, and compared them witli Lord Stir- 
 ling's writing, and could see no resemblance between them and his 
 lordship's writing. 
 ' John Johnston makes the same declaration. 
 
 4th. "j^'Ae writing of FlechCer, Bishop of Nistnes, one of the d^cu- 
 metits on the map, is proved to be authentic. 
 
 The establishment of the authenticity of a single writing on the map, 
 referring to other writings, establishes the gei^uineness of all. 
 
 John Johnson says, in his precognition, '*the Bishop of Nismes's 
 autograph appears to be all freely written, and not to be in any way 
 painted," (referring to coloring on two of the documents.) 
 
 This testimony supports that of two other experts, William Home 
 Lizars and Samuel Leith, who declare that they believe ''all the writ- 
 ings genuine;" and is confirmed by that of Archibald Bell, that the 
 autographs appeared to be written by different hands. 
 
 This opinion of the four Kdinburgh experts is fully confirmed by 
 the evidence of an important French witness. 
 
 The Baron Charles Herald de Pages, attached to the historical de- 
 partment of the Royal Library in Paris, "charged with the duty of 
 examining manuscripts," being interrogated if he believed the auto- 
 graph of Flechier genuine, "I am certain of it." * * * "This 
 writing perfectly corresponds with that of a hundred letters of that 
 Bishop, which are in the possession of my uncle, the Mar<|bis of 
 Valfont." 
 
 The Crown reports assume to give the examination of the witnesses' 
 question and answer in toiidem verbis. But in the report now before 
 us this important testimony, so material for the prisoner, which alone 
 was sufficient to confound the charge of fabricating the documents of 
 the map, is given in brackets, as follows: ("Being shown the map 
 libelled on, the witness thought the writing thereon attributed to Fle- 
 chier was conformable to the specimens he had brought with him.") 
 
 An important circumstance deserves to be noticed. This witness 
 produced a great number of undoubted and unsuspected specimens of 
 Flechier 's handwriting. With such means of comparison the forgery 
 of a document of over a hundred words could have been completely 
 exposed. The production of the genuine handwritings of Flechier by 
 
1 were not (he 
 
 sxairiined llie 
 it!i Lord Stir- 
 them and his 
 
 e of the ddcu- 
 
 g on the map, 
 all. 
 
 > of Nismes's 
 »e in any way 
 
 -) 
 
 iTilliam Home 
 
 "all the writ- 
 Bell, that the 
 
 confirmed by 
 
 historical de- 
 the duty of 
 ved the auto- 
 ♦ "This 
 etters of that 
 e Mar^is of 
 
 * 
 
 he witnesses' 
 rt now before 
 which alone 
 documents of 
 >wn the map 
 )uted to Fle- 
 irithhim.") 
 This witness 
 specimens of 
 the forgery 
 completely 
 Flechier by 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 25 
 
 this witness gave the Crown the means^ and the only one, of estab- 
 lishing their charge. But not a word of suspicion as to the writing of 
 Flechier was uttered at tUe trial by the Crown witnesses, lawyers, or 
 judges. 
 
 The witness, Baron de Pages, was asked by one of the judges^ 
 (Lord Moncrief,) "If you were assured that the map shown you did 
 not exist till 1718, would you still say that the writing was Flechier's?"^ 
 
 ^.—"Wherever it might be placed, I should say it resembled 
 the other specimens of the handwritings of Flechier, which I have 
 under my eyes." 
 
 "Let me remind you,"« said the Judge, "that Flechier died in 1710, 
 and this paper had no existence till 1715." 
 
 A. — "It would not be the less like." 
 
 This witness, it may be remarked, testified ^hat he had not known 
 of Lord Stirling's case until ten days before he left Paris; in fact, he 
 was a total stranger to Lord Stirling and his family. 
 
 The handwriting of Flechier had received the attestation of M. 
 Villenave, as follows: 
 
 "Cette attestation est de la main de Esprit Flechier, Gveque de- 
 Nismes. 
 
 "Paris, Aout 2, 1837. VILLENAVE.'* 
 
 Thus was the handwriting of Flechier, upon a document which 
 referred to the charter, and to the note of Mallet, suspected of being- 
 paintedj established to be authentic by the testimony of four Scotch 
 and two distinguished French experts; while with all the means at 
 hand for exposing the spuriousness of the document, if it had beea 
 forged, not a shadow of suspicion was thrown upon it at the triaL 
 The following is the attestation in question, (translate<l:) 
 
 "I have lately read in the house of M. Sartre, at Caveirnc, the copy 
 of the charter of the Earl of Stirling. I remarked in it many curious 
 particulars, mixed up with a great number of uninteresting details. I 
 therefore think that we ought to feel the greatest obligation to M^ 
 Mallet for having enabled the French public to judge, by the above 
 note, of the extent and importance of the grants made to this Scotch 
 nobleman. I find also that he has extracted the most essential clauses 
 of the charter, and, in translating them into French, has given a very 
 4 • . 
 
 ,;''-l: 
 
 urin 
 
 
TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 correct version of them. M. Caron St, Eslienne has requested me la 
 bear testimony to this. I do so with the greatest pleasure. - 
 . (Signed) "ESPRIT, Bishop of Nistnes. 
 
 "AtlNismes, thisSdof .lime, 1707." ^ 
 
 5th. The handwritiyig of Fenelon is proved to be authentic. 
 
 An attestation to the genuineness of (his writing, made by the Keeper- 
 General of the Archives of France, M. Dannou, a member of the 
 Institute of France- -a man who had been a member of almost every 
 legislature of France since the revolution, and whose reputation as a 
 scholar is European — ought to have been received as conclusive. 
 ^Nevertheless the Edinburgh jury did not appear to understand the 
 value of this attestation, although it was confirmed by the Scotch wit- 
 nesses, who declared that all the writings were genuine. 
 
 It is said that the attestations of the distinguished men, Daunou and 
 Villenave, although no doubt was expressed as to their attestations, 
 were not received as evidence because they were living, and could 
 have been produced. Good care had been taken, by refusing the 
 commission to verify the papers in France, and bringing on the trial in 
 Edinburgh, where men of their age and position could not attend, to 
 deprive the accused of such testimony as would have established the 
 case. Still this testimony, though excluded by technical rules of law, 
 none the less exists, and is more conclusive as to the genuineness of 
 the French documents than the verdicts of a hundred Scotch juries. 
 
 6th. The handwriting of Louis XV is genuine. 
 
 M. Villenave had already certified the authenticity of the four lines 
 attributed to this monarch. The Scotch witnesses, who believed all 
 the writings were genuine, gave to this attestation a force which Baron 
 De Pages still further increased. Being interrogated as to the writing 
 attributed to Louis XV, he answered, "It is exactly like the specimens 
 of his writing which I have brought with me." Tl.is witness then 
 produced notes written by Louis XV, which he had brought from col- 
 lections in Paris. The Crown ofiicers thus had the means of demon- 
 strating beyond a question the spuriousness of this writing by compari- 
 son with undoubted originals; but, as in the case of Flechier, no 
 attempt was made to expose the forgery by this means. With proof 
 so conclusive of the genuineness of three writings on the map, which, 
 in fact, established the genuineness of the whole, we are utterly at a 
 
 * ' 
 \\%' 
 
 loss to ( 
 ings for{ 
 The 
 by supp 
 cing atti 
 opportu 
 cause. 
 Pages, 
 know th 
 life, 'bor 
 he comn 
 his billet 
 the fact ] 
 This is a 
 7th. J. 
 dates. 
 
 It was 
 the word 
 unfavora 
 traces of 
 Mr. Li 
 "Would 
 Mallet, a 
 color.) 
 
 ^.— "j 
 
 almost all 
 
 John J( 
 
 form of tl 
 
 date they 
 
 Archibi 
 
 appear to 
 
 same witr 
 
 nients a c 
 
 have poin 
 
 recent dat 
 
 the date o 
 
 8th. " 
 
 left Lord 
 
 APPEARAS 
 
requested me la 
 
 ure. 
 
 9 of Nismes. 
 
 authentic. 
 B by the Keeper- 
 member of the 
 of almost every 
 reputation as a 
 as conclusive, 
 understand the 
 the Scotch wit- 
 
 n, Daunou and 
 leir attestations, 
 ling, and could 
 )y refusing the 
 g on the trial in 
 d not attend, to 
 ! established the 
 pal rules of law, 
 genuineness of 
 Icotch juries. 
 
 ■ the four lines 
 10 believed all 
 e which Baron 
 s to the writing 
 
 the specimens 
 is witness then 
 •ught from col- 
 ans of demon- 
 tig by compari- 
 if Flechier, no 
 With proof 
 
 e map, which, 
 are utterly at a 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 ar 
 
 loss to comprehend the verdict of the jury which declared the writ- 
 ings forgeries. 
 
 The jugglery by which this was accomplished can only be explained 
 by supposing that the jury must have beeu confounded by the mena- 
 cing attitude and pressure of the presiding Judge, who neglected no 
 opportunity to drop his poisonous insinuations against the prisoner's 
 cause. An instance occurred in the course of the examination of De 
 Pages. Addressing this witness. Lord Meadowbank says, ''Do you 
 know that Voltaire says liOuis XV never wrote but two words in hia 
 life,'bon'and 'Louis?' " "Do you recollect Voltaire saying that when 
 he communicated with his mistresses lie employed a secretary to write 
 his billets?" The witness was not sufficiently self-posseosed to reply, as 
 the fact is, that nothing like this is to be found in Voltaire's writings? 
 This is admitted in tlie Crown report. 
 
 7th. All the writings on the map are of the epoch of their different 
 dates. 
 
 It was attempted on the trial to make much of the color of some of 
 the words and letters. Upon this the French witness, Jacobs, rested his 
 unfavorable opinion . The Crown officers pretended to see in this color 
 traces of a brush and a palpable proof of falsification and alteration. 
 
 Mr. Lizars, one of the Crown witnesses, questioned by a jurymanr 
 "Would age not have brought those two documents, the one signed 
 Mallet, and the other signed Alexander, to the same color?" (Red 
 color.) 
 
 A. — "I imagine it would. 1 know that writings of that date are 
 almost all of that color." 
 
 John Johnston says, in his precognition: "He considers, from the 
 form of the letters in these autographs, that they were written of the 
 (late they bear, and not of a more recent date." 
 
 Archibald Bell declares, "They (the documents impeached) don't 
 appear to be written of a recent date, but of the date tbey bear. ' ' The 
 same witness declares, "that the length of time would give the docu- 
 ments a cloudy appearance;" and "he could from their appearance 
 have pointed out those which were of an ancient date from those of a 
 recent date, (the modern attestations,) although he had not been told 
 tlie date of either. 
 
 8th. " The writings on the map have been painted over since thejf 
 left Lord Stirling's possession, for the purpose of giving them thb 
 
 APPEARANCE OF, AND HAVING TIIEM DECLARED, FORGERIES." 
 
 
 .„■, .; s •! 
 
28 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 f jet it not be forgotten that the only suspicious circumstances about 
 •4he writings pretended to be discovered, independent of the apparent 
 contradiction in the dates, are the color of the ink, the red shading of 
 '<he letters on iwo of the writings, and the splashing of coloring matter 
 •oa the map. Taking this into view, the testimony which we shall 
 now give is of the utmost importance. 
 
 Samuel Leith, lithographer, in his precognition formally declares: 
 
 '*Map. Mallet's note. His opinion is this note is genuine, but 
 thinks that some person has gone over the letters in it with a brush and 
 coloring matter of a pink and brownish tint. This is evident from the 
 coloring matter being spotted over the surface of the map, apart from 
 the writing. His opinion is that this has been done to give it the ap- 
 jpearatice of a forged document. This could not be done by a forger, 
 as he would not leave so many indication^of the material lie had been 
 using scattered about. If it had been done by him accidentally, he 
 would have tried some means to have got these effaced. Moreover, 
 some of the lines are not gone over in this manner with the coloring 
 matter, which corroborates his opinion, that some one must have gone 
 over the writing with a coloring matter, and left these lines intention- 
 ally, to give it the appearance of an ill executed forgery." He stated 
 this to the Crown counsel, and was asked by them who he thought 
 «auld have done this; and he said, " he was certain from the manner 
 ia which it had been done, that it must iuive been done by the ene- 
 mies of Lord Stirling." 
 
 Letter of John Alexander. The same remarks apply to this letter, 
 but not in such a strong degree. 
 
 *rNote of Bishop of Nismes. There has been also tampering with this 
 note, by the letters having been gone over here and there with a darker 
 ink, and that this has been done some time after the original writing. 
 If a person had been wishing to forge this document, there was no oc- 
 casion for him to have gone over it in this way, which was the very 
 means to make it appear a forgery. 
 
 " Generally the writings on the map are free and unconstrained; and 
 there is nothing in the writings, as they appear to have originally existed, 
 to induce an opinion that they are forgeries. Acting on this opinion, 
 he caused the lithographic copies of them to be made fac-similes of the 
 writing in its natural state, without the tampering and vitiation abov. 
 referred to." 
 
 Now, in view of this grave charge, it is important to consider in 
 
stances about 
 the apparent 
 3(1 shading of 
 jloring matter 
 jich we shall 
 
 illy declares: 
 genuine, but 
 h a brush and 
 ident from the 
 ip, apart from 
 rive it the ap- 
 le by a forger, 
 il he had been 
 icidentally, he 
 :i. Moreover, 
 h the coloring 
 lUst have gone 
 ines intention- 
 ." Restated 
 ho he thought 
 m the manner 
 le by the ene- 
 
 ■/ to this letter, 
 
 )ering with this 
 with a darker 
 ginal writing. 
 
 ere was no oc- 
 was the very 
 
 nstrained; and 
 ;inaUy existed, 
 1 this opinion, 
 ;-similes of the 
 ritiation abov- 
 
 to consider in 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 29 
 
 whose hands this map had been placed since it was first exhibited by 
 Lord Stirling; and what opportunities this important witness had for 
 forming the opinion given in his precognition. Ever since November 
 27, 1837, the day on which Lord Stirling's agent, Mr. Lockhart, 
 though instructed merely to show the document and demand a com- 
 mission to get it more fully proved in France, had allowed it to be 
 seized by the court, it had remained in the custody of the clerk of the 
 court. When the officers of State, seeing that, if acknowledged" to be ** 
 genuine, nothing remained but to recognise Lord Stirling's rights, had 
 determined to make out the writings to be forgeries, the map was taken 
 out of court and ordered to be lithographed. What object could there 
 have been to makefac similes of, or to lithograph, an instrument which, 
 if false, would show itself so on its face, except to secure by this means 
 the opportunity for tampering with the document which the accusers 
 had so vital an interest in destroying? John Smith was charged with 
 the delicate and important task of making thefac similes. Six months 
 were occupied, or pretended to be occupied, in this work. To remove 
 all appearance of suspicion, the court directed that the work should be 
 done in the house of xMr. Mark Napier, a respectable advocate, who 
 was directed to perform the impossible duty of being always present 
 with the lithographer. The work was in the lithographer's hands 
 some months before Mr. Leith made his precognition. Mr. Leith had 
 every opportunity for inspecting it. He was head partner of the firm 
 of Leith & Smith, as appears by Smith's testimony on the trial. His 
 statement was no matter of opinion. He had seen and examined the 
 map in its original state, when it was free from all suspicious marks, 
 and he knew that it had been falsified and tampered with. The 
 charge so boldly and uncompromisingly made by Mr. Leith in his pre- 
 cognition, that the documents had been tampered with by " the ene- 
 mies of Lord Stirling, to give them the appearance of forgeries," was 
 a charge against Smith, as well as the agents of the Crown; for in 
 their hands alone had the documents been placed, and the point of 
 Leith's accusation was that they had been injured in Smith's hands. 
 This charge, so disgraceful to the Crown agents, was well known in 
 Edinburgh. Hence the questions put Smith on the trial by Mr. Innes, 
 Crown counsel: "You were employed to make a fac simile from that 
 
 map 
 
 ?" 
 
 il.— "Yes, 
 
 )» 
 
 
 ii 
 
 ni 
 
 m 
 
w 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 f( 
 
 Did you do anythi 
 
 to injure the appearance, or texture, or color 
 of the paper?" 
 
 ^._»No." 
 
 Wliy were these questions asked, unless as an attempt at a weak re- 
 sponse to the public report, that the map had been altered and tam- 
 pered with. 
 
 With so grave an accusation resting against the Crown agents, an 
 Accusation which they well knew, why did not the counsel save the 
 honor of the Crown by confronting Leith and Smith in the witness box? 
 Why did not the prosecuting otficers prove the falsehood of this accu- 
 sation, which had excited so much public indignation, by calling Mr. 
 Mark Napier, at whose house Smith worked? Was it not because 
 ithey dared not enter into this investigation? Was it not because Mr. 
 Murk Napier had said that he "no longer recognised the writings?" 
 
 It is a significant fact, that Smith, the lithographer, immediately 
 after the trial was appointed Crown printer; a place worth -^2,500 a 
 year, and never before conceded to a lithographer. The public indig- 
 nation, expressed by the papers of the time, showed that the motive for 
 this appointment was fully understood. 
 
 But the most deplorable and suspicious circumstance connected with 
 the whole trial is the almost inconceivable fact that Samuel Leith, who 
 was in attendance in court, and whose name we find enrolled among 
 the defender's witnesses, was not called by the defender''s counsel. 
 The testimony of the witness, who would have exposed the nefarious 
 conspiracy, who would have turned the charge of fabrication from the 
 accused to the accusers, was withheld to "5are the honor of the CrtmUy 
 €ompromised by its agents.^' This was Lord Stirling's counsel's only 
 excuse for his conduct. It was reiterated by Lord Meadowbank, in ex- 
 tenuation of his course, and repeated again in London as a reason for 
 the deplorable excesses the Government had tolerated! 
 
 But this was not the only case of the suppression of testimony for the 
 defender. Archibald Bell, John Johnston, John Skirving, all scientific 
 witnesses, who would have established the genuineness of the docu- 
 ments and map, all of whom were in attendance, were not called. 
 Indeed, of tioenty-one witnesses for the defence, sir cL'y were exam- 
 ined. What can be hoped for in the best of causes when the interests 
 of State demand a condemnation; when the accused, deprived of the 
 ordinary defences enjoyed by a common felon, has only his innocenc(j 
 and right to shield him from the violence of power? 
 
 naire. 
 
TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 31 
 
 re, or color 
 
 a weak re- 
 el and tam- 
 
 agents, an 
 sel save the 
 vitness box? 
 if this accu- 
 calling Mr. 
 not because 
 because Mr. 
 'ritings?" 
 mmediately 
 h J'2,500 a 
 )ublic indig- 
 le motive for 
 
 inected with 
 
 Leith, who 
 
 >lled among 
 
 r's counsel. 
 
 le nefarious 
 
 on from the 
 
 the Crown, 
 
 nsel's only 
 
 )ank, in ex- 
 
 a reason for 
 
 nony for the 
 all scientific 
 the docii- 
 not called, 
 were exam- 
 the interests 
 rived of thf 
 s innocence 
 
 A convincing proof that tliQ charges of Leith are true is the fact, that 
 the officers of State and the court dare not allow the map to sec the 
 light. When the civil suit in whicli the map with its documents was 
 filed WPS closed; Lord Stirling was entitled to reclaim his documentary 
 proof. He still desired to establish by further and cumulative evidence 
 the authenticity of his documents. He has applied for them in vain. 
 The court, with that usurpation of power which they have again and 
 again displayed in these proceedings, specially decreed "the produc- 
 tions in this process to remajn in the hands of the clerk, and not to be 
 borrowed by, or returned to, the defender till further order." 
 
