son is favourably known in England as a Protestant clergyman, and a learned philologist. In the knowledge of oriental languages, he is almost without a rival. He is at the head of a college for the education of young clergymen, established at Stratford, in the county of Warwick."

VIII., and finally, came a royal autograph-adjoining Memorandum No. I., i.e., that of Ph. Mallet-in the alleged handwriting, bold and flowing, of Louis XV., as follows:

"This note is worthy of some attention, under present circumstances; but let the copy of the original charter be sent to me."*

Such was the "French windfall," as we have termed it: a staggering accumulation of proposed proofs such as, when examined, might perhaps not unreasonably excite the astonishment, and then, in some degree, the suspicions of the Scottish legal authorities. As we have seen, the De Porquet and Le Normand packets of documents were placed before the Court of Session on the 15th of November 1837, on behalf of the prisoner. During the ensuing twelvemonth, interlocutory investigations, we apprehend, were being carried on; the result being, that on the 14th of November 1838, the Lords of Session ordered the prisoner "to give in, within fourteen days, an articulate condescendence of the facts and circumstances how he came to the knowledge of the documents in question, and how they came into his possession." † In obedience to this order, (we know not whether it be an order of course,) he duly gave into court substantially the account which has been incorporated into the foregoing narrative. Growing still more dissatisfied with the aspect and position of the prisoner, especially in relation to these additional proofs, and not satisfied by the articulate condescendence which he had already given in, the Lords of Session, on the 11th of December, ordered "the unusual proceeding," as Mr Swinton characterises it, of a personal "judicial examination" of

the prisoner. He therefore came before the Second Division of the Court of Session, on the 18th December 1838, and was subjected to a lengthened and searching series of questions by the Lord-Advocate. We presume that the Court had power to take this "unusual" step, as it may well be termed, which, be it observed, was in the course of a merely civil proceeding, as far as we understand the matter; and (speaking with the utmost deference and respect towards the Scottish judicial authorities) it seems an extraordinary stretch of power, to call one of the parties to a civil suit before the Court, and subject him, nolens volenter, to a highly criminating course of examination, afterwards to be made available on prosecution—and that, too, without any caution that his answers might be used against him, nor any intimation that he need not answer unless he chose.

This "judicial declaration" is given at length by Mr Swinton,§ and after a formal entry begins thus :-"Compeared Alexander Earl of Stirling, aud interrogated by the Lord-Advocate, if he had read the condescendence given in, in his name? Declares, that he has. Interrogated, if he desires to make any additions, or alterations, on that condescendence? Declares, that he is ready to make any further explanations that may be asked." And then commences a most able and acute examination, with the critical question-" When he was first made acquainted with the note issued by Lord Cockburn, dated 10th December 1836?"-proceeds with his journey to France;-how he spent his time there, and particularly respecting his intercourse with old Mademoiselle le Normand; his pecuniary obligations to her; the securities he had given her; what she said on delivering to him the memorable map of Canada-particularly, whether she told him whom she suspected to have sent it to her: as to which, he said, "she had never told him." On this the court interposed, and asked

99 66

les cérconstances presentes[Observe the spelling of the

§ Id., App. p. xxxvii.

"Who he himself suspects to be the person by whom the document had been sent? Declares that he cannot venture to name that person, being of such exalted rank as to make such a declaration on his part unsafe and improper, without positive proof. That he neither can, nor dare do more, having only strong suspicions on the subject." He was then closely questioned as to his wife's intercourse with Mademoiselle le Normand; and then as to the first tidings he received concerning the De Porquet papers. He was then asked several questions respecting the alleged robbery of his father in 1793-4, when he removed from Digbeth House to Fairhill. Declares, "that he has heard his father mention that he had lost a cash-box containing some hundred pounds, but never heard him say anything of papers "t which seems a striking and candid answer. Among the remaining questions and answers, are the following :· (6 ·Interrogated, whether he ever heard, before the reception of the packet from Messrs De Porquet, that John Alexander, fourth son of the first Earl of Stirling, had been married a second time, after having been first married to a daughter of Graham of Gartmore? Declares, he never had; but he suspected it, as a general conclusion drawn by him and his friends from other facts in the case. He had never before heard that John Alexander had been married to a lady of the name of Maxwell, as connected with his family." This, again, is worthy of much consideration.

