We do not believe that there ever was a time in the history of this

country, when so deep an excitement existed in the public mind

regarding the present position and future prospects of our domestic

agriculture. As the sun never attracts so much attention as during

an eclipse, so it would seem to fare with British agriculture in

the disastrous plight into which legislation has plunged her. Our

litterateurs have all taken to "piping on the oaten reed," and to

paying their _devoirs_ at the shrine of Ceres--in whose temple,

however, they are manifestly neophytes, and as yet but playing the

part of postulants. We hope, indeed, that we may remark without

offence, that sometimes they place strange fire on the altar of the

goddess, and that they do not always exhibit satisfactory proofs of

being very intelligent or well-informed worshippers. When Goldsmith

meditated an exploratory journey into the interior of Asia--with the

view of discovering useful inventions in the arts, and of adding

them to our stores of European knowledge--Dr Johnson, assured of his

unfitness for the task, grotesquely supposed that "he would bring

home a grinding-barrow, which you see in every street in London, and

think that he had furnished a wonderful improvement." One cannot help

fancying that some of our most brilliant contemners of the importance

of British husbandry, were they to make a tour of discovery into rural

parts--would run some chance of picking up a three-pronged fork, and of

reporting it as the veritable trident of the god Neptunus. Journalists,

subject to commercial impulses and influences, are for the most part

town-bred, and unacquainted with the habits of rural life, and with

the theory and business of farming. Husbandry is too large a subject

to be learned from the windows of an excursion train, or by the casual

consultation of an agricultural cyclopædia. Unprepared by previous

observation and study, it should not surprise us, when summoned to

discourse Georgical lore to their readers, that our journalists should

find it necessary to confine themselves to vague generalities, or

political speculations on an agricultural question. We beg, however,

respectfully to suggest that the writing of "Pastorals" has always

been thought a somewhat difficult branch of the literary art. It is

now abundantly proved that the agitation flowing from agricultural

distress cannot be sopited by burning eloquence, or brilliant sneers,

or sharp antitheses, or bold paradoxes; and the time would seem to have

arrived when it becomes those whose duty it is to instruct others, and

to consult for the good of the State, to inform themselves accurately

on a branch of national industry so engrossing public attention, and

to weigh maturely and impartially the infinitely momentous and vastly

complicated interests involved in the prosperity or decline of British

husbandry.

The position, on the other hand, of those actually engaged in the

business of agriculture, is far too critical to permit them indolently

to lie on their oars. Within the last twenty years, immense advances

have been made to improve our knowledge of the theory and practice

of husbandry in all its branches; and if the owners and occupants of

land are ignorant of these,--if they are ill-informed in their own

business--if lack of knowledge compels them to sit silent when the

spruce merchant glibly taunts them for their ignorance of the lights

shed on their profession by the torch of modern science--if they are

unable to defend themselves, and to vindicate the important interests

which they represent--let the existing race of proprietors and farmers

know assuredly that, if they are to fall degraded from their present

position, they will, in the case supposed, fall the unpitied victims

of commercial rapacity and a vicious legislation. Whatever may be the

ultimate phase in which agriculture shall emerge from the cloud now

resting on it, it is evident that those whose interests, capital, and

prospects are dependant on the produce of the soil, were never urged by

so pressing considerations to acquaint themselves fully and accurately

with the science and practice of their profession.

There never was a juncture, we venture to assert, in the history of

British husbandry, that so loudly demanded the publication of a work on

agriculture at once copious and minute in its scientific details--fully

up to the mark of modern improvement--incorporating everything old and

new likely to throw light upon the subject--and detailing faithfully

the latest experiments and discoveries of chemical, physiological,

and mechanical science; and we can honestly congratulate the British

agriculturist, that, in the new edition of Mr Stephens' _Book of the

Farm_, he truly possesses such a work.

We have, in our day, been not a little tormented with second editions.

We have sometimes harboured the ugly suspicion that, in the matter

of new editions, publishers and authors were in league to cheat the

honest public; and, under the influence of this uncomfortable feeling,

we have once and again vowed never to buy the first edition of any

book whatsoever. On cool consideration, we feel constrained, however,

to confess that the author of this work must have endangered, if not

forfeited, the high position which he holds as an agricultural writer,

had he not strenuously set himself to emend, and enlarge, and in great

portions to re-write his book, when a new edition of it was demanded.

It is not only that, on a subject so large, completeness in a first

effort might have been naturally expected to baffle any knowledge,

however comprehensive, and any industry, however indefatigable; but

the brief period that has elapsed since the publication of the first

edition has been so fertile in agricultural progress, and so rich in

scientific inquiry and experiment, that not to have noted these, and

embodied their results in this new edition, must have damaged not only

the work, but the author, as implying an ignorance of, or a contempt

for, the advancing tide of improvement. The present is undoubtedly a

very superior work to the first edition; and it seems to us now to

contain a complete institute of agriculture. We venture deliberately

to affirm, that in no country or language was so perfect a work on

agriculture ever given to the world before; and that no work on

this subject, whether foreign or domestic, can for a moment come in

competition with _The Book of the Farm_. Perhaps the most remarkable

feature in the work is the immense mass of varied information which

it contains. _The Book of the Farm_ is indeed a many-chambered

storehouse of agricultural lore--a vast repertory of information on

the subjects of which it treats. To prove the erudition of the work

to those that may be yet unacquainted with it, it may suffice to

state, that there are above fourteen hundred references to authors,

ancient and modern, continental and domestic, who have written on the

subject of agriculture, and on the allied branches of art and science.

The references in the work are equivalent indeed to a _Bibliotheca

Agricolaris_; and, by directing him to the authorities and sources of

knowledge, will enable the educated agriculturist to prosecute his

inquiries on any peculiar branch of his business in which he may desire

more minute information than even the text embraces. _The Book of the

Farm_ is, in fact, another "Stephens' Thesaurus;" and the author must

evidently be one of those robust geniuses, who can grapple with whole

libraries, and reduce them to their service. Let it be understood,

too, that the author's powers of assimilation are as excellent as his

literary appetite; that the information is not heaped together in

rude disorder, but is interwoven naturally with the texture of the

narrative--every fact falling fitly and easily into the appropriate

place, where it may best illustrate the precise point discussed. In

nothing more than in this does the learned author show his complete

mastery of the subject. We fancy that the tenant-farmer, in perusing

this work, must often feel how much its author has dignified his art,

by showing him how many sciences contribute to its advancement, and how

many authors of great learning and talent have devoted their labours to

advance the progress, and to vindicate the rights, of husbandry.

But all this learning may not be allied with practice; and the author

of _The Book of the Farm_ may, peradventure, be only a book-farmer--a

species of impostor that has done a world of mischief in his day

and generation. Quite the reverse. The author is enthusiastically

practical, and his work is intensely practical. He seems, indeed, to

look somewhat askance at any alleged improvement that is not likely to

be profitable and beneficial; and we can fancy that he would abate the

pretensions of an empiric boastful of some grand discovery, by asking,

with an awful mildness, _Cui bono?_ We can assure the agriculturist

that, in Mr Stephens, he will find an instructor thoroughly and

eminently practical. He is perfectly familiar with the processes of

husbandry. He writes not merely as an eyewitness; for it would appear

from his book that there is scarcely any one of the manual operations

of farming which he had not learned, and, by continued practice,

acquired expertness in performing. We believe that there is no author,

living or dead, who has written any similar work on agriculture, of

whom the same thing can be said. It is an unspeakable satisfaction

and comfort to the practical farmer to walk in company with such a

guide. We remember very well the impression made on our mind by the

first perusal of _The Book of the Farm_. We at once learned that the

author, from actual practice, knew perfectly the employments of the

ploughman, the agricultural labourer, the cattle-man, groom, and

shepherd. With the most minute and insignificant, as well as the most

important operations of husbandry, he seems equally familiar. We

soon discovered that his knowledge of the history, habits, diseases,

and general management of stock, was as perfect as if he had studied

nothing else. He writes as minutely about cattle as if he had spent

half a lifetime in the cattle-court; and urges that their "comfort"

should be attended to as earnestly as if he were consulting for his

wife and family. When he discourses on the fleecy people, you conclude

that he must be a mountaineer, and that he has tended his flocks amid

the valleys of Clova, or on the slopes of the Cheviot. This idea,

however, was speedily dispelled by finding our author quite precise on

the piggery; in fact, a most learned and enthusiastic _Porculator_.

We were delighted to find that he did justice to the porcine race,

for long the best abused of all our quadrupedal domestics. He writes

with a genial enthusiasm on pigs that would have delighted the gentle

spirit of Charles Lamb, (see his dissertation on "Roast Pig,") and have

won the regard of Southey, (see his poem, "The Pig,") and astonished

the ignorance of Sydney Smith, (see his late work "On Morals,") and

have caused a gracious smile to mantle o'er the benevolent countenance

of the excellent Mr Huxtable. Pigs and poultry, in life and death,

are natural allies; and it did not surprise us to find Mr Stephens

intimately acquainted with the merits of the winged denizens of the

homestead, and that brave chanticleer and his feathery harem were not

dismissed without an accurate disquisition. By this time, however, we

believed that the practical knowledge of the author was exhausted.

But it was not so. He showed himself forthwith in new characters

altogether, and proved himself to be a dexterous hedger, (no offence

is meant,) no mean proficient in the veterinary art, and quite able

to lend a helping hand to the blundering smith, carpenter, or mason;

while, to complete the range of his attainments, Mr Stephens seems

quite at home amid the perilous retorts and subtle agencies of chemical

science.

The extraordinary extent and accuracy of our author's practical

knowledge, is in some measure explained in the preface which

accompanies the new edition. After a liberal education, he seems to

have carefully trained himself for the business of farming by studying

it in Berwickshire, "labouring with his own hands," as he tells us, at

every species of farm work. He thereafter travelled through most of

the countries of Europe, and thus obtained insight into the methods

of Continental agriculture. Thus prepared, Mr Stephens commenced a

practical farmer; and on a farm of three hundred acres, in Forfarshire,

he executed a series of most successful improvements, some of them

quite new, at the time--not only in the culture of the soil, but in

the management of stock. Everything was done not only under his own

personal inspection, but he scrupled not to put his own hand to the

work; his object being, as he records, "that his mind and hands might

be familiarised with every variety of labour appertaining to rural

affairs." Since he relinquished farming, Mr Stephens has been an

ardent student of his favourite science. If at any agricultural show a

fine animal was to be seen, or if in any country or district or farm

an improved mode of culture was alleged to exist, our author seems

to have resorted thither to test its merits by accurate and patient

observation. His position as editor of the _Journal of Agriculture_

necessarily makes him familiar with the literature of agriculture,

and with every new light which Continental and British discovery has

shed upon the theory and practice of agricultural industry. To these

opportunities of knowledge he conjoins an unbounded enthusiasm and

an unconquerable industry. Never before in one person, probably, had

there met such a combination of qualifications fitting him to compose a

standard work on agriculture. And thus equipped and furnished, never,

we believe, did any author devote his energies with more untiring and

conscientious fidelity to the performance of his self-imposed task.

