The idea of colonizing Nova Scotia found great favour in the eyes both
of James VI. and Charles I., and the former monarch rewarded Sir
William Alexander of Menstrie, who actively supported the project,
with a charter, dated 12th September 1621, in which he granted to him
"All and Whole the territory adjacent to the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
thenceforward to be called Nova Scotia;" and constituted him, his
heirs and assignees, hereditary Lords-Lieutenant. The powers which
were given to these Lords-Lieutenant were little short of regal; but
before the charter could be ratified by the Scotch Parliament his
Majesty died. In 1625, however, the grant was renewed in the form of
a Charter of Novodamus, which was even more liberal than the original
document. These deeds were drawn out in the usual form of Scottish
conveyances, and were ratified by the Scotch Parliament in 1633.
In accordance with their terms Sir William despatched one of his sons
to Canada, where, acting in his father's name, he built forts at the
mouth of the St. Lawrence, and acted as a petty king during his stay.
Still the project did not flourish: colonists were scarce and shy,
and, in order to make colonization more rapid, King James hit upon the
expedient of creating Nova-Scotian baronets, and of conferring this
distinction upon the leading members of those families who most
actively engaged in the work of populating the land. His successor
Charles I., who had an equal desire and necessity for money, converted
the new order into a source of revenue by granting 16,000 acres of
Canadian soil to those who could pay well, by erecting the district
thus sold into a barony, and by attaching the honours of a baronet of
Nova Scotia thereto. The order was afterwards extended to natives of
England and Ireland, provided they became naturalized Scotchmen.
Sir William Alexander, by unfortunate speculations, was reduced to
want; his affairs became involved, and he ultimately sold his entire
Canadian possessions to a Frenchman named de la Tour. The original
Scotch colony depended upon the crown of Scotland: it was ceded to
France by the Treaty of St. Germains, dated the 29th of March 1632; was
reconquered by Cromwell; was again surrendered in the reign of Charles
II.; and in 1713 once more became a British colony--no consideration
being paid at the last transfer to the real or imaginary claims of Sir
William Alexander.
The worthy baronet, however, notwithstanding his misfortunes and his
impecuniosity, continued a great friend of the first Charles, who, by
royal letters patent, elevated him, on the 14th of June 1633, to a
peerage under the title of the Earl of Stirling. The earldom became
dormant in 1739.
After a lapse of more than twenty years a claimant for these honours
appeared in the person of William Alexander; but his appeal to the
House of Peers was rejected on the 10th of March 1762, and the
Stirling Peerage was commonly supposed to have shared the common
earthly fate, and to have died a natural death. But a new aspirant
unexpectedly appeared. This gentleman, named Humphreys, laid claim not
only to the earldom of Stirling, but also to the whole territory of
Canada, in addition to the Scottish estates appertaining thereto; and,
in order to substantiate his pretensions, put forward an assumed
pedigree. In this document he declared himself to be the lineal
descendant and nearest lawful heir of Sir William Alexander, who he
said was his great-great-great-grandfather. From this remote fountain
he pretended to have come, following the acknowledged stream until he
reached Benjamin, the last heir-male of the body of the first earl,
and, diverting the current to heirs-female in the person of Hannah,
Earl William's youngest daughter, who was married at Birmingham, and
whom he represented as his own ancestress.
In 1824, having obtained formal license to assume the surname of
Alexander, he procured himself to be served "lawful and nearest
heir-male in general of the body of the said Hannah Alexander," before
the bailies of Canongate, 1826. Then he assumed the title of Earl of
Stirling and Dovan, and, in 1830, formally registered himself as
"lawful and nearest heir in general to the deceased William, the first
Earl of Stirling."
According to the patent of 1633, which was confined to heirs-male,
Humphreys had no claim either to the title or estates; but he based
his pretensions upon a document which, he said, had been granted by
Charles I., in 1639, to the Earl of Stirling, and which conferred upon
him, without limitation as to issue, the whole estates in Scotland and
America, as well as the honours conveyed by the original patent. This
he attempted to prove in an action in the Court of Session, which was
dismissed in 1830, as was also a similar action for a like purpose in
1833.
