ant and decisive judgment. It was admitted by the Crown lawyers that the prisoner was the lawful son of Hannah Alexander, and that she was the daughter of the Reverend John Alexander, said to have died in 1743; but they strenuously denied its hav ing been proved that he was the son of John (No. 2) of Antrim, or that this last was the son of John (No. 1) of Gartmore, the fourth son of the first Earl of Stirling. "The whole of the defender's case,' " said the Lord Ordinary emphatically, "depends upon the genuineness of these two descents." In attacking that case, the Crown lawyers proved incontestably, at starting, that John of Gartmore, (30 called because he had married Agnes Graham, the heiress of Gartmore,) had issue by her a daughter only! Unless, therefore, as was intimated by the Lord Ordinary during the progress of the case, and coincided in by the prisoner's counsel, he contracted a SECOND MARRIAGE, the whole case fell to the ground. The lucky suggestion was eagerly snatched at; and it was asserted that there had been such a second marriage. Of such marriage, however, not a tittle of evidence was offered, except inferentially, from the supposed proofs of his having had a son! "The fact of the second marriage," said the Lord Ordinary, "is not even attempted to be established by any direct or separate evidence." This seemed like laying the axe at the root of the tree. Next came the Lord Ordinary to the proof of "the filiation of the two Johns," consisting of the two affidavits of Sara Lyner and Hovenden, a tomb-stone inscription, and the examination of two very old female witnesses. First, as to the affidavits, even admitting them to be genuine, they seemed liable to almost every conceivable objection to their admissibility made, not by relatives or connections, but by total strangers to the family, of whose means of knowledge nothing was known! in no judicial cause! before no opponent capable of questioning and testing their truth, under circumstances with which" said the Lord Ordinary, we are not

66

in the slightest degree acquainted!" made not post litem, but post controversiam motam! They might have been voluntary affidavits, and made for fraudulent purposes! The Lord Ordinary, notwithstanding, deemed it advisable, on the whole, not to reject them in limine, as inadmissible, but to admit them for the purpose of considering their credit and efficacy. The affidavit of Sara Lyner was so ludicrously deficient in all formal attributes of authenticity and attestation, that "it was difficult to imagine any document introduced into a case with poorer recommendations." The affidavit of Hovenden presented itself in an infinitely more questionable shape, for, though professing to have been sworn before, and to bear the signature of, one "J. Pocklington-admitted by the Crown lawyers to have been a Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland in 1723, and attested by Hovenden, whose signature purported to be again attested by a notary-public- they averred that the paper on which the body of the affidavit was written had been originally covered with some other writing, constituting the affidavit really sworn before Baron Pocklington; and which had been chemically removed, to make way for the existing affidavit." "The evidence of this charge of fabrication," said the Lord Ordinary, "which is not directed against the defender (i.e. the prisoner) personally, consists of the appearance of the paper, and the uncontradicted testimony of Dr Fyfe and Dr Gregory, two gentlemen of undoubted character and skill in chemistry." "The Lord Ordinary"-he continues in a forbearing tone-" is very unwilling to hold this painful charge to be legally established, and therefore carries the result no farther than this -that the paper is exposed to a degree of suspicion which makes it unsafe to rely on this document." Having thus tolerated the reception of these two disgraced documents, let us see what they contained. That of Sara Lyner stated that she was eighty-four years old; nursed the mother of the Rev. John Alexander

*

(John No. 3) when he was born; and that he was the son of John of Antrim (No. 2,) in whose family she had lived twenty years. "But how did she connect John of Antrim with John of Gartmore? How pass over this great gulf? She said that her mother had lived in the service of Lord Montgomery;" and while there (no date given) Mr John Alexander of Gartmore, a son of the Lord Stirline, in Scotlond, came to see my lord, and brought with him his only son"-who was "Mr John Alexander of Antrim!" This is the whole scope of the affidavit-" the unexplained assertion, or conjecture, of that solitary witness-" he brought with him his only son, and that son was -John of Antrim!" The second affidavit is one which, if true, settled the whole matter compendiously, completely, and conclusively, in favour of the prisoner. Mr Hovenden commenced by the invaluable statement, that he was "intimately acquainted with the reverend minister, John Alexander, grandson, and only male representative of John Alexander of Gartmore, the 4th son of William, first Earl of Stirling, in Scotland ;— which said John Alexander was formerly of Antrim; "but was then (16th July 1723) dwelling in Warwickshire, in Great Britain!" It was to establish as facts the above complete little course of descent that this affidavit had been offered in evidence: but the above pregnant sentence formed only an introductory statement, the body of the affidavit consisting of an account of its deponent having been informed by the said Rev. John Alexander (John No. 3) that the original charter of the earldom was in the possession of Thomas Conyers to whom the deponent went at the particular desire of Mr Alexander, on the 10th July 1723, and was shown the original charter, in Latin, dated the 7th December 1639 and then followed "a faithful translation of the clause" which operated that signal change in the original destination, under which the prisoner claimed. And, finally, there was indorsed, or subscribed, to their affidavit, the following memorandum, purporting to be by a son of the aforesaid Thomas Conyers:

