case.

Thus, it was necessary for carrying out his claim that, besides some minor points on which it is unnecessary to enter, Mr Humphreys should prove three things, which were as yet destitute of support: 1st, The terms of the charter of 1639, on which so much depended; 2d, The existence of the tombstone and its inscription; and 3d, That the fourth son of the Earl of Stirling had married a second wife, who bore him a son. The marvellous manner in which evidence of these important matters arose just as it was wanted, is the most romantic part of the whole A son of Mr Humphreys, or of the earl, as he was termed, calling one day at the shop of De Porquet and Co., booksellers of London, who had published for his father a book in defence of his claims, was told that there was a packet there for the Right Hon. the Earl of Stirling.' It had been enclosed in a parcel addressed to the firm, and containing along with it a note in the handwriting, apparently, of a lady. It bore to be from a' Mrs Innes Smyth,' a person of whose existence none of the parties professed to know anything. It stated, that she had intended to call with the enclosure, but found it expedient to send it by post; and terminated with a particular request, that the publishers will forward it instantly to the Earl of Stirling, or any member of his lordship's family whose residence may be known to them.'

The precaution was taken of opening this packet in the presence of unquestionable witnesses. It disclosed an inner packet with a parchment cover, and sealed with three old-fashioned seals. This bore the inscription, 6 some of my wife's family papers,' in a handwriting said to be that of the claimant's father. Along with this inner parcel was another note. It contained a statement, that the parcel was found in a cash-box which had been stolen from the late William Humphreys, Esq. The thief, it said, had just died; and in continuation it was said, that '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 of conveyance 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 must, for obvious reasons, remain unknown. They make this reparation, but cannot be expected to court disgrace and infamy?

This useful packet contained evidence to fill up the greater part of the blanks in the previous proof; among other things, a genealogical tree, giving an account of the second marriage which had been wanted for John Alexander of Gartmore. His second wife was Elizabeth Maxwell of Londonderry, and by her he had a son, John, 'sixth Earl of Stirling.' Along with this, there were several letters, which very neatly supplied deficiencies in some of the affidavits previously produced.

But there were some documents still required to make the deficient evidence complete, and we shall now see how they came to light. Mr Humphreys had an acquaintance in France-a Mademoiselle Le Normand, whose position it is difficult for people of this country fully to understand. She was a kind of fortune-teller, and united to this profession a wonderful facility in discovering a solution of any important mystery, and especially in finding lost papers. Notwithstanding such questionable occupations, she appears to have held a considerable social position in her own country. She was a literary woman, and had a very extensive correspondence with authors and men in office. She was about seventy years old at the time of these proceedings. It appears that she had an early intimacy with Mrs Humphreys, or the countess,' and predicted that, after a time of trial, she would rise to greatness. The account which Mr Humphreys gave of her when examined by the court was this: Interrogated, what is Mademoiselle Le Normand's profession? Declares, that he has the highest respect for Mademoiselle Le Normand, but has nothing to say as to her peculiar talents: that she is auteur libraire, and publishes and sells her own works. Interrogated, if he does not know whether she has any other occupation or employment? Declares, that he

can only say, that she has been consulted by persons of the highest rank-sovereigns and others. He has nothing to do with her in any other way than he has explained. And reinterrogated, and desired to answer the question. He can only answer that on her door is inscribed Bureau de Correspondence. More than this he cannot say that she is consulted by all sorts of persons. Interrogated, if she is not generally known in Paris as a fortune-teller, and consulted as such? Declares, that in the common acceptation, he believes that she is so considered. Believes she tells fortunes by means of cards. Specially interrogated, if he has seen her tell fortunes by means of cards? Declares, that being advised by his counsel to answer the question, he says that he has seen her do so. Believes that she is paid by those who consult her to tell their fortunes. Interrogated, did she tell him his own fortune on the cards or otherwise? Declares, she certainly did at one period as thousands have had the same curiosity — that he then paid her five Napoleons; that this was a long time ago.