No inquiry seems too minute or insignificant--none too gigantic or

laborious, if it will add to the store of instruction which he desires

to communicate. He gathers information from all authors, famous or

obscure, and levies assistance from all sciences, that he may satisfy

his reader, and present his work perfect and complete! And now we beg

to congratulate the author on the completion of his great work, for a

_magnum opus_ it emphatically is; and to acknowledge, with gratitude,

the infinite obligations under which he has laid the agricultural world.

The primary intention of the author seems to have been to compose a

work that might prove a manual of instruction to young men who were

studying agriculture, and preparing themselves for the practical

business of farming. But, in reality, the work has outgrown the

original idea; and it forms now a complete code of instruction not only

to the learner, but to the experienced farmer, to the landowner, and,

in fact, to every one whose interests are dependant on agriculture,

or whose duties lie in any one of the multifarious departments of

rural affairs. The plan of the work is perfectly original, (although

old Palladius may have given the hint,) and seems to us peculiarly

felicitous. Mr Stephens divides the year into the four agricultural

seasons--not absolutely coincident with the chronological division,

but sufficiently distinctive--each having its respective class of

operations to perform. The work might, in this aspect, be described

as the Farmer's Book of the Seasons, with the employments peculiar

to each copiously described. There are undoubtedly cycles, recurring

periods, if not of repose, at least of change, in the farmer's

employment; and, by keeping in view these landmarks of nature, the

author enables his reader to comprehend, step by step, the progressive

advancement that takes place in the business of husbandry. We know no

other work that affects even to do this, or from which it would be

possible for the student to acquire an intelligible conception of the

actual system of husbandry, in the natural and consecutive order in

which her processes take place. It seems strange that, in preceding

works, a similar plan had not been adopted. In learning a profession

men begin at the beginning, and proceed gradually onwards through the

curriculum of study and of practice. How should it have been thought

that it could be otherwise in agriculture? Agricultural dictionaries

and cyclopædias cannot possibly expound a system of husbandry; and it

would defy any sagacity to frame one out of them. Their articles may

individually be worthy of occasional consultation by the initiated;

but they present to the student a bewildering and motley jumble of

instruction, "beer" being found, perhaps, next neighbour to "beet,"

and "bones" in juxtaposition with "botany." Their prelections, written

in different styles, and by authors differing oftentimes in opinion,

resemble a multitude of loose, independent, and particoloured threads.

In the _Book of the Farm_ we find all rightly arranged, and woven

by one artist into a web of continuous and consentaneous narrative.

The concluding part of the work is entitled "Realisation," in which

the author places his pupil on a farm of his own, pointing out the

principles that should guide him in his choice of a farm, and teaching

him how he should reduce his knowledge into practice. This is not

the least valuable part of the work, and in the strongest manner

indicates the superior value that the author attaches to skill, energy,

and success in the actual practice of husbandry, in comparison with

any knowledge of the "Book theoric," or any passion for experimental

freaks. Having fairly embarked his agricultural alumnus in the business

of life, Mr Stephens, as if loath to leave him, still accompanies

him with invaluable directions, and continues to counsel him in

kindliest strain regarding the duties which he owes his servants,

his neighbours, his landlord, and himself. Upon the whole, there is

something approaching to epic excellence and dramatic unity in the

conception and execution of the work; and when the author, in his final

paragraph, bids us adieu, and expresses a hope that his labours may

prove profitable and instructive to his brethren, it is impossible not

to feel that the curtain has fallen upon a complete performance.

Until we received the concluding part of _The Book of the Farm_,

which only reached us lately, we were considerably nervous on one

point--quite vital, in our estimation, as to the merits of the book.

The older we grow, we attach the more value to an accurately arranged

index. We hesitate buying any book of importance unfurnished with

such an accompaniment; and if it is a book deserving to be re-read,

and to which frequent reference must be made, as is the case with

the work under review, we put it without compunction into the _index

expurgatorius_ of our library-catalogue, and would without pity place

the author in the pillory. What a time-table is to a railway, or a

guide-book to a traveller in a strange land, such is an index to an

extensive work; and if our readers consider that _The Book of the

Farm_ contains 1456 pages of clear but close print, in double columns,

and embraces the whole range of subjects connected with the conduct

of rural life, they will see the imperious necessity of a carefully

compiled index for such a work. From the beginning we saw that the book

was well planned and paragraphed, (the paragraphs now numbering 6459;)

but no excellence of arrangement could compensate for the want of an

index. We are therefore happy to add that the value and utility of the

work are consummated by the index appended. It is accurately digested

and arranged, rendering reference easy and expeditious, and giving

the reader a complete control over the voluminous contents. We have

found it a prompt and sure guide to any particular point in the varied

realms which the author surveys. We have narrowly tested its virtues;

and having found it to fail but in one solitary case, and that only

partially, we feel bound to approve of the judgment and labour bestowed

upon this part of the work. We dwell upon this feature of it not only

as momentous in itself, but because the possession of such an index

gives _The Book of the Farm_ all the advantages of an agricultural

dictionary, while it has merits of its own to which such a work can

never lay claim.

In describing the general character of the work, it would be grievous

injustice to omit mention of the admirable manner in which it is

illustrated. It is enriched with 14 engravings on steel, and 589 on

wood, of the most exquisite quality. The portraits of the animals

are not from fancy, but are faithful likenesses from life; and we

know nothing more excellent or characteristic--not even Professor

Low's elaborate and coloured plates of the domesticated animals. In

one department the author has, with admirable success, called in

the engraver's aid. We refer to the insects infesting that portion

of vegetable and animal life in which the farmer is peculiarly

interested. This is a province of agricultural instruction which, if

not hitherto neglected, has certainly not been treated by any preceding

author in a useful and intelligible, manner. Mr Stephens describes

the insect-invaders of the farm with a precision that will satisfy

scientific readers; but Mr Stephens does not demand, as seems to have

been unreasonably done by his predecessors, that farmers shall be

familiar with the tremendous terminology of entomological science. He

places the little pests before us in vivid pictures true to the life,

and evidently from it; so that, without determining the import of such

startling vocables as "apterous," "coleopterous," and "orthopterous,"

the husbandman is at once able to detect the winged and creeping foes,

so weak in single combat, but so devastating in legionary myriads--that

ruin his crops and injure the health of his cattle, tormenting their

patience, and by no means improving the sweetness of his own temper.

The black woodcuts, too, depicturing the principal operations on the

farm, are inimitably graphic. But when it is mentioned that the artists

are Landseer, R. E. Branston, Gourlay Steell, and George H. Slight, the

reader will understand that the choicest embellishments which the fine

arts could render have been devoted to the illustration of _The Book

of the Farm_. It was well thus to charm the young farmer, and to teach

him through the medium of his eyes, by presenting him with portraits

of the finest animals, and models of the best implements, and pictures

delineating the employments in which he and his staff of servants must

engage. We shall be bold to assert that no work on agriculture exists

equal to this for the profusion, originality, and excellence of its

illustrations.

It would be utterly vain to attempt, by quotation, to give our readers

any idea of the extent and variety of the contents of this work; but

we may say that we would feel infinitely surprised if an inquirer

into any subject touching the culture and drainage of the soil,--or

relating to the management of stock,--or into any of the collateral

arts and sciences, so far as they are connected with agriculture,--or

into any duty or employment in which the owner or occupant of the

soil may be called upon to engage,--or into any difficulty likely to

overtake him in the discharge of that duty, and out of which a more

perfect knowledge and skill may extricate him,--shall _not_ find in

_The Book of the Farm_ the information of which he is in quest. In

the parts of the work that are strictly theoretical, we conceive that

much originality will be found in the author's exposition of the

rationale of the feeding of animals, of the germination of seeds, and

of the action of special manures. He states the result of every modern

experiment worth noting. The present edition contains, in fact, a

digest of every experiment, down to the present date, that has been

tried in the cultivation of crops, and in the management and feeding of

stock--not omitting Mr Huxtable's method of feeding sheep--and of every

new light and discovery worthy of preservation made by agricultural

chemists. We admire the excellent sense and discretion with which the

author addresses the practical farmer regarding the reception which he

ought to give to the discoveries of modern science. These are not to be

instantly and obstinately rejected, because they may be not only true,

but ultimately of great practical value; they are not to be fanatically

entertained and temerariously adopted, for, if not scientifically

untrue, they may be utterly abortive in application, and may conduct

only to bitter disappointment, and, in the case of the tenant-farmer,

to an unwarrantable waste both of time and money. Nothing, in point

of fact, has more injured chemical science in its relations to

agriculture, than the exaggerated expectations and promises that have

been held out regarding its discoveries. While, in the chemist's room,

the result of an experiment may be demonstrable, it should never be

forgotten that, in the laboratory of nature, the elements and agents

are not under our perfect control, and that the rise or fall of a

few degrees in the thermometer may utterly nullify the most perfect

manipulation of the most expert experimenter. Climatic, atmospheric,

and physiological peculiarities effect strange differences on the

constitution and habits of plants and animals; and although scientific

research may sometimes be able to detect the causes, it may be utterly

unable to assist us in removing them. The supralapsarian employment

of our great progenitor was horticultural rather than agricultural;

but while the art of husbandry dates from the sad exile from Eden, it

seems to be forgotten that chemistry is scarcely half a century old,

and that it is but as yesterday that she volunteered her services

to agriculture. Nothing is easier than to sneer at the inveterate

prejudices that cloud the agricultural mind, and that impede all

agricultural progress; but it may be well to remember that chemistry

itself was at a comparatively late period associated with alchemy--that

its aims were empirical, the chief of them being the discovery of the

philosopher's stone, and the transmutation of the baser ores into fine

gold. It seems the special province and duty of landowners, who have

the leisure and the means, to make experiments; but British farmers,

previous to their adoption, are entitled to satisfy themselves that the

discoveries of science are readily available by them, and are likely

to be profitable. The most enthusiastic chemist will scarcely deny

that the discovery of a very condensed animal manure in the islands

of the Pacific has contributed more to the prosperity of agriculture

than any modern discovery in his favourite science. We write this in

the profoundest conviction of the importance of chemistry and the

cognate sciences, and of the impetus they will yet give to agricultural

progress; but as it is the present fashion to contemn the torpid and

immovable understandings of British farmers, it may be well to remind

our philosophers that they have been very long of thinking how their

philosophy could advance the culture of the soil, or increase the

supply of human food--a vulgar consideration, but not to be despised by

philosophic sages, who must live like meaner mortals--and that, as yet,

they have rather evolved principles, than shown Mr Hodge how he can

profitably apply them. Of late, too, a most ridiculous rout has been

made about liquid manures; and our urinary land-doctors would persuade

us that they could liquify the whole face of the earth into a garden.

