VIII. in our series, of LOUIS XV! "This note is worthy of some

attention, under present circumstances; but let THE COPY of the

original charter be sent to me." Subjoined to M. Mallet's memorandum

was another--

II. Signed "CARON SAINT ESTIENNE," and dated "_Lyons_, 6th April

1707," announcing the sudden death of the aforesaid M. Mallet, whose

loss was, it seems, an irreparable one to his friends, from his "good

qualities and rare understanding." He it was who "first procured M.

Saint Estienne a perusal of the charter--an extraordinary document

extending over fifty pages," and the "unclassical Latin" of which

shocked the accomplished reader. He says that "the above note of M.

Mallet is _precious_--giving in few words an extremely correct idea

of the wonderful charter in question." "As to the _copy_," which M.

Mallet had "taken the precaution of having duly attested," M. Estienne

informs us by whom it had been attested--viz. by the Keeper of the

Records, and the Acadian witnesses--and it, (the copy) must be in

entire conformity with the register of Port Royal."--"M. Mallet had

foreseen," observes his friend St Estienne, "that the _copy_ would

not make _the charter_ known in France, hence he conceived the idea

of writing, ON ONE OF THE BEAUTIFUL MAPS OF GUILLAUME DE L'ISLE, a

note which all the world may read with interest. Had he lived long

enough"--poor soul--"he could have added to this interest; for _he

wished to obtain information in England_ as to the then situation of

the descendants of the Earl who had obtained the charter; and all the

information which he might have received respecting them, he would have

transferred to this very map." M. St Estienne, however, concludes with

the consolatory assurance--"But, after all, with the two documents [_i.

e._ the duly attested copy, and his own memorandum on the map] "which

he has left to us, no person in France _can question the existence of

such a charter_." Here then were two gentlemen who had been actually

favoured with a sight of the _ipsissima charta_; had obtained a copy of

it from a third (M. Lacroix)--himself, doubtless, similarly privileged;

had taken the precaution of having that copy officially attested;

and had given accurate extracts of its essential provisions. We are,

however, under still farther obligations to the solicitous vigilance

of St Estienne; for two months afterwards he procured no less a person

than Flechier, the eminent Bishop of Nismes, to add the sanction of his

eminent name to the authenticity of his--St Estienne's--memorandum.

Accordingly, the obliging Bishop wrote on the map the following

certificate:--

III. Signed "Esprit, Ev. de Nismes," [_i. e._ Esprit Flechier, Bishop

of Nismes] and dated, "Nismes, 3d June 1707." The Bishop had been shown

by St Estienne the "copy" of the charter, and thus chronicles the

event--"I read lately at the house of Monsieur Sartre, at Caveyrac,

the copy of the Earl of Stirling's charter. In it I remarked many

curious particulars, mixed up with a great many uninteresting details,

[what a natural observation!] I think, therefore, that the greatest

obligations are due to M. Mallet for having, by the above note, enabled

the French public to judge of the extent and importance of the grants

made to the Scottish nobleman. _I also find that he has extracted

the most essential clauses of the charter_; and, in translating them

into French, he has given them with great fidelity (!) Monsieur Caron

St Estienne has _asked me_ to bear this testimony. I do so with the

greatest pleasure." Courteous and venerable Bishop of Nismes! But you

must now make your exit, for an Archbishop approaches, and that no

less a personage than the great, the good, the justly revered FENELON,

Archbishop of Cambray, who, in the ensuing autumn--viz., on the 16th

October 1707--on the solicitation doubtless of St Estienne, and other

zealous friends of the excellent deceased M. Mallet, condescended to

write the following memorandum round the margin of a letter presented

to him for that purpose, and forming No.--

V. "The friends of the late Mr. Ph. Mallet will doubtless read with

great interest this letter of a _grandson of the Earl of Stirling's_!

M. Cholet, of Lyons, setting out to-day, 16th October 1707, on his

way home, will have the honour of delivering it to M. Brossette, on

the part of Madame de Lambert. To authenticate it, I have written

and signed this marginal note. FR. AR. DUC DE CAMBRAY." "Nec Deus

intersit," says our ancient astute adviser, "nisi dignus vindice

nodus." Who, thinks the reader, was the writer of the letter thus

solemnly authenticated by so distinguished a witness? Who but (the very

man of all others on earth that was wanted)--JOHN OF ANTRIM--John No.

2--John Alexander, grandson of the first Earl of Stirling!