 9th. " The map was of the date which it bears, 1703. This is not 
 contradicted by the interpolation of the words, ^^ Premier Geographe 
 du Roi.^^ 
 
 The point made out by the prosecution was, that De L'Isle did not 
 receive this title till 1718. The map bearing this title could not have 
 existed till 1718. As Fenelon and Flechier died before that time, the 
 documents on the map, purporting to be written by them, must have 
 been forgeries. Herein lay the whole foundation of the impeachment 
 of the writings upon the map. It is plain that the French witnesses 
 based the opinions which they expressed at the trial wholly on this ap- 
 parent inconsistency. To explain this, we will present some facts not 
 brought out on the trial. 
 
 Guillaume de L'Isle commenced his chief publications in 1700, and 
 continued them to 1726. It was common at that time, as at present, 
 under monarchies, for individuals to assume or obtain special titles, 
 such as "Geographe ordinaire" to the King, "Maitre d'Hotel ordi- 
 naire," "Medecin ordinaire." Under Louis XIV, there was a 
 ''Premier Aumonier," "Premier Maitre d'Hotel," "Premier Gentil- 
 homme," "Premier Medecin," "Premier Peintre," and soon after 
 ''Premier Geographedu Roi." 
 
 De L'Isle first called himself simply "Geographe." He so soon 
 eclipsed all rivals, that he was named in 1702 "Member of the 
 Academy of Sciences." A little later, he gave lessons in geography to 
 the young Prince, afterwards Louis ^V; and on the 26th of August, 
 1718, received a patent, conferring upon him a pension of 1200 livres,. 
 with the title of "Premier Geographe," which had not hitherto been 
 conferred in so formal a manner. 
 
 There is conclusive prcjf that the title of "Premier Geographe du. 
 Roi," was borne by him a. an earlier date than 1718. 
 
 U 
 
 I 
 
 
 m 
 
m 
 
 
 ■Vi" 
 
 32 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLINO. 
 
 m 
 
 At the library of St. Genevieve, in Paris, is a rare work, entitled 
 ''Memorials of the King's Commissioners, «kc., upon the possessions 
 and respective' rights of the two Crowns in America, <fcc., published at 
 Paris in 1755." On page C2, vol. 1, of this work, occurs the follow- 
 ing passage on the subject of four French maps, presented against the 
 pretensions of England to establish the ancient limits of Acadia. 
 
 "The two fust are those of M. de L'Isle; the one a map of North 
 America, published in 1700, and the other, a map of Canada or new 
 France, published ill 1703." 
 
 Farther on, at page 64, is the following: 
 
 •'It appears that the first of the said maps of Sieur de L'Isle, is one 
 which was particularly corrected by himself, and that it was based upon 
 the observations of the Royal Academy, of which he was one of the 
 members at the publication of the latter, as well as "Premi^^r 
 Geogkaphe du Roi," (dont il etait un des membres a la publication 
 de sa derniere, ainsi que "Premier Geographe du Roi.") These ex- 
 tracts are certified by the administrator of the library of St. Genevieve. 
 
 Who, then, can doubt that De L'Isle, who in 1702 "had eclipsed 
 all rivals," and who in 1703 was a member of the Academy of Sci- 
 ences, who, at that time, was always consulted by the old King, and was 
 employed as geographer at court, who was afterwards the instructor of 
 the young Prince in geography, as may be seen by an historical memoir 
 by Freret, was in fact authorized to call himself First Geographer of 
 the King? This is not contradicted, but rather confirmed, by the pa- 
 tent of 1718. It is carefully kept out of view by Blackwood, as it was 
 at the trial, that this patent was given to grant him a pension of 1200 
 livres, and for this reason the title which he long enjoyed was more 
 formally conferred. 
 
 We have before us an original letter of M. Villenave, in which he 
 says: "There are extant in France, in England, and most probably in 
 the libraries of Edinburgh, mapsof Guillaume de L'Isle, of a date an- 
 terior to 1718, and upon which Guillaume de L'Isle takes this double 
 title, "De I'Academie des Sciences et Premier Geographe du Roi." 
 1 have in my cabinet a very considerable number of these maps. 
 Those of Canada, 1703; of Paraguay and Chili, 1703; of Peru, 
 Brazil, and the country of the Amazons, 1703; India and China, 1705; 
 Tarlary, 1706; Barbary, Nigritia, and Guinea, 1707. Well, upon 
 all these maps anterior to 1718, are these words engraved, "Par GuiL- 
 
 Inume 
 Roi." 
 
 Ther 
 and oth 
 title wh 
 after mt 
 lisher ki 
 while th 
 again, o 
 have be< 
 nesses, a 
 publishe 
 Leith, tf 
 cognitior 
 He says i 
 publishei 
 1703 on 
 possible 
 fifteen ye 
 to maps, 
 graphical 
 space of t 
 There 
 polated, f 
 which he 
 ada has oi 
 Canada o 
 beautifull; 
 maps in r 
 such a ma 
 which he 
 The th 
 absurd by 
 maps of r 
 question; 
 maps, the 
 subsequeni 
 ographer o 
 lille." D 
 
urk, entitled 
 J possessions 
 published at 
 9 the foilow- 
 l against the 
 of Acadia, 
 lap of North 
 nada or new 
 
 j'Isle, is one 
 ,s based upon 
 as one of the 
 
 a publication 
 ) These ex- 
 t. Genevieve. 
 «had eclipsed 
 demy of Sei- 
 zing, and was 
 p instructor of 
 orical memoir 
 eographer of 
 d, by the pa- 
 ood,as it was 
 ision of 1200 
 ed was more 
 
 , in which he 
 !t probably in 
 of a date an- 
 is this double 
 pheduRoi." 
 
 these maps. 
 
 3; of Peru, 
 |China, 1705;. 
 
 Well, upon 
 
 , "ParGuiL- 
 
 TPIAL OP LORD STIRUNO. 
 
 33 
 
 Inume de L'lale, de I'Acndemie des Sciences, Premier Geographe dn 
 Roi." 
 
 There are some of the maps of the date of 1703 without thi? title, 
 and others with it. It is probable that De L'Isle placed ihe additional 
 title which he was allowed to assume upon maps struck off, or printed 
 after maps of the spme date had been issued. Every artist and pub- 
 lisher knows that changes and insertions are frequently made on maps 
 while the original date is preserved. The old plates would be used 
 again, or as an Edinburgh witness offered to do, the engraving could 
 have been made upon the map itself. The theory of the French wit- 
 nesses, and of the Crown lawyers, that a map, which they say was not 
 published till 1718, could bear the date of 1703, is absurd. Mr. 
 Leith, the lithographer, shows the absurdity of that theory in his pre- 
 cognition. *<Hi8 opinion is, that the map was thrown off in 1703. 
 He says it would be perfect foHy, and he could not believe that the 
 publisher of the map would throw it off in 1718, with the addition of 
 1703 on it. Every publisher is anxious to have the most recent date 
 ])ossible on his works, and would not throw off impressions with a date 
 fifteen years preceding on them. This remark applies more especially 
 to maps, and to the map in question, being of a country where geo- 
 graphical discoveries, in all probability, would have been made in the 
 space of fifteen years." 
 
 There is no doubt that the line Premier Geographe, &c., was inter- 
 polated, probably by De L'Isle himself, after he had assiuned the title 
 which he took upon himself in 1703. Theincriminaled map of Can- 
 ada has one peculiarity which has not been observed on other maps of 
 Canada of the same date. The engraving or heading of the map is 
 beautifully painted or illuminated, which is only observed on ancient 
 maps in royal keeping, or of which particular care is taken. Upon 
 such a map especially would De L'Isle have placed the highest title 
 which he had a right to assume, to give the map the greater authority. 
 
 The theory that the map was not in existence till 1718 is proved 
 absurd by the French witness Jacobs. He acknowledges that many 
 maps of De L'Isle have interpolations, like the one on the map in 
 question; but, says he, " this interpolation only takes place on those 
 maps, the date of which is anterior to 1718. In the maps published 
 subsequenUy to 1718, there is no interpolation. The words first ge- 
 ographer of the King are always regular with the other part of the 
 title." Does not this prove that, whenever there are interpolations, 
 
 5 
 
 i i 
 
 11 
 
 
 

 84 
 
 TRIAL OF I.onn STIUMNO. 
 
 ' •' 
 
 ■. .■.■:V.- 
 
 lliey miisf liave been made prior fo 1718? Would the engraver have 
 taken the trouble to interpolate awkwardly a title on the map, when 
 at the same lime he had a plate containing the words first geographer, 
 &c., engraved regularly with the other parts of the title? ' 
 
 The mismanagement of the defence was equally displayed in this 
 as in other parts of the trial. The charge of falsification had no sup- 
 port but in the assertion that it was impossible to have the four words, 
 Premier Geographe du Roi,. interpolated otherwise than by the original 
 copper plate of the map. If this were possible, any possessor of the 
 map could have procured the interpolation on the map itself before or 
 after 1718. We, for ourselves, believe thai the interpolation was made 
 by De L'Isle himself on the original copper, on a fresh series struck 
 off by him soon after assuming the title, by which he became known 
 in 1 703, But if this point could have been proved, the position of the 
 Crown would have been untenable. It certainly should have been 
 urged by the defence. 
 
 John Sku'ving, punch-cutter and engraver, at h«8 precognition pro- 
 duced " a plate and three copies of a modern map of Turkey and 
 Asia, in the titles of two of which he has inserted the last line from the 
 aforesaid plate, as will be seen by a comparison of these two maps, in 
 which the insertion is made with the remaining one. In like manner, 
 he is of opinion that it was quite ponible for Guillaume De L'Isle to 
 have made the insertion of Premier viJeographe du Roi in any of his 
 maps after the impression had been thrown off, without throwing off 
 an entire impression of the map. And if he had had a number of his 
 maps of 1703, or any other date actually thrown off, it would have 
 been a saving of expense to him to have put the addition of this 
 title on them in this manner, or he might have put it on any single 
 map if he had been requested, or had occasion to do so. The inser- 
 tion could also have been made in another and a very simple form, 
 and which, he thinks, no French artist or engraver could be ignorant 
 of, especially an extensive publisher of maps, such as De L'Isle, and 
 that is by means of an operation of tissue, which he can explain if 
 necessary. 
 
 (Signed) JOHN SKIRVING." 
 
 This witness, though in attendance, was not called! 
 
 John Johnston, Crown witness, who had expressed an opinion in 
 his precognition that the words were inserted on the paper itself with- 
 out the aid of plate, was not called! 
 
engraver have 
 le map, when 
 -St geographer, 
 7 
 
 splayed in this 
 )n had no sup- 
 [he four words, 
 by the original 
 303sessur of the 
 I itself before or 
 ation was made 
 ah series struck 
 became known 
 e position of liie 
 ould have been 
 
 (recognition pro- 
 of Turkey and 
 ast line from the 
 ;se two maps, in 
 In like manner, 
 ne De L'Isle to 
 oi in any of his 
 out throwing off 
 a number of his 
 *, it would have 
 addition of this 
 t on any single 
 so. The inser- 
 ry simple fonn, 
 )uld be ignorant 
 De L'Isle, and 
 can explain if 
 
 KIRVING. 
 
 n 
 
 d an opinion in 
 aper itself witli- 
 
 TRIAL OB' LORD STIHLINCi. 
 
 35 
 
 No one of the Scotch witnesses was examined upon this important 
 point which formed the basis of the accusation. 
 
 Jacobs, the French engraver, thought it could be done, but doubted 
 if any method was known at the period of the map. Yet there arc 
 whole maps of the time traced so as to look like engravings; and all 
 the geographers consulted in Paris by Jjord Stirling, stete the operation 
 to be both frequent and easy, and to their knowledge of ancient date. 
 
 Our readers, who have followed us thus far, must have seen how 
 signally the officers of the Crown failed to prove the fabrication of the 
 documents impeached; and they must also have 3een how completely 
 the prosecution would have been overwhelmed, if the counsel for the 
 defence had dune their duly. But it was from no want of zeal or in- 
 dustry, or from any niggardliness in the expenditure of money, that 
 Crown agents failed to make out a belter case. As we shall have no 
 farther occasion to discuss the testimony given in this part of the case, 
 we will pause for a moment to consider the character of tlie witnesses 
 produced by the Crown. Here we shall depart!, somewhat from the 
 rule to which we have thus far rigorously adhered, of stating nothing 
 for which we had not full documentary proof. But the statements we 
 shall now make have been published in England, and have never 
 been denied. 
 
 When Messrs. Innes and Mackenzie, the Crown agents, who had 
 proceeded to Paris to get up their case, " found it impossible to corrupt 
 Messrs. Daunou and Villenave," (Mr. Villenave's own words now be- 
 fore us,) and were at a loss how to proceed, they placed their desperate 
 case in the hands of a man more notorious in the annals of police and 
 crime than any other in Europe, th« infamous Vidocq. He made up 
 for them the amalgamation of scientific and ignorant witnesses; the 
 two first, Teulet and Jacobs; the three latter, a cobbler, a hawker, and 
 a street prostitute, who, under the care of a French policeman, figured 
 for some weeks in Edinburgh. 
 
 The " eminent " M. Teulet, as Blackwood calls him, was picked 
 out of the archives of which Daunou was chief. His testiutoiiy, weak- 
 ened beforehand by the counter aileslation of his chief, was con)pletely 
 neutralized by that of the Baron de Pages, who held an official posi- 
 tion in the Royal Library, which gave to his opinion an authority at 
 least equal to that of M. Teulet. Both the French witnesses for the 
 Crown threw, themselves at once on the dubious quibble of the offi- 
 cers of State, that the writings could not have been placed on the map 
 
 n 
 
 ¥'' 
 
 
:\6 
 
 TUI.VL OK LUKl) HTIKLINfi. 
 
 iiiiiil after Aui^utit, 1718; when that falls to the ground, tlieir testimony 
 I'allu with it. 
 
 Teulet, we nrc assured, felt that he hud comproniiucd his position 
 by lending himself so freely to the Crown agents, and in a letter, ad- 
 drcHsed from Edinburgh to his biother, stated his surprise at finding 
 that Lord Stirling, wtio hud been represented to him in the blackest 
 colors, was a most honorable man; and he further expressed doubts and 
 misgivings as to his own position in the affair. 
 
 Of the other French witnesses, the cobbler, the hawker, and the 
 prostitute, litlle need be suid. They were all under the surveillance 
 of the French police for crimes conmiitted by them, and were accom- 
 panied to Ediiil)urgJi by a police oflicer, who had strict orders never to 
 lose sight of them. The hawker was picked out of the street, set up 
 in a handsome shop as a seller of gentlemen's hats and caps, imtil the 
 trial was over, when he returned to his old trade of selling books, 
 prints, &.C., luuler the wall of an hotel on the Quai Voltaire. He was 
 to swear that he sold a map or maps of De L'Isle to some one in 1S37. 
 In his precognition he insisted that it was in 1827 that he sold it. He 
 wanted further diilling. When asked at the trial if Lord Stirling was 
 the man, he answered "No," and deecribed quite a different person. 
 
 The cobbler and the girl were to swear to seeing Lord Stirling come 
 every night to Mud'elle Lenormand's house in the rue de Tournon. 
 The cobbler swore with a vengeance, for he declared he had seen Lord 
 Stirling at I he house referred to almost every night from May to No 
 vembcr, 1837. This he repeated and insisted on. As it happened, in 
 i'nct, Lord Stirling left Paris early in August, was present and voted 
 fXL the election of Scotch peers on the 35th of that month, and con- 
 tinued to reside in Edinburgh until after the trial. 
 
 The girl was not called, because, having since her arrival followed 
 her vocation by committing a robbery in the house where she lodged, 
 the Crown counsel thought it prudent to withdraw her. The Crown 
 agents compounded the felony, and got her off. And as they feared 
 that some proceedings might be commenced against the whole of their 
 witnesses, ihey were all summarily ordered away before the trial 
 actually leiininaled. 
 
 Lord Stirling brought over his landlord, Mr. Benner, an English 
 professor, who kept an establishment for education, to prove that Lord 
 Stirling was never out but once in an evening, and then to take tea 
 vvith some friends in the neighborhood* And that so far from going to 
 
leir testimony 
 
 cd his position 
 » a letter, ad- 
 )ri8e ol finding 
 n the blnckesl 
 led doubts and 
 
 iwker, and the 
 B surveillance 
 d were acconi- 
 orders never to 
 3 street, set up 
 caps, until the 
 selling books, 
 aire. He was 
 e one in 1837. 
 le sold it. He 
 rd Stirling was 
 ferent person. 
 
 Stirling come 
 e de Tournon. 
 
 had seen Lord 
 »m May to No 
 
 happened, in 
 sent and voted 
 onth, and con- 
 
 rrival followed 
 ire she lodged, 
 The Crown 
 as they feared 
 whole of their 
 tfore the trial 
 
 er, an English 
 rove that Lord 
 len to take tea 
 from going to 
 
 TRIAL OK L0R1> BTIULINO. 
 
 87 
 
 the rue de Tournon to aid in forging a paper, he was rarely ever ab- 
 sent long enough from the houae to admit of his going to that distant 
 quarter of the city. We have the precognition and affidavit of Mr. 
 Benner which establish all these facts. But with their usual tender- 
 ness for the Crown cause, Lord Stirling's counsel refused to call this 
 witness. 
 
 These disreputable witnesses were furnished by Vidocq, and paid — 
 as was drawn out on the trial — 1,000 franks a month, besides all their 
 expenses, (the cobbler had worked the year before for 200 franks a 
 year,) were dressed up for the occasion, paraded about the town, taken 
 to the theatre, invited by ladien of the Crmmi lamyera to tea parties, 
 all the time accompanied by the police agent. 
 
 lOth. The incriminated map and writings bear intrinsic evidence 
 of authenticity. 
 
 Every bank teller, writing master, or lithographer, in short, any ex- 
 pert in writing — and to such men we appeal — knows that it is almost 
 impossible to forge a single signature, which of course is copied, so per- 
 fectly that it cannot be detected. When the forgery extends even to 
 the simple copying of a long writing, the difficulty of fabrication is 
 vastly increased. Extend the forgery to a dozen copies of different 
 writings, and we believe that any expert will say, that it is impossible 
 to make a fabrication which cannot be instantly detected. There are 
 seventeen difTerent writings, containing eighteen hundred and seventy- 
 three words. But the remarkable fact is, those documents are not 
 copies. They are originals, written in various places in France and 
 FiUgland. If this is a forgery, it is not a forgery of imitation, which 
 we assert would be impossible; it is a forger" of cren on. Now, not a 
 fault can be found with the contents or arrangement of these docu- 
 ments. The most trifling error has not been detected in a long series 
 of facts in a multitude of dates, in the names of persons and places be- 
 longing to Prance, Scotland, Ireland, and North America. Such a 
 forgery demanded ; an possessed of an imagination capable of in- 
 venting historical Uu' uuents, writing them in Latin, English, and 
 French, and seizing at the same time the variations of three languages 
 during the lapse of a century. It required a man learned in archaeology, 
 in hf.aldry, in geography, in literary history, and at the same time 
 possessing a caligraphic skill such as has never been conceived of. 
 In short, the forger must have been a man of universal knowledge. 
 And yet if we are to believe the verdict of the Edinburgh jury, it is 
 
 i^ 
 
 ii' 
 
 I HI 
 
 It] 
 
38 
 
 IKTAL OK LOHl) STIRLlNCi. 
 
 easier to believe 'iuch a miracle, than to suppose there has been a mis- 
 take as to the date of placing the words, ''first geographer of the 
 King," on the map. 
 