To such hydropathic empirics we cry, pish! The value of liquid manures

is undeniable, as seen in the watered meadows adjoining our cities;

and on dairy farms the quantity may be such, that the application of

it may not only be expedient, but profitable. When farmers generally,

however, are abused for their ignorant neglect and waste of liquid

manure, it is necessary to inquire into the justice of the charge. In

the first place, it is certain that the litter in the cattle-court, if

the court is rightly constructed and situated, will easily absorb all

the liquid flowing from the animals in it and in the byres. Suppose the

urine were collected as it passed from the animals, and were prevented

from permeating and saturating the manure in the court, then, nearly

_pro tanto_, the value of the manure would be deteriorated. This seems

undeniable. The leakage from cattle-courts, when properly situated,

arises exclusively from rain-water; and the overflow is caused by the

want of rones to the buildings, and the waste of this diluted liquor

arises from the want of tanks to contain it, so that both the leakage

and the waste are the fault of the landlord rather than of the tenant.

But what are the potent virtues of this liquor which escapes from the

homesteads of our farmers, and the neglect of which has brought on them

such a deluge of obloquy, and by the right use of which their plundered

exchequer is forthwith to be replenished? M. Sprengel tells us that "it

contains two per cent of manuring matter!" From the trouble, expense,

and occasional delicacy required in administering it to the crops,

we are quite satisfied that Sprengel is right in stating that any

surplusage of liquid manure about a farm, from whatever cause it may

arise, can be "most profitably employed in the preparation of compost."

We are fortified in this view by the opinion of that skilful and

judicious farmer, Mr Finnie of Swanston, as lately stated by him at a

meeting of the Agricultural Society of Scotland. The fact is, that this

cry about the untold value of liquid-manure proceeds from the city. The

inhabitants of our large towns have for many a day been living immersed

in a stercoraceous atmosphere, and have been inspiring the fetid

fumes exhaled from their horrid sewers. Awakening to the discovery,

they have been seized with a sanatory mania; and on the instant, with

upturned nostril, they have proceeded to rate the rural population

for not relieving them of their cesspools, and for not admiring with

sufficient ardour the virtues of these turbid and odoriferous streams

that meander amid their dwellings. The Free-trade philosopher, himself

pretty much in the puddle, joins in the cry, and condemns scornfully

the farmer's neglect of the fertilising properties of sewage water. If

these gentlemen were civil, and did not deserve to be soused in one of

their own fragrant ditches, it might be replied, that the moment they

transport their liquid treasures to the country, the tenant-farmers,

after having ascertained their value, will cheerfully pay the worth

of them, per ton, in sterling money. It is quite true, no doubt, as

Mr Stephens contends, that "it is wrong to permit anything to go to

waste, and especially so valuable a material on a farm as manure;"

but when practical farmers are denounced by ignorant parties, who

have shown that they care not a jot for the agricultural prosperity

of the country, but who may hope, by railing at those they so lately

robbed, to divert attention from their own political misdemeanours,

it seems but right that we should ascertain the value of the article

neglected, and the origin of its waste, if waste there be, and perhaps

even inquire into the motives of the new patrons of British husbandry

who have floated themselves into public notice on the black sea of

sewage water. At the same time, he would certainly be an unreasonable

man who would try to prevent the Free-trade water-doctors of the soil

from sweetening the atmosphere in which they live, and from cleansing

themselves from all impurities.

When we remember the excitement and distress under which the

agricultural community are now suffering, we fear that at this

moment they may scarcely be in a humour to accept graciously our

recommendation of _The Book of the Farm_. In the fever of critical

emergencies, men have not patience to study their profession, and

scarcely taste to read anything that does not bear on the one

engrossing theme. Mr Stephens, no doubt, ignores the Corn Laws and

Protection in his work--(we are under no such a vow)--but it should

be remembered that there never was a time when it was more necessary

for the cultivators of the soil to acquaint themselves with all the

improvements and appliances of modern husbandry; and although good

farming, nay, the very best, under present prices and rents must

be unprofitable, that yet it may tend to the mitigation of present

suffering, and to the postponement of coming disaster. But is there

any occupant, or owner of land, with the smallest glimmer of sense,

who really thinks--whatever he may affect--that the present condition

of the British agriculturist can continue, and that his downward

progress to destruction is not to be arrested? We do not believe it.

It is because we anticipate that, ere long, justice will be done the

tenant-farmers of the nation, and that they will be in a position

soon to start upon a new career of agricultural improvement, that we

earnestly urge upon their attentive study the stores of knowledge and

instruction communicated in the pages of Mr Stephens' work.

Supposing the iniquitous competition and taxation to which the

agricultural interests of the country are subjected were to remain

permanent, we do not believe that any knowledge, or skill, or

enterprise, can make the business of farming _generally_ profitable.

We think, however, that on casting the horoscope of British husbandry,

many writers have predicted a speedier ruin to the tenant-farmer than

the nature of his employments should lead us to expect. Everything

connected with the processes of husbandry is slow and operose. There is

only one harvest in the year, and there can only be one annual profit

or loss upon the capital invested. A farmer cannot be ruined in a

season. He may have a little spare capital; and, at all events, he has

capital invested in stock, and by trenching upon the one or the other,

he can for a while meet his losses. Agricultural capital has, however,

been already so much impaired, that if, in present circumstances, a

bad crop at home were to concur with a good one in the corn-growing

countries of the Continent, the coincidence, we believe, would plunge

immense numbers of farmers into bankruptcy. If any easy and apathetic

landlord doubts this, let him ask the country bankers. It may be

difficult to predict the ultimate issue of an unbending adherence to

the present system. After a period of hopeless struggle, the capital of

the present race of farmers will disappear, and, degraded and ruined,

they must go. Who will succeed them? Most probably a race of servile

cultivators, like the helots of ancient Sparta, or the ryots and serfs

of modern Europe, who, content to subsist upon the meanest fare, shall

deliver over to the lord of the soil the produce of the farm. We have

heard that some patriotic lairds and discerning factors, taking time

by the forelock, are looking out for such clodpoles--for the race is

not extinct--to occupy their vacant farms, wisely concluding that men

without capital, skill, or education, will live upon black bread, and

surrender to them the whole proceeds of the soil. A curious comment

this upon the high-farming theory, and a plan of operations highly

creditable to the agricultural sagacity and patriotic benevolence of

its discoverers! Or it may be that Sir James Graham's "pasturage" may

be the _dernier resort_ of a ruined agriculture, in which case we

may have, as in the Australian continent, men living somewhat like

gentlemen, and occupying extensive tracts of country with their flocks

and shepherds. Such a result could, of course, only take place by

approaches slow, insidious, and imperceptible. If it were possible,

_which it is not_, that such a social revolution should be _allowed_ to

take place, it is plain that it must be spread over a large period of

time. We think error has been propagated by anticipations of immediate

disaster. It is conceivable that events may occur that will postpone

the triumph of truth, and that may enable the Free-trade press a little

longer to mystify their readers. A temporary rise in the price of grain

would have this effect. Such a brief respite might lull even the fears

of the sufferer, although, while the organic disease remains uncured,

it is certain to destroy him. The inconsiderate, and those whose

interest is to delude or to be deluded, think the question settled by

individual farms letting higher than before, and point triumphantly

to "grass parks" maintaining their value, or rising in rent. They are

ignorant that, as far as farmers are concerned, they must, in many

localities, take grass, whatever it may cost them, unless they are to

alter and subvert their whole system of farm management, which would

involve a loss more fatal than that which, with open eyes and under

dire necessity, they are content to endure. There is some fragment of

truth, too, in one part of Sir James Graham's speech on Mr Disraeli's

motion--in several respects the most audacious oration ever spoken

in the House of Commons. "Shopkeepers retiring from business," said

the member for Ripon, "small merchants in country towns--(ironical

cheers and laughter)--I repeat it, small traders of little capital

in country towns, are now waiting the moment to make investment in

farms."--(_Times_, 10th Feb.) Isolated cases of this kind may be

occurring, as they always have done, and, generally speaking, after

a brief career, the _emeritus_ shopkeeper retires, impoverished and

disappointed. The merchant, deluded with some poetical fancy about

the charms of a country life, takes a farm, but, like Dr Johnson's

tallow-chandler, who retired to the country, but could not keep from

town on "melting days," his heart is not in his work, and he gets

disgusted with the details of agriculture, and the affairs of his farm

speedily fall into confusion. Is Sir James Graham serious in thinking

that the prosperity of our domestic agriculture is to be recovered or

maintained by "retired shopkeepers,"--that is, by men unbred to the

business, strangers to its duties, and, of necessity, utterly destitute

of any practical knowledge of agriculture? Mr Stephens anxiously

prescribes a course of careful study and practice to his agricultural

pupil; but Sir James Graham can, with his wand, metamorphose retired

shopkeepers into _extempore_ farmers. What elevated notions the Knight

of Netherby must entertain of the qualifications of an English farmer,

and of the importance of the agricultural art--an art that it had

been hitherto supposed required great experience, and a knowledge of

the elements of all sciences, to study and conduct it to perfection!

But if retired shopkeepers are the men for the present emergency,

has Sir James Graham an army of them sufficiently numerous to occupy

the abandoned territory? For before Sir James Graham's remedy--if

its application is to be coextensive with the malady--can come into

operation, he presupposes the extermination of the present race of

farmers. Let the tenant-farmers of the nation ponder his words.

"Small traders of little capital in country towns are waiting the

moment to make investment in farms." Waiting what moment? Why, the

moment, gentlemen, when you are ruined, and are to be driven, with

your wives and families, from your homes. Any sentiment more bitterly

unfeeling, or more mockingly cruel, was never vented within the walls

of Parliament; and, to our taste, it was made more loathsome by the

oily compliments to English farmers with which it was garnished. The

ex-Minister, however, is evidently deceiving himself, and he will find

that retired shopkeepers are not such simpletons as he fancies. The

"small traders in country towns," that _very section_ of the mercantile

community who are _notoriously_ suffering _most_ from the inroads of

Free Trade, are to invest their remaining capital in farming, _that

particular business_ which has received the _deepest_ wound from Free

Trade! And this is the sheet-anchor of Sir James Graham's hope; and

this is a sample of Free-trade wisdom from the lips of its greatest

champion! No doubt there may be small traders with little capital

in the commercial world who are fools; but we begin to believe that

there may be great _traders_, with little principle, in the political

world, who, wily though they be, may reveal the cloven-foot, and defeat

their aspirations after place and power. Let us be thankful, whatever

befalls us, the English O'Connell with his threat of rebellion cannot

harm us, and the fate of the Grahamite faction is sealed! The retired

shopkeepers, instead of adopting the disinterested advice, will more

probably purchase snug villas; thus indulging their passion for the

pleasures of a country life more innocently than by waiting for the

ruin of the farmers; and thus we believe, too, that their "little

capital" will be as safe as under the self-suggested guardianship of

Sir James Graham.