IV. This was a letter of John Alexander, dated "Antrim, 27th August,

1707,"--_i. e._ five years only before his death--addressed to a

certain Marchioness de Lambert, a lady of fashion, whose splendid

hospitalities he therein commemorates. He there thanks her ladyship for

having, through the good-natured interposition of _the Archbishop_,

favoured him so soon with a copy of "the note respecting '_my

grandfather's_ charter.'" "I shall preserve with care the interesting

note of M. Mallet. The charter was _at one time registered in Scotland,

as well as in Acadia_: but during the Civil War, and under the

usurpation of Cromwell, boxes containing a portion of the records of

that kingdom were lost during a storm at sea; and, according to THE

ANCIENT TRADITION of our family, the REGISTER in which this charter

was RECORDED was amongst the number of those that perished! Such,

madam, is all that I can say in reply to your questions; for it is

impossible, in this country of Ireland, to obtain any other information

with regard to the registered charter. I believe that MY GRANDMOTHER"

[_i. e._ the first countess] "gave _the ORIGINAL CHARTER (which she

brought from Scotland, when she came to take up her abode in Ireland)

to her son-in-law, Lord Montgomery, in order that he might preserve

it carefully in Castle Comber, where he resided_. I shall ascertain

what this family have done with it; and I shall have the honour of

acquainting you with any discovery which I may make." He proceeded

to give a remarkably neat and succinct account of that state of the

pedigree which the Lord Ordinary had so ruthlessly annihilated;

particularly explaining that John of Gartmore (John No. 1) had had a

second wife, named Maxwell, "the mother" of the communicative writer.

The benevolent and indefatigable Marchioness de Lambert seems to have

pushed her inquiries, even after the death of her correspondent; for we

have, constituting No.--

VII. A memorandum, though without signature or date, showing that "this

lady had not ceased to bestow on the son," the Rev. John Alexander,

(John No. 3,) "of this distinguished man," (John No. 2) "marks of her

good-will and friendship. This son is favourably known in England as

a Protestant clergyman, and a learned philologist.... He is at the

head of a college for the education of young clergymen, established at

Stratford, in the county of Warwick." But this memorandum contained, as

the first sentence, one of infinite significance--"THIS INSCRIPTION has

been communicated by Madame de Lambert!" And that was document.

VI. Forming the inscription on the tombstone of John of Antrim,[39]

whom it stated to be "the best of husbands, the most indulgent of

fathers; as a friend warm, sincere, faithful; a man of such endowments,

&c.; and universally respected for his piety and benevolence."

But what was vastly more to the purpose, as far as concerned his

descendants, he was also the only son of the Hon. John Alexander! who

was the _fourth_ son of William Earl of Sterline! and "married Mary,

eldest daughter of the Rev. Mr _Hamilton_ of Bangor," by whom he had

issue a son, _John_, who "at this present time is the Presbyterian

minister at Stratford-on-Avon, in England." There could not be a doubt

as to these facts, seeing that a certain "W. C. Gordon, junior,"

of Stratford-on-Avon, certified, on the margin of a copy of the

inscription, that it "was a faithful copy!" Here, however, occurred

a somewhat disagreeable fact. The figure "7" in the date, "Oct. 6th,

1723," was originally a figure "8" [_i. e._ 1823] "made into a 7."

This swore Mr Lizars; on which "_a juryman_ asks, Has there been an

_erasure_?--_A._ No. It has been a different figure, corrected, and

made into a 7. _Lord Meadowbank._--Look at it again, Mr Lizars. Are you

sure it has not been a blot? _The witness_, (having carefully examined

the document with a glass.)--No, my lord, it, has been decidedly a

figure. There are both the top and middle of a figure here, my lord."

[39] See it _in extenso, ante_, p. 486.

Such were the documents indorsed on and attached to the map of Canada;

and a perusal of them suggests a few questions. _First_, According

to them, the original charter of the 7th December 1639 was, in the

year 1702, in Acadia, "in the archives there." How did it get thither,

and why was it sent? According to another part of the prisoner's

case before the Lord Ordinary, the first Earl, grievously dejected

by the death of three of his sons, 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 the family, obtained the new