 But we prefer to give the views of M. V^illenave upon this point. 
 We give an extract from a letter addressed by him to Lord Stirling, 
 to whom he was an entire stranger, dated from Paris, April 19, 1839. 
 
 *'My Lord: If the letter you did me the honor of writing to me on 
 the 27th February, has hitherto remained unanswered, it is because I 
 am even now hardly recovered after a long and cruel malady, which 
 placed my life in danger. 
 
 <'It was not without the deepest astonishment that 1 learned the sad 
 catastrophe by which it was desired to bring your law suit to a conclusion. 
 
 "You are accused of having fabricated, or caused to be fabricated, 
 all the writings which cover the back of a map of Canada. Permit 
 me, my Lord, to say, thai if they thus attack your honor, they ascflbe 
 to your intelligence an immense and gigantic extent; for, whoever will 
 attentively examine all the vast composition of the pretended forgery, 
 the divers contextures of the characters, the perfect conformity of the 
 writing of Fenelon, Flechier, and Louis XV, with other autograph 
 documents of those three personages; if they will also examine ihe 
 historical part, the ensemble, and all the details, they must be con- 
 vinced that the art of the forger cannot extend so far. All the science 
 of the 'AtUiquary^ of Walter Scott would not have sufficed for so won- 
 derful a work; and I doubt whether the 'Savans' of the Edinburgh 
 society, so justly renowned in the literary world, would, if they were 
 consulted, affirm that they would be capable of imagining and arrang- 
 ing such a composition j for, it is more easy to scale the Heavens, or 
 to penetrate into the depths of the philosophical sciences, than to give 
 to a great ensemble of falsehoods, and of supposed facts, an air of truth. 
 
 "I was asked to certify the authenticity of the writing of Flechier, 
 and of the three or four lines of Louis XV; I compared them, and 
 could not hesitate to give my attestation. The illustrious Monsieur 
 Daunou, member of the institute, keeper of the archives of the king- 
 dom, has likewise certified the authenticity of the writing of Fenelon. 
 Now, it would result from the verification of the artists of Scotland, 
 that the keeper of the archives and I must have been deceived, and 
 that the writings, certified by us as authentic, must have been forged by 
 you, my Lord, assisted by a lady, and by an illiterate young man, 
 whom you must have set to the work. 
 
TRIAL OF LORD STIRUNO. 
 
 m 
 
 las been a iiiis- 
 Q[raplier of the 
 
 pon this point. 
 
 Lord Stirling, 
 
 Vpril 19, 1839. 
 
 riling to me on 
 , it is because I 
 malady, whicli 
 
 learned the sad 
 to a conclusion, 
 be fabricated, 
 nada. Permit 
 sr, they ascflbe 
 r, whoever will 
 tended forgery, 
 iforniity of the 
 ither autograph 
 } examine ihe 
 must be con- 
 All the science 
 3ed for 60 won- 
 he Edinburgh 
 , if they were 
 (ig and arrang- 
 Heavens, or 
 s, than to give 
 in air of truth, 
 g of Flechier, 
 red them, and 
 ious Monsieur 
 es of the king- 
 ig of Fenelon. 
 of Scotland, 
 deceived, and 
 jeen forged by 
 young man, 
 
 "It may be said that this decision is audacious, and even bur- 
 lesque." 
 
 W W ^F ^^ " ^P ^F ^P 
 
 ''Well, now, what can be "proved by the depositions of a servant 
 girl and a porter, to make out that it was you, my Lord, who fabri- 
 cated, with your fellow-laborers, a woman and an unlettered yoimg 
 man, a work, the very conception and execution of which would have 
 embarrassed a whole academy? 
 
 •'And of what use can be other subaltern witnesses, without value 
 and without authority, on the foundation even of the question? For 
 example, what imports it whence came the map thus covered with 
 documents? Since what period has it been held necessary, under a 
 penalty of being a forger, to prove the origin of a writing or document 
 that is produced, the forgery of which cannot be proved?" 
 
 "It is contended that the pretended forgers of the map have betrayed 
 themselves by too much precaution. I cannot see that; I should, in- 
 deed, seethe contrary if 1 admitted .tne falsification; for would it not 
 have been great unskilfulness to make Mr. Alexander write to the 
 Marchioness de Lambert, 'I have so little idea at present that the titles 
 and estates of the Stirling family can devolve upon my children, that I 
 have encouraged the taste of my son for the ministry of our church of 
 Scotland, and he is preparing himself in Holland, at the University of 
 Ley den.' Assuredly this passage alone would suffice to confound the 
 accusation. 
 
 "Your lawsuit, my Lord, will have its place, and be re-echoed in 
 the pages of history. 
 
 "Fiven if I did not believe in your loyalty and honor, it would be 
 impossible for me to believe in the vast genius which would attribute 
 to you, if it were well founded, the fabrication of the map of Canada. 
 
 "The accusation must necessarily fall, if it be examined from the 
 origin and as a whole. All the minor details ought'to be overlooked 
 in the grandeur of this cause. 
 
 "Be pleased to accept, my Lord, with the expression of my wishes, 
 that of my moat distinguished consideration. 
 
 (Signed) "VILLENAVE, 
 
 "Ex- Professor of the Literary History of France at the 
 . Royal AthencBum, one of the Presidents of the Histori- 
 cal Institute, (^c, 4*c. 
 
 "Paris, April \9, 1839." 
 
 II 
 
 • i 
 
40 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 The reader will judge of the weight to be given (o Mr, Villenave's 
 letter by the following letter from Professor C. (J. Jewett, the accom- 
 plished Librarian of the Smithsonian institution, addressed to Lord Stir' 
 ling's counsel: 
 
 "Smithsonian Institution, August 29, 1853. 
 ''John L. Hayes, Esq., 
 
 "Dear Sir: I have this morning received your letter, making in- 
 quiry respecting the literary standing of Mr. Villenave, late President 
 of the 'Institut Historique,' and the value of his opinion relative to 
 the genuineness of ancient French autographs: 
 
 "I cannot perhaps do better than refer you, in reply, to the follow- 
 ing works of standard bibliographical authority, namely, 'La Prance 
 Litteraire, par M. J. M. Querard,' art., Villenave, (Mathieu Guillauine 
 Therese,) tome 10, pp. 183 — 188; and the 'Manuel de TAmateur 
 d'Autographes, par P. Jul. Fontaine," pp. 343 — 350. 
 
 "M. Querard gives a biographical notice of M. Villenave, assign- 
 ing him a high rank as a literary man. He was the founder and editor 
 of several influential journals, in the charge of one of which (Le 
 Courrier) he was associated with M. Guizot. He was one of the edi- 
 tors of the 'Biographic Universelle,' to which he contributed not less 
 than three hundred articles. In connexion with M. Depping he edited 
 the 'Collection des Prosateurs Franfais.' He furnished most of the 
 biographical articles in the 'Encyclopedic des Gens du Monde.' He 
 wrote a translation of Ovid's Metamorphosis,' which was published, 
 with the original text, in an elegant edition, in 4 volumes, 4to, by 
 Didot, 1807-1822. He also wrote a translation in prose of the first 
 eight books of the iEneid of Virgil, which was published, (with a 
 translation of the last four books by M. Aman, and the Latin text) in 
 1832, in 3 vols., 8vo. 
 
 <'The list of the publications of M. Villenave occupies eight columns 
 of the work of Querard. They consist of poems, academical dis- 
 courses, politicarpamphlets, and works mostly in the departments of 
 literary history, bibliography, and biography. M. Villenave was 
 General Secretary of the Celtic Society, and of the Royal Society of 
 Antiquaries, President of the Philotechnic Society, Vice President of 
 the Society of Christian Morals, and President of the Second Class of 
 the Historical Institute. His reputation is that of a learned, labo- 
 rious, and conscientious scholar, and of an amiable and modest man. 
 He possessed a valuable library, rich in literary history, and in works 
 
Ir. Villenave's 
 Ji, the accom- 
 d lo Lord Stir" 
 
 i. 
 
 ft 29, 1853. 
 
 r, making in- 
 late President 
 ion relative to 
 
 to the follow- 
 , 'La France 
 eu Guillaume 
 Je TAmateiir 
 
 enave, assign- 
 der and editor 
 )f which (Le 
 ne of the edi- 
 )uted not less 
 •ing he edited 
 1 most of the 
 Monde.' He 
 i3 published, 
 imes, 4to, by 
 le of the first 
 led, (with a 
 atin text) in 
 
 ight columns 
 idemical dis- 
 partments of 
 llenave was 
 al Society of 
 President of 
 ;ond Class of 
 ;arned, labo- 
 modest man . 
 ind in works 
 
 TRIAL OF LOPD STIRLING. 
 
 41 
 
 relating to the first French revolution. He was a most indefatigable, 
 intelligent, and successful collector of autographs. M. Fontaine 
 makes frequent mention of him in the work above named, and devotes 
 a greater space to his collection than to that of any other individual. 
 He calls it a 'veritable musec aulographique,' a'vaste' collection. He 
 seems to regard it as the most important private collection in France. 
 
 ''I suppose that there is no man in France whose judgment on mat- 
 ters relating to the genuineness of autographic writings, particularly 
 those of French sovereigns and 'savans,^ is entitled to be received with 
 greater confidence than that of M. Villenave, 
 
 "Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed) ' ''C. C. JEWRTT." 
 
 1 1 . The incriminated map was known and described long before 
 the period when Lord Stirling's accusers pretend it first received the 
 writings which cover its back. 
 
 One of the arguments addliced against the authenticity of the docu- 
 ments was that the counsel for the defence could not show who had 
 been the last possessor of the map so richly clothed with autographs, 
 nor determine precisely its origin, or how it came into the hands of the 
 person who enabled the Earl of Stirling to produce it in the Civil 
 court. It cannot be doubted that if the Earl could there have shown 
 that it had been for a long time in the possession of some respectable 
 person, from whose deed-chest it had been drawn and transmitted to 
 him, no suspicion could have rested upon the document. But is it 
 reasonable to declare a document, bearing upon its face all the charac- 
 ters of authenticity, a fabrication or forgery, because all the proof of 
 former custody is wanting? Such a doctrine would compel us to reject 
 the greater number of historical facts, which are received without 
 doubt as to their truth. Such a doctrine would compel us to reject 
 even the gospel itself; for who can point out its material origin in the 
 Christian world; how, where, and at what precise time it was written? 
 The material proof is certainly wanting of the origin of the books of 
 the Bible. But no man could have fabricated the divine volume. We 
 make the comparison reverently. No forger could have fabricated the; 
 documents on the map of De L^Isle. But, although the veil which 
 covers the details of a historical ftict be not fully raised, the ^act does 
 not the less remain established. 
 
 Lord Stirling being compelled by the passionate resistance of his 
 6 
 
42 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLTXCl, 
 
 enemies to add new liglit to the light of evidence, discovered that an 
 English gentleman of the name of Rowland Otto Bayer, prisoner of 
 war in France during the Empire, had died at Verdun in 1S05; and 
 that in a bordereau or list of papers found at his lodgings, and deliv- 
 ered to M. Gornepu, bearer of a power of attorney from Mr. Christie, 
 of English descent, and the fiiend of the deceased, was written what 
 follows. We translate from the French: 
 
 No. 1. Letter of JNl. Orsel, de Paris, dated 2d January, 1803. ^ -, 
 
 No. 2. Copy of a letter lo M. Billard, of 2Slh June, 1804. 
 
 No. 3. Map of Canada, or New France, by Guillaume De Ulsle. 
 
 On the back of thia map are several documents, viz: an epitaph in 
 English, an original letter of J. Alexander, with a marginal note by 
 Fenelon; a note by the traveller Mallet; some attestations, «fcc. 
 
 No. 4. A map of the world, colored. And below this list we read: 
 
 *'For us as a legal act, certified literal, and conformable lo the ori- 
 ginal. The officer, Secretary of the Fortress of Verdun. 
 
 (Signed) "PARMEJNTIER." 
 
 "Verdun, 6th May, 1807. 
 
 ''No. 420. Seen by me, artist verifier of writings. 
 
 (Signed) ''H. MARTIN. 
 
 "Seal of the Minister of War. " 
 
 **Seen by the chief of the recruiting office and military justice. 
 (Signed) PETITKT." 
 
 *'By order of the Minister Secretary of State for War, the Counsellor 
 of Stale, director-general of the control of centralization and audit 
 certified by me, the signature of M. Parmentier attached on the other 
 side in the quality of secretary of the fortress of Verdun. 
 
 (Signed) '^MARTINEAU. 
 
 "Paris, 22d December, 1838." 
 
 This document, supported as it is by other circumstances which we 
 shall detail, proves beyond question that the map with its documents 
 described in the "bordereau^^ of the Englishman, Rowland Otto Bayer, 
 who died a prisoner of war at Verdun, 1805, is absolutely the same 
 which figured at the criminal trial in Edinburgh. This being proved, 
 the map could not, in spite of the' testimony of the cobbler, hawker, 
 &c., have been fabricated at Paris in 1836 and 1837, to meet the exi- 
 gencies of Lord Stirling's case. We have the copy of the inventory 
 
> 
 
 overed that an 
 ir, prisoner of 
 
 in 1805; and 
 igs, and deliv- 
 
 Mr. Christie, 
 3 written what 
 
 Y, 1803. ' , 
 
 1804. 
 
 ne De Ulsle. 
 
 an epitaph in 
 
 •ginai note by 
 
 [IS, &c. 
 
 3 list we read: 
 
 ible to the ori- 
 
 I. 
 
 ^.NTIER." 
 
 MARTIN. 
 
 V justice. 
 TITET." 
 
 le Counsellor 
 on and audit 
 1 on the other 
 
 TINEAU. 
 
 ces which we 
 its documents 
 d Otto Bayer, 
 tely the same 
 being proved, 
 bier, hawker, 
 meet the exi- 
 the inventory 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 43 
 
 describing this map, certified on May 6, 1807, by Parmentier, the sec- 
 retary of the fortress of Verdun. We have the attestation of the Coun- 
 sellor of State and Minister of War, M. Martineau, that the signature 
 of Parmentier is genuine; and that he made this signature on the 6tli 
 of May, 1807, in the quality of secretary of the fortress of Verdun. 
 
 With this proof, of what account are the testimony of the Scotch and 
 French witnesses, or the judgment of the Edinburgh jury ? 
 
 This important document was authenticated at Paris by the Minister 
 of War on the 22d December, 1838, a little over four months before 
 the close of the trial at Edinburgh. The counsel for the defence 
 advised Lord Stirling that before producing this document, if not neces^ 
 sary, it would at least be desirable to add other proofs to the attestatioa 
 of the Minister of War. Lord Stirling, knowing well all the difficulties 
 which would be raised in his ca^, allowed himeelf to be persuaded 
 that if he could supply the proof which was wanting of the presence 
 of the nami > of Rowland Otto Bayer upon the lists of the prisoners of 
 war, the document signed Parmentier, and recognised by the Minister 
 of War as authsntic, would have authority so great as to resist every 
 objection. He knew that the prosecution did not scruple to call evciy 
 writing produced by him a forgery. He feared that they even might 
 dare to attack a document certified by a French Counsellor of State, 
 as they had suspected one attested by the Keeper General of the Ar- 
 chives of the Kingdom. 
 
 Most unfortunately the Verdun document, authenticated in Pariff^ 
 was sent back to France some time before the commencement of the 
 trial, and when it was returned to Edinburgh, the judgment in the 
 forgery trial had been pronounced. When Lord Stirling was restored 
 to freedom, he ordered new searches to be made in Verdun and Paris, 
 which were prolonged until the month of June, 1841. 
 
 On the 4th of February of that year, an acquaintance of the Earl 
 of Stirling, Mr. William Benner, wrote to the Minister of War ta 
 inquire whether, in the archives of his administration, a detailed in- 
 ventory of the effects which had belonged to Rowland Otto Bayer 
 could be found, and applied for a copy of it. The following was the 
 answer: 
 
 " The Minister Secretary of War informs Mr. William Benner, in 
 reply to his inquiries, having for object to obtain a copy of the inven- 
 tory believed to have been drawn up at Verdun of the efTects belonging^ 
 to Mr. Rowland Otto Baijer, who died in 1805, in that town, beingf 
 
 ih 
 
 
44 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 • > 
 
 ^■\i:'':. 
 
 then a prisoner of war, that there has not been found in the archives 
 of the Ministry, either any inventory (besides the bordereau) or extract 
 from the register of deaths applicable to Mr. Rowland Otto Bayer, 
 and that the name is not inscribed on the list of prisoners in said 
 town." 
 
 This indeed seems a fatal answer. But let us not prejudge too 
 hastily, for the Minister of War immediately adds: 
 
 " But it results from a letter dated from Verdun, on the 30th Messi- 
 dor, without indication of the year, by a Mr. Rowland Otto Bayer, 
 written for the purpose of obtaining permission to see his daughter, 
 then eighteen years old, and a boarder in the house of the Ladies 
 Green, living on the rampart Cauchoise, at Rouen, that when he was 
 residing at Paris, in the house of Madame Pieraent, rue de la Loi, ho- 
 tel du Cercle, he had been in consequence of a decree of the govern- 
 ment made a prisoner of war, and obliged first to proceeil to Fontain- 
 bleau, and afterwards to Verdun. 
 
 "For the minister, and by his order, the Councillor of State, general 
 secretary. 
 
 (Signed) ' "MARTINEAU." 
 
 The fact that Bayer's name is not inscribed upon the lists of prison- 
 ers of war was known to Lord Stirling before the trial. For this rea- 
 son he was induced to defer the production of the bordereau, as be 
 knew that the absence of Bayer's namo from the lists of prisoners 
 would be objected against the document. It was only on the 4th of 
 February, 1841, nearly two years after the trial, that this matter was 
 cleared up, and proof obtained that Bayer was in facta prisoner of war 
 at Verdun, although his name was not on the lists. 
 
 It was only on the 22d of May, 1841, that the mayor of Verdun, 
 M. Tapinier, wrote to another acquaintance of Lord Stirling, that the 
 seals had been put on the effects of Mr. Rowland Otto Baijer after his 
 death, the 30th Floreal, year XIII, (20th of May, 1805,) and that a 
 proces verbal of the removal of the seal followed on the 7th Praireal, 
 (27th May.) 
 