Sir James Graham has no doubt of the present prosperity of agriculture,

because his rents are paid. (See _Times_, 14th Feb.) This is enough

for him, and the rest is all "but leather and prunella"--the mere

constitutional croaking of the agricultural body. We should have

liked better to have heard the views of Sir James Graham's tenantry

on this department of the subject than his own. With the value of

agricultural produce reduced thirty-five per cent, is the reward of

his tenants' industry undiminished, and their capital unimpaired?

What a draft upon the agricultural ignorance of the present House of

Commons, and what a contempt for the understanding of his auditors,

did this bold man evince by hazarding such an assertion! Any inquiry

into the sources whence his rents were paid was not thought necessary

by Sir James; and we believe that there are many more amiable men than

the Laird of Netherby who are solacing themselves with the same view.

Their rents are paid--their grass is letting--they are content--they

eschew inquiry. The struggling farmer is pinching himself and his

family, and is dipping his hand into the hard-earned savings of former

years, in order that he may meet the factor. But examination would be

unpleasant--dangerous; and any expression of sympathy even with the

sufferer, would imply a distrust of the blessings following in the wake

of the Free-trade policy. It might almost seem that many of our landed

proprietors were set at present upon acting the part of the silly bird

of the desert, which hid its head in the sand that it might not see the

destruction that was coming. The Newark election, in which the nominee

of the landlords was unceremoniously set aside by the farmers, and a

man of their own choice selected, might have taught the owners of the

soil that condign punishment may eventually await wilful ignorance

or criminal neglect of the present duties of their station, and

indifference to the condition of those whose prosperity is indissolubly

associated with their own. If degradation from that position of

influence and power which they have hitherto so justly and naturally

possessed be thought no evil, we confess, that we would wish to see

that great interest--whose importance to the welfare of the State

we have ever vindicated to the best of our power--selecting a more

graceful and magnanimous mode of self-destruction. The retention of an

undiminished rent-roll Sir James Graham has set his heart upon, as is

unblushingly implied in the speech already quoted--but this will not be

allowed him; and if there be any meaning or sincerity in his own creed,

he dares not ask it. The Free-trade press unanimously assert--and

unanswerably upon their principles, and Sir James Graham's own--that

the only and the necessary termination of agricultural distress must

conduct to a reduction of rent; and the Free-trade press is stronger

than Sir James Graham.

The _Times_ contends (or rather did contend, for here a delicate

attention to the use of the tenses should be observed) so earnestly for

the reduction of rent as the only possible solution of the difficulty,

that one must conclude that the journalist believes what he writes. We

have not sworn at the altar to fight the battles of the landowners--but

if it were possible so to arrange it, we have yet to learn upon what

principle they are to be singled out as the sole subjects for plunder.

But, as the Free-trade press have resolved upon the reduction of rent

as the right settlement of the question, it may be well for a moment

to consider what this position amounts to. It is usual to make a

threefold division of the whole annual proceeds from a farm. One-third

goes to the landlord in name of rent; one-third meets the expenditure

connected with the farm; and the remaining third goes to the tenant,

as the interest of his invested and floating capital, and as the

reward of his industry. We believe this premise cannot be challenged

as unfair. But it is universally admitted now, that the annual value

of the whole agricultural produce of the farm is reduced immensely by

the compulsion of an Act of Parliament. For the present, let us say

that the reduction amounts to 30 per cent. Then, by what would seem an

equitable distribution of this loss over the three parties, the rent

of the landlord, the wages of the agricultural labourer and the other

industrial classes dependent on agriculture, and the profits of the

farmer, should each be 30 per cent less--that is, each of the three

parties should have 30 per cent less to pay the taxes with, and to

spend upon the home trade of the nation. This would seem the natural

issue of the diminished agricultural revenue, and, when things find

their level, to this pass they will infallibly arrive. But no: the

Free-trade press have determined that the agricultural labourer shall

not suffer, and that the profit and comfort of the tenant-farmer shall

not be impaired. It is solely and exclusively a question of rent, say

they. Well, be it so. Then, in that case, the rent must be reduced, not

30, but 90 per cent; for upon this condition alone can the agricultural

labourer and the tenant-farmer be left uninjured. We defy Sir James

Graham, or any Free-trade philosopher, to escape from this conclusion.

The existing case may be illustrated in another way. Land at 40s. per

acre should produce three rents, while inferior land, at 20s. per acre,

as every competent judge will allow, should produce four rents. A

farm of 200 acres, at 40s., gives a rent of L.400, and should produce

a gross revenue of L.1200. Take wheat now as the test. The farm was

rented, and the capital invested, when that grain averaged 56s. per

quarter. But wheat has fallen one-third in price, and the L.1200 is

reduced to L.800--that is, the rent has disappeared. On the poorer farm

of the same extent, at 20s. per acre, with four rents to be raised, it

will be found, upon the same data, not only that the rent has vanished,

but L.67 in addition. The force of this demonstration can only be

evaded by denying the premises upon which it is based; but, indeed,

so impregnable is our case, that we might consent to any modification

of the premises that the most besotted admirer of Free-trade results

could dare to ask, without imperilling materially the strength of our

position. And yet Free-trade proprietors are talking gravely of a

revaluation of their acres, and of a readjustment of their rent, and

of a relinquishment of some 10 or 15 per cent of their rentals, as the

grand and all-sufficient remedy for all the sufferings under which the

agricultural interest is now struggling, although even to this point of

economic magnanimity Sir James Graham has not reached. The ex-minister

must have been filled with amazement when he heard the Queen lamenting,

not only that the occupants, but that the "owners of the soil" were

suffering. His own experience refuted the rash assertion; and, had it

been otherwise, we may conjecture that the orator would have spoken a

different speech. Personal and pecuniary loss has been known to sharpen

the wits and to clear the reasoning faculty in a remarkable manner. On

the other hand, the Free-trade press philanthropically insist that the

agricultural labourers not only are not suffering, but that they _shall

not_ suffer. It is necessary for the latter class to uphold this dogma;

for if they admitted that the wages of the labourer must diminish,

sooner or later, in proportion to the value of their work--that is,

in proportion to the value of the produce, they are instrumental

in raising--then instantly the popular delusion which they have so

assiduously cherished would be exploded, and their fame as the friends

of the poor would be dissipated. We are ready to admit that only in

certain localities has the evil reached the agricultural labourer; and

where it has not, of course the tenant-farmer is suffering not only

his own share of the infliction, but that which should properly fall

upon his dependants. It has been erroneously supposed by many that the

agricultural suffering would quickly extend itself to the industrious

poor: we never saw any good reason for supposing so. The farmer cannot,

like the spinner of flax or cotton, stop his mills, and pause in his

work, and dismiss his servants, or put them on short time; he must

proceed, at whatever risk, and hire his labourers at what they can be

got for. The fact that the agricultural labourers are not universally

in distress is undoubtedly blinding many honest men to the real

position of the country, while it is enabling Parliamentary orators,

and Whig _snipper-snappers_ from the hustings, to point to the present

comfort of this class as a proof of the success of the Free-trade

policy. But can these gentlemen be honest? Upon what principle of

political economy or common sense can the farm-labourer continue to

receive the same wages as formerly, when the value of the produce of

his labour is reduced one-third? It is certainly a grievous trial of

the patience to listen to Sir J. Graham lending his talents to the

support of a delusion so very cruel, and so very palpable.

But a truce to this strain. A very pleasant book has most innocently

led us into very unpleasant themes. Believing that the reign of

delusion is drawing to a close, and that a spirit of juster legislation

will soon prevail in the councils of the nation, and that the time

draws nigh when the occupants and owners of the soil may prosecute

their affairs with better hopes than they at present have, of enjoying

a fair reward for their toil and enterprise, we again earnestly

commend to their attentive perusal _The Book of the Farm_. To the

landed proprietors it ought to be invaluable, if they wish to be

qualified to discharge those duties which Providence has laid on

them, and which they owe to their tenantry, to the agricultural poor,

and to the nation. While the rights of every petty interest are pled

in Parliament by parties who prove their intimate acquaintance with

the disadvantages--fictitious or real--under which it labours, the

ignorance prevailing, in the present House of Commons, on the subject

of agriculture, and on its various bearings in reference to national

prosperity, is so flagrant as to have excited universal remark. A large

body, however, of that august assembly are country gentlemen, and the

charge might imply a reflection on their education and attainments.

But it would be base ingratitude to forget that patriotic band of

country gentlemen in Parliament, as well as out of it, who, in the

face of discouragements more disheartening than a great party were

ever subjected to before, have fought the battle of just legislation

so gallantly, patiently, and prudently--who have identified themselves

with the suffering tenantry--and are now contending, with brighter

hopes and revived energies, for a fair protection to native and

colonial industry, as the only mode in which the labouring poor of the

land can _permanently_ enjoy the just reward of their industry, as that

system of policy by which alone the taxes can be paid, the national

honour kept untarnished, and the constitution and the monarchy saved

from dilapidation. There are many others for whose return to their

right mind we have waited patiently. We believe that in their case an

ignorance of agricultural affairs may be the source of their present

apathy. To all gentlemen, however, living in the country, although

they may have no stake in its soil, we recommend Mr Stephens' work, as

containing most agreeable reading. We do not say that, from such, a

continuous perusal is required. They may intercalate an agricultural

season from _The Book of the Farm_, now with the corresponding season

from the "Bard of the Seasons," and now with an eclogue from Virgil.

The pleasures of a country life will thus be infinitely multiplied;

for, startling although the paradox may be, there are multitudes

resident in rural parts who look ignorantly on rural sights, and

have no knowledge of rural employments, and no sympathy with rural

habits, and who know not in reality _how to live in the country_.

Mr Stephens' work--or a better, if it can be got--ought, of course,

to be in the hands of every factor and land-steward, otherwise they

must be unfit for their business; and it ought to have a place in

every parish library, that it may be accessible in the winter nights

to the agricultural labourers. It is particularly, however, the

tenant-farmer's manual, if he is to keep pace with the progress of

his art. He may think it costly, but not with reason, if he considers

that it comprises an agricultural library in itself. The thrifty

and buxom housewives of our homesteads, too, will find admirable

instruction in _The Book of the Farm_ regarding the important branches

of duty that fall to their charge. Mr Stephens is copious regarding

everything touching the management of the dairy. Indeed, our author

seems somewhat _recherché_ on the matter of dairy produce. We acquiesce

in his approval of the deliciousness of new-made, unwashed butter,

churned from sweet cream--a luxury which our southern friends never

tasted. "Such butter," says Mr Stephens, "on cool new-baked oatcake,

overlaid with flower virgin honey, accompanied with a cup of hot

strong coffee, mollified with crystallised sugar, and cream such as

the butter is made from, is a breakfast worth partaking of, but seldom

to be obtained." Most excellent sir! on such terms we shall breakfast

with you on the morning of Saturday se'nnight, provided you add to your

matutinal _cuisine_ a veritable "Finnan" and a mutton ham of the true

flavour, (if possible, let it be from one of the Keillor four-year-old

Southdowns;) for we have long conscientiously entertained the opinion

of a late ingenious professor of Church History in our metropolitan

university, "that Edinburgh eggs are not to ride the water upon!"