He explained, that he had kept up a correspondence with this lady about his claims, because her varied correspondence and intimacy with literary and official people might enable her to procure documents about the American possessions of the Stirling family, during the French possession of North America. Mademoiselle had so much faith either in her fortune-telling, or in her capacity to find documents, that she advanced a considerable sum to Humphreys, to enable him to carry on his litigations certainly, a very unusual act for a fortune

teller.

In considerable dejection after the signal breaking down of his case in the Court of Session, Mr Humphreys was travelling abroad. He admitted that he travelled under a feigned name, but would not reveal it. Naturally, he called on his old friend the fortune-teller, and from her he received, to his astonishment, a mysterious packet, just as his son had from the London publishers. Like the London packet, it had been anonymously deposited, all

trace of the party who had communicated it being cut off. In fact, it was found one day dropped in mademoiselle's chamber, after two ladies of high rank, on a professional visit to the seeress, had departed. The packet was accompanied by a letter, dated from Versailles, and signed only with the initial letter M. It stated, that the writer was aware of the lively interest which mademoiselle took in the success of the Englishman Alexander, in his claims to possess the inheritance of his ancestors; that he was under deep obligations to her, which he endeavoured in some measure to repay by the documents which he enclosed. He intimated, that being in office, he could not come personally forward in the affair, or permit his name to be known. When Humphreys was questioned, if he knew who this individual could be, he said he did not know, but had his suspicions, and they pointed to a personage so august and lofty, that he dared not name him.

The package contained a large old French map of Canada, covered over with other documents, which supplied all that was wanted for completing the evidence of the claim to the earldom and estates. Here was full evidence to confirm the copy of the charter of the year 1639, which had already been produced, but which required confirmation. There was a copy of the inscription on the tombstone already mentioned, accurately authenticated; and there were several other writings confirming the genealogical statements.

It seemed now necessary to put a stop, in an effectual manner, to a system of such audacious fraud. On the 29th of April 1839, Humphreys was brought to trial for forgery. The case involved a very protracted and complicated investigation, and it lasted for four days. It was soon very evident, that of the actual forgery there could be no doubt the counsel for Humphreys gave up the point. The question was, whether he was guilty, either of having himself committed the forgeries, or of having used the documents in the knowledge that they were forged by others.

The numerous documents which were the subject of

the trial, may be divided into three main groups: the documents left with the London booksellers; the contents of the packet left with Mademoiselle Le Normand; and the charter of 1639, restoring the Canada estates to the Stirling family, and opening the succession to female heirs. The first set of documents is not much worthy of attention. The map, and other documents deposited with the French seeress were, however, extremely curious, and one can now see a fac-simile of the whole in one

of the reports of the trial.* Of the inscriptions on the map, some were signed apparently by persons who might have occupied unimportant offices in France, and of whom all traces might be supposed to be lost. But their statements were supported by the testimony of very great men indeed - such as Esprit Fléchier, Bishop of Nismes; the illustrious Fénélon; and Louis XIV. The strange circumstance was, that all these people seemed to take an intense interest in the charter conferred on the Earl of Stirling, and the pedigree of the family, certifying in the most minute manner every little fact connected with them, as if it were a French affair of state, or something in which they had a personal interest. Thus one of the unknown certifiers, named St Etienne, speaking of the charter, and a note of its contents, says: The above note is precious. I can certify that it gives, in a few words, an extremely correct idea of the wonderful charter in question.' He goes on to say, that this extraordinary document extends over fifty pages in writing,' and is very minute in his description of it. Then Bishop Fléchier says: 'I read lately, at the house of Monsieur Sartre, at Caveirac, the copy of the Earl of Stirling's charter. In it I remarked many curious particulars, mixed up with a great many uninteresting details. I think, therefore, that the greatest obligations are due to M. Mallet for having, by the above note, enabled the

That edited by Archibald Swinton, Esq., 8vo. Another Report, edited by William Turnbull, Esq. (8vo), contains a fuller account of the preliminary proceedings. Both reports have been made use of in the present short account.