charter in question in 1639. This charter conveyed large estates in

Scotland as well as in America: "but," as Lord Meadowbank observed,

"while the former were within reach, and easily accessible, those in

Canada and the State of Maine, being" [_then_, _i. e._ "in 1639, the

original grants having been made in 1626 and 1628] "in the hands of the

French, were altogether out of the reach of the grantees. In these

circumstances, you are required to believe that the Earl, in place

of retaining this charter in Scotland, and getting it recorded and

perfected _there_, where he might have got something by it, carried it

to Canada, and had it recorded, where he could get nothing; and where,

except as a matter of curiosity to men like Monsieur Mallet and his

friend Lacroix, it was altogether a piece of waste paper.... I again

put it to you, is it credible that, if the Earl had really got such a

charter, and had wished to _change the destination_ of his estates--and

we know that he was a person of no ordinary talents--he would have

omitted taking means for preserving in his own country the evidence of

what he had done?" But, _secondly_, again, the original charter was, in

1702, in Nova Scotia. Now, we have seen that, in 1723, this 'original

charter' was, on the 10th July 1723, in Ireland, in the hands of a Mr

Thomas Conyers, of Carlow, who "permitted" Mr Hovenden "to see it, and

he did most minutely examine the contents:" and on the 20th of that

month, in the same year, the son of the aforesaid Conyers certified

that that charter "had been trusted to his late father, in troublesome

times, by the deceased Mary, Countess of Mount Alexander." At that time

the fifth Earl was living. When, then, did the charter return from

Acadia to Scotland, and go thence to Ireland? According to the letter

of John of Antrim on the map, his grandmother, the first Countess, took

it to Ireland to her son-in-law, Lord Montgomery, to be taken care

of. That son-in-law died in 1670. What did he do with it? Did he send

it to Canada?--and why? What were the three Earls of Stirling about,

that they did not get possession of this document, the very foundation

of their fortunes and honours? It gets, however, to Canada in 1702;

is back again, and in Ireland, at all events, in 1723; and then gets

placed in uncomfortable circumstances, and encounters queer adventures.

It found its way into the hands of the Rev. John Alexander, (John No.