AN EVENING WALK.

BY THOMAS AIRD.

The Patriarch mild, who mused at evening-tide,

Saw blessings come: they who with ordered feet

Go forth, like him, their blessings too shall meet,--

Beauty, and Grace, and Peace, harmonious side by side;

Whether the down purpled with thyme they tread,

Woodland, or marge of brook, or pathway sweet

By the grave rustling of the heavy wheat,

Singing to thankful souls the song of coming bread.

The restless white-throat warbles through the copse;

High sits the thrush and pipes the tree upon;

Cloud-flushed the west, a sunny shower comes on;

Up goes the twinkling lark through the clear slanting drops.

In straight stiff lines sweet Nature will not run:

The lark comes down--mute now, wings closed, no check,

Sheer down he drops; but back he curves his neck;

Look, too, he curves his fall just ere his nest be won.

Here stands The Suffering Elm: in days of yore

Three martyrs hung upon its bending bough;

Its sympathetic side, from then till now

Weeping itself away, drops from that issuing sore.

Dryads, and Hamadryads; bloody groans,

Bubbling for vent, when twigs are torn away

In haunted groves; incessant, night and day,

Gnarled in the knotted oak, the pent-up spirit's moans;

And yonder trembling aspen, never still,

Since of its wood the rueful Cross was made;--

All these, incarnated by Fancy's aid,

Are but extended Man, in life, and heart, and will.

Your eye still shifting to the setting sun,

The diamond drops upon the glistening thorns

Are topazes and emeralds by turns;

Twinkling they shake, and aye they tremble into one.

Clouds press the sinking orb: he strikes a mist

Of showery purple on the forest tops,

The western meadows, and the skirting slopes;

Down comes the stream a lapse of living amethyst.

Beauty for man, O glory! yet how vain,

Were there no higher love to correspond,

Lifting us up, our little time beyond,

Up from the dust of death, up to God's face again.

The Word apart: Nature ne'er made, in whim,

An organ but for use: our longing hope

Of life immortal, like our hand, has scope

To grasp the things which are: that life is thus no dream.

We tread on legends all this storied land:

Here flows a ferry through the mountains black

With pinewood galleries far withdrawing back;

Man's heart is also here, and dwarfs those summits grand:

The virgin martyrs, half the ferry o'er,

By ruthless men were plunged into the tide,

Singing their holy psalm; away it died,

Bubbling in death. The moon a blood-red sorrow wore.

And aye, they tell, when, wan and all forlorn,

Sickening she looks upon our world of wrong,

And would be gone for ever, far along

The mournful ferry dim that dying psalm is borne.

Yon peasant swarth, his day of labour done,

Pipes at his cottage door; his wife sits by,

Dancing their baby to the minstrelsy:

To temperate gladness they their sacred right have won.

Rest after toil, sweet healing after pain;

Repent, and so be loved, O stubborn-viced--

The Tishbite girt severe runs before Christ:

Such is the double law complete to mortal men.

Yon lordly pine bends his complying head

To eve's soft breath, and the stupendous cloud

Shifts silently: Man's world is fitliest bowed

By power when gently used: Force not, love thou instead.

One cool green gleam on yonder woodland high,

And day retires; grey twilight folds with dew

The hooded flowers; in gulfs of darkening blue

The starry worlds come out to Contemplation's eye.

Home now to sleep. No part in all man's frame

But has its double uses, firm to keep,

Help this, round that, and beautify: of sleep,

Complex of sweet designs, how finely 'tis the same.

Touched with the solemn harmonies of night,

Down do we lie our spirits to repair,

And, fresh ourselves, make morning fresh and fair;

Sleep too our Father gave to soften death's affright:

In sleep we lapse and lose ourselves away,

And thus each night our death do we rehearse.

O, at the last may we the oblivion pierce

Of death, as aye of sleep, and rise unto the day.

MODERN STATE TRIALS.[10]

PART V.--THE ROMANCE OF FORGERY--_Concluded_.

[10] _Modern State Trials_: Revised and Illustrated, with Essays

and Notes. By WILLIAM C. TOWNSEND, Esq., M.A., Q.C., Recorder of

Macclesfield. In 2 vols. 8vo. Longman Co., 1850.

"ALEXANDER HUMPHREYS, or Alexander, _pretending_ to be Earl of

Stirling," said Lord Meadowbank,[11] addressing his prisoner, on his

being first placed at the bar, "you have been served with an indictment

charging you with the crimes of forgery, and of feloniously using and

uttering as genuine, certain documents therein described, and alleged

to have been forged and fabricated, you knowing them to be so. Are you

guilty, or not guilty?"

[11] The duty here performed by the President of the Court is in

England discharged by an officer of the Court called the Clerk of

Arraigns.

"Not guilty, my Lord," replied the prisoner, standing beside his

friend Colonel D'Aguilar. But now occurs the question--how was he to

be tried?--as a peer of Scotland, or as a commoner? If as a peer, the

court before whom he stood was incompetent to try him; for he was

entitled, by the Treaty of Union, as a peer of Scotland, to be tried

as peers of Great Britain are tried--viz., in the Court of the Lord

High Steward; and the mode of procedure is that prescribed in 1825 by

Statute 6 Geo. iv. c. 66, which required the Scottish judges to be

summoned and to sit with the English judges, and according to the law

of Scotland, [pp. 5, 6.] This privilege, however, as will be presently

seen, the prisoner waived. Then came another question: was he to be

tried as a "_landed_ man?"--by which is meant a landed proprietor. It

is a very ancient privilege of landed men, by the Scotch law, that

they should be tried only by their peers--_i.e._, their brother landed

proprietors. In process of time, however, this right has been so far

modified as to entitle the prisoner to a _majority_ only of his landed

brethren. This right also, as will shortly be seen, the prisoner

waived--having probably no pretence to the possession of any lands in

Scotland, except such as he claimed as Earl of Stirling. To meet any

possible difficulty, however, on this score, two lists of assize had

been prepared--respectively consisting of "_landed men_" and common

jurors, and "_special_ jurors" and common Jurors: the former to be

adopted "if the said Alexander Humphreys claimed, and was entitled to,

the privilege of a landed man;" the latter, "if he did _not_ claim, or

was _not_ entitled to, the privilege of a landed man."

After the prisoner had pleaded not guilty, the clerk in court read

aloud the _defences_ which, according to the procedure in Scotland,

had been lodged in court for the prisoner, signed by his two counsel.

They were entitled "Defences for Alexander Alexander, _Earl of

Stirling_,[12] against the indictment at the instance of her Majesty's

Advocate."

[12] This was subsequently altered to "_claiming to be_ Earl of

Stirling."--Swinton, p. 48.

These Defences were comprised in two paragraphs. The first stated that,

as Lord Cockburn's interlocutor, though not final, had decided against

the prisoner's claim to be the heir of the Earl of Stirling,[13] "he

was advised that he was not in a condition to plead the privilege of

peerage; but was bound to acknowledge the competency of that court to

proceed under the indictment before it." The second proceeded thus:--

[13] _Ante_, p. 477 _et seq._

"The panel pleads not guilty of the libel generally; and, even

particularly, he denies that he had the slightest ground to suspect

that all, or any, of the documents libelled on were forged or

fabricated. He produced them under legal advice, in the belief of

their being genuine, and useful for the support of his interest."

"A third paragraph consisted of an application to postpone the trial,

on the ground that the prisoner was not prepared for it, as _one

of his counsel_ and his agent had gone to London and Paris to make

inquiry as to several of the witnesses for the Crown, and such further

investigation as might be necessary for his defence." The words which

we have placed in italics indicate a course of procedure altogether at

variance with that adopted at the English bar.

As soon as their Defences had been read, the prisoner's counsel rose

and said, "My lords, I do not mean to claim for the panel the privilege

of a landed man; nor do we intend to state any objections to the

relevancy of the indictment." By "relevancy" (a technical term in

Scotch law) is signified "the justice and sufficiency of the matters

stated in the indictment to warrant a decree in the terms asked;"[14]

and, according to the criminal law of Scotland, this objection must

be taken, if at all, before the trial. If it be not, the prisoner

cannot make it the subject of arrest of judgment by the court, but must

refer it to the law advisers of the Crown, after the sentence has been

pronounced by them, to have such weight attached to it as may be deemed

proper, with a view to pardon or mitigation of punishment.[15]

[14] Bell's _Dictionary of the Law of Scotland_, p. 844. In civil cases

this rule is reversed.--_Id. ib._

[15] Alison's _Practice of the Criminal Law of Scotland_, p. 651.

"Let the relevancy of the indictment be determined," said the

Solicitor-General, "by your lordships pronouncing the usual

interlocutor."

LORD MEADOWBANK.--"Alexander Humphreys, or Alexander, attend to the

interlocutor of the court," which the clerk read as follows:--

"The Lords Commissioners of Justiciary find the libel RELEVANT to

infer the pains of law, but allow the panel a proof in exculpation and

alleviation; and in respect that the panel has by his counsel waived

his right, if he any have, to be tried by a jury, of which the majority

shall consist of landed men, remit the panel, with the libel as found

relevant, to the knowledge of the _ordinary assize_."

Lists of all the witnesses and documentary proofs, on both sides,

were, as it would appear, interchanged; and the trial having been

postponed from the 3d to the 29th April 1839, on the latter day it

commenced--not however, as in England, with a preliminary statement

on the part of the prosecutor of the course of expected proof, but

with the evidence itself in detail. After that on both sides had been

adduced, the counsel for the Crown addressed the jury, and then the

counsel for the prisoner; after which Lord Meadowbank summed up. We beg

to say that we think the English course of procedure greatly preferable

to the Scottish, in commencing the trial with a temperate and lucid

statement of the case intended to be made out by the Crown, enabling

both the Court and the jury--but especially the latter--to obtain an

early clue through the labyrinth of oral and documentary proof, to see

the drift of it, and appreciate, in going along, the significance of

what is being done. In the present case, for instance, the jury were

plunged instanter into a series of details of somewhat complicated

legal proceedings, and legal and other documents: the Solicitor-General

feeling the necessity many times of interposing, to intimate that

"the object of _this_ or _that_ evidence was to show so and so," &c.