But, although not officially recognised, he assumed all the imaginary
privileges of his position, granting to his friends vast districts of
Canadian soil, creating Nova-Scotian baronets at his own discretion,
and acting, if not like a king, at least like a feudal magnate of the
first degree. He caused notice after notice to be issued proclaiming
his rights, and the records of the time are filled with strange
proclamations and announcements, to which his name is attached. As a
rule, these productions are far too lengthy to be copied, and far too
involved to be readily summarized. They have all a lamentably
commercial tone, and invariably exhibit an unworthy disposition to
sacrifice great prospective or assumed advantages for a very little
ready money. Take, for instance, his address to the public authorities
of Nova Scotia, issued in 1831. In it, after informing his readers of
the steps which he had taken to assert his rights, and the prospects
which existed of their recognition, he hastens to observe that
"persons desirous of settling on any of the waste lands, either by
purchase or lease, will find me ready to treat with them on the most
liberal terms and conditions;" and throws out a gentle hint that in
any official appointment he might have to make, he would prefer that
"the persons to fill them should rather be Nova Scotians or Canadians,
than the strangers of England." At the same time he issued numerous
advertisements in the journals, reminding all whom it might concern of
his hereditary rights, and warning the world in general against
infringing his exclusive privileges. At length, having succeeded in
gaining notoriety for himself, he aroused the Scotch nobility. On the
19th of March 1832, the Earl of Rosebery proposed and obtained a
select committee of the House of Lords, with a view of impeding "the
facility with which persons can assume a title without authority, and
thus lessen the character and respectability of the peerage in the
eyes of the public;" and the Marchioness of Downshire, the female
representative of the house of Stirling, forwarded a petition to the
Lords, complaining of the undue assumption of the title by Mr.
Humphreys.
It is somewhat remarkable that the extraordinary proceedings of this
person should have been tolerated for so long a time by the
law-officers of the Crown; but his growing audacity at last led to
their interference, and what is termed an action of reduction was
brought against him and his agent. Lord Cockburn, who heard the case,
decided, without hesitation, that his claim was not established,
declared the previous legal proceedings invalid, and demolished the
pretensions of the claimant. Under these circumstances it was
necessary to do something to strengthen those weak points in his
title, which had been pointed out by the presiding judge, and
Humphreys or his friends were equal to the emergency. A variety of
documents were discovered in the most unexpected manner, which exactly
supplied the missing links in the evidence, and the claim was
accordingly renewed. The law-officers of the Crown denied the validity
of these documents, which emanated from the most suspicious
sources--some being forwarded by a noted Parisian fortune-teller,
called Madlle le Normand; and after Mr. Humphreys had been judicially
examined with regard to them, he was served with an indictment to
stand his trial for forgery before the High Court of Justiciary, at
Edinburgh, on the 3d of April 1839. The trial lasted for five days,
and created intense excitement throughout Scotland. During the trial
it was elicited that the father of Mr. Humphreys had been a respectable
merchant in Birmingham, who had amassed considerable wealth, had gone
abroad, accompanied by his son, in 1802, and had taken up his
temporary residence in France. As he did not return at the declaration
of war which followed the brief peace, he was detained by Napoleon,
and died at Verdun in 1807. His son, the pretended earl, remained a
prisoner in France until 1815, and afterwards established himself as a
schoolmaster at Worcester. There he met with little success, but bore
an excellent character, and gained a certain number of influential
friends, whose probity and truthfulness were beyond doubt; some of
whom supported him through all his career, one officer of distinction
even sitting in the dock with him. The public sympathy was also
strongly displayed on his side. But the evidence which was led on
behalf of the Crown was conclusive, and a verdict was returned
declaring the documents to be forgeries; but finding it "Not Proven"
that the prisoner knew that they were fictitious, or uttered them with
any malicious intention. He was therefore set at liberty, and retired
into private life. Whether he was an impostor, or was merely the
victim of a hallucination, it is very difficult to say. In any case he
failed to prove himself the Earl of Stirling.