 Lord Stirling was advised to make inquiries respecting any English 
 detenus who might be still living in France, and who might furnish 
 further information relative to Mr. Btiyer. His London solicitor, 
 while making inquiries at Brighton, ascertained that the hotel d'Angle- 
 terre, at Dieppe, was kept by an old man named Willoughby Taylor, 
 
 
the archives 
 u) or extrftct 
 Otto Bayer, 
 iners in said 
 
 jrejudge too 
 
 1 30th Messi- 
 Otto Bayer, 
 lis daughter, 
 : the Ladies 
 vhen he was 
 e la Loi, ho- 
 the govera- 
 l to Fontain- 
 
 tate, general 
 
 [NEAU." 
 
 sts of prison- 
 For this rea- 
 lereaUf as he 
 of prisoners 
 m the 4th of 
 matter was 
 soner of war 
 
 of Verdun, 
 ing, that the 
 lijer after his 
 ,) and that a 
 
 th Praireal, 
 
 any English 
 light furnish 
 on solicitor, 
 tel d'Angle- 
 hby Taylor, 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STrRLING. 
 
 4» 
 
 
 who had been a prisoner at Verdun. A letter of inquiry was addressed 
 to Mr. Taylor, and the following reply received. We have now the 
 original before us, with the post-marks and stamps, which attest its 
 authenticity, as also those of Lord Stirling's solicitors. 
 
 Hotel d'Angleterre, Dieppe, March 28, 1842. 
 "Sir: I beg to acknowledge »he receipt of your letter, and in reply 
 to inform you thai 1 knew Mr. Rowland Otto Bayer very well. I 
 kept an hotel at Verdun, and Mr. R. O. B. frequented my house. I 
 was hkewise in the habit of supplying him with different articles at his 
 house; he generally settled his account every week. On one occasion 
 that I called upon him for that purpose, I perfectly recollect seeing a 
 very old map, with some writings on the back of it. It was partly 
 folded up. 1 am not aware of what country it was, not having taken 
 particular notice of it. This is all the information I can give you; I 
 think I should recollect the map again if I were to see it. 
 "I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 (Signed) "WILLOUGHBY TAYLOR." 
 
 Unfortunately there was no means of taking Mr. Taylor's testimony 
 to be available in British courts without commencing certain proceed- 
 ings in chancery, the expenses of which, as the London solicitors say 
 in their letters, would amount to some hundied pounds. While the 
 expediency of taking this course w^as under deliberation, Mr. Taylor 
 died. 
 
 Mr. Eugene Alexander, a son of Lord Stirling, in the mean time, 
 had visited Mr. Taylor, and exhibited to him a fac simile of the map, 
 which he immediately recognised, particularly from the copy of the 
 inscription of John Alexander, as being one he had seen in possession 
 of Mr. Bayer. The statement of Mr. Alexander, written down at the 
 time, we refrain for obvious reasons from giving; and add a copy of a 
 letter, authenticated by post-marks, stamps, «fcc., received by Mr. E. 
 Alexander while residing in London, from Mrs. Taylor, after the death 
 of her husband. 
 
 " Hotel d'Angleterre, Dieppe, July 7, 1847. 
 " Sir: In reply to your inquiries 1 beg to say, that my late husband, 
 Mr. Willoughby Taylor, used frequently to talk about the ancient map 
 covered with writings on the back, which he had seen during his de- 
 tention at Verdun, in the possession of Mr. Otto Bayer, who died there 
 
46 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 
 
 
 in 1805; and when you passed through our town in May, 1842, on 
 your way to Paris, and showed liim the/ac simile copy of the writings, 
 he at once recognised it as the exact copy of those on the map he had 
 remarked in Mr. Otto Bayer's lodgings. I hope this information may 
 prove of use to you; it is all I can state on the subject. / 
 
 "I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 (Signed) "ANN TAYLOR." 
 
 The results of these searches and correspondence may be summed 
 up as follows: 
 
 1. The Englishman, Rowland Otto Bayer, was a prisoner of war at 
 Verdun in the year 1805. 
 
 2. He died there at that period. S 
 
 3. The bordereau drawn up by the secretary of the fortress of Ver- 
 dun the 6th May, 1807, proves that the copy of the map of Canada, 
 which Lord Stirling was accused of forging at Paris in 1836-'7, was in 
 1805, thirty years before, in possession of Rowland Otto Bayer. 
 
 5. These facts, established by complete documentary proof, are con- 
 firmed by the statements of Mr. Willoughby Taylor. 
 
 With this convincing proof of former custody of the map and docu- 
 ments, the last pretence of forgery vanishes, and with it the whole 
 fabric of surmisings and inventions with which it was so flimsily 
 interlaced. 
 
 The question will be asked: How came the map into the possession 
 of M'elle Lenormand? 
 
 The mystery which rests upon the former custody of this map can- 
 not be fully explained, nor is it necessary that it should be explained 
 to establish the genuineness of the map and documents, the only point 
 in question. 
 
 M'elle Lenormand, who was by no means a mere fortune-teller 
 as represented at the trial, but a woman of distinguished literary at- 
 tainments, and of unsullied private character, who had been consulted 
 by Napoleon, the Emperor Alexander, and most of the great person- 
 ages in Europe, (see her life and memoirs published since her death 
 by M. Cellier du Fayel, professor of law and moral philosophy,) had 
 undertaken to aid Lord Stirling in researches for documents in France. 
 There was every reason for believing that some of the more ancient 
 documents or records referring to the Stirling family might be discov- 
 ered in France; as the French had taken possession of the old fort at 
 
TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 47 
 
 lay, 1842, on 
 r ihe writings, 
 e map he had 
 armation may 
 
 AYLOR." 
 
 y be summed 
 
 oner of war at 
 
 )rlress of Ver- 
 Eip of Canada, 
 336-'7, was in 
 I Bayer, 
 proof, are con- 
 nap and docu- 
 it the whole 
 as so fiimsily 
 
 the possession 
 
 this map can- 
 1 be explained 
 the only point 
 
 fortuneteller 
 d literary at- 
 teen consulted 
 great person- 
 nce her death 
 osophy,) had 
 nts in France, 
 more ancient 
 ght be discov- 
 the old fort at 
 
 Port Royal, built by Sir Wm. Alexander, and occupied by his son, 
 and after the surrender of Nova Scotia to England by the French, all 
 the Acadian documents had been carried to France. The extraor- 
 dinary facilities possessed by the remarkable woman who figures in 
 this transaction, for communicating with people of ail classes in Paris, 
 naturally suggested her as one, among many employed on the same 
 work, who might aid Lord Stirling in his researches. 
 
 M'elle Lenormand had been warmly attached to the Bourbons. She 
 was among the few Royalists who had escaped the massacres of the 
 reign of terror. It is well known that among those who also escaped 
 was Josephine, wife of the Marquis de Hoauharnois, afterwards Em- 
 press of France, who, from sympathy in their early misfortunes, always 
 preserved a warm friendship for M'elle Lenormand. This remarkable 
 woman afterwards repaid the favor received from Josephine, by 
 writing the best memoir extant of the unfortunate Empress. Among 
 others of the Royalists who escaped — and in this circle of the old aris- 
 tocracy M'elle Lenormand was admitted on the most familiar terms — 
 was the Princess de B****, one of the old noblesse, who had been 
 much indebted to M'elle Lenormand for kindness during the terrible 
 trials of the revolution. At her house one evening, previous to 1837, 
 M'elle met Prince Talleyrand. At this interview, the subject of Lord 
 Stirling's claims, which had already attracted great interest in French 
 society, was the subject of conversation. Shortly after this interview, 
 the map came into M'elle Lenormand 's possession. Of all these cir- 
 cumstances there are no other proofs, than that lady's repeated declara- 
 tion, and we desire our readers to make the just distinction between this 
 part of our narrative, in which we undertake to give only the rumors 
 in French society, and the views and declarations of Lord Stirling and 
 his friends, and the statements supported by authentic proofs which we 
 have before made. 
 
 When the map was shown to Lord Stirling by M'elle Lenormand, 
 he told her that he could accept of no such document from her hands, 
 unless he had distinct proofs of its former custody. She then admitted, 
 and afterwards made a deposition under oath to that effect, that the 
 document was sent to her through the agency of Prince Talleyrand. 
 M'elle Lenormand always manifested a great eagerness to have a com- 
 mission in France to verify the document, or to have its authenticity 
 established before a tribunal in France, according to the advice of the 
 Dean of the French advocates. The illegal course of the Scotch 
 
 ":■« 
 
48 
 
 TRIAL OK LORD STIRLINU. 
 
 t ■••,.. 
 
 ■0' 
 
 . S 
 
 courts, ill refusing a commission to France, prevented Lord Siirling 
 from oblaming the proofsof former ownership, and M'elle Lenormand; 
 being seventy-six years old, could not undertake a journey to Edin- 
 burgh to testify at the trial. 
 
 Some facts must be borne in mind which will throw light on the liis- 
 tory of this document previous to 1839. This map of Canada was 
 beautifully painted around the title, as maps are which are in royal 
 keeping. Again, it contains among other writings a note of Louis 
 XV. It is therefore probable, that this map was preserved at the royal 
 residence of Versailles. At the sacking of the Palace, it without doubt 
 came into other hands, witli a multitude of other relics and documents, 
 which were afterwards sold as curiosities. Thus it came into the 
 hands of Mr. R. O. Bayer, and at his death was probably bought for 
 the Government, and deposited in the American archives in Paris. 
 
 Now, it is a remarkable circumstance, that about the very lime of 
 the discovery of this map in Lenormand's hands in 1837, a document 
 was stolen or removed from these very archives. This fact was after- 
 wards communicated to Lord Stirling by Baron de Pages, and other 
 gentlemen, with a recommendation to use every means to verify the 
 identity. It is needless to say that no means were left untried. The 
 best influence — both English and French — was brought to bear, not 
 only upon the officers attached to the archives, but also upon the Min- 
 isters and the late King. But the office had been closed to all re- 
 search, and the most absolute refusals were given in every instance, 
 even though a demand was made to verify that the map of Canada was 
 not the document so lost. The only reason assigned by several dis- 
 tinguished persons in France for the refusal to interfere in the matter 
 was, that the King's Government had been extremely annoyed by re- 
 monstrances made to it by the British Government, which had accused 
 it of extending aid and giving up documents to Lord Stirling, with a 
 view to disturb the peaceful relations existing between Great Britain 
 and her Canadian colonies. And it has been believed by many that 
 the charge of forgery was got up merely to afford a pretext for searching 
 in Lord Stirling's house for some proof of a treasonable character, 
 showing an understanding between him and French authorities. 
 Much sympathy was expressed for Lord Stirling and his family, ac- 
 companied by polite, but firm, refusals to take any part in the object 
 desired, for the reasons above given. 
 
 These demands for verification were renewed at every change of 
 
 ness. 
 
TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 49 
 
 Lord Siirling^ 
 a Lenormnnd> 
 rney to Edin- 
 
 jht on the his- 
 Cannda was 
 ;h are in royal 
 note of Louis 
 ;d at the royal 
 vvilhoul doubt 
 nd documents, 
 ;ame into the 
 bly bouglit for 
 ,03 in Paris. 
 le very time of 
 7, a document 
 fact was after- 
 iges, and other 
 IS to verify the 
 untried. The 
 , to bear, not 
 upon the Min- 
 osed to all re- 
 very instance, 
 3f Canada was 
 jy several dis. 
 in the matter 
 nnoyed by re- 
 \ had accused 
 tirling, with a 
 Great Britain 
 by many that 
 t for searching 
 ible character, 
 h authorities, 
 lis family, ac- 
 t in the object 
 
 ery change of 
 
 men and Government ineffectually. Our talented fellow-countryman. 
 Major Poore, who was employed by the ^.lassachusetts Historical So- 
 ciety to make searches in Paris, was equally unsuccessful in his eflforta 
 to obtain access to these archives. He is wdl acquainted with the 
 fact of Lord Stirling's failure, and can attest to the truth of the state- 
 ments relative to his own efforts. 
 
 Whatever may be the deficiencies of proof as to the former custody 
 of this document, they are wholly immaterial as proofs of its genuine- 
 ness. This document, clothed with autographs of the most dis- 
 tinguished men of France, is not like an ordinary deed. It is to be 
 regarded as a work of art, completely covered with indications of its 
 authenticity, or proofs of its falsity. It is like hundreds of old pictures 
 by the great masters, which have passed through suspicious hands, 
 which are authenticated by no proofs of former custody, but are re- 
 garded as of priceless value solely on account of the inherent evidences 
 which they present of their genuineness. 
 
 Lord Stirling was accused of forging an excerpt or abridged copy o 
 the charter of Novo damns of 1639. Two days of the trial were oc- 
 cupied in discussions and presenting evidence in relation to the excerpt. 
 The object of the Crown counsel in incriminating the excerpt was to 
 convey the impression to the jury that Lord Stirling had founded all 
 his claims upon the charter of 1639, and that the excerpt accused was 
 the only evidence presented of the evidence of that charter. The 
 Crown counsel undertook to show, as Blackwood has since done, that 
 if this excerpt is proved to be insufficient evidence of the existence of 
 the charter of 1639 that all Lord Stirling's claims fell to the ground. 
 It was even asserted that the services of the juries, who had given 
 their verdicts as to the heirship, were founded on this excerpt. 
 
 Now, what are the facts? This excerpt was never presented to the 
 jury at any one of the services. It was not used or presented by Lord 
 Stirling as proof in the civil suit brought by the Crown to reduce the 
 services. It is not placed on the list of proofs, although Lord Stir- 
 ling's counsel always considered it a genuine and authentic document. 
 He had himself withdrawn it. He was himself perfectly aware of all 
 the apparent defects in the documents which the Crown counsel pre- 
 tend to have discovered by a rare sagacity; and for these reasons he had 
 instructed his counsel not to rely upon a document which was sub- 
 jected to a breath of suspicion. It is true he had every reason for be- 
 lieving the document genuine, and proof since obtained has fully 
 7 
 
 ■i.ii 
 
60 
 
 TRIAL OF LOUD BTIULINa. 
 
 i> I 
 
 • ■ - 
 
 ''!!■. 
 
 established it. He Imd received it from liis ngcnt, Mr. Banks, who, 
 in a letlcr of I7lh March, 1829, had given iiim a detailed account of 
 "the fortunate (Uscovery" he had jufefniade in Irehuul of the abridged 
 copy or excerpt of (he charter of Novo danuis of 1039." 
 
 The many learned counsel who had cxanjined the document had 
 not a doubt as lo its genuineness. Mr. Lockhart, Lord Stirling's most 
 respectable solicitor or agent, says "diat no suspicion ever crossed his 
 mind as to the gcmiinencss of tiie document;" and he continued in this 
 belief to the last. Lord Stirling, soon after receiving the excerpt from 
 Mr. Hanks, in 1829, ''threw himself upon the tender mercies" of the 
 principal prosecuting ofllcer for Scotland, and exhibited the excerpt to 
 Sir William llae, the Lord Advocate, who had been directed by the 
 Ministers to consider a petition of Lord Stirling relative to the lands of 
 Nova Scotia and Canada. Mr. Corric, a most respectable solicitor of 
 Birmingham, says: ''Nothing escaped from the Lord Advocate from 
 which he could infer that he suspected the document, but the reverse. 
 Mr. Maundell, of Great George street, attended each day before the 
 Lord Advocate. I do not recollect or believe that he ever expressed a 
 •uspicion on the subject of any of the documents. The Lord Advo- 
 cate said that he saw no reason to doubt that the petitioner was Earl of 
 Stirling, and had a right to that title; that he had no doubt about the 
 charter, but he would not advise his Majesty to grant a new patent or 
 charter, because Lord Stirling had a legal remedy in Scotland, refer- 
 ring, I believe, to a process for proof per tenorem." 
 
 Believing, as Lord Stirling did, that this excerpt was a genuine 
 document, which more recent investigations Jiavc fully proved, he pre- 
 sented the excerpt in an action for proving the tenor, the purpose of 
 which was to obtain a new charier upon proving the tenor or sub- 
 stance, and loss of the ancient charter. In that action, brought in 
 1829, he failed; but not on account of any doubts thrown upon the 
 genuineness of the excerpt, but for the simple reason, slated by the 
 Judges, that ihe excerpt did not appear to be a copy of a perfected 
 charter, but of a privy seal precept for a charter. 
 
 From that moment he refused to enrol among his proofs a document 
 which had any incompleteness or defects which could not be explained. 
 It was only through the carelessness of Lord Stirling's agents that a 
 document, which he had not thought of for nine years, remained 
 among the files of the court. 
 
 If this document had been a forgery, why would the fabricator have 
 
Ranks, who, 
 (I uccnuiU of 
 llio abridged 
 
 sciiincnt had 
 liiling's inosl 
 r ci'osdcd hisi 
 linucd in this 
 excerpt fioin 
 cios" of the 
 Ijc excerpt to 
 ccted by the 
 • the lands of 
 le solicitor of 
 Ivocate from 
 L the reverse. 
 y before the 
 r expressed a 
 ! Lord Advo- 
 r was Earl of 
 ibt about the 
 ew patent or 
 olland, refer- 
 
 s a genuine 
 Dvcd, he pre- 
 le purpose of 
 cnor or sub- 
 , brought in 
 vn upon the 
 stated by the 
 f a perfected 
 
 s a document 
 )e explained, 
 agents that a 
 rs, remained 
 
 bricator have 
 
 Tni VL OF LORD STinr.I.Vff. 
 
 51 
 
 nllowcd (his proof of guilt, which ho no longer relied on as evidence 
 of jiis claims, to remain in the hands of his enemies? If it had been 
 suspected (o be a forgery, why was it allowed to ren)ain unaccused for 
 nine years by the agotUs of the Orown, who would have eagerly 
 availed themselves of at>y means of crushing so formidable an oppo- 
 nent? 
 
 Hut it served the purpose of the Crown to cormect this excerpt \>ith 
 the French documents, and to assort tluit upon those Lord Stirling 
 based all his claims. - # i 
 
 If the excerpt was believed to be a forgery, why did not the Crown 
 prosecute the only party who could have committed it? The evidence 
 of Mr. Lockluut and the letters olFered in evidence proved (liat Lord 
 Stirling hod received this document from Mr. Hanks, in Ireland. The 
 forgery, if it had been conunitled, had been done by Hanks, and not 
 Lord Stirling. These letters the Crown counsel would not allow to 
 be read. Banks had become their tool, and had aided them in hunt- 
 ing up the objections to the excerpt upon which they rested their case. 
 The prosecution of the real fabricator, if fabrication there was, would 
 not have served their purpose. 
 
 We repeat it, granting the excerpt to have been fabricated, it proves 
 nothing against Lord Stirling. It does not weaken in the slightest 
 respect his claims. The correspondence with Banks proves 'hat Lord 
 Stirling was innocent of any fabrication. The jury found this by 
 their verdict. It had never been used or relied on at the services as 
 evidence, and the verdict of the jury which impeached it declared, no 
 more than had been already acknowledged, that it was not admissible 
 as evidence without further attestation. ,. 
 
 Still we have no doubts as to the genuineness of the documents, and 
 the attacks made at the trial caused an investigation which completely 
 satisfied Lord Stirling and his friends as to its authenticity. 
 