&c. And, indeed, if the jury really saw their way with only middling

clearness through the evidence, _as it was being adduced_, they were

a far shrewder and more experienced jury than it has been our lot

to see for many a long year, even at Guildhall or Westminster. In

the present case, a half-hour's calm preliminary statement, by the

Solicitor-General, of the points of the charge, and the application to

them of the evidence, would have greatly assisted the jury, possibly

even the Court, and, long afterwards, ourselves. In despair, we

leaped out of the intricate evidence into the speeches of counsel,

and the summing up of the judge, afterwards recurring to the evidence

and appendices. At length we found ourselves on sure ground, and in a

clear atmosphere; and grudged not the effort we had made to overcome

the obstacles of which we have been complaining, and also the difficult

technicalities of Scottish criminal law procedure.

It will be recollected that the indictment embraced three distinct

classes of alleged forgeries--the excerpt charter of _Novodamus_, the

Le Normand packet, and the De Porquet packet. To establish the "using"

and "uttering" of these instruments, evidence was given of their having

been adduced, on the part of the prisoner, in the various Scottish

courts in which he had from time to time asserted, and endeavoured to

maintain his claims. Lord Cockburn's important judgment of the 10th

December 1836 was also put in evidence, as were also the examinations

of the prisoner, some of his correspondence, and the instruments

charged by the indictments to be forgeries. Let us take these latter in

their order; and--

I. THE EXCERPT CHARTER OF _Novodamus_ OF THE 7TH DECEMBER 1639. Was

this a genuine or a forged document? The acute and learned scrutiny to

which it was subjected elicited remarkable and most decisive results.

We know a little more than was disclosed to the Court--namely, that

the mysterious discovery of this "excerpt" was communicated to the

prisoner from Ireland by his indefatigable agent, Mr Banks, on the

17th March 1829. All that was proved before the Court was, that the

prisoner delivered it in that year to his law-agents, who immediately

commenced proceedings in the Scotch courts to "_prove its tenor_." Let

it be observed, that "this most suspicious scrap of writing," as the

Solicitor-General styled it,[16] professed to be only an "excerpt" of

a lost charter of King Charles I., dated the 7th December 1639--not

an entire copy, but only "an abridged copy;" and the exigencies of

the prisoner's case had required that _that_ identical excerpt should

have been in existence at least as long ago as the year 1723,[17]

since it bore an indorsement[18] by "Thomas Conyers," attesting its

authenticity, dated the 10th July 1723. It will be impossible, however,

to appreciate the force of the delicate but decisive evidence brought

to bear upon this unlucky document, unless we have a distinct idea of

the different stages of progress through which a royal charter would

have to pass in the year 1639. They were explained at the trial by

several learned and experienced officials; and we have taken some pains

to clear away technicalities, and present their evidence briefly and

popularly. The stages, then, through which a royal charter had to pass

were three.

[16] Swinton, p. 196.

[17] _Ante_, p. 470, _et passim_.

[18] _Ante_, p. 474.

_First_ came the SIGNATURE. This was not, as the word would ordinarily

import, and in England, a mere name signed, or mark, but an entire

document, constituting the foundation of the proposed charter, and

containing its essential elements. It is drawn up in English by a

Writer to the Signet, and brought by him, on a given day, to a Baron

of the Exchequer to be examined, in order to ascertain that it is

correct, especially as to the "_reddendo_," or annual feu-money due

to the Crown. On being satisfied of its accuracy, the Baron marks the

signature as "revised;" and in due time the sign-manual is affixed

to it. It is then complete--is recorded in the Exchequer Record--and

retained by the Keeper of the Signet. There is subscribed to it only

the date, and the words, "At Whitehall, [ ] the day of [ ] ."

_Secondly_, Warranted by the possession of this revised "signature,"

the Keeper of the Signet issues a "_Precept to the Privy Seal_," which

is simply a Latin translation of the English signature, and is recorded

in the Privy Seal Office. That office then issues this precept to the

Great Seal; and it is to be noted that this Privy Seal Precept has

subscribed to it the words, "PER SIGNETUM," which seems to be an

abbreviation of the words, "_per_ preceptum datum sub _signeto_ nostro."

_Thirdly_, As soon as this Privy Seal Precept has reached the Chancery

Office, the functionaries there draw up formally, and _in extenso_, THE

CHARTER, which is sealed with the Great Seal; the Privy Seal Precept on

which it is grounded either remaining in the Chancery Office, or being

lodged in the General Records of Scotland. This completed Charter,

alone, has a testing clause; and it is the Privy Seal Precept only

which bears, as we have seen, the words "_per signetum_."

See, then, the origin, progress, and completion of a Royal Charter

in 1639--SIGNATURE; PRIVY SEAL PRECEPT; CHARTER; each having its

appropriate depositary or record--the Signet Office, the Privy Seal

Office, the Great Seal Office; to which, indeed, may be added a fourth,

the COMPTROLLER OF EXCHEQUER'S REGISTER, where also was recorded every

instrument of the above description, to enable that officer to account

to the Crown for the feu-duties. These four old registers, or records,

are all completed from periods long anterior to the year 1639, down to

the present day, with the exception of a _hiatus_ of twelve leaves at

the commencement of the fifty-seventh volume of the Great Seal Record;

but the contents of these twelve leaves were clearly ascertainable from

the indexes of other records. "It is the boast of this country," said

Lord Meadowbank, in summing up, to the jury,[19] "and always has been,

that its registers have been kept with a regularity unknown elsewhere."

[19] Swinton, p.309.

If, therefore, there ever had been such a charter as that of which

the document under consideration professed to be an excerpt, that

charter ought to have been found _in every one of the four_ records

or registers above mentioned.[20] Add to this, that William Earl of

Stirling was himself, at the time, the Keeper of the Signet,[21] and

also "a man of talent, and attentive to his own interests--not likely

to have received grants of such unusual importance as those contained

in the charter in question, without seeing them properly carried

through the seals."[22]

[20] Per Lord Meadowbank, _Id. ib._

[21] _Id._, p. 84.

[22] _Id._, p. 94.

Now for the excerpt itself, and its aspect. It was written on several

single leaves of paper, not numbered, apparently cut recently out

of some book, and stitched together, the outside leaf being brought

round and stitched down on the remaining leaves. The colour was a

uniform deep brown--equally so underneath the margin covered over at

the stitching. There were ruled red lines round the pages. The writing

appeared "fresh"--at all events, not so old as the paper; and was not

in a Scotch chancery-hand, or any hand used in the Register Office,

but like that used in engrossing deeds in England and Ireland. The

language of the excerpt was Latin--but such Latin! and it extended to

about thirty English common-law folios, containing seventy-two words

each. At the beginning of the charter, on the right-hand side, were the

abbreviations, "REG. MAG. SIG. LIB. LVII."--_i.e._, "_Registrum Magni

Sigilli, Liber LVII_."

The only portion of the excerpt with which we shall trouble the reader

_in extenso_, is the conclusion--the testing part--which (especially

the part in italics) is worthy of the utmost attention; and we adopt

the translation used at the trial:--"Witnesses: _the most reverend

father in Christ and our well-beloved councillor, John, by the mercy

of God Archbishop of St Andrew's, Primate and Metropolitan of our

kingdom of Scotland, our chancellor_; our well-beloved cousins and

councillors, James, Marquis of Hamilton; Earl of Arran and Cambridge;

Lord Aven and Innerdaile; Robert, Earl of Roxburghe; Lord Ker, of

Cesford and Casertoun, Keeper of our Privy Seal; our beloved familiar

councillors, Sir John Hay of Barro, Clerk of our Rolls, Register, and

Council; John Hamiltoun of Orbestoun, our Justice-Clerk; and John Scot

of Scotstarvet, Director of our Chancery, Knights. At our Court of

Quhythall, _the 7th day of the month of December, in the year of God

1639, and of our reign the 15th year_.

[GRATIS]

_Per Signetum._"

On the back of this document was written--"Excerpt from the original

charter to William, Earl of Stirling, 7th December 1639. T. C."

[_i.e._, Thomas Conyers.] This indorsement was also alleged in the

indictment to be a forgery. Here, then, we have an "excerpt" or

"abridged copy" of a royal charter, dated the 7th December 1639,

granted by King Charles I. to one of his most distinguished subjects,

conferring high dignities and vast possessions; a charter yielded to

the anxious importunity of the Earl in his old age, "when labouring

under great dejection of spirits, after losing three of his sons, who

had given him the highest hopes, and fearing, from the declining health

of two of the survivors, that his honours might, at no distant period,

pass to a collateral branch of his family."[23] And this Earl, too, the

head of the office in which the charter originated. NOW, FIRST, the

records of every one of the four departments above mentioned--viz.,

the Signature Record, the Comptroller of the Exchequer's Record, the

Privy Seal Record, and the Great Seal Record--had been rigorously

searched, _and not the faintest trace of such an instrument appeared

in any of, them_!--it being sworn that, had it ever existed, it must

have been found in ALL! "This might possibly have been accounted for,"

said the Solicitor-General,[24] "had there been but one register only;

more especially if a blank had occurred in that register, through

the obliteration, imperfection, or loss of a volume, or part of a

volume. But where there are four independent registers, and these all

concurring to supply, in the fullest detail, the necessary evidence

as to all _other_ charters, [of which various instances were proved

at the trial,] and when you find that _this_ charter is not recorded

in _any one_ of them, it is quite impossible to believe--it would

really be asking too much of credulity itself to believe--that such

a document could ever have existed." If this instrument were the

handiwork of a forger, it may be reasonable to suppose him capable

of appreciating the efficacy of the negative evidence which might be

brought against him, and to endeavour to supply it. This brings us,

SECONDLY, to the memorandum in the margin of the first page of the

excerpt--_i.e._, _Reg. Mag. Sig. Lib. LVII._--which meant that the

charter itself was to have been found "in the fifty-seventh volume of

the Register (or Record) of the Great Seal." We have already seen[25]

that, in point of fact, twelve leaves, at the beginning _of that

volume_, were amissing; and the suggestion, or rather assertion, of

the prisoner, when he commenced his legal proceedings to prove the

tenor of the missing charter, was, that it was to have been found in

one of these twelve leaves, "which had perished, or disappeared--that

being a matter of public notoriety, and was so observed by the Lords

of Council and Session in their return of the 27th February 1740, to

an order of the House of Lords of the 12th June 1719, respecting the

state of the Peerage in Scotland."[26] Here, then, are only _twelve_

leaves missing; and on referring to one of the writings indorsed on

the map of Canada, (in the Le Normand packet,) the writer stated

he had _seen_ the charter, and "it extended over _fifty_ pages of

writing."[27] On this subject, Lord Meadowbank proposed the following

question to the jury--"Putting aside the evidence of this index,

could you have believed, when there is no evidence or trace of this

charter in the volume where it should be found, that it could, _out

of its place_, have been crammed into the twelve pages that are lost,

when the prisoner's own evidence tells you the charter extended to

fifty-eight?"[28] To proceed, however--What will the reader suppose was

proved at the trial? First, two ancient indexes of the missing twelve

pages of vol. lvii. were produced, unerringly indicating the charters

which had stood recorded there, and among which was _not_ the charter

in question, but only those of date _subsequent_ to the year 1639;

