to the fact of this lady having made these statements so early as January 1826, and of her brother, the prisoner, then availing himself of them. The nature of some of these representations may hereafter throw light upon some dark and intricate passages in this remarkable history; but it must be remembered that this lady's statements were not brought before the jury.

The first evidence there was of the prisoner's stirring in the matter of his claims to the peerage, consisted of a statement made at the trial by a Mr Corrie, a solicitor at Birmingham, who had acted in that capacity to the prisoner's father, and been a trustee under his will. He said that he first heard from the prisoner himself of his claims in 1815 or 1816; but that on his saying "he had no documents, or no effectual documents, to support them," Mr Corrie had "declined to act for him then."* Sometime afterwards, however, he met with persons exhibiting greater zeal and enterprise on his behalf; but they do not come on the stage till after an interval of nearly seven or eight years-by which time he would seem to have entered into confidential relations with more than one professional adviser-among whom was a Mr Thomas Christopher Banks, the author of a work on dormant and extinct peerages,† and who will presently appear on the scene frequently and decisively. Acting under this gentleman's advice, early in the year 1824, Mr Humphreys applied for and obtained a royal licence to assume his mother's maiden name of Alexander-also that of the Stirling family-but without any intimation to the authorities of any particular reason which he had for doing Thenceforward, he wrote himself "Alexander Humphreys Alex

so.

*Swinton, p. 183.

ander."‡ Acting on the advice of counsel and his legal agents, he ventured next to take up the Peerage title of the noble family of which he aspired to be the representative; and on the 2d June 1825, actually attended at the election of a Scottishr representative Peer in the room of the recently deceased Lord Balcarres, answered to the name of The Earl of Stirling, and having tendered his vote, it was, necessarily, recorded by the official clerks! This feat he long afterwards justly characterised as a serious blunder;" adding, that "it was beginning where he should have ended."§ He founded his claim, be it observed, on this occasion-as, indeed, ever after-upon 66 a royal charter, or letters patent of Novodamus, under the Great Seal of Scotland, dated the 7th December 1639, granted by King Charles I. in favour of William, Earl of Stirling." This alleged charter is the chief corner-stone of the entire structure, whether of fact or of fiction, with which we have to deal. It is necessary now, however, briefly but clearly, to set before the reader the time and manner of the original ennobling of the Stirling family.

Sir William Alexander, a courtier, and at the time Secretary of State of James I., obtained from him in A.D. 1621 a charter granting him the territory of Nova Scotia; and seven years afterwards-viz., on the 2d February 1628, he received from Charles I. a grant of the province since called Canada. Two years subsequentlyviz., on the 4th September 1630, he was raised to the peerage by the title of Viscount of Stirling, by patent to him and "his heirs male;” and finally, three years afterwards-viz., on the 14th June 1633, on occasion of the latter King's coronation-he was advanced to the dignity of Earl of Stirling and

1 Townsend, 409.

Viscount Canada, by patent to him, and, again be it noted, "his heirs male." He took possession of all the vast territory which had been granted to him, and his son spent some time in America regulating the affairs of the colony. The first Earl died in London in February 1640; and with his death, suffice it shortly to state, terminated the connection of the Stirling family with Nova Scotia and Canada. It is not altogether needless to advert to the various changes of ownership between England and France which these provinces underwent, down to the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.

The first Earl of Stirling had nine children-i.e. seven sons and two daughters. He had four successors in his carldom, the last of whom, Henry, the fifth earl, died without issue on the 4th December 1739. The link in the chain of descent with which we are specially concerned is that of JOHN, the fourth son of the first Earl: since the prisoner's case was, that he was descended from this son John. The prisoner appears to have been the second claimant of the peerage. The first was a William Alexander, surveyor-general of the State of New Jersey, and afterwards a general in the American army. In 1759-60 this gentleman, (whose name, position, and claim must be borne in mind,) assumed the title, and presented to the Sovereign, for the recognition of his honours, a petition, which was remitted to the House of Lords. Two years afterwards, however, (10th March 1762) a Committee of Privileges resolved that he had not established his claim, and that in the mean time he, or any person claiming under him, should not be admitted to vote at the elections of peers of Scotland, and that he "be ordered not to presume to take upon himself the said title, honour, and dignity, until his claim shall have been allowed in due course of law." There the matter ended, and the dormant title of Stirling had rest for fifty-three years viz., till the year 1815-when the prisoner so suddenly revived it in order