 There is a broad distinction between the genuineness or authenticity 
 of a document, and the sufficiency of that document as evidence. It is 
 in the latter respect alone that the attacks made upon this document 
 have any force. i - i v . 
 
 We have proved, as we must think conclusively, the genuineness of 
 the French documents, and we claim the benefit of the rule given by 
 Lord Meadowbank to the jury: ''If you are satisfied that the proof is 
 clear that any of these sets of documents are forged, but that the evi- 
 dence with respect to the others is not so conclusive, you will have to 
 

 62 
 
 TllIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 V 1 
 
 ■■i:\^ 
 
 mnke up your niipds whether, considering that the whole are so con- 
 nected willi and bear upon each other, there can be any good reason 
 for fixing a character upon one which must not also belong to the 
 other." No one believing the genuineness of Mallet's note, even 
 without the other evidence, can doubt that the charter of Novo damus, 
 of 1G39 existed, or can conceive it improbable that a copy or excerpt of 
 such a charter should have been made by the solicitor of the Stirling 
 family in Ireland. 
 
 To understand the circumstances under which this copy was proba- 
 bly made, it will be necessary for the reader to know certain facts, 
 which are fully established by documentary evidence. During the 
 troubles in Scotland the Dowager Countess of Stirling resided in Ire- 
 land with her daughter, the Countess of Mount Alexander, for- 
 merly Viscountess Montgomerie. Afterwards the Countess of Mount 
 Alexander left the original charter of Novo damns, received from 
 her mother, with a Mr. Conycrs, from whose hands it came into 
 the custody of his son Mr. T. Conyers, a master in Chancery, and 
 eohcitor of the family of Montgomerie. It appears that, after the 
 <leath of the fifth Earl, Mr. Conycrs delivered the original charter 
 of Novo damns to the sixth Earl de jure, Uev. John Alexander, 
 of Dublin. A box conUiining this charter, with many other fam- 
 ily parchments, was stolen in England from the widow of the sixth 
 Earl de jure, as there is every reason to believe, by a sei;vant of Mr. 
 William Trumbull, a collateral descendant of the fifth Earl. When 
 Mr. Trumbull made arrangements with Gen. Alexander to unite with 
 him in prosecuting the claim to the Stirling estates, this box, contain- 
 ing the charter, seen by Horace Walpoie, and many other papers, was 
 delivered to Gen. Alexander. We have not space at this time to pre- 
 sent the documentary history by which these facts are established, for 
 we have made this brief digression simply for the purpose of explain- 
 ing the connexion of Mr. Conyers with the excerpt. 
 
 The excerpt, consisting of over two thousand words, is written 
 wholly in Latin. It is acknowledged to correspond in every particular 
 with the Chancery Latin of the ancient charters; not a single error of 
 phraseology was detected by the acute lawyers who examined it. 
 Since the writing of Latin has almost wholly gone out of use, it is 
 utterly inconceivable that any modern forger could have composed and 
 fabricated a law document in a dead language, which would not have 
 exposed to a nice criticism its falsity and recent origin in a hundred 
 
e are so con- 
 good reason 
 sloiig to the 
 s note, even 
 S^ovo dam us, 
 or excerpt of 
 ' tlie Stirling 
 
 y was proba- 
 certain facts, 
 
 During the 
 sided in Ire- 
 !xander, for- 
 ss of Mount 
 cceivcd from 
 it came into 
 liancery, and 
 at, after the 
 ;jinal charter 
 1 Alexander, 
 T Other fam- 
 of the sixth 
 i;vant of Mr. 
 :*arl. When 
 to unite with 
 30X, contain- 
 
 papers, was 
 
 time to pre- 
 ablished, for 
 
 of explain- 
 
 is written 
 ry particular 
 nqfle error of 
 xamincd it. 
 of use, it is 
 )mposed and 
 jld not have 
 n a hundred 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 63 
 
 particulars. And yet all that Blackwood can find is the objection that 
 the term "consanguineus noster" is applied to Peers, and never to a 
 Commoner; while the alleged charter twice applied that title to Alex- 
 ander, the son of the Peer, consequently '^a Commoner, and not the 
 Earl himself!" an objection both absurd and false. Tlie term might 
 naturally be applied to the son of a Peer, styled as Lord Alexander. 
 But the title of cousin teas applied in the excerpt to the Earl himself, 
 as follows: ''We give, A/C, <kc. to our right trusty and well-beloved 
 cousin and councillor William, Earl of Stirling," «fcc., ("per contuo 
 et predilecto nostro consanguineo et consiliurio, W^illielmo, Coniiti de 
 Stirling.") 
 
 How rotten a cause must that be, which is reduced to quibbles and 
 falsehoods like this. 
 
 The excerpt had evidently been copied by Mr. Conyers or his clerk 
 into a book or register, and the leaves afterwards cut out, (but there is 
 nothing to show that they had recently been cut out,) folded up, 
 endorsed, and placed away with other Stirling papers. There were 
 red lines about the margin which favor that supposition. This was 
 used as an argument against the antiquity of the document, and is 
 a fair specimen of the reasoning and proof on the trial. *A witness 
 swore that red lines were not introduced into Scotland till 1780, 
 or at least had not come under his notice till that time. 
 
 The writing was in an old hand, different from the Chancery hand 
 in which charters in Scotland are written. A witness precognosed, 
 but not called, for the defence, who had been employed for years in a 
 solicitor's office in London, was shown the excerpt, and states that it 
 was on precisely the same kind of English court hand as old English 
 deeds, and, being in Latin, resembled them entirely. Eminent law- 
 yers from Dublin were brought at a great expense to Edinburgh, who 
 had with them ancient registers and documents, and would have proved 
 that all the old law writings in Ireland of that date were in this style 
 and hand. They would also have proved that the marginal reference, 
 "Reg. Mag. Sig.," which a witness swore was not introduced into 
 Scotland till 1780, was the ancient, and certainly the most natural, 
 mode of making such a reference to charters of the Great Seal in Ire- 
 land. These witnesses would have proved the genuineness of the 
 initials and flourish of Thomas Conyers. They also would have 
 proved the authenticity of an ancient affidavit, libelled on hy the 
 Crown, signed by Henry Hovenden, and sworn to before one of the 
 Harons of the Exchequcfir of IrelamI, jhuwing that the existence of 
 
 tail 
 
 . ■ ' 
 
54 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 m 
 m'. 
 
 i^t'i 
 
 ■'': i 
 
 i 
 
 :.-\ 
 
 the original charter of Novo datniis^ in the hands of Tliomas Conyers, 
 and the genuineness of a certificate of Thomas Conyers to the same 
 effect. These witnesses had been brought from Ireland by General 
 D'Aguiicir at an expense of nearly =^500. Owing to the lateness of 
 their arrival in Edinburgh, the Crown counsel were not aware of the 
 extent and importance of their testimony, and therefore these precog- 
 nitions were not taken; but when they were iPt;oduced, and took their 
 places in the witness-box, with the ancient registers and writings in 
 their hands, and the court was made acquainted with the points they 
 were about to substantiate, the Judges, who were so vigilantly guard- 
 ing the Crown's interest, seeing that the proof would be fatal to the 
 infamous ?cheme of the Crown lawyers, were alarmed; and, after 
 retiring for secret consultation, ruled, amidst the murmurs of indig- 
 nation of the vast crowd assembled, that the witnesses should not be 
 heard! . . ^j. 
 
 Three witnesses, holding Crown offices, expressed the opinion that 
 the document was not ancient. This testimony is completely neutral- 
 ized by the practical assertion of the genuineness of the document by 
 the lawyers. Lord Advocate, and Judges, who, nine years before, hav- 
 ing it under the closest examination, had no doubt as to its genuine- 
 ness. One chemist made experiments on the paper, which proved it, 
 he thought, to be recent. Another chemist, employed by the Crown, 
 made experiments, which proved the paper to be old. This was a 
 specimen of the uncertainty and vagueness of the testimony. The 
 Judge, Meadowbank, thought it a proof of the falsity of the document 
 that the charter granted a part of New England, which the Judge said 
 the Scotch Crown had no power to grant. Yet the undoubted charter 
 of Canada, registere ' in Scotland, contains a grant of lands of New 
 England and New York. 
 
 Still there are two defects or inconsistencies in the excerpt, which, 
 although furnishing no evidence of fabrication, are not at first easy to 
 explain. 
 
 These difiiculties, or inconsistencies, are, that at the end of the ex- 
 cerpt are the words gratis per signetum; which words are found 
 only on a Privy Seal precept, and not on a complete charter; while the 
 excerpt has the testing clause, which ought not to be on a Privy Seal 
 precept. The second inconsistency is that the testing part, having the 
 nair 'iS of the witnesses, but not their signatures, has the name of John, 
 Arcf dshop of St. Andrews, Chancellor of the Kingdom of Scotland, 
 
 •) ; 
 
TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 55 
 
 omas Conyers, 
 ers to the same 
 ind by General 
 the lateness of 
 3t aware of the 
 e these precog- 
 , and took their 
 nd writings in 
 the points they 
 gilantly guard- 
 be fatal to the 
 ed; and, after 
 niurs of indig- 
 ? should 7iot be 
 
 le opinion that 
 iletciy neutrai- 
 j document by 
 js before, hav- 
 to its genuine- 
 hich proved it, 
 yy the Crown, 
 . This was a 
 Limony. The 
 
 the document 
 the Judge said 
 oubted charter 
 
 lands of New 
 
 ccerpt, which, 
 at first easy to 
 
 nd of the ex- 
 ds are found 
 ter; while the 
 
 a Privy Seal 
 It, having the 
 lanie of John, 
 
 of Scotland, 
 
 and nine others, with the date of the 7th of December, 1639; while, in 
 fact, the Archbishop of St. Andrews ceased to be Chancellor on the 
 13th of November, 1639, and died on the 26th of November, 1Q39. 
 
 We present the explanation of these inconsistencies, given by the 
 lawyers in Scotland, who have still entire confidence in the genuine- 
 ness of the excerpt. 
 
 It is believed that Mr. Conyers, who was in 1723 the possessor of 
 the original charter of 7th December, 1639, and was a lawyer and 
 master of Chancery, was also the meln of business or steward of the 
 noble family of Montgomerie. Hence it is inferred that he and his 
 father had been for many years the depositaries of many other papers 
 of the Montgomerie and Stirling families. The endorsement, with the " 
 initials and flourish on the outside leaf of the excerpt, seem clearly to 
 prove that the document was written by one of t le clerks of Mr. Con- 
 yers for his own use. The form of the excerpt is of that class of docu- 
 ments called mandates or precepts, and the words per signetum are 
 applicable to a mandate under the Privy Seal. The clause descriptive 
 of the witnesses most certainly ought not to have been inserted. Un 
 this account it would appear that the excerpt was prepared, not from 
 an original perfect charter, but froma^iVs^ draft of an intended 
 charter, written for the Earl's approbation, (as was usual when such 
 royal grants were conceded by the Sovereign,) long before the great 
 seal was affixed to the completed charter. This, precedents it is said 
 will show, might have been done fifteen or sixteen months b( ore the 
 7th December, 1639. At the moment of drawing such a draft, the 
 Archbishop of St. Andrews was still probably Chancellor of Scotland, 
 and the insertion of his name then as one of the proposed witnesses 
 could not have been an extraordinary or irregular proceeding. Now, 
 after having given up the original charter to the sixth Earl, when he 
 succeeded to the honors, it is thought that Mr. Conyers fiad had the 
 expert made for his own private reference from the Jirst draft remain- 
 ing in the Montgomerie charter chest, and not from the original char- 
 ter. This theory, which presents nothing improbable, enables us 
 satisfactorily to account for the few errors in the excerpt, otherwise so 
 unimpeachable. The addition of the real date of the perfect charter 
 upon an excerpt taken from a first draft, which could not have borne 
 any date, is accounted for by supposing that Mr. Conyers, of his own 
 will, caused the dale to be added in order to bear it in his remem- 
 brance. , . r < 
 
56 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 ■l^-'" 
 
 m 
 
 
 *■.. v.. 
 
 
 .,-•• 
 
 r\: 
 
 ['%■ ;. 
 
 It was argued, that if there had been any charter of Novo damus, 
 it would have been recorded in the different stages through which 
 it went to completion in the records of four different departments. To 
 this, it is said, that the Earl of Stirling, long Secretary and Keeper of 
 the Seals, and who issued his own mandate, possessing in consequence 
 of his exalted station extraordinary powers, could have caused the ori- 
 ginal signature, under the King's sign manual, to be carried jDer^a^^u;;^ 
 to the Director of Chancery as a sufficient authority for preparing and 
 sealing the charter. In such a case, the records would not show the usual 
 successive steps for the completion of the charter. It is admitted that 
 twelve leaves in the 67th volume of the records of that period are 
 missing. The loss of these leaves and the defects of registration arc 
 more naturally accounted for by the disturbances of the times. We 
 shall adopt the language of the very able writer in the Democratic 
 Review, who has discussed the question of Lord Stirling's rights with 
 great abihty. . ■ ^ <■ ' j 
 
 "Clarendon gives an elaborate picture of these distempered times, 
 which should be consulted by all who ask the reason why formalities 
 of registration have not been attended to by the Crown's grantees at 
 Edinburgh in 1639-40. The truth is, that they could not transact any 
 business whatever there but by proxy, for to have presented themselves 
 would have been to hazard, if not to forfeit, their lives. And if the 
 Earl of Stirling obtained by stealth the registration of his patent of 
 Novo damns, in the 57th volume of the Records, as we believe he 
 did, the state of feeling there against every friend and counsellor of 
 Charles was such that fully accounts for its being torn from its place 
 by anybody, amidst the applause of the whole community. The 
 wonder is, not that it is gone with the twelve missing leaves, and that 
 the indexes made up long after say nothing of it, but it had been a 
 greater wonder had it been allowed to remain. In fact, when we look 
 back at that day, when universal indignation possessed the people 
 against the Court, we would be as much astonished to find the charter 
 in question on the register, as to have found that granted to the town of 
 Edinburgh torn out. The existence of the one and the non-existence 
 of the other are only equivalent proofs of the state of the public mind. 
 It had not been possible for a royal grant of British North America, 
 made part of the very county of Edinburgh for the express purpose of 
 vesting the title in a courtier, to exist on the record. It was sure to be 
 ■destroyed there at any rate, by some person or other." 
 
TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 67 
 
 Vovo damus, 
 rough which 
 tments. To 
 nd Keeper of 
 consequence 
 lused the ori- 
 idpersaltum 
 )reparing and 
 how the usual 
 admitted that 
 lat period are 
 gistration are 
 i times. We 
 e Democratic 
 fa rights with 
 
 npered times, 
 liy formalities 
 's grantees at 
 t transact any 
 ed themselves 
 And if the 
 lis patent of 
 believe he 
 counsellor of 
 from its place 
 unity. The 
 .ves, and that 
 had been a 
 vhen we look 
 the people 
 d the charter 
 the town of 
 ion-existence 
 public mind, 
 th America, 
 !s purpose of 
 as sure to be 
 
 To this it may be added, the charter may not have been a Scotch 
 charter at all, and no registration may have been attempted in Scot- 
 land where political prejudices were so strong against the favorite cour- 
 tier of the unpopular King. 
 
 Other charters, purely American, and onlp recorded in America, for 
 instance, that of Sr. Ferdinando George, were granted to several dis- 
 tinguished men, who, at their own risk and charges, undertook to 
 colonize diflerent portions of the western continent. The charter of 
 Novo damus, referring particularly to estates in America, may have 
 been recorded only at Port Royal or Annapolis. Thus all the grand 
 objections founded on the want of registration would be overthrown. 
 
 We have already dwelt too long upon the question of the genuine- 
 ness of the excerpt, which the jury declared was not forged by Lord 
 Stirling, or uttered by him knowing it to be forged,and which, whether 
 authentic or not, is wholly unnecessary to support his rights, and hasten 
 to a consideration of the De Porquet packet, which contains evidence 
 in English perfectly conclusive as to Lord Stirling's descent. Little 
 need here be said. These documents were attacked with the same 
 reckless and indiscriminating ferocity as the other papers by both the 
 Crown counsel, and court. See how Lord Meadowbank pressed this 
 point in his charge to the jury. <<lt is a matter for your consideration. 
 to say whether there are any grounds for your doubting that the Eng> 
 lish documents are forged also." But these documents were English. 
 The jury could read and understand them. No longer compelled to^ 
 trust to French experts and iScotch lawyers, and to pass on papers in a. 
 language which they could not comprehend, they vindicated their 
 sturdy common sense as soon as they could sec and judge for them- 
 selves. They found the English documents in the De Porquet packet 
 genuine— a judgment most mortifying to the Crown, for still Lord 
 Stirling was left with his best defences assoiled of suspicion. 
 
 We may remark here that it is no part of our present object to prove 
 the pedigree of the Earl of Stirling. A paper as long as the present 
 would be required to present and discuss the vast mass of evidence by 
 which the pedigree is established. Although we may avail ourselves 
 of another occasion to present this interesting evidence, we consider 
 the question of pedigree settled by the services of the juries, and by 
 the opinions so distinctly expressed by Lord Brougham and other ex- 
 Chancellors in the House of Lords, in 1845, that the Scotch courts 
 had no right to reduce the services. We confidently rely upon a final 
 8 
 
 M 
 
58 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 
 W' 
 f. 
 
 
 f:- 
 
 I T 
 
 and (riuniplmnt decision upon this point in ihe House of Lords as soon 
 as the means for prosecuting the appeal are provided. 
 
 We do not deem it necessary to reply to the foul aspersions upon 
 Lord Stirling's character contained in the articles of Blackwood and 
 the arguments of (he prosecuting officers and presiding judge. 
 ' No other answer need be given to these exaggerations and inventions 
 than the testimony given at the trial by Lord Stirling's friends. We 
 give from the Crown report the testimony of two only[of the witnesses, 
 without conuncnt, simply premising that, strong as it is, it has been 
 toned down by the officers of State, who revised the report before its 
 publication, and have suffered no reference to be made to the cnthu- 
 siastic reception of this evidence by the audience. 
 
 Mr. Harding, cousin of late Sir Robert Peel, said of Lord Stirling, 
 «He is a man of excellent moral principle and honor. 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 great deal of him, from the time of his first calling 
 upon me. In his letters, there is not an observation that would not do 
 honor to any one, as far as the heart is concerned. There is no man 
 in existence more honorable than he is." 
 
 Col. D'Aguilar, (now Lieutenant-General and Governor of Ports- 
 mouth,) said: ^ 
 
 " I am at the head of the adjutant-general's stall* in Ireland. My 
 first commission was dated in 1790, about forty years ago; I was at 
 school with him (Lord Stirling) near Birmingham, at the Rev. Mr. 
 ^Corrie's, brother of Mr. Josiah Corrie." 
 
 •' Did you visit his family?" 
 