while all the charters of that year 1639 stood regularly recorded in

the previous--the fifty-sixth volume; and among them, also, was _not_

to be found the charter in question. Mr George Robertson, one of the

Joint-Keepers of the Records, thus certified on oath: "I have searched

the principal record of the fifty-seventh volume of the Great Seal

Register, and at the beginning of the said fifty-seventh volume, twelve

leaves have been destroyed or lost. The charters originally recorded

in these missing leaves are, however, ascertained with precision from

two ancient indexes of the Great Seal Record. I have examined these,

and can state as the result, that the twelve leaves now lost did not

contain any charter, diploma, patent, nor other grant, in favour of

William, Earl of Stirling, nor of any Earl of Stirling, nor of any

person of the name of Alexander." Still further, however: the words

on the margin, "_Reg. Mag. Sig. Lib. LVII._," purported to have been

written there by the framer of the excerpt, in the year 1723; and three

experienced official gentlemen declared their confident opinion, that

no such marking was coeval with the making of the excerpt itself. It

was established at the trial, that this mode of referring to the Great

Seal Records was _quite a modern one_, commencing with the year 1806

only: a fact proved by the very author of the arrangement, and his

assistant; by whom, in the latter year, the Records were re-bound,

and the titles made uniform, for facility of reference, in lieu of

the loose and discordant methods of reference till then in use! Other

experienced officials proved that till the year 1806 no such mode of

reference as "_Reg. Mag. Sig._" existed, and they gave specimens of the

former mode: _e. g._ "_Chart. in Archivis_," appeared in a law book

of 1763; and in a subsequent edition, in the year 1813, the reference

was altered to "_Mag. Sig._" If, therefore, the "excerpt" were a

modern forgery, it would almost appear as if the fabricator, aware of

the missing leaves of Vol. LVII., but not knowing _how very recent

was the lettering on the back_--"Reg. Mag. Sig."--had taken it for

granted that it was coeval with the original formation of the volume,

or at least had been there for a century--viz. since 1723. But if this

reference--"_Reg. Mag. Sig. Lib. LVII._"--were a forgery, it must

have been a very modern one, necessarily _later_ than the year 1806,

the date of Mr Thomson's rebinding of the Record, and changing the

titling. But we have seen that the prisoner had accompanied his father

to France in the year 1802, and did not return to England till 1814;

and in the subsequent year told his own agent, Mr Corrie, that he had

no documents to support his claim. Is it a fair inference from these

dates that, down to at least the year 1815, the famous excerpt was not

in existence--or at least unknown to the prisoner? So much for the

negative evidence that any such genuine document as the alleged Charter

of 7th December 1639 had ever existed. But,

[23] _Ante_, p. 473.

[24] Swinton, p. 205.

[25] _Ante._

[26] _Id._, p. 475. Swinton, App., p. vii.

[27] _Ante_, p. 484.

[28] Swinton, p. 311. This seems a slight inaccuracy, on the part of

the learned Judge, of fifty-_eight_ instead of fifty.--_Ante_, p. 484.

THIRDLY, the excerpt itself seemed to furnish a most conspicuous

and glaring demonstration of spuriousness: we allude to the alleged

attestation of the Charter by ARCHBISHOP SPOTTISWOODE, in the capacity

of "OUR CHANCELLOR" of the kingdom, and as such, keeper of the Great

Seal. Spottiswoode, the Archbishop of St Andrews, was undoubtedly for

a considerable period Chancellor of Scotland; and his name is found

in the Records as an official witness to all Charters from the Crown,

passing the Great Seal of Scotland during the time that he held it.

In the excerpt Charter, he appears in that capacity at the alleged

date of the instrument--viz, the 7th December 1639; but, behold! not

only had he ceased to be Chancellor on the 13th November 1638, _but

he had actually died on the 26th November 1639_--that is, eleven days

before that on which he was made to attest the alleged Charter of

Novodamus! These facts were proved, beyond all doubt, both directly and

collaterally, as, for instance, by an instrument of a nature similar

to that before the Court, dated only four days afterwards--namely the

11th December 1639--a Charter in favour of the City of Edinburgh, and

attested, &c., not by "John, Archbishop and Chancellor," but by his

successor, the Marquis of Hamilton, (whose appointment on the 13th

November 1638 was proved,) and this very "William Earl of Stirling

and Canada," and others: all of whom were also witnesses, on the

same day, to another charter, to Heriot's Hospital. Here, then, was

a great Charter, making under the Great Seal magnificent grants to a

Scottish nobleman, and attested by a non-existent Chancellor, whose

temporary successor had been installed in office thirteen months

previous to the date of the Charter! Mr Swinton acutely points out[29]

the source of this blunder, assuming the excerpt to be altogether

a forgery. Archbishop Spottiswoode, as has been seen, ceased to be

Chancellor on the 13th November 1638, and died on the 26th of the

ensuing November--_i.e._ eleven days before the date of the alleged

Charter. Now, from the date of the Archbishop's resignation, till the

appointment of the Earl of Loudon as Chancellor in 1641, the Great Seal

was in commission, the head commissioner being the Marquis of Hamilton.

But it singularly happens, that, in the catalogues of the Scottish

Chancellors appended to Spottiswoode's History, and other works, the

list during the reign of Charles I. and the Commonwealth, is given as

follows:--

"1622, George Hay, Earl of Kinnoul.

1635, John Spottiswoode, Archbishop of St Andrews.

1641, John Campbell, Earl of Loudon.

1660, William Cunninghame, Earl of Glencairne."

----no mention being made, nor any notice taken, of the interval

between the resignation of the Archbishop and the appointment of the

Earl of Loudon. From this it may be inferred that the fabricator of the

document, if it were fabricated, took it for granted that from 1635 to

1641, and consequently in the year 1639, falling within that interval,

the Archbishop was Chancellor of Scotland. But again--Is there any

reason assignable for the supposed fabricator having pitched on the

particular date of 9th December 1639? Yes! In Crawford's Life of the

Archbishop, the death of that prelate is erroneously alleged to have

occurred on the 27th _December_ 1639!--_i.e._, just eighteen days after

the completion of the alleged Charter.[30] These really seemed rather

awkward facts! But,

[29] _Pref._ p. xxi.

[30] Swinton, p. 209.

FOURTHLY, there was apparently another great blot pointed out by the

lawyers. Immediately after the above-mentioned _testing clause_,

followed the words "_Gratis._--PER SIGNETUM."[31] Now, it has been

seen that the testing clause is the conclusion of only a _completed

Charter_. This "excerpt," therefore, if taken from any document, must

have been taken from a completed Charter. It could not have been taken

from the Signature, nor the Signet Precept, nor the Privy Seal Precept,

for in none of these instruments could such a clause appear. But in

addition to this testing clause, appear the words "_Per Signetum!_"

which are never to be found in any charter at all, but only in the

Privy Seal Precept! So that here was a document containing, on the

one hand, words (the testing clause) which are to be found in only a

completed charter, and which could not exist in a Privy Seal Precept;

and, on the other hand, certain other words (_Per Signetum_) never to

be found in a completed charter, but only in a Privy Seal Precept! It

was accordingly sworn unhesitatingly by all the professional witnesses,

even on the strength of these conclusive elements of intrinsic

evidence alone, that the document before the Court _could not be_ an

excerpt, or copy, of any authentic writ of any description whatever,

known in the law of Scotland. There seems some little force in the

Solicitor-General's observation on this part of the case: "Gentlemen,

is there not here, then, the clearest and most satisfactory evidence

that this is not, and cannot be, an excerpt from any real or genuine

document? There is an incongruity about it, which shows it could not

have been copied from any document that ever existed. The writer of

it--whoever he was--may have had a sort of glimmering of what it ought

to have been; but still, in his ignorance, he has made a monster of it.

It is utterly impossible, looking merely to the intrinsic evidence,

that it could be the document which it professes to be."

[31] When the precept issues in favour of a Writer to the Signet,

or of the Keeper of the Signet, (as Lord Stirling then was,) the

precept passes the signet _gratis_: and that word is written at the

bottom.--Swinton, p. 84.

FIFTHLY, Not satisfied with these rigorous assaults upon the

genuineness and authenticity of this unfortunate document, the Scotch

lawyers detected, as they considered, several serious _intrinsic_

evidences of spuriousness. _First_, the alleged charter professed to

convey estates which had _never belonged to the Scottish Crown_--viz.,

lands, provinces, and territorial rights in New England. "It is not

possible," said Lord Meadowbank, and the professional witnesses

supported him, "that a charter granted by a king of Scotland could

convey--or be granted, as if it had conveyed any property not belonging

to the Crown of Scotland. That such a SIGNATURE should have passed the

Barons of Exchequer, and their officers, is beyond all belief:" for it

must be remembered, that the "Signature" is, in its first stage towards

a charter, submitted to a Baron of Exchequer, to be "revised," before

the sign-manual is affixed to it. This is, undoubtedly, a fact lending

great weight to any really inconsistent or objectionable provisions in

the "Signature," or subsequent charter. _Secondly_, In Crown charters

of resignation, to which that in question professed to belong, it was

proved that the _dates_ of the resignation were "invariably given:"

here were none--and this objection also must have escaped the somnolent

Baron of the Exchequer of 1639. _Thirdly_, The "Charter" stated a

resignation to have been made by a grandson of the Earl of Stirling,

in the Earl's lifetime; which resignation the grandson had no title

to make; and till he had, _having_ nothing, he could resign nothing

according to the law of Scotland; and such could never have passed

the Exchequer. _Fourthly_, The alleged charter professed to convey

the titles and dignities of the earldom; the Earl professed to resign

his earldom, which the king, by that deed, was made to reconvey, with

_precedency from the date of the first grant_. "This," said Lord

Meadowbank, and the evidence supported him, "I believe to be altogether

unprecedented. It was totally unnecessary--the precedency conveyed

following as a matter of course. I have seen many such grants, and

_never_ such a dignity reconveyed, with such a stipulation." _Fifthly_,

While the invariable practice, in Royal Charters to Peers, is to

address the one concerned as "_consanguineus_ noster," and never to

give that title to a commoner, the alleged charter in question twice

applied that title to Alexander, the son of the peer, (consequently a

commoner,) and _not_ to the Earl himself!