"I willingly bear testimony to the truth of this statement and the written affidavit. Lord Stirling's charter was trusted to my late father in troublous times, by ye decd Mary, Countesse of Mr Alexander, without the present Earl's consent.

"Carlow, 20th July 1723.

"THOS. CONYERS."

By "the present Earl," was meant the fifth and last Earl of Stirlingwho survived the year in which this affidavit purported to have been made sixteen years! It is pertinent here, with a view to subsequent elucidation, to remind the reader of another similar attestation, by this Mr "Thomas Conyers"-[ante, p. 470]-to the accuracy of Mr William Gordon's abstract of the same clause of limitation in the charter in question.

As this affidavit was put forward before the Lord Ordinary only for the sake of its statement of pedigree, he despatched it on the same ground as that on which he had disposed of the affidavit of Sara Lyner - viz., as only a general assertion by a stranger to the family, with no circumstance stated in support of that assertion. So much for the affidavits. Then comes some tombstone evidence.

"Tombstones," said the Lord Ordinary, with a sort of subdued sarcasm, "have sometimes gone far to decide pedigrees; but probably none were ever founded on, in circumstances like the one relied on by the defender." And the reader will probably be of the same opinion. The evidence consisted of an alleged inscription on a tombstone in the Churchyard at Newtown-lands, in Ireland; which inscription, quoth the Lord Ordinary, drily, "is very strong in the defender's [the prisoner's] favour; as strong as if it had been composed for this very case!" The reader will bear in mind this observation, as we shall hereafter have occasion to present him, in full splendour, with this "Inscription." Suffice it to say, for the present, that the tombstone which bore it was confessedly not in existence; the copy relied on was alleged to have been inscribed on a page in a Bible, which also was confessedly not in existence! And the shape in which the copy was presented was a piece of paper, pur

porting to have been that page in that Bible! The alleged leaf was headed thus:-"Inscription on my grandfather's [John No. 1-of Gartmore] tomb, at Newton: copied for me by Mr Hum. Lyttleton." Who this last gentleman was no one knew: no one proved his hand-writing-but we shall shortly hear something not a little curious about him. And the only evidence in support of this allimportant document was a sort of certificate by four persons-that "this leaf, taken out of poor John's bible, is put up, with the other family papers, for my son Benjamin. Done this 16 Dec. 1766, in the presence of my friends, who, at my request, have subscribed their names as witnesses!" The absurdity of all this is cuttingly exposed by the Lord Ordinary. It was then sought to corroborate this alleged "copy" by showing that there really had been such a tombstone: and how thinks the reader? By the evidence of a pauper eighty years old, the widow of a mason, who, forty-four years before, told her that he had seen a tombstone in the floor of the old church, with the words, "John Alexander, Esq., Antrim," ́upon it; and that he had built this stone into the walls of the church for better preservation. If so, it was safe and visible in the wall at the time of his telling her that fact-viz., in 1792: and that fact was directly and conclusively disproved by evidence!

Finally, the old pauper aforesaid, and another elderly woman, were called to speak to statements concerning the fact of relationship in dispute, exceeding in absurdity even what has gone before-hearsay, upon hearsay, upon hearsay! For instance, one of them, a stranger, says-" I heard my grandmother say, that she heard her father say! that the said John of Antrim was come of the Alexander from Scotland, and was nearly related to the Earl of Mount Alexander, in Ireland. I heard my grandmother also say that she had heard from her father, that John of Gartmore was the Honourable John Alexander, and was the father of John of Antrim!!!"* "On the whole," concludes the Lord Ordinary," he is of opinion that

the evidence, whether considered in its separate parts, or as a whole, is utterly insufficient to sustain the verdicts. And it is impossible not to be struck with the number of collateral facts by which, if the claim be well founded, the proof might have been strengthened, but in which there is a total absence of evidence." The Lord Ordinary decreed accordingly, leaving the claimant to the Stirling peerage prostrate. Bitter, indeed, must have been his mortification and disappointment, at the blight thus fallen upon the fond hopes of so many years, rendering all his anxieties and exertions utterly bootless.