3,) _in the lifetime of the fifth_ Earl of Stirling; and on his death,

in 1743, it gets into the hands of his widow, who took it to Birmingham

when she went to reside there; whence it was stolen, in 1758, by an

emissary of the then claimant of the peerage, William Alexander, who

took it off to America, and either suppressed or destroyed it, the

latest trace of it existing in 1806 or 1812, when it was presumably

destroyed. All this was the original official statement of his case,

by the prisoner himself, in 1829, in the process of "proving the

tenor."[40] _Thirdly_, In 1702, this M. Mallet speaks of the charter as

"an _ancient_ one;" whereas it was then only sixty-three years old--its

date being 1639. _Fourthly_, It having been thus a dead letter for

sixty-three years, owing to the altered ownership of the territories

included in it--they having become the undisputed property of France,

and so continued for half a century afterwards, namely, till General

Wolff's conquest of Quebec in 1760: yet we have a Frenchman, in 1702,

represented as calmly speculating in the year 1702, without anything

to suggest such an idea, on the possibility of the territories being

reconquered from France by the English, and in that event the charter

becoming an object of great interest! _Fifthly_, We have him also

giving himself very particular concern with the _limitations_ and

family destinations of the tenures of the foreign grantees claiming

under this "_ancient_" dead letter--then a mere useless piece of

parchment, likely to attract the eye and attention of none but some

curious antiquarian. Who was this M. Mallet? There is no suggestion

that he was acquainted with any member of the family, or had ever been

concerned in any way with them. Why, then, should he feel it necessary

to "take the precaution" of having the copy which he had made "duly

attested?" Who, again, was Lacroix? What was there _then_ to interest

any one in France or America in the fortunes of the noble Scottish

family of the Alexanders? Why was it to be expected that "all the world

would read with interest" the note which M. Mallet had so quietly

written on his map, and then committed it to his bureau? _Sixthly_, In

1702, and 1706, and 1707, Acadia was in the hands of the French, and

consequently its archives or registers were under their control; and a

copy of any instrument deposited there could be easily obtained. Why,

then, was not the command of Louis XV. obeyed, and a copy procured for

his Majesty? Again, what became of the solemnly-attested copy spoken of

by M. Mallet, Lacroix, and St Estienne? No account whatever is given of

it, nor any reason why it was necessary to set such store by a brief

epitome of one or two of the clauses to be found in that copy! Why,

therefore, was the "Note" of M. Mallet so "_precious_," when those

interested in the matter to which it related could have so easily seen

the original of which it spoke, and obtained a _verbatim_ copy of the

whole? The "Note" of M. Mallet might, indeed, be precious in the eyes

of his suddenly-bereaved survivors as an autograph memento of their

deceased friend, but not otherwise. _Seventhly_, Why should there be,

in 1707, in the family of John of Antrim, a tradition, and that, too,

an "ancient" one--_i. e._, forty or fifty years old--concerning the

loss of the record of a copy of the charter, _when the original_ was in

existence in the archives of Acadia? _Lastly_, Why is the great shade

of the author of _Telemachus_ evoked? Simply to "_authenticate_" the

letter of John Alexander to the Marchioness De Lambert, to whom that

letter was then on its way! This much for the intrinsic indication of

genuineness or spuriousness afforded by the indorsements on the map of

Canada, which we have hitherto been considering. We have now to record

a remarkable incident which occurred at the trial, in open Court. As

already stated, one of the two documents _pasted_ on the back of the

map was the alleged tombstone inscription. As the map was lying on the

table of the court, owing to either the heat of the densely crowded

Court, or some other cause, one of the corners of the paper on which

the inscription was written curled up a little--just far enough to

disclose some writing underneath it, on the back of the map. On the

attention of the Solicitor-General being directed to the circumstance,

he immediately applied to the Court for its permission to Mr Lizars,

the eminent engraver, then present, to detach from the map the paper on

which the tombstone inscription was written. Having been duly sworn,

he withdrew for that purpose, and soon afterwards returned, having

executed his mission very skilfully, without injury to either paper.

That on which the inscription was written proved to be itself a portion

of another copy of the map of Canada, and the writing which it covered

was as follows, but in French:--

[40] _Ante_, p. 475.

"There has just been shown to me _a letter of Fenelon_, written in

1698, having reference to this grandson of Lord Stirling, who was

in France during that year, and with regard to whom he expresses

himself as follows:--'I request that you will see this amiable and

good Irishman, Mr John Alexander, whose acquaintance I made some years

ago. He is a man of real merit, and whom every one sees with pleasure

_at Court_, and in the best circles of the capital.'" These were the

initials, as far as they are legible, "E. Sh." This was represented by

the Solicitor-General as palpably an incohate abortive forgery; and

Lord Meadowbank pointed out to the jury the evident and partially

successful effort which had been made to _tear off_ that portion of the

surface of the map on which the above had been written. That effort

failing, said he, "the only precaution that remained to prevent its

appearing was to cover it over; for which purpose the parties used the

inscription. But then the apprehension of its appearing, if the map

were held between the light and the eye, seems to have come across

the minds of the parties engaged in the operation, and hence, with a

very singular degree of foresight, expertness, and precaution, they

used for their cover that by which the eye of the inquirer might be

misled in his investigation; for you have seen that the lines and

words of the map forming the _back_ of the inscription were exactly

such as would naturally fall in with those on the _front_ of the map

of Canada, from which the extract from the pretended letter of Fenelon

had refused to be separated. Accordingly the invention, it would

appear, had proved hitherto most successful; for though this map has

been examined over and over again by persons of the first skill and

talent, and scrutinised with the most minute attention, the writing

which was thus covered up escaped detection, till, by the extreme heat

of the Courthouse yesterday, or some other cause of a similar nature,

a corner of the inscription separated from the map, and revealed to

our observation that which was hidden below. Gentlemen, it is for you

to consider the _effect_ of this revelation; but I must fairly tell

you, that, in the whole course of my experience, I have never seen

more clear and satisfactory evidence than has hereby been unexpectedly

afforded, of the progress of a palpable and impudent forgery." The

reader will bear in mind these observations against the time when we

apprise him of the finding of the jury. The reason suggested by Lord

Meadowbank for the abandonment and concealment of this sub-inscription

was, that it was of such a nature as could not acquire credit from any

one, as Fenelon was therein made to speak as if he were a courtier,

familiar with the gay scenes of the court and the capital; whereas

it was notorious that he lived more at his diocese than at Paris. Mr

Lizars stated that this newly discovered writing did not resemble

that of the letter signed "John Alexander." "How the Crown counsel

would have chuckled," said the prisoner's counsel to the jury, "if the

marvellous new discovery had resembled that of Mallet or Alexander!"

And that was his only remark on the subject. To us the handwriting

of these three manuscripts appears certainly different: all those on

the map, indeed, appear different; but an obvious suggestion occurs,

that, if they were really forgeries, those perpetrating them may

have taken the precaution of employing distinct writers. Let us now

come to the _extrinsic_ evidence, to determine the genuineness or

spuriousness of these multifarious writings. First, as to the ink and

character of the writings. Two eminent French witnesses, (MM. Teulet,

joint-secretary of the archives of the kingdom of France, and Jacobs,

geographical engraver attached to the Institute of France at Paris)

peculiarly conversant with the art of making _fac-similes_ of ancient

writings, solemnly and confidently pronounced their opinions that all

the documents on the back of the map were false, that they were written

with ink generally used for that purpose--viz., a composition of

China ink, yellow and carmine, or red; and the paper afforded visible

indications of little red splashings, or spottings, the result of

accidents in using that composition.