LASTLY, As to the structure and aspect of the "Excerpt." It had red

lines round the margin, which (said the principal witness, Mr Thomson,

the Deputy-Clerk Register,) "were not introduced till the year 1780:

at least it has not come under my notice at an earlier period." Then,

again, three gentlemen, "the most experienced," said Lord Meadowbank,

"as to old writings that are to be found here or anywhere else,"

stated that, at looking at the document, they had at first sight not

the least doubt or difficulty in saying, that they did not believe

it to be genuine, but of _recent fabrication_. One of them, the Mr

Thomson above mentioned, declared that the paper was older than the

ink in which the words on the face of it were written; that where the

paper was folded over and stitched down, it was of the same tinge

with the body of the paper which had been exposed to the air, and

which could not be, had it been folded for any length of time. Here it

must have been so folded for at least a century. That the "excerpt"

appeared to consist of separate leaves recently cut from a book--all

of them half-sheets detached from each other; and that where, under

the cover, the paper should have been whiter, through non-exposure to

the atmosphere, it was not of a different colour from the rest of it.

Two eminent professors of chemistry were engaged by the Court to make

experiments on a portion of the paper, in order to ascertain whether

the dark colour of the paper was the natural result of age, or of

artificial means used to obtain that result. The doctors, however,

came to opposite conclusions; and their evidence, therefore, was

properly discarded from the case. _Finally_, As to the character of the

handwriting, one of the most experienced of the professional witnesses,

Mr Mackenzie, a Writer to the Signet of thirty-six years' standing,

made, in the opinion of Lord Meadowbank, "a very striking remark:" that

the writing was in a peculiar hand, in imitation of _old hand_, which

was altogether different from the _Chancery hand_ in which charters in

Scotland are written; that he had never before seen a copy made like

the one in question, in _old hand_; and that a person sitting down to

make a copy of such a charter, would do it in the running-hand of the

country where it was written. "It is my duty to observe to you," said

Lord Meadowbank, "that impressions made by such appearances," as the

above, "on the minds of persons of skill, at first sight, are often

of great weight.... I leave this part of the case with this single

observation--that the impression of these witnesses, when they first

saw it, was to the prejudice of the genuineness of this document,

as an excerpt from a genuine charter. Whether it was a writing

somewhat older, or only thirty years old, seems to be very little to

the purpose; but they said it appeared to be a document of recent

formation--that that was the first impression made upon their minds,

when it was submitted to their inspection." The Solicitor-General

had thus closed _his_ remarks on the subject of the above excerpt

charter: "These considerations make the absence of all explanation as

to the history of this document a most suspicious circumstance in the

prisoner's case; so much so, with submission, that the possession of

the deed must be accounted for by the prisoner in some way or other,

before he can shake himself free from the charge that is now made

against him."

The following is the substance of the answer to this portion of the

case, offered by his eloquent and ingenious advocate. Unable to

struggle against the bulk of the professional evidence tending to

impeach the genuineness of the excerpt, and to disprove the existence

of the alleged charter from which it was taken, Mr Robertson admitted

that there were the great distinctions which had been alleged, between

a completed charter and the instrument which preceded it; that the

words "_per signetum_" could not properly appear on a completed

charter; that the document under consideration purported to be an

excerpt of such completed charter; that the abbreviations "_Reg. Mag.

Sig. Lib. LVII._" could not appear on an excerpt of the date assigned

by the prisoner to that which he had brought forward before the

Scottish courts; that it was proved that no such charter as that of the

9th Dec. 1639 was entered on record; and that Archbishop Spottiswoode

could not have attested such an instrument, having undoubtedly ceased

to be chancellor, and died previously to its date. BUT he said that

there was a vast difference between a genuine, though erroneous copy,

and a forged principal; and also between a forgery (if such it were)

so palpable as to challenge everybody's notice, and one so skilfully

executed as to have been capable of deceiving all the Scottish law

functionaries, and the prisoner's own law advisers, and himself, for

a period of ten years, during which it had been courting examination,

without forgery having been suggested till that prosecution. But

_was_ the excerpt proved to be a forgery? The statement in the Lord

Ordinary's judgment, relating to Hovenden's affidavit, showed that

there was evidence--or something like it--in that proceeding, to

establish the existence of the excerpt in 1723. The document was not

a _copy_ of the alleged charter, but only an excerpt or _extract_;

and so might be explained the absence of some matters which would

be in the original. And as to the admitted _errors_, the excerpt

was made in Ireland, not in Scotland; was "an old _Irish_ bungled

copy"--a "blundered _Irish_ extract"--"an _Irish_ excerpt of a copy of

a deed"--"an _Irish_ copy." The marking "_Reg. Mag. Sig. Lib. LVII._"

in the margin may have been an _ex post facto_ addition by some third

person, who may be the person who had invented the story of Cromwell

carrying off the records of Scotland. "_Consanguineus_ noster," and

the attestation of the Archbishop, were both Irish blunders. "And on

such evidence," said Mr Robertson, "this bungled excerpt is to be held

proved to be a deliberate forgery!"[32] Before leaving this part of

the case, let us remind the reader of the fact mentioned in our former

Number, that it was Mr Thomas Christopher Banks who, according to

his own letter, discovered this challenged "excerpt" in Ireland, and

transmitted it to the prisoner; that the prisoner's council elicited

at the trial that this Mr Thomas Christopher Banks had been seen, by a

witness, alive, at Edinburgh, _a few weeks before the trial, and at the

office of the Crown Solicitor_; and that Mr Banks was not called as a

witness by either side.

[32] _Ante_, p. 470.

Was then this "excerpt charter" a forgery, or a genuine document? The

reader has before him the same materials for forming a judgment which

were presented to the Edinburgh jury. Let us proceed now to--

II. THE LE NORMAND PACKET--_i. e._, THE FRENCH EVIDENCE. It now lies

before us, in the large _facsimile_, nearly a yard square, (one

prepared for use at the trial,) prefixed to Mr Swinton's Report,

representing eight different inscriptions or indorsements, on the back

of an old French map of Canada. Six of them are written on the paper

itself of the map, and two on two other pieces of paper, which were

afterwards pasted on the back of the map. We beg to repeat emphatically

the observation made in our last Number,[33] that "we doubt whether

such an extraordinary document, or series of documents, as this

map, with its accompaniments, has ever, before or since, challenged

deliberate judicial investigation." It is at once fearful and ludicrous

to regard these documents as forgeries, _expected by their fabricators

to be received as genuine_, and intrepidly submitted to competent

scrutiny. So, at least, we own it would have appeared to ourselves;

but, after all, there is nothing like a jury for deciding upon

conflicting testimony. We cordially concur in the following admirable

observations of Lord Brougham, delivered on a very important occasion,

when he was sitting as Lord Chancellor,[34]--"The best tribunal for

investigating contested facts is a jury [of twelve men] of various

habits of thinking, of various characters of understanding, of various

kinds of feeling, of moral feeling--all of which circumstances enter

deeply into the capacity of such individuals.... The diversity of

the minds of the jury, even if they are taken without any experience

as jurors, their various habits of thinking and feeling, and their

diversity of cast of understanding, and their discussing the matter

among themselves, and the very fact of their not being lawyers, their

not being professional men, and believing as men believe, and _acting_

on their belief, in the ordinary affairs of life, give them a capacity

of aiding the court in their eliciting of truth, which no single

judge, be he ever so largely gifted with mental endowments, be he

ever so learned with respect to past experience in such matters, can

possess." Without presuming therefore to express, or even to suggest or

insinuate, anything like dissatisfaction with the conclusions arrived

at by the jury with reference to the class of facts now before us, but

more fully laid before them, we request the reader to imagine himself

a juryman, under a sacred obligation to resist prejudice and guard

against first impressions.

[33] _Ante_, p. 483.

[34] Starkie On Evidence, vol. i. p. 8, note G. 3d ed.

It is proper to remind the reader that the very essence of the

prisoner's pedigree, as he endeavoured to establish it before Lord

Cockburn, consisted of proof that the Reverend John Alexander (John

No. 3)[35] was the son of John of Antrim, (John No. 2;) and that this

John No. 2 was the son of John of Gartmore (John No. 1.) "The whole of

the case," said Lord Cockburn on the 3d December 1836, "depends upon

_the genuineness of these two descents_."[36] And his judgment, as has

been seen, demolished the case which had been set up before him, for he

pronounced "that the evidence, whether considered in its separate parts

or as a whole, was utterly insufficient."[37] Now, if the writings

on the back of the map were genuine and authentic, they exactly

established, beyond all possibility of cavilling, the case which it

was the prisoner's object to establish; going, moreover, far beyond

the exigencies springing out of the adverse judgment of Lord Cockburn.

For, _first_, those writings were designed to demonstrate not only that

John No. 3 was son of John No. 2, and the son of John No. 1; but also,

_secondly_, that the ORIGINAL CHARTER OF NOVODAMUS, of the 9th December

1639, was bodily in existence in the archives of Canada in the year

1702--as indubitably attested by those who had seen and examined it,

and made copies and extracts from it!--as testified by right reverend,

noble, and royal personages, two very eminent bishops, a marchioness,

and a king of France--all under their own hands. These singular

writings, eight in number, were given _in extenso_ and _verbatim_, but

translated into English in our last Number;[38] and we hope that the

reader will take the trouble of referring to, and carefully reading

them, before he proceeds further with the present paper. We promise him

that his trouble shall be amply repaid, by disclosures which he will

then, and then only, fully appreciate.

[35] See the Pedigree, _ante_, p. 473.

[36] Swinton, Append., p. xxiii.

[37] _Id._, p. xxix.

[38] _Ante_, p. 484-7.

I. FIRST comes the statement, written on the back of the map, of a

certain "M. MALLET"--supposed to be a Canadian French gentleman--who

simply makes the memorandum in question, without signing it, or

mentioning his own name, but heading it, "_Lyons_, 4th August 1706." He

states that in the year 1702 he was residing in Acadia [Nova Scotia.]

"His curiosity had been excited by what he was told of an '_ancient_'

charter, preserved in the archives of that province--it is the charter

of confirmation, _De Novo Damus_, of date 9th December 1639." He says,

"My friend Lacroix gave me _a copy_ of it, which _I took the precaution

of having duly attested_. From this authentic document I am about to

present some extracts, in order that every person who opens this map

[the one in question] of our American possessions, may form an idea of

the vast extent of territory which was granted by the King of _England_

to one of his subjects. _If the fate of war, or any other event, should

replace New France and Acadia under the dominion of the English, the

family of Stirling would possess these two provinces, as well as New

England_, as well as--" and then he quotes the "passages," as from the

original charter. He proceeds, "_The order of succession!_ to this

inheritance is as follows:" and gives the entire of the new limitations

of the alleged charter _in extenso_!--concluding, "Thus the King of

England has given to the Earl, and has secured to his descendants in

perpetuity, enough of land to found a powerful empire in America." So

much for M. Mallet. Opposite his important memorandum was the following

autograph memorandum, forming No.--