But how little he must have dreamed of the wonderful events which a very few months, nay, weeks, were to produce! They may have appeared to him like two direct and very special interpositions of Providence in his behalf!

It will have been remembered that the Lord Ordinary emphatically declared the two great gaps in the pedigree proof to be the Rev. John Alexander's (John No. 3) being the son of John of Antrim (John No. 2;) and John of Antrim's being the son of John of Gartmore (John No. 1.) This decree was pronounced on the 10th December 1836; and on the 8th day after the disastrous event-viz., on the 18th December 1836-pressed by pecuniary difficulties, and the vindictiveness of his enemies, the prisoner says he went to France, under a feigned name, and lived in great seclusion in or near Paris, till the 15th August 1837, when he returned to Scotland, to vote at the election of Scotch Peers. During that otherwise cheerless interval, occurred, in April and July, the two signal discoveries above alluded to. We shall give his own summary of the results thus obtained, quoting from the official "Minute" given in by him to the Court on the 15th Nov. 1837, in the name of his two eminent counsel.

"The defender has lately come to the knowledge of various documents which tend very materially to strengthen the evidence of propinquity, in regard to THE TWO DESCENTS referred to by the Lord Ordinary. By these

newly-discovered documents he trusts he will be able to establish that John Alexander of Gartmore (John No. 1,)* after he had lost his wife, Agnes Graham, heiress of Gartmore, married, as his second wife, Elizabeth Maxwell, of Londonderry, by whom he had an only son, JOHN, who died at Derry in 1665-6. That this son John (John No. 2,) son of John of Gartmore, received his early education at Londonderry; was afterwards sent to a German University; and, after being many years abroad, settled at Antrim; married Mary Hamilton, of Bangor; had by her one son, John (John No. 3,) and two daughters; died on the 19th April 1712, and was buried at Newtown. That Mr Livingston, an old friend of the family, wrote the "Inscription"† to his memory, which was on the tombstone at Newtown-lands; and that Mr Lyttleton's copy of it was known in 1765. That the said John Alexander of Antrim (John No. 2) had encouraged the taste of his son (John No. 3) for the ministry of the Church of Scotland; and that the said son, who was the Rev. John Alexander, died at Dublin, on the 1st Nov. 1743."+

These signal facts were sought to be substantiated by two classes of documents, of an equally remarkable character, respectively finding their way to the prisoner anonymously, in April and July 1837-the one in London, the other at Paris.

I. Mr Eugene Alexander, the third son of the prisoner, happens, towards the close of April 1837, to call at Messrs De Porquet and Co.'s, booksellers in London, who had been occasionally employed by the prisoner, was informed by them that they had just received, by the twopenny-post, a packet addressed to them, which inclosed another, addressed, "The Right Hon. the Earl of Stirling," accompanied by the following note, addressed to them, in a lady's hand, without disguise :-" Mrs Innes Smyth's compliments to Messrs De Porquet and Co. She had fully intended calling in Tavistock Street, when she arrived in town yesterday from Staffordshire; but another com

mission she had to execute having prevented her, she is induced to send the enclosed packet to them by the twopenny-post, with her particular request that they will forward it instantly to the Earl of Stirling, or any member of his lordship's family, whose residence may be known to them.Hackney, April 19."-Who " Mrs Innes Smyth" was, neither the prisoner nor any of his family could discover ; and she remains to this hour, for aught we can gather to the contrary, utterly unknown, having come like a shadow, and so departed. Mr Alexander seems to have been not a little flustered by the occurrence; and having immediately consulted some solicitors, he and they went to a notarypublic the next morning, and in his presence opened the packet addressed to his father; when they discovered another packet, cased in parchment, on which was written, "Some of my wife's family papers." ." On seeing this, he instantly exclaimed, “That is my grandfather's handwriting!" "This inner packet," continued his son, in writing to his father, "was sealed with three black seals, all the same impression-evidently my grandfather's seals-not like those we have."" Accompanying this inner parchment packet was the following mysterious note:-"The enclosed was in a small cash-box, which was stolen from the late William Humphreys, Esq., at the time of his removing from Digleth House, Birmingham, to Fair Hill, The person who committed the theft was a young man in a situation in trade which placed him above suspicion. Fear of detection, and other circumstances, caused the box to be carefully put away, and it was forgot that the packet of papers was left in it.