 ''* YeS; often. I may slate the circumstance. I was at that time at 
 Ti considerable distance from my friends. Lord Stirling's family re- 
 sided in the immediate neighborhood. We were class-fellows. His 
 place was generally immediately above me; he also showed kmdness 
 to me ; and it brought us more or less together. When he went home 
 at the short vacation, 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. The character of his family 
 was in the highest degree respectable. I may be a little prejudiced, 
 for I received such affectionate kindness and hospitality from (he fami- 
 ly that I can never forget it. Their aflcction for me was unbounded, 
 and I am here to repay the debt of gratitude which I owed, to themj I 
 
f Lords ns soon 
 
 spersions upon 
 lackwood nnd 
 judge. 
 
 and inventions 
 I friends. We 
 the witnesses, 
 is, it has been 
 sport before its 
 } to tlie enthu- 
 
 Lord StirHng, 
 As a fatiier, ns 
 very best. At 
 n again, I had 
 lis first calling 
 L would not do 
 ere is no man 
 
 rnor of Ports- 
 Ireland. My 
 ago; I was at 
 the Rev. Mr. 
 
 at that time at 
 g's family re- 
 fcllows. His 
 Dwed kindness 
 he went home 
 so that I had 
 with him; not 
 of his family 
 e prejudiced, 
 rom the fami- 
 is unbounded, 
 ed. to them J I 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 69 
 
 was separated from him by circumstances. 1 corresponded with him 
 and his family; when I was in London, (1830, and subsequently,) I 
 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 nie. As to his character as a man of 
 honor, 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 mc to take the part 1 have taken, to stand before the court 
 where I do, (beside his friend,) if I did not think Lord Stirling to be 
 incapable of a dishonorable action. I beg to say, that if the corres- 
 pondence of an individual is any index to his mind and character, that 
 1 have in my possession the most ample proofs to enable me to form 
 my opinion of him." 
 
 The crown report omits to state that General D'Aguilar in giving 
 this testimony from the dock, where with a sublime and chivalric devo- 
 tion he had taken his place by the side of his friend, was frequently 
 interrupted by the shouts of applause of the vast audience, who sym- 
 pathized so deeply with the prisoner. • '4* 
 
 The conduct of the prosecuting officers throughout this trial was 
 characterized by a determination, and even ferocity, which was due 
 not merely to official zeal, but to deep personal interest in the result. 
 The leading Crown counsel was Ivory, the solicitor-general. This ad- 
 vocate had had the management of the civil suit against Lord Stirling 
 ever since 1833. He was made solicitor-general for the express pur- 
 pose of conducting the case in the criminal court, and appeared in his 
 official gown for the first time at this trial. He was assistfid by Mr. 
 Innes and Roderic McK^nzie. The latter had been crown agent in 
 this case since 1833. The sum of .J'40,000 had been pledged to Ivory 
 and McKenzic by private parties in possession of the English and 
 Scotch estates, on the condition that Lord Stirling should be broken 
 down. Ill 1837, Messrs. Ivory and McKenzie made repeated over- 
 tures to Lord Stirling's agent, Mr. Lockhart, to compromise the case, 
 and complained bitterly of Lord Stirling's obstinacy in refusing to ne^ 
 goliate. They desired that the negotiations should be carried on 
 through them, that they might secure their reward. liOrd Stirling re- 
 fused to treat with any parties except the ministers. Of course all the 
 influence of the Crown officers was brought to bear upon the ministers 
 o prevent a settlement of the case by them, which at that time, 1837, 
 
60 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 
 
 
 .> 
 
 '\ V' 
 
 !• 
 
 i ■ ,' ■ 
 
 It- 
 
 after the suppression of the Canadian rebellion, the Government were 
 inclined to favor. Here we deem it our duty to express our own doubts, 
 as well as those of Lord Stirling, whether the criminal efforts of the 
 crown agents and counsel to destroy his case by tampering with his 
 documents, and suborning corrupt witnesses, could have been known 
 to the Lord Advocate, and to the ministers and higher olTicers of the 
 British Government. The British Government has in this case refused 
 to do right; but could they have authorized such base and cowardly 
 wrong? Indeed, several of its members have indignantly denied that 
 they had instigated criminal suit, saying that they " knew that Lord 
 Stirling was a perfectly honorable man." Still the Government have 
 been anxious to suppress the exposure of these iniquitous proceedings, 
 which would have thrown so much discredit upon the Crown. They 
 induced Mr. Wallace to withdraw a motion made by him in the British 
 House of Commons in 1839, for a detailed report of the expenses in 
 the Lord Advocate's office for this trial alone, officially reported to be 
 the enormous sum of ^"16,000, eighty thousand dollars} 
 
 Of the conduct of the defence, we speak with that pain which every 
 one must feel when the honor of his profession has been violated. 
 We shrink even from expressing our own convictions, and would seek 
 for some excuse for the management of a cause which seems explica- 
 ble only by supposing excessive stupidity or bad faith. How, except 
 by conceiving the most painful suspicions, can it be explained that 
 witnesses — some of whom had been brought at immense expense to at- 
 tend at the trial, who would not only have crushed the case of the 
 prosecution, but have hurled back upon the accusers the charge of fab- 
 rication — were not called? We could wish to believe that the leading 
 counsel, Mr. Robertson, seeing the whole power of the Government, 
 and all the weight of the court brought to bear upon his client — seeing 
 him doomed by the remorseless tyrarmy of the Crown — hoped to avert 
 a portion of this doom by "saving the honor of the Crown, compro- 
 mised by its agents." Perhaps he felt that he could only save his 
 client's liberty by the sacrifice of his cause, when, instead of manfully 
 defending all the rights which but for him were so impregnably fortified,^ 
 he abandoned his strong position by such words as these: "Let the 
 visionary coronet of vain ambition be plucked from his bewildered 
 brow; let the visionary prospects of vast possessions and boundless 
 wealth vanish into empty air. » # # On my conscience, J be- 
 lieve him to have been the dupe of the designmg, and the prey of the 
 worthless." 
 
 m 
 
TRIAL OF LORD STIRLtNG. 
 
 ef 
 
 ernmcnt were 
 ir own doubts, 
 
 efforts of the 
 ering wilh his 
 ; been known 
 jflicers of the 
 is case refused 
 and cowardly 
 ly denied that 
 lew thai Lord 
 ernment have 
 3 proceedings, 
 rown . They 
 
 in tiie British 
 e expenses in 
 eported to be 
 
 I which every 
 ►een violated, 
 id would seek 
 eems ex plica- 
 How, except 
 xplained that 
 xpense to at- 
 e case of the 
 harge of fab- 
 it the leading 
 Government, 
 lient — seeing 
 oped to avert 
 wn, compro- 
 nly save his 
 
 of manfully 
 ibly forlified,^ 
 36 : "Let the 
 3 bewildered 
 d boundless 
 :ience, J be- 
 
 prey of the 
 
 Thus the Crown found in the defender's counsel its strongest ally,, 
 for certainly all the assaults of Ivory and Meadowbank did not injure 
 Lord Stirling's cause so much as this weak, cowardly, shuffling, tern- 
 porizing defence. 
 
 In England, or in any country where there is any popular strength,, 
 a vigorous and manly opposition to the oppression of the Government, 
 in a great fcause like this, would have been the foundation of profes- 
 sional success. But in Edinburgh, where there is no large commer- 
 cial community to keep in its service the best talent of the bar, all the 
 prizes of the profession are the places in the gift of the Crown. And 
 the Government is sure of having no more opposition than is necessary 
 on the pj^Tt of the opponent to prove that he is worth buying off. 
 
 On the first two days of the trial the defence was conducted with 
 vigor and skill. The witnesses for the Crown were submitted to a rig- 
 orous cross-examination, and the arbitrary rulings of the court resisted 
 with becoming spirit. But on the third day it was remarked on all 
 sides that after the Crown counsel, and after them the leading coun- 
 sel for the defence, had been called to the bench, and a long and pri- 
 vate communication had passed between the latter and the presiding 
 judge, a deplorable change took place, and the wishes of Lord Stir- 
 ling and his friends were no longer regarded. What passed in that 
 interview cannot be told. But certain it is that shortly afler the trial 
 Lord Meadowbank left the bench, and the advocate who had deserted 
 his client's cause, and who, whether unwittingly or not, had so well 
 served the Crown's interest, and who had said in his speech, "I tram- 
 ple on the tarnished ermine with disdain," was even without going 
 through the ordinary grades, pitchforked to the bench. 
 
 It is but just to say, that Lord Stirling has always spoken of his 
 junior counsel with respect and regard. He might not have been 
 wholly free from that influence which pervaded the legal atmosphere 
 of Edinburgh, and doubtless felt himself compelled by the imperative 
 rules of professional courtesy to yield to the leading counsel. 
 
 But what shall we say of that modern Jeffreys, the presiding judge, 
 who acted throughout the trial as the "leading counsel of the Crown," 
 (his own words.) Such unblushing prostitution of judicial power to 
 subserve a "political purpose" cannot be instanced in modern times. 
 Every ruling was against the prisoner. In every question to a witness,, 
 and the court took a prominent, and what to us seems a most unusual 
 
62 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 f 
 
 ■-■■( • 
 
 1 ' 
 
 ;=a- 
 
 4-> 
 
 part in the examination, was calculated to assure the reluctant witness 
 for the Crown, and draw forth stronger evidence against the panel. 
 Resolved, remorseless, straining every fact, torturing every circum- 
 stance, he never relaxed from his purpose of doom. ' 
 
 We give some random sentences from his charge: 
 
 <<I submit to you that it would not be safe to hold that there could 
 be any doubt that this is a fabricated document." "\n my opinion, a 
 document liable to such insurmountable objections staring upon the 
 face of it, cannot be genuine." <'It- is really so manifest that it does 
 not require to be mentioned; that while these documents on the back 
 of the map bears the dates of 1706 and 1707, the map itself did not ex- 
 ist till 1718." "I do not know that in all my life I ever saw anything 
 that tended more conclusively to satisfy my mind of anything than this 
 fact satisfies me that this is an entire fabrication from beginning to 
 end." <<Then last of all in regard to this point, we have at the end of 
 the indictment the supposed anonymous letter to Lenormand which 
 must follow the fate of the document itself. You can have no diffi- 
 culty or ground for doubting that this letter is a forgery also." ''The 
 son returns with a map which I am assuming you are to hold to be a 
 fabrication." "And in my mind there does not exist a shadow of a 
 doubt of its being a forged document." , 
 
 Throughout the whole charge there is not a circumstance, or fact, 
 or question, presented or suggested, to raise a doubt in favor of the 
 prisoner. He gleans every argument or fact bearing against the pris- 
 oner which had been omitted by the counsel for the prosecution. We 
 give one instance of the reasoning against the prisoner, thus gleaned up 
 and urged upon the jury, when there was no opportunity of refuting it, 
 which well illustrates the shallowness and falsity of the reasoning (for 
 there were no proofs) against the documents on the map. 
 
 Mallet, in the note on the map dated 1706, speaks of the charter of 
 Novo dumus as "uneancienne charte," and John Alexander speaking 
 in French of a tradition relative to the loss of certain records sixty years- 
 before, calls it "I'ancienne tradition." 
 
 Now, every French scholar knows that the words "ancien" and 
 "ancienne" in French are applied to things not only very ancient, 
 but those of comparatively recent occurrence. Thus we should speak 
 of a retired minister as "un ancien ministre" — meaning one formerly 
 such — "une ancienne femme de chambre," or a woman who was 
 formerly a lady's maid But with Lord Meadowbank, the use of t his 
 
 1.; ( 
 ■ ■ 
 
lictant witness 
 St the panel, 
 ivery circum- 
 
 at there could 
 my opinion, a 
 ng upon the 
 ist that it does 
 s on the back 
 ilf did not ex- 
 saw anything 
 liing than this 
 I beginning to 
 at the end of 
 rmand which 
 have no diffi- 
 Iso." <'The 
 } hold to be a 
 L shadow of a 
 
 ance, or fact, 
 favor of the 
 linst the pris- 
 cution. We 
 IS gleaned up 
 )f refuting it, 
 sasoning (for 
 
 he charter of 
 der speaking 
 3s sixty years- 
 
 mcien" and 
 ^ery ancient, 
 should speak 
 3ne formerly 
 n who was 
 e use of t his 
 
 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 
 
 68 
 
 "word was a conclusive proof of the forgery of the document. "I ask 
 you, he says, addressing the jury, whether any mortal man ever heard 
 of "ancient" being applied to a document of sixty years. Can you, 
 by any construction or credulity, believe that such a thing could have 
 taken place?" Speaking of John Alexander's use of the "ancienne 
 tradition:" "Who ever heard of the ancient tradition of a thing that 
 •happened forty or fifty years ago?" 
 
 Among other ingenious distortions of the presiding Judge, is the 
 statement that a note found pasted on the map after the tombstone in- 
 scription which was pasted over it had been removed in court, was an 
 incipient forgery, and had been attempted to be torn off by the forger. 
 Now the fact is, and it is a fact which Lord Meadowbank must have 
 known, that after the note, with the signature and date had been rap- 
 idly and indistinctly read to the court, Mr. Cosmo Tnnes seized the 
 map, and for reasons known only to himself, rapidly tore off the bot- 
 tom of the note with the name and date, and crumpling the frag- 
 ment in his hand, threw it on the floor. This act was witnessed by 
 several gentlemen in attendance, who, immediately after the adjourn- 
 ment of ihe court, rushed forward to search for the fragment, but the 
 servants of the court were too quick for them, and had already swept 
 it away; and yet, the Judge tortures this act of the Crown counsel 
 into a proof of the criminality of the accused. 
 
 We have said enough to show that the court had already convicted 
 the prisoner before his trial. When we reflect upon the condemnation 
 which public opinion must pronounce upon this unjust judge, how re- 
 markable are the prophetic words of the "philosophical poet, the illus- 
 trious ancestor of the accused, in his "Doomesday" — 
 
 Ye judges, ye who with a little breath ■ ' 
 
 Can ruin fortunes and disgrace inflict, 
 *■ * Yea, sit securely whilst denouncing death, ■ - 
 
 ,. II • * Ft shall be judged. 
 
 We know of no instance in modern times which illustrates so forcibly, 
 as does this case, the importance of the trial by jury in political causes 
 to preserve the liberty or life of the accused. The jury found by 
 their verdict that Lord Stirling was not guilty, or, according to the 
 Scotch form, it was not proven that he had forged any of the docu- 
 ments. It is true that they were led by the instructions of the court 
 
 A*ofe.— Lori SArling's poems— Doomesday. The 1th Houte. English Poets and Trans- 
 ations, vol. v, p. 368. 
 
64 
 
 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 
 
 
 {it ■ 
 
 to find what they had no right to do, and what was wholly unusual, 
 even in Scotland, that some of the documents were not genuine. 
 Still the verdict, illegal as it was, was conclusive as to the genuineness 
 of the only documents which they could understand, documents which 
 completely establish Lord Stirling's pedigree. 
 
 While speaking of the jury, we must not omit to mention one inci- 
 dent of the trial, wholly overlooked in the Crown report! After a few- 
 only of Lord Stirling's witnesses had been heard, the foreman or 
 chancellor of the jury arose, and addressing the court slated, that the 
 jury saw no necessity for going on with the case, as they had made up 
 their minds to give a verdict for Lord Stirling. The presiding Judge 
 was determined that the panel should not escape. He counted upon 
 the effect of his argument for the Crown, and cotnpelled the jury, in 
 spite of their expostulations, to sit for two days longer to listen to his 
 own and Ivory's implacable assaults. 
 
 "When the mutilated verdict was announced, (we adopt the graphic 
 description of the Democratic Review,) there was such a stamping 
 and shouting as yet rings in the ears of all who heard it, from 
 highest to lowest. It drowned the cries and expostulations of the 
 bench, towards which, indeed, it was so menacing that the Chief 
 Justice remained some time afterwards in the building, and retired 
 privately, while the tenant of the dock was made the object of an 
 enthusiastic popular ovation^ which, on recovering from a fainting 
 fit, he promptly, but unwisely, declined. The crowd received the 
 Earl of Stirling at the front door of the court with huzzas and 
 waving of hats and handkerchiefs; they unharnessed the horses from 
 his carriage, then before the door, and proposed to draw him them- 
 selves back in triumphal procession to his residence, and to his wife 
 and children. He resisted their importunities to the last; but was 
 compelled, for the opposite reason, to address the crowd himself before 
 they would be tranquilized, and left in triumph, followed by hundreds' 
 of people, by High street, instead of leaving by the back entrance, 
 from Cowgate, through which the Chief Justice himself ingloriously 
 departed. Conditions had rapidly changed, ana retribution seemed to 
 be approaching." 
 
 Thus did the accused pass unscathed through an ordeal more fearful 
 than that of fire. Cruelly as he was persecuted, he w^ill yet rejoice at 
 the results of that atrocious trial. For will not our readers say, will 
 not the world say, that this trial is the strongest confirmation of his 
 
TRIAL OP LORD flTIRLINO. 
 
 65 
 
 )lly unusual, 
 
 [lot genuine. 
 
 genuineness 
 
 nients which 
 
 :ion one inci- 
 
 After a few 
 
 foreman or 
 
 \led, that the 
 
 had made up 
 
 isiding Judge 
 
 counted upon 
 
 the jury, in 
 
 a listen to his 
 
 )t the graphic 
 
 1 a stamping 
 
 sard it, from 
 
 ations of the 
 
 at the Chief 
 
 , and retired 
 
 object of an 
 
 n a fainting 
 
 received the 
 
 huzzas and 
 
 horses from 
 
 w him them- 
 
 d to his wife 
 
 ast; but was 
 
 imself before 
 
 by hundreds^' 
 
 ck entrance, 
 
 ingloriously 
 
 on seemed to 
 
 rights? Would the Government of a mighty empire have lent itself to 
 crush a pretender, whose fabrications must have been exposed at the 
 first glaicn of common judicial scrutiny ? Would the treasure of the 
 Crown have been lavished as it was; would high officers of State have 
 been created, base falsifiers rewarded, and treacherous advocates 
 clothed with '<the tarnished ermine;" would tho stronghold of British 
 freedom have been invaded, and the halls of justice violated; would 
 the honor of the crow, iiave been compromised, exposure of all the 
 outrages of this trin' risked, if an imperious tiecessity had not de- 
 manded the saving, by a " bold stroke," the vast territories to which 
 Lord Stirling had judicially established his right? When the Bri- 
 tish Government allowed honor and law to be violated to effect 
 their purpose, did they not deliberately proclaim that they had no 
 legal defence to Lord Stirling's claims? Gladly now would they 
 keep this trial out of sight. The English press, which has just re- 
 sponded with so much anxiety to the assertion of Lord Stirling's rights 
 by the American papers, carefully ignore the trial at Edinburgh, and 
 prefer even to fall back upon (he deliberate falsehood that Lord Stir- 
 ling's claims have been rejected by the House of Lords. 
 
 But this trial will not be forgotten. It will. have its place in history 
 with those of Hampden, Russell, and Sydney. And Lord Sdrling, 
 not for his rank or titles, not for his vast claims, but as the victim of po- 
 litical oppression, and as presenting in himself a most significant illustra- 
 tion of the abuses of British power, will most assuredly receive the sup- 
 port and sympathy of the American press and people, and the friends of 
 freedom throughout the world. Enlightened by them. Public Opin- 
 ion, the mighty tribunal before which even monarchs must bow, will 
 reverse tlie decisions of unjust courts. 
 
 A great wrong cannot endure; " judges may die, and courts be at 
 an end; but justice still lives, and though she may sleep for 
 
 AWHILE, WILL EVENTUALLY AWAKE, AND MUST BE SATISFIED. 
 