to claim it as his own. When we parted with him-viz., on the 2d June 1825-he was claiming to vote in the election of a representative peer of Scotland. We next find him instituting legal proceedings in Scotland, on the 7th February 1826, for procuring himself to be declared heir to his mother: on which occasion he styled himself" Alexander Humphreys Alexander, Earl of Stirling." On this occasion two documents were produced † of great importance, and of which more will be presently saidviz., an affidavit alleged to have been made by a Henry Alexander, 16th July 1723, and "a statement" by a William Gordon, dated the 14th January 1723; both attested by a Thomas Conyers, on the 10th and 20th July in the same year;-the whole tending to establish the fact of the then existing charter of Novodamus, on which the prisoner's claim was founded, and also some links in his pedigree. This preliminary step having been taken, he appears to have returned to Worcester, and there carried on an extensive correspondence, having for its objects the discovery of evidence in support of his claims, and raising loans on the security of his alleged rightful possessions in America and Scotland! Mr Banks was despatched to North America to publish and assert the prisoner's rights as Earl of Stirling, and also to search for evidence; and he soon sent home flourishing accounts of the success of his mission. "By all," says the prisoner in a letter to a friend at Glasgow," he was received in a most flattering manner. The British consul had tendered him his services in a very handsome manner by letter.

It is now confidently anticipated the Congress will grant me a location of five millions of acres, (which is found to be not one-twentieth part of the lands originally granted-all convertible at once, at common market price, into cash!) and will be more than one million sterling." Eight months afterwards (25th July 1827) he exultingly announced fresh feats

+ Swinton, p. 105.

on the part of his successful agent and pioneer, Mr Banks :-"I make haste to inform you that the charter of Nova Scotia is upon the record of the Great Seal at Edinburgh. Mr Banks has in his possession, and is using at this time, with complete effect, in America, all the office copies of that and the other charters which the first Earl of Stirling obtained." "By degrees all the valuable papers of which my grandmother was robbed, about the time that the General" (the William Alexander already referred to)"preferred his claims to the Earldom, are finding their way back to me. I have had the great satisfaction of learning, by these letters, that Mr Banks has positively ascertained the existence of another copy of that document." On returning from America, in the spring of 1828, Mr Banks was despatched on a similar errand to Ireland; and in one of his earliest letters to the prisoner, (2d May 1828,) he alludes to a communication made to him by the latter concerning some "late Parisian information," adding, "and I believe that all the latent windings are about to be brought to light.

Your extracts are most en couraging; and indeed it is more than extraordinary that so much truth has been mentioned, where the circumstances of past events were never told. Thus, what is to come may be most fairly looked up to as a surety of the wonderful works of Providence in the way of retribution, which, though slow in occurring, is nevertheless true in taking place at the due time, but which human endurance, in the interim, can barely be brought to have the patience to await, or sustaining severe trials with fortitude."

Mr Banks was despatched a second time to Ireland in the spring of the ensuing year, (1829 ;) and in a letter to the prisoner, dated Carlow, 17th March 1829, (not put in evidence,) announced a great and gratifying event-neither more nor less than his discovery of an old document purporting to be a duly attested "EXCERPT from the lost charter of Charles I., on which the prisoner had based his claims to the Stirling peerage! This "excerpt" was the

instrument which proved the first article of indictment against the prisoner. Mr Banks gives, in the lastcited letter, the following account of this truly wonderful windfall. He found it in a parcel, which had been left at his hotel in Dublin, by some stranger, "a person with whom he had had no communications.” But discovering an all-important indorsement upon it, verifying the authenticity of the document, and signed "Thomas Conyers, 10th July 1723," he returned to Carlow, which he had visited on the preceding occasion, and found out a Mrs Fairclough, who had some knowledge of the family of Conyers; and Mr Banks was at length led to believe, that this mysterious parcel had come from her husband, who had gone from Carlow, and whom he represented to be a disreputable person. Fairclough most probably sent the parcel to me without any communication, that his name might not be brought forward, and he be thereby exposed to questions or investigations as to the Conyers' concerns, which he might not choose to answer. Such are my surmises. However, the excerpt' is certainly of great importance, as the identity of its having once belonged to Mr Conyers, who had the original charter of Novodamus, [the indorsement stated, that the original charter was at present in his keeping,'] is so well proven and established." He had come to this conclusion, from an alleged interview with the Inspector of Franks at the General Post-Office, Carlow, to whom he showed the indorsement, and who compared the signature with the undoubted sig nature of Conyers, particularly that affixed to his will. "I think," added Mr Banks, "I have been very fortunate." His discovery, however, did but realise an anticipation which he had formed, and conveyed to his employer a year before, during his former visit to Ireland, viz., on the 23d April 1888: "I am in great hopes to trace Conyers' family; which if I do, and find his representatives, his papers might mention when, and to whom he gave the charter; and, not improbably, even a