Shortly after this examination, the prisoner was apprehended on the charge of forgery; and almost immediately-viz. 14th February 1839underwent another close examination by the Sheriff Substitute, but only after giving him the caution usual in England-that it was optional with him to answer, and that, if he

did answer, what he said might be used in evidence against him. Four days afterwards-viz., on the 18th February 1839-he was subjected to a second lengthened examination; and finally to a third, on the 6th of March 1839; but on this last occasion he gave only one answer to the few but important questions put to him-"That, by his agent's advice, he declines to answer any questions;" and well he, or any one similarly situated, might!

He was committed for trial, which was ordered to take place on the 3d April 1839; but, at the instance of the prisoner's counsel, it was postponed till the 29th of that month.

The indictment was necessarily long, and was founded on three classes of alleged forgeries: first, the excerpt charter of Novodamus; secondly, the De Porquet packet of papers; lastly, the Le Normand packet of papers-all of which the prisoner was charged with having forged, or having used and uttered them, knowing them to have been forged. The indictment runs not, as in England, in the third person, but in the second, as addressed to the prisoner, personally, throughout: e.g. "Alexander Humphreys, or Alexander, pretending to be Earl of Stirling, you are indicted and accused, at the instance of John Archibald Murray, Esq., her Majesty's Advocate, for her Majesty's interest, that," &c. All its allegations are direct and simple, and divested of technical verbiage. In our next Number we shall endeavour to present the reader with an intelligible account of one of the most intensely-interesting trials that ever came under our notice; one which must have been listened to, from first to last, with breathless interest.

[To be concluded in our next.]

+ Id. p. xli.

THE spectacle of a great man labouring under adversity is said to be the noblest object that can be offered to human contemplation. If we assume the converse to hold good, we fear that but little sympathy will be expressed in any quarter, either for Lord John Russell or his Cabinet. The events of the last few weeks have been so chaotic in their character that, when we sit down with the calm and deliberate purpose of attempting to trace their cause, the mind becomes bewildered in the effort to reduce them to anything like logical arrangement or sequence. In February, Ministers met Parliament, secure as their organs told us-of a good working majority in the House of Commons on almost every question of public interest that could arise. In the speech from the Throne, we were informed of continued and increasing prosperity among all classes of the community-the agriculturists alone excepted; and, even in their case, we were assured, on high Ministerial authority, that they must ere long participate in those blessings which the new commercial policy had extended to all other branches of industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was so far from labouring under pecuniary embarrassment, that his great difficulty was the partition of the surplus, so as to satisfy the more pressing claims for relief from heavy taxation. Towards the close of last year, the Premier had taken a bold step, and bid high for personal popularity. His declared intention of resisting, by strong and effectual measures, the insolent aggression of the Pope, was enthusiastically hailed and believed by many who, on general occasions, reposed no great faith either in his sagacity or his principle. The alienation of the Irish phalanx from his side, and the opposition of the enemies of the Established Church, would have been far more than compensated by the support which he was certain to receive, both within and without the Houses of Parliament, provided he should remain true to the course which he had indicated, and

fixed in his resolution to maintain intact the honour of the Crown and of the realm, against the attempted usurpation of the Pope. Within the country, there was no active agitation for organic changes. There were, indeed, numerous claims for fiscal relief, and one in especial, caused by the pressure of the long-continued Income-Tax, was almost unanimously demanded. There was no obstacle in the way of a redress, which would at once have been so popular and so just. If not altogether removed, the burden of the Income-Tax might have been lightened, and the pledge of 1842, as to the temporary nature of the impost, have been so far, though tardily, redeemed. Indeed, considering that it was laid on for the express purpose of effecting an improvement in the state of "the manufacturing interests," and continued, in 1845, solely that its proposer, Sir Robert Peel, might be enabled "to make such arrangements with regard to general taxation as shall be the foundation of great commercial prosperity," the admission of that prosperity by Ministers was tantamount to a declaration that the impost had, in their opinion, fulfilled its object, and, therefore, ought to be discontinued. So far, then, as the uninitiated eye could perceive, there existed, in February, no formidable obstacle to the conduct of her Majesty's Government. If the premises assumed by themselves as to the general prosperous state of the country were true, their task was materially lightened; since, without the existence of some strong feeling in the country against them, no attempt to disturb their policy could be successful in a House of Commons called together under their own auspices, and supposed to be favourable to their views.

Before March had expired, the country was left without a ministry! There had been no hostile division on the Address; there had been no vote of want of confidence. Mr Disraeli had brought forward his motion relating to the peculiar burdens laid upon the land, and that motion was