 (Paterson, J. 1 Dallas's U. S. Sup. Court Reports, p. 86.) 
 
 )> 
 
 more fearful 
 yet rejoice at 
 ers say, will 
 (lation of his 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Translation of the Documents in French, upon the back of a map of 
 Canada, by Guillaume De L^lsle, Geographer to King Louis 
 XIV. Published in 1703. . 
 
 Ivi 
 
 W. > 
 
 •«». 
 
 Tvd 
 
 17189 
 
 & 
 17190 
 
 .rr 
 
 No. I. 
 
 Note bt M. Ph. Mallet. 
 
 Ltonb, Ath ^t^wtt 1706. 
 
 During my stay in Acadia, m 1702, my curiosity was excited by what was told me re- 
 specting an old Charter, which is preserved in the Archives of that pro- 
 vince. It is the Charter of Confirmation, or of " Novo damus," dated 7th Reg. H. 
 December, 1639, by which King Charles the First of England renewed, in fo. 95., E. D. 
 favor of William, Earl of Stirling, the tiilcs and dignities which he had Mar. 1, 1710. 
 previously granted to hirn, and all the grants of land which had been made 
 to him since 1621, in Scotland and in America. My friend Lacroix caused a copy of it 
 to be given to me, which, before leaving the country, I took the precaution of getting duly 
 attested. From this authentic document I am going to present, in this place, a few ex- 
 tracts, (translated into French for the better understanding of those who do not know 
 Latin,) in order that every person, on opening this map of our American possessions, 
 may form an idea of the rast extent of territory which was granted by the King of Eng- 
 land to one of his subjects. If the fate of war, or some other event, should cause New 
 France and Acadia to return under the dominion of the English, the family of Stirling 
 would possess these two provinces] as well as New England, " and in like manner the 
 whole of the passages and bounds, as well upon the waters as upon the land, from the 
 source of the river of Canada, in whatsoever place it may be found, to the Bay of Califor- 
 nia, with fifty leagues of land on each side of the said passage; and further, all the other 
 lands, bounds, lakes, rivers, firths, woods, forests and others, which may be hereafter 
 found, conquered, or discovered by the said Earl or his heirs." 
 
 Then follows the order of succession to this inheritance. 
 
 lit. To the titles of nobility, (" de novo damus," &c.) " to the aforesaid William, Ear, 
 of Stirling, and the heirs-male descending of his body, whom failing, to the eldest heirs- 
 female," (" ha:redibus femellis natu maximis,") " without division of the last of the 
 aforesaid heirs-male, and the heirs-male descending of the body of the said heirs-female 
 respectively, bearing the surname and arms of Alexander, and failing all these heirs, to 
 the nearest heirs whatsoever of the said William, Earl of Stirling." (Here follow the 
 titles, &c.) 2d. To the territorial possessions, (" de novo damus concedimus, disponi- 
 mus, proque nobis et successoribus nostris pro perpetuo confirmamus,) " to the aforesaid 
 William, Earl of Stirling, and the heirs-male descending of his body, whom failing, to 
 the eldest of the heirs-female, without division, of the last of the aforesaid males, who 
 shall succeed hereafter to the aforesaid titles, honors, and dignities, and the heirs-male de- 
 scending of the body of the aforesaid heirs-female respectively bearing the surname and 
 
 Lh 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 67 
 
 kof a map of 
 King Louis 
 
 Reg. H. 
 fo. 95., E. D. 
 Mar. 1, 1710. 
 
 1Y189 
 
 & 
 17190 
 
 h August, 1706. 
 Eit was told me re- 
 
 0- 
 
 th 
 in 
 id 
 de 
 
 auRed a copy of it 
 
 ion of getting duly 
 
 s place, a few ex- 
 
 who do not know 
 
 ■lean possessions, 
 
 the King of Eng> 
 
 hould cause New 
 
 family of Stirling 
 
 like manner the 
 
 the land, from the 
 
 le Bay ofCalifor- 
 
 ther, all the other 
 
 may be hereafter 
 
 aid William, Ear, 
 the eldest heirs- 
 f the last of the 
 said heirs-female 
 all these heirs, to 
 (Here follow the 
 cedimus, disponi- 
 " to the aforesaid 
 whom failing, to 
 esaid males, who 
 he heirs-male de- 
 the surname and 
 
 arms of the family of Alexander, which they shall be held and obliged to assume," &c. 
 Thus the King of England gave to the Earl, and confirmed to his descendants in perpetu- 
 ity, lands sufficient to form the foundation of a powerful empire in America. 
 
 (Signed) Ph. Mallet. 
 
 On the right hand upper corner of the above document, is a memorandum by King 
 Louis XV, of France, in the following terms: 
 
 " This note is worthy of some attention under the present circumstances; but let the 
 copy of the original Charter be sent to me." 
 
 Underneath this is the following attestation by M.Villenave:* ' 
 
 " I attest that the four lines above are in the handwriting of Louis XV, and perfectly 
 conformable to the writing of that King, several of whose autograph documents and let- 
 ters are in my possession. 
 
 (Signed) "VILLENAVE." 
 
 « Paris, th\a 2d qfJlugtut, 1837." 
 
 • No. II. 
 
 Note bt M. Carom St. Etig-vne, a Canadian, unoerkbath the Note bt M. Mallet. 
 
 " The above is a valuable note. I can affirm that it gives, in a few words, an extremely 
 just idea of the wonderful Charter which is referred to. As for the copy of this Charter, 
 it is attested by the Keeper of the Archives and Acadian witnesses; and must be entirely 
 conformable to the Register of Port Royal. I had heard at duebec persons speak of the 
 grants to the Earl of Stirling, but my friend, M. Mallet, was the first who procured for 
 me a perusal of the Charter. This extraordinary document extends to nearly fifty pages 
 of writing, and the Latin is nothing less than classical; yet, being a Canadian, and, as 
 such, a little interested in what is contained in it, I feel bound to say, that I iiave read it 
 from beginning to snd with as much curiosity as satisfaction. The deceased, iM . Mallet, 
 was a man whose good qualities and rare intelligence make it to be regretted that death 
 should have so suddenly carried him off from his friends. 
 
 " He had well foreseen that the copy would not make the Charter known in France. 
 On this account, therefore, he formed the project of writing upon one of these beautiful 
 maps of GuillaumQ De L'IsIe a note, that every body might read with interest. If he 
 had lived long enough he 'vould have added to that interest, for he wished to make inqui- 
 ries in England regarding the actual situation of the descendants of the Eurl who obtain- 
 ed the grants, and all that might have been communicateJ to him respecting them would 
 have been written upon this same map. However, with the two documents that he has 
 left us, no person in France can venture a doubt as to the existence of such a charter. 
 (Signed) " CARON SAINT ESTIENNE. 
 
 "LiosB, 6th April, im." 
 
 * Member of the Inslituteof France, and one of the greatest collectors of original wriUogs 
 in that kingdom. 
 
68 
 
 l?;.:'v 
 
 I' V nt 
 
 t,--« 
 
 
 
 '.I 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 No. III. 
 
 Attestation bt Esprit Flechier, Bishop of Nismei. , 
 
 " I have lately read, in the house of M. Sartre, at Caveirac, the copy of the Charter of 
 the Earl of Stirling. I remarked in it many curious particulars, mixed up with a great 
 nutnber of uninteresting details. I therefore think that we ought to feel the ^'reatest obli- 
 gation to M. Mallet for having enabled the French public to judge, by the above note, of 
 the extent and importance of the grants made to this Scotch nobleman. I find also that 
 he has extracted the most psseniial clauses of the Charter; and, in translating them into 
 French, has given a very correct version of them. M. Caron St. Esticnne has requested 
 tne to bear testimony to this. I do so with the greatest pleasure. 
 
 * (Signed) " ESPRIT, Bishop of Nismes. 
 
 «' M Wishes, this 3d of June, 1707." 
 
 Verified by M. Villenave, as follows: 
 
 "This attestation is in the handwriting of Esprit Flechier, Bishop of Nismes. 
 
 (Signed) "VILLENAVE. 
 
 • ' Paris, 2d Jli^usl, 1837. " , 
 
 The authenticity of M. Vil1enave*s signature is shown by the attestations of the public 
 authorities, viz: 
 
 *'Seen by us, Mayor of the 11th Arrondissement of Paris, for the legalization of the 
 
 signature of M. Villenave, (the father,) afiixed to the above, and again at the top of this 
 
 m6rgin. 
 
 Snitlofthe 
 Mayor. 
 
 " Paris, 2d August, 1837." 
 
 (Signed) " DESGRANGES. 
 
 " Seen, for legalization of the signature of M. Desgranges, placed adjoining to this, by 
 UB, Judge, in the absence of the President of the Tribunal of First Instance of the Seine. 
 
 Behlofihe Tribunal of First (Signed) "SALMON. 
 
 Jiistance of the Oep. of . ;^ 
 ihe Sfcine. 
 
 •• Paris, 3d .August, 1837." 
 
 "Seen, for legalization of the signature of M. Salmon, Judge of the Civil Tribunal of 
 the Seine. 
 "Paris, 2d October, 1837." 
 
 "By delegation, the Chief of the Office of the Minister of Justice. 
 
 steal of the (Signed) 
 
 KcepHf nf the Seals 
 of France. 
 
 "PORET." 
 
 "The Minister of Foreign Affairs certifies to the truth of the annexed signature of M. 
 
 Porct;» •• ^ 
 
 "Paris, 2d October. 1837." 
 
 "By authority of the Minister, the Chief of the Office of Chancery. 
 
 Pefil oftlic ' Gratis. (Signed) "DE LAMARRE." 
 
 Minister of Fdrt'ign 
 AtlUirs. 
 
 "Seen, for legalization of the annexed signulurc of M. Do Lamnrrc, Chief of the 
 Office of Chancery in the Department of Forign Afluirs." 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 69 
 
 of the Charter of 
 :(I ttp with a great 
 il the ^'reatest obli- 
 the above note, of 
 I. I find also that 
 nslating them into 
 :nne has requested 
 
 shop of Nismes. 
 
 Nismes. 
 VILLENAVE. 
 
 tions of the public 
 
 legalization of the 
 1 at the top of this 
 
 ESGRANGES. 
 
 [joining to this, by 
 ice ot the Seine. 
 "SALMON. 
 
 Civil Tribunal of 
 
 "PORET.'I 
 
 d signature of M. 
 
 October. 1837." 
 LAIMARRE." 
 
 rrc, Chief of the 
 
 "The Consul of her Britannic ^J'•i'1sty at Paris. 
 
 8ealofHer (Signed) 
 
 Rritnnnic Majesty's ^ ° ' 
 
 ConBUl at Paris. 
 
 "Paris, 4(A OtMttt^ 1837. 
 
 "THOMAS PICKPORD." 
 
 No. IV. ' . i; 
 
 Autograph Letter*, Mr. John Alexander, (grandson of the rniebrated Earl of Stir* 
 ling,) to the Marchioness de Lambert. 
 
 PenI of the Keeper 
 General of the nrchivea of the .,_ . . „, . « ._.._ 
 
 Kinedoin. "J^om ANTRIM, the 25(A Augvai^ 1707. 
 
 "It would be impossible for me to express. Madam, how very sensible I am of the 
 honor of your remembrance. I must also sincerely thank M. de Cambray.t since it was 
 he who facilitated the journey of my friend, Mr. Hovenden, and by that means was the 
 cause of your letter, and the copy you have had the kindness to send to me of the note 
 respectins the charter of my grandfather, being so quickly put into my hands. I will an- 
 swer in the best way I can the questions you put to me. 
 
 "I am not, as you thought, heir to the titles of my family. Our chief at present is 
 Henry, 5th Earl of Stirling, descended of the third son of my grandfather. He lives 
 seme miles from London, has no children; but he has brothers, the eldest of whom is his 
 presumptive hei;. Of the first son there remain only the descendants of his daughters. 
 The second left no children. My father was the fourth son. He married, to his first 
 wife, an heiress of the house of Gartmore, in Scotland. My mother, of the family of 
 Maxwell, was his second wife; but although he had daughters by the first, he never had 
 anyother son but myself. In order to finish this family genealogy, I must tell you, 
 Madam, that my wife is a cadet of that of Hamilton, a ducal house in Scotland, and that 
 she has given me a son, named John, after my father and myself, and two daughters. I 
 have 60 little idea at present that the titles and istates of Stirling can fall to my children, 
 that I have encouraged my son's inclination for the ministry of our church of Scotland, 
 and he is preparing himself for it in Holland, at the University of Leyden. 
 
 "I shall carefully preserve the interesting note of M. Mallet. The charter was regis* 
 tered at one period in Scotland, as well as in Acadia; but pendiiig the Civil War and the 
 usurpation of Cromwell, some chests containing a part of the records of this kingdom 
 were lost at sea during a storm; and, according to the ancient tradition of our family, the 
 register in which this charter had been inscribed was of the number of those that were lost. 
 
 "This, Madam, is all that I am able to say in answer to your questions, for it is impos- 
 sible in this country of Ireland to obtain any other information respecting the registered 
 charter. _ I believe my grandmother had given tht miginal charter, (which she brought 
 from Scotland, on coming to settle in Ireland,) to her son-in-law, Lord Montgomerie, in 
 order that he might keep it with care in Castle Comber, where he lived. I will inquire what 
 this family may have done with it; and if I moke emy discovery, I shall have the honor 
 to inform you. 
 
 * These lines are written upon a stripe of paper pasted on the map above the tetter, 
 which is also pasted upon the map. 
 t The Archbishop of Cumbray. 
 

 to 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 "Never shall I forget, Madam, your kindneas to me, nor the charma of the society I 
 always found at your house. So long as I live I shall be attached to you with the most 
 respectful devotedness. 
 
 (Signed) "JOHN ALEXANDER." 
 
 Partly upon the margin, and partly below the signature of this letter, is the following note 
 by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray: 
 
 "The friends of the deceased, M. Ph. Mallet, will read, no doubt with much interest, 
 this letter from a grandson of the Earl of Stirling. M. Cholet, of Lyons, setting off this 
 day, 16th October, 1707, to return home, will have the honor to deliver it to M. Brossette,* 
 by the desire of Madame de Lambert. 
 
 "In order to authenticate it, I have written and signed this marginal note. 
 
 (Signed) "FR. AR. DUKE OP CAMBRAY." 
 
 "Seen by us, keeper general of the archives of the kingdom, for the verification of the 
 signature, JV. Ar. Duke qf Camhray, and of the writing of the six, iines which precede it, 
 which lines are placed, namely, the three first upon the margin, and the three last at the 
 bottom of a letter signed John Alexander, dated 25th August, 1707. 
 
 '*We have recognised the writing of the six lines, and the signature which follows them, 
 as boing conformable to the writing and to the signature of a letter of Fenelon, Archbishop 
 of Cambray, dated 2lBt December, 1703, and deposited in the historical section of the ar- 
 chives of the kingdom, series M, No. 928. 
 
 "In faith of which, we have signed, and caused the seal of the said archives to be 
 affixed, on the one part, upon the document which contains the writing of Fenelon, and, 
 on the other, upon the back of the map of Canada, upon which this document is pasted. 
 
 Paris, 27th July, 1837. 
 
 Seal of the Keeper (Siened) "DAUNOU." 
 
 General of the Archives of the \ o / 
 
 Kingdom. 
 
 *'Seen by us. Mayor of the 7th Arrondisscment, for the legalization of the signature of 
 M. Daunou, (afiixed above,) keeper general uf the archives of the kingdom. 
 "Paris, ith At^wt, 1837. 
 
 Seal of 
 
 the Mayor of the 7th 
 
 Arrond. 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 "LECOCl." 
 
 "Seen, for the Lgalization of the signature of M. Lecoq, Mayor adjunct of the 7th 
 Arrondissement, by us Judge, in the absence of the Tresident of the Tribunal of First In- 
 stance of the Seine. 
 
 "Paris, 4th August, 1837. 
 
 Seal of the Tribunal (Signed) "H. DE ST ALBIN." 
 
 of Firat Instance of the Dep. 
 of the Seine. 
 
 "Seen, for the legalization of the signature of M. do St. Albin, Judge of the Civil Tri- 
 bunal of the Seine. 
 Paris, id October, 1837. 
 
 "By delegation, the Chief of the Office of the Minister of Justice. 
 
 Seal of the (Signed) "PORET." 
 
 Keeper of the Seals 
 of France. 
 
 A counuullor at Lyons, and a man of learning. 
 
 "The ^ 
 
 Poret. 
 
 "Paris 
 
 "By au 
 
 Seal of 
 
 Minuter of 
 
 Affaii 
 
 •'Seen, 
 
 Office of ( 
 
 "Paris 
 
 "The ( 
 
 Seal of 
 Britannic 1 
 Consul al 
 
 
of the society I 
 iTou with the most 
 
 .EXANDER.'* 
 he following note 
 
 th much interest, 
 8, setting off this 
 to M. Brossette,* 
 
 te. 
 
 CAM BRAY." 
 
 erification of the 
 which precede it, 
 B three last at the 
 
 lich follows them, 
 elon, Archbishop 
 ection of the ar* 
 
 I archives to be 
 of Fenelon, and, 
 iment is pasted. 
 
 "DAUNOU." 
 
 the signature of 
 om. 
 
 "LECOd." 
 
 unct of the 7lh 
 unal of First In- 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 71 
 
 "The Minister of Foreign Affairs certifies to the truth of the annexed signature of M. 
 Poret. 
 "Paris, 2({ October, 1837. < , , 
 
 i 
 
 "By authority of the Minister, the Chief of the Office of Chancery. 
 
 Seal of the GraUs. (Signed) "DE LAMARRE." 
 
 Minister of Foreign 
 Affairs. 
 
 *'Senn, for the legalization of the annexed signature of M. de Lamarre, Chief cf the 
 Office of Chancery in the Department of Foreign Affairs. 
 "Paris, 4th October, 1837. \ > 
 
 "The Consul of her Britannic Majesty at Paris. 
 
 Seal of Her 
 
 Britannic Majesty's 
 
 Coniul at Paris. 
 
 (Signed) "THOMAS PICKFORD." 
 
 "Seal of 
 and part of 
 
 No. V. 
 
 Arms of J. Alexander, 
 of Antrim. 
 
 Mr. John Alexander, 
 the envelope of his letter." 
 
 3T ALBIN." 
 
 f the Civil Tri- 
 
 •PORET.' 
 
m 
 
 T2 
 
 5|v. 
 
 ii ; 
 
 f ■■■. ■ ■ ■ 
 
 
 ",' ,. 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 No. VI. 
 
 
 "I Ilia copy 
 IiiHcriplion, 
 Hiid Mt. Gor- 
 don's certifl- 
 cntu Buhjoin- 
 ed, arc iiaKlud 
 on the Map. 
 
 Inscription to the Mbmort or Mr. John Alexander, or Antrim 
 
 (In English ) 
 
 Hero lieth the Body of 
 
 John Alexander, EsauiRE, 
 
 Late of Antrim, 
 
 The only Son of the Honorable lohn Alexander, 
 
 Who was the fourth Son of that IVlost Iliuatrioua 
 
 And famous Statesman, 
 
 ' William, Earl of Starline, 
 
 Principal Secretary for Scotland, 
 
 Who had the singular merit of planting at his 
 
 Sole expense, the first Colonic in 
 \ Nova Scotia. 
 