This discovery has been made since the death of the person alluded to, which took place last month. His family, being now certain that the son of Mr Humphreys is the Lord Stirling who has lately published a narrative of his case, they have requested a lady going to London to leave the packet at his lordship's publishers, a channel for its conveyance pointed out by the book itself, and which they hope is quite safe. His lordship will perceive

Swinton, Appendix, p. xxxi.

that the seals have never been broken. The family of the deceased, for obvious reasons, must remain unknown. They make this reparation; but cannot be expected to court disgrace and infamy. -April 17, 1837."*" The sheet of paper on which this was written," said young Mr Alexander, "is a mourning one, with a deep black edge round, owing to the death of the thief." The inner packet was then taken to a proctor, and opened by young Mr Alexander in the presence of four witnesses, and proved to contain five documents, all bearing most decisively, and indeed conclusively, on that precise part of the prisoner's case pronounced by the Lord Ordinary to have been defective. One was a genealogical tree, purporting to have been made out by a "Thos. Campbell," on the 15th April 1759; and, to be sure, it was calculated to settle the whole matter: for it set out the two marriages of John of Gartmore, the second being with "Elizabeth Maxwell of Londonderry;" that by this second wife he had a son, John, "who married Mary Hamilton of Bangor, and settled at Antrim, after living many years in Germany-died 1712buried at Newtown." That this John of Autrim had a son, "John, sixth Earl of Stirling (DE JURE) "!!! and died at Dublin, 1st November 1743; and that this de jure sixth Earl of Stirling had four children; the eldest, "John, born at Dublin, 1736, heir to the titles and estates!" the second, Benjamin; the third, Mary; the fourth, "Hannah, born at Dublin in 1741." And this inestimable document bore the following inscription: "Part of the genealogical tree of the Alexanders of Menstry, Earls of Stirling in Scotland, showing only the fourth and now existing [i. e. 1759, being twenty years after the death of the fifth earl, and sixteen years after that of the de jure sixth earl] branch. Reduced to pocket size from the large emblazoned tree, in the possession of Mrs Alexander, of King Street, Birmingham, by me, Thos. Campbell, April 15, 1759." The next enclosure consisted of a letter from the above Benjamin to his elder brother, the Rev. John, (both uncles of the pri

Swinton, p. 19.
VOL. LXIX.-NO. CCCCXXVI.

soner.) Benjamin spoke, in this letter, about the missing tombstone; its place, however, being supplied by "Mr Lyttleton's copy, which can be proved;" about Campbell's copy of grandfather A.'s portrait being very like;" that a curious memorandum was pasted at the back, "from which it appears that our grandfather [i. e. John of Antrim] received his early education at Londonderry, under the watchful eye of Mr MAXWELL, his MATERNAL grandsire. At the age of sixteen, the dowager-countess wished him to be sent to Glasgow College; but at last it was thought better for him to go to a German University. He attained high distinction as a scholar, remained many years abroad, and visited foreign courts. Yr. affe. bro. BENJAMIN ALEXANDER. Lond. 20 Aug. 1765. To Rev. Mr Alexander, Birmingham.” A second letter was to the same person, from one "A. E. Baillie," dated 16th September 1765. He also alludes to the missing tombstone. "But I shall be ready," he proceeds, "to come forward, if you want me. I was about twenty-one when I attended yr grandfr.'s funeral, [i. e. John of Antrim.] Mr Livingston, a very old friend of yr family, wrote ye inscription, wh ye claimant from America got destroyed. [!] I always heard that yr great-grandfr. ye Honble. Mr Alexander, (who was known in the country as Mr Alexander of Gartmoir,) died at Derry; but for ye destruction of ye parish registers in ye North by ye Papists, during ye civil war from 1689 to 1692, you mit have got ye Certifs. you want." The above letters, thus first brought to light in April 1837, after "fifty years" had elapsed since the alleged theft of the packet containing them, when connected with the statements made in the affidavit of Eliza Pountney, the prisoner's sister, on the 27th of January 1826, became deeply significant. We allude to her observations respecting her two uncles, John and Benjamin, and their intention to have claimed the peerage, but for their "dying in their prime;" and, on comparing dates, it will be found that the one (John) is alleged to have died in 1765, the year in

Ante, p. 467. 21