scheme of tyranny, and the inquisitorial practices resorted to by the British Cabinet. We would venture to propose a solution of the enigma. Might it not be a trait of the professional tact of a bailiff employed by some long deferred and disappointed creditor-Sir Henry Digby for example-whose cause against the "Earl" might then be pending? With reference to Mr Humphrys' dealings with Mademoiselle Le Normand, this paragraph occurs in one of the Times of April, 1838:-"Extract of a letter Paris, April 26-The Emperors Napoleon and Alexander, and dozens of individuals (after them) of the first distinction, with thousands of the common file, have, from time to time, consulted the famous Parisian fortune teller, Mademoiselle Le Normand. Are you aware that the wise and grave elderly gentlemen, who constitute the present Cabinet of Great Britain, have, through Earl Granville, been dealing lately with that celebrated tireuse des cartes? To be serious, however, the following comes from an unquestionable source:-The British Government has called upon that of France to institute inquiries respecting certain deeds which a soi-disant or a real Lord (Alexander) Stirling has produced, and on which he grounds a claim to the inheritance of the whole of Canada. His lordship has, moreover, protested against the mission of Earl Durham. It appears that when lately in Paris, his lordship obtained from Mlle. Le Normand certain documents, on which he rests the claim just mentioned, and copies, or a description of which he has laid before the British Government. In consequence of an application of Earl Granville, Mlle. Le Normand was yesterday summoned to the Prefecture of Police, when she was called upon to state in what way the documents in question had come into her possession. She replied that they had been left with her en depot by a party respecting whom she either would not or could not give any account. All that could be obtained from her in addition, was an admission that she had received money for the papers." At the same time, and in connection with the above, the Standard remarks:-" Lord (Alexander) Stirling, if Lord he be, seems to be a fortune hunter, and therefore sought a fortune teller in the celebrated Mlle. Le Normand; of course his lordship's wishes were soon complied with, and upon the payment of the required fee, Mlle. produced a bundle of papers, authorizing his lordship to put in his claim for the whole' of Canada." With reference to the criminal prosecution, we cannot help thinking that it was very inexpedient, as the excerpt charter, which was the basis of any claim Mr Humphrys could set up, might, if such a step were really necessary, have been set aside at a comparatively trifling expense by a process of reduction-improbation in the Court of Session. Indeed, we should have thought that the reduction of the service and infeftment would, of itself, have answered every useful purpose; as it is, the country has been put to an enormous expense without any corresponding benefit, as the Jury have only decided that which the Judges of the Court of Session could have done, namely, that the writs by which Mr Humphrys endeavoured to support his imaginary claims are false and fabricated. In conclusion, we may express an opinion in conformity with that of the majority of the Jury, for we think it exceedingly possible that this unfortunate gentleman has been the victim of an hallucination which has rendered him, as his counsel states him to have been, "the dupe of the designing, and the prey of the unworthy." However strongly we reprobate his absurd and preposterous pretensions, we can, with difficulty, bring ourselves to believe that one whose character stood so high in the opinion of gentlemen of undoubted and unblemished reputation could ever have perpetrated the criminal actions laid to his charge. The following note, which refers to the claimant of 1762, could not be conveniently introduced at page 4, without overloading it : "The present Earl of Stirling received from a relation an old box of neglected writings, among which he found the original commission of Charles I. appointing his lordship's predecessor, Alexander, Earl of Stirling, commander-in-chief of Nova Scotia, with the confirmation of the grant of that province made by James I. In the initial letters are the portraits of the king sitting on the throne delivering the patent to the Earl, and round the border representations, in miniature, of the customs, huntings, fishings, and productions of the country, all in the highest preservation, and so admirably executed, that it was believed of the pencil of Vandyck; but as I know no instance of that master having painted in this manner, I cannot doubt but it was the work of Norgate, allowed the best illuminator of that age, and generally employed, says Fuller, to make the initial letters in the patents of peers, and commissions of ambassadors."-Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting, edited by Dallaway, vol. ii. p. 45. Norgate was Windsor herald, and clerk of the signet. Vide Master's Hist. of Corpus Christi Coll. Cambridge, p. 118. Banks, in his " Analytical Statement," p. 62, wishes to make out that the above was the pretended charter of 1639, because, saith he, "He was appointed Windsor herald in 1633, and soon after illuminator of royal patents;" ergo, "the charter mentioned by Walpole could not be before 1633, but must have been one after that time." Where Mr Banks discovered grounds for "soon after" we know not. He was not appointed "illuminator of royal patents," but was merely employed on them from his excellence as a limner, and this probably led to his obtaining admission into the college. How readily some men can torture facts to suit their own views! APPENDIX TO INTRODUCTION. No. I. SECOND DIVISION. NOVEMBER 12, 1836. PURSUERS' PROOF, IN CAUSA, THE OFFICERS OF STATE AGAINST HUMPHREYS OR ALEXANDER, "Edinburgh, July 4, 1835.-The Lords, on report of Lord Cockburn, Ordinary, having considered the state of the process, and heard counsel on the question as to the mode of procedure referred to in the Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor, are of opinion, that if, after hearing parties, any farther proof in this cause shall be allowed, such proof ought to be taken on commission; and remit to the Lord Ordinary to proceed accordingly. (Signed) "D. BOYLE, I.P.D." "8th July, 1835.-The Lord Ordinary allows to both parties a proof of their respective averments as contained in the Record: Grants diligence, at the instance of both parties, for citing witnesses and havers accordingly: Remits to Mr Handyside, Advocate, to take the Depositions, and receive the exhibits of such of the witnesses and havers as may be examined in this country; and grants commission to him accordingly for that purpose, if necessary: Farther, grants Commission to any of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace in Ireland to take the Depositions, and receive the exhibits of such of the witnesses and havers as may be examined in Ireland, to be reported on or before the third sederunt day in November next; and dispenses with the Minute-book. (Signed) "H. COCKBURN." "1st June, 1836.—The Lord Ordinary, of consent, prorogates the time for the Defender reporting the diligence and commission formerly granted to him for fourteen days; also grants diligence, at the pursuers' and defenders' instance, for citing such witnesses and havers as reside within the counties of Warwick and Worcester; and grants Commission to any of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace for said counties to take the depositions of said witnesses and havers, and receive their exhibits; and dispenses with the Minutebook, to be reported within fourteen days. Also prorogates the time for the pursuers reporting the diligence and commission now and formerly granted to them for fourteen days, after the expiry of said fourteen days prorogated to the defender. (Signed)" H. COCKBURN." “6th July, 1836.—The Lord Ordinary prorogates the time for the pursuers reporting the diligence formerly granted to them till the third sederunt day in November next. “H. COCKBURN." (Signed) PURSUERS' PROOF, IN THE ACTION of REDUCTION IMPROBATION, at the instance of THE OFFICERS OF STATE, Pursuers; AGAINST ALEXANDER HUMPHREYS or ALEXANDER, calling himself EARL OF STIRLING; and THOMAS CHRISTOPHER BANKS, Defenders. At Edinburgh, the 1st day of June, 1836, in the Action of Reduction and Improbation, at the instance of the Officers of State, against Alexander Humphreys or Alexander, and Thomas Christopher Banks, there was produced an interlocutor by Lord Cockburn, Ordinary, allowing to both parties a proof of their respective averments, as contained in the Record, and granting diligence, for citing witnesses and havers, and remitting to Mr Robert Handyside, advocate, to take the depositions, and receive the exhibits of such of the witnesses and havers, as may be examined in this country, which he accepted of; and having chosen James Keddie, writer in Edinburgh, to be his clerk, to whom be administered the oath de fideli, Appeared Mr Cosmo Innes, advocate, and Mr Roderick MacKenzie, W.S. counsel and agent for the pursuers; and Mr Adam Anderson, advocate, and Mr Ephraim Lockhart, W.S. counsel and agent for the defenders. Compeared ANDREW FYFE, M.D. Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, a witness cited for the pursuers; who, being solemnly sworn, purged of partial counsel, examined and interrogated, depones, That he is, and has been |