 He married Mary, Eldest Daughter of the 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hamilton, of Cangor, 
 
 By whom he had issue one son, lohn, 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 
 
 lohn M. Skinner, Esquire, who died 7th Jan., 1710- '11, 
 
 Leaving three Children. 
 
 He was a man of such endowments as added 
 
 Lustre to his noble descent, and was univcrsaiiy 
 
 Respected for his Piety and Benevolence. 
 
 He was the best of Husbands : 
 
 As a Father, most Indulgent : As a Friend, 
 
 Warm, Sincere, and Faithful]. 
 
 He departed this Life 
 
 At Templepatrick, in the County of Antrim, 
 
 On the 19th day of April, 1712. 
 
 This is a faithfbll copy of the Inscription to the memory of John Alexander, Esquire, 
 
 'upon the tablet over his tomb at Newtoun-Ardes, county of Down, Ireland. 
 
 W. C. GORDON, Jun. 
 Stratvoro-ofon-Avom, Oct. 6, 1723. 
 
 No. VII 
 
 Note underneath No. VI.* 
 
 " This inscription was communicated by Madame de Lambert. Since the death of Mr. 
 Alexander, in 1712, this lady has not ceased to give marks of her kindness and friend- 
 ship to the son of that distinguished man. The son is advantageously known in England 
 as a minister of the Protestant worship, and as a learned philologist. In the knowledge 
 of the Oriental languages he is almost without competitors. He is at the head of the Col- 
 lege for the Education of Young Ministers, established at Stratford, in the county of 
 Warwick." 
 
 * Drawn up and written, it is supposed, by M. Brossette. 
 
NTRIM. 
 
 "• his copy 
 IiiHcription, 
 iiiid Mil. Gor- 
 <|nn'g cerlifl- 
 catu 8ul)jnin- 
 ed, arc imRttMl 
 on tho 'Mup. 
 
 Kander, Esquire, 
 
 id. 
 
 DRDON, Jun. 
 
 the death of Mr. 
 ne&s and friend- 
 own in England 
 1 the knowledge 
 head of the Col- 
 the county of 
 
 i APPENDIX. , 
 
 DOCUMENTS 
 
 73 
 
 Authenticated by the aged Solicitor of the family and other gentlemen, 
 and found by the Jury to be genuine. 
 
 No. I. 
 Anonymous Note to the Defenrler-. 
 
 The enclosed was in a small cash-box, which was stolen from the lete William Hum- 
 phreys, Esq. at the time of his removal from Digbeth-houso, Birmingham, to Fair Plill. 
 The person who committed the thefl was a young man in a situat' on in trade wliich 
 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 j^apers was lefl in it. 
 This discovery has been made since the death of tiie person alluded 'o, 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 ho 
 expected to court disgrace and infamy, 
 jjprii 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. 
 Lo^nAon, 22rf Jl^rH, 1837. Wm. Scorer, Public Notary. 
 
 Witness, Enw. Francis Feknell, Solicitor, 32, Bedford Row, Londgn, 
 
 10 
 
74 
 
 i^PPENDIX. 
 
 No. II. — Reduced Emblazoned Pedigree of the Earls of Stirling 
 
 U ■'•• 
 
 
 No. 35. 
 
 ii 
 
 Part 
 of the Genealogical Tree 
 
 of the 
 
 Alexanders of Menstry, 
 
 Earls of Stirling in Scotland, 
 
 shew-ng 
 only the fourth and now existing 
 
 Branch. 
 
 Reduced to pocket size from the 
 
 largo emblazoned Tree in the 
 
 posaession of Mrs. Alexander, 
 
 of King Street, Birm. 
 
 By ine, 
 
 Tho« Campbell. 
 
 ^pril 15, 1759. 
 
 John, 
 
 Eldest Son, Bom, 
 
 at Dublin, in 1736, 
 
 heir 
 
 to the 
 
 Titles & Estates. 
 
 I 
 
 Benjamin, 
 
 2nd Son, 
 
 Born at Dublin 
 
 in 1737. 
 
 Mart, 
 
 Eldest Daiir, 
 
 Born at Dublin, 
 
 in 1733. 
 
 I 
 
 Hannah, 
 
 2nd Daur, 
 
 Born at Dublin, 
 
 in 1741. 
 
 John, 
 6th Earl of Stirling, 
 
 (De Jure,) 
 
 M'' Hannah Higgs, 
 
 of Old Swinford. 
 
 Died at Dublin, 
 
 Nov. 1, 1743, 
 
 Aged 57. 
 
 Bur* there. 
 
 Mart, 
 
 Eldest Daur. 
 
 Born in 1683, 
 
 Died 
 
 unmar'd. 
 
 Elizabeth, 
 
 Born 1685, 
 
 M'> J. M. Skinner 
 
 Died 1711, 
 
 leaving 
 
 issue. 
 
 r 
 
 John, 
 
 Marry 'd 
 Mary Hamilton 
 
 of Bangor, 
 
 Settled at Antrim 
 
 after living many years 
 
 in Germany. 
 
 Died 1712. 
 
 Bur* at Newtown. 
 
 I 
 
 jANETr 
 
 only 
 
 Surviving Child 
 
 of the 
 
 heiress of 
 
 Gartmore. 
 
 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. 
 
 Plad issue, 
 
 7 Sons and 3 Daiin. 
 
 Died 1640. 
 
 Burd at 
 
 Stirling. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 75 
 
 of Stirling 
 
 blin, 
 
 BETII, 
 
 1685, 
 
 Skinner 
 
 1711, 
 
 ing 
 
 le. 
 
 Janet, 
 
 only 
 
 3urvivinff Child 
 
 of tne 
 
 heiress of 
 
 Garkmore. 
 
 No. III. 
 Letter, Dr, Benjamin Alexander to Rev. John Alexander of 
 
 Birmingham. 
 
 Rev* Mr Alexander, Birmingham. 
 
 Uear Bro', 
 
 Mr Palmer is not at homo, 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 neard last year about 
 the agents of W. A. is too true. No other copy of the inscription can be had at New- 
 town. The country people say, they managed one nie:ht to get the slab down, and 'tis 
 thought they bury d it. However, C. does not think you need mind this loss, aa Mr 
 Littleton's copy can be proved. Mr Denison tells Campbell, hi^ 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' hii 
 early education at Londonderry, under 'tiie 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 th< jght better for him to go to a German university. 
 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. 
 
 Yr affectionate Bro', 
 
 iMxd. ,iugt 20, 1765. B. Alexander. 
 
 No. IV. 
 A Letter, A. E. Baillie to Rev. John Alexander of Birmingham. 
 
 For Rev. Mr Jn" Alexander. 
 
 Duhlin, Sept. 16, 1765. 
 I was sorry to hear of y« lawless act at Newton, but as I tell Mr Deni- 
 son, I shall be ready to come forward if you want me. I was about twenty-one when I 
 attended y cfrandfUther's funerall. He was taken ill while visitting a friend at Temple- 
 patrick, and dyed y", for he cou'd not be removed. Mr Livingstone, a verry old friend 
 of y family, wrote y inscription, w"* y« claimant from America got destroyed. I always 
 heard y' y great gr. father, y" Hono''" Mr. Alexander, (who was known in the country 
 as Mr. Alexander of Gartmoir), dyed at Derry: but for y* destruction of y« parish regis- 
 ters in the north by y« Papists, during y« civil war from 1689 to 1692, you mit have got 
 y« certificates you want. 
 
 I am vf^^ 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* Sir, Y" respectfully, 
 
 A. E. Baillie. 
 
 ,» Rev. Sir, 
 
 No. V. 
 Letter, Dr Benjamin Alexander to Mrs Alexander, King Street, 
 
 Birmingham. 
 
 To Mrs. Alexander, King Street, Birmingham. 
 
 Hon* and D' Mamma, 
 
 Received y 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''. Sisters never saw it. C. says we can't recover Gartmo 
 The other Scotcii property went to 
 half sister to my gf'father, but w 
 succeed in Ireland if we begin soon 
 
 It will be now necessary to pay Campbell's bill. It comes to two and twenty pounds 
 thirteen shill'. Let me know in yo"' next how you propose furnishing the money. 
 
 1 am, in great haste, and with 
 love to sisters, y dutif. and 
 
 affec Son 
 Lond., Jtt/t/ 26 1766. B.Alexander. 
 
; 
 
 
 
 /'^■•^'' 
 
 P'\ : 
 
 f V ■ 
 
 76 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. VI. 
 Note on Back of Copy Portrait of Mr. John Alexander of Antrim 
 
 JOHN ALEXANDER, E«q. 
 
 of Antrim. 
 
 Died April 19, 1712. 
 
 From the Original Painting. 
 
 Done at Versailles in his foitieth 
 
 year: now in the possession of 
 
 P. Denison, Esq, of Dublin. 
 
 Thos. Campbell, Pinx. 
 
 Note. (On the back.) 
 
 Mr Denison believes myg' gr. father lost his first wife, Agnes, in 1637, 
 and that he met Miss Maxwell at Comber, and was marr* to her in 1639. If so, and my 
 gr. father the next year made hii appearance in this world, we may suppose the original 
 portrait was painted in 1679. B. A, 
 
 r. 
 
 \i 
 
of Antrim. 
 
 fnes, in 1637', 
 f so, and my 
 io the original 
 B.1 
 
 I 
 
 f 
 
 % 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 ^ 1^ 12.2 
 
 
 ||L25 |||J4 14 
 
 
 < ^ 
 
 6" 
 
 ► 
 
 VI 
 
 v: 
 
 4V 
 
 7 
 
 -^ 
 
 Hiotographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S30 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 

 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 C\ 
 
 \ 
 
 %. 
 
 '.^ 
 
 6^ 
 
'^■''^'''^^^^ncA-^o/f»^,^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U€«<«' 
 
 
 
 
 
 N^ .— — — ■ ' 
 
 
 ,y< -^ 
 
 i 
 
 ^4 
 
 >^t-<ry-. 
 
 
 
 -. /^A^tc-^ ei»_. Ve^u^'i 
 
 r,^ W. ^J i:t^.L-:t<3v.i </<k./o. 
 
 flAa 
 

 ^ 
 
 z' 
 
 Td. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7^ «^ T«^ . '^c^jhz^ ^ <»iW 
 
 ^* ^"- ' '"^ ■■■■■■ ——^^Mi^^i^M^^^^— ■■■■!■■ ■!, ■— — ■— — ^— ^^W^— — ^i^— ^^.^_^_^_^ _ 
 
 e<-'K i^t< - Vo^ K/tJc. fo4. 
 
 n e^ -/f**^ 
 
 I 
 
 ■/'■ 
 
 '■) %e.C^ <:^,v< ,^ ^/etan t'fr'o^ .Ccv,7x.a^ -/» r>^^ y 
 
 \' 
 
 ^\ 
 
 ./v»y^ f j(: 
 
 
 -4v 
 
 
 
 ft l-M-iT XavY ClA/CC Ot 'pV ^-^^i 
 
 ;r 
 
 iCw ^ut.et<^u-«^ ^C 
 
 »v«;'f/,(_- 
 
 < 
 
 Cut^i H-e Ot Jii.i^ K'vtij ^trVj 
 
 
 Ccn^CtAfc^ ^tt. c)i/ ^ I 
 
 «\VH(< 
 
 
 «^ 
 

 hg, '^••f t*^^*»«^ ?H^Wj 9»^^<U/ft4 
 
 
 
 
 yjiix^^ /^'ly e.j<^x^/^ '^ J^ 2^^^/^<m^ 
 
 p^ixl i^W . €^<:X^i'ey ^< 
 
 «_-^ 
 
 vy,'>r «.-* ^^'t-/'-' ^y'^•, '^"r^att^c/t^iAnftti^ 
 
 /. 
 
 j/^^a^lx Ki,*'^^ .y«/0V4x fta<i^^^^«-^"C*J t^ fc*^ t^i^^ w-.vtfc CiA^i^t^. 
 
 ./Vw^ f .;^ 
 
 4/- f> 
 
 ■'4y 
 
 
 Icy i^Vucal^M-w eiCTvai'V^ ,\^+-vpti)uli^ «>wfvHt/K.c<>li j/ir^-i^ ('twTe-L 
 
 4 
 
 c.^ two- co^cecit y^Z-^v- Pe. /w y'Cu4^U#< 
 
 
 
 ti iC^-v^eJ i-cJiJl y^^ te^ e<M4/t, 
 
 Xc^i^^^vJU fiw2 
 
 ; 
 
 l/irxt" 'V'* 
 
 voM/vt-e-v^ 
 
 
 
 CoTvCcxe^ Ov^^O-^lvJiHi-wi/Wtt CcrMO/te^A- /ft'vit'Hw'- /jfyVj^tXu 
 
 
 Jl-', 
 
 v. 71. t'./ ^a ft-p^ y 
 
T S. 
 
 .l^«* «f et-nji i^C^ 
 
 
 
 i J\4a.lL-, «v. 
 
 
 tv 1 6/ ^ve- , 77 1 LTVv Ccvny 
 
 4 J-u^^' 
 
 ■fct.lv ft- o 
 
 >i/t^wC-*»' 
 
 ^e^ 
 
 9e . ceia, 
 
 coll ^ux^ (''^^e.FRcv,;r;^c?K2 i^y^^^^f^ u^^tUS^ ajivi^yt^t^iJit j§^^ 
 
 
 -S^ 
 
 1 ^Uc'S^UXnU f 
 
 
 L Cji 
 
 COA/W. 
 
 c)lJ- /^uJ^cc^ - ^ ie-^lM %inJrt.i Lti c^wfvfc/^ Hvi/^, tuuJrt 
 
 4 - yiit/s^t \ Cot, «f t-f v^t c^ f/ ^tii^«^< ^^ ''^^^,^«^ 
 
 dMju^ Ley. JiTXA^ct ht 62^ ♦'tAWftve. ^^^ ^ ^4 ^^y> ^ 
 
 lAovcy kAA^Clw- tVWvfe t>« yj^ftcOJiV^v i^ C*>H A.i/v>i*o 
 
 OvC4 «_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 cXAaJc 
 
 Itht^ 
 
 tfiAA^ 
 
 ed l*J U'UUAt^ Vfl^ jcA^^t^^vtt' C^ltJCu^^Ay ,i^UiU JtA/(tH4 ffA^A^iA fA 
 
 //«^'< 
 
 ^■, ^ "^' 
 
 ,\ 
 
 •i 
 
 :) 
 

 f/ ' / / J '^ 
 
 .1 c //. 
 
 /»♦* 
 
 
 
 £V 
 
 /7t^ U~ ^C,n*^<iyi-- 4^^ ^^ y< 
 
 CARTE 
 
 Du Canada 
 
 OITDELA 
 
 Nouv£LLE France, 
 
 etdes Decouvertes quij^ ont ete faites 
 
 Drtjfe'e tur plusutav Ohservatwn^* 
 > / , f . . . , 
 
 t<inw utxr^ranc nomhce Je Reiatiorbf 10^1''"'^*^ onmatu^irUM 
 
 dc 1 Acatlcmie Koytile flcs Sciences 
 et Pi'cmier Cieoyraplxe <iu Ro^ 
 
 -17 If 'J' 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 /'T' "T^ 
 
 
 
 
 ( 
 
 
 ^ / 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 

 
 c/ 
 
 r 
 
 
 4-f^TxtLi 
 
 t*^#^/ *t^««/ -tv-H**^- 
 
 -l^ 
 
 
 ' ; / 
 
 
 
 J?" 
 
 
 L-^r*.. jfVt.- 4/'- y*.^«- f^^^y -r,^.<,^^ .^/l^^jxji.. A^^/ajJ^ -o/^^i^i/^A— /ir .^C««»*^ 
 
 
 y 
 
 «.»-<-. 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 
 '7 . 
 
 ■<Xt^ — • 
 
 /44*/ <!« - >?^^ 5<^-/ 8^. 
 
 !<^>->^ 
 
 ^^^.^^'^-'4?^ 
 
 
 
 .In 
 
 
 t*w«^l 
 
 u^< 
 
 
 
 'C*.lA.C^^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 .N' 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 '4 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 N^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;i: * 
 
 
 
 V .^^ '^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
/ ^}<-j . i^cA.'*-^ 9, 
 
 Vf-T'CL 
 
 , /<o,'>vet LuA^" «!/*>• , ^r, (lu^ <ttA f.*kfTtm 
 
 'r 
 
 «g 
 
 
 
 •/-vte 
 
 y u.. 
 
 .1^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 0), 
 
 
 
 •c 
 
 
 •-*»/«LA-» 
 
 i^^ <*.-^^.eir^i,y ^jL^..Ji4h- ct>uKG^' 
 
 '.rjcJ. 
 
 
 ,tt^u^/-^'f^^ ^ftJ^'^^' ^^''''' -^^-'^4^' 
 
 
 ^jt,T^)^-^<:j,QX.uriaJ^ y^^ 
 
 
 i? 
 
 
 ^Ul fu^]iru>o.AAc^ LmZfC^clU LuCA^^^^rk^. ^<Lrx.,^^^^^ 
 
 V 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 i- ^$ 
 
 •.^i * 
 
 ^^:^ •:>.. 
 
 So 
 
 \ 
 
 Ji ^CTH. la- i Jf^l ho-1 
 
 
 
 Jtivlincj ' "J^y ay r^r\^a.vqi4^. dec 
 
 Jcicfneup 
 \^\ \p^ > ^^' fyLyyxoii (^ ck h^ei (iUru vendue - 
 
 
 a VUime^^ cjn 3 STmikl no7 
 
 t'// /-•/'//' t" 
 
 
 i* ^fV 
 
 
 r-t 
 
u«St< 
 
 
 
 d-e VvuAjL tt^v^ irl^i*^ ^ltx^%Ajt'WM/wi:li\$jS- 
 
 
 r^^<f^^'is^ Am^ 
 
 
 
 
 _, ^„ . ^ <7iMy»4/vvt^^c^< 
 
 
 
 \'pc 
 
 Cfl 
 
 I' 
 
 o-'t.on? 
 
 
 VW4^ 
 
 
 -^cu^ip^im^ 
 
 crry\.6rej d^ cidh:cil4 p£vL inl^es^<x4x^ ' U^e foen^e done qWotX^ ^ 
 
 CL\j r^y\^OLvaiui. 6e(X\A.coup cle.ncxvf'iCiX 
 
 
 
 
 
 t;,,»e>^ ftm***,, <W»»»»* »♦• **"' ^ ;*..•• 
 
 t^ oi}{iqc<h'ons c\. .Mcmsvu^v J^'^cUtet cL'ccvoir mis LfLfoiAjylic- 
 (jurv vendue ' yytai^yiuevLy CcA^vcrn^ Jcih^t^^Henn^ Ht'a 
 
 *•*» »•''•*- 
 
 
 >3.- 
 
 t /!i<^ C- 
 
 -:^j^:2^:' 
 
 
 M3^r 
 
 5:/ rv 
 
 m 
 
 ^ 
 
 'ilRft 
 
 >j»'