"_Q._--'M. Teulet, from what you know, are you of opinion that these

writings on the back of the map are authentic writings of the dates

they bear?'

_A._--'I have considered them; and say, on my conscience, that all the

writings on the back of that map are false.'

_Q._--To M. Jacobs.--'Forming a judgment from the ink alone, and the

appearance of the writing itself, is it your opinion that these are

genuine or false documents--documents of the dates they bear?'

_A._--'I should think them false.'"

Mr Lizars also stated that "there was a very great resemblance between

the ink in the writing signed 'Ph. Mallet' and the letter signed 'John

Alexander,' and it was 'like common water paint.'" He said that "if he

were to make any conjecture, it would be that the ink was composed of

sepia and amber." But on being asked--"Suppose the ink were made of a

mixture of China ink, yellow, and carmine, might the carmine come out

at the edge?" He answered--"It would be sure to do it: a bungler only

would use such a mixture, as the carmine would certainly precipitate:

it were much better to use sepia and amber." This gentleman also stated

that he had compared the writings on the back of the map with those

of the prisoner and Mademoiselle le Normand, but found no resemblance

between them. He also stated, that he thought the writings in question

_genuine_, and written in a natural, not a feigned hand.

We come now, however, to an astounding fact, rendering all such

speculations and surmises superfluous. It will have been observed that

all the writings on the back of the map, by Mallet, Estienne, John

Alexander, Bishop Flechier, and Archbishop Fenelon, bore date in the

years 1706 and 1707; that of Mallet only being in the former year.

What will the reader say on being told that it was proved beyond all

possible doubt at the trial, that _the map on which these various

indorsements were written, was positively not in existence till eleven

years afterwards--viz., 1718; and, moreover, that Bishop Flechier had

died in 1711, and Archbishop Fenelon in 1715_? Proof so complete and

crushing as that establishing these facts, scarcely ever before came

under our notice; and the circumstance which had led to this result

would have ensnared the most cautiously astute into the belief, that

the true date of the map's coming into existence was that which it

appeared to bear--viz., 1703--and with relation to, and in consistency

with which, all the above five dates had evidently been selected.

Guillaume de l'Isle was the greatest French geographer of his day, and

his maps were held in the highest repute for their accuracy and beauty.

Amongst others was a very elaborate one of Canada: and the copy of

that on which the memorable indorsements were made bore the following

printed description, or title, on the back. We give it _verbatim et

literatim_, and beg particular attention to the vacant space following

the name Guillaume De l'Isle, which is indicated by brackets, and

the italic words "_et Premier Geographe du Roy_" in the line but one

following, and which is unduly close to the one before, as we shall

endeavour to represent:--

"Carte

Du Canada

ou de la

Nouvelle France

et des Decouvertes qui y ont été faites

dresseé sur plusieurs Observations

et sur un grand nombre de Rélations imprimées ou manuscrites

Par Guillaume De l'Isle [ ]

de l'Academie Royale des Sciences

_et Premier Geographe du Roy_

A Paris

chez l'Auteur sur le Quai de l'Horloge a l'Aigle d'Or

avec Privilege de sa Maj^{te} pour 20 ans

1703."

The date at the foot, "1703," and which had so cruelly misled the

gentlemen who prepared the indorsements on the map, was the date, not

of the publication of that edition of the map, but of the _original_

publication, from which dated the twenty years' copyright granted

by the king as above stated. When that impression of the map was

originally printed, in the year 1703, the printed title varied from

the above, by having the word "_Géographe_" occupying the vacant

space above-contained in brackets; and by the absence of the line

"_et premier Géographe du Roy_," so evidently interposed subsequently

between the preceding and subsequent lines. And the fact was, that on

the 24th August 1718, fifteen years after the original publication

of the map, De l'Isle had received the high appointment of "PREMIER

Géographe du Roi." M. Teulet, one of the keepers of the "Register of

the Secretary of State" in France, a "register of the greatest possible

authenticity,"--"the _only_ register of authentic documents in which

the commission of Guillaume De l'Isle could be found," produced an

"extract made after the most authentic manner in France, certified

by the keeper of the register, and by the seal of the archives of

France,"--an "extract which would have all possible authenticity in a

court of justice in France," and which extract M. Teulet "had compared

twice over, word for word, and letter for letter, with the record," and

swore that "it was correct." The extract was as follows:--

"Du vingt quatre Aout mil sept cent dix huit

"Brevet de Premier Géographe du Roy pour l S^r. De l'Isle." The entry

runs thus in English:--

"_This day_ (24th August 1718) the king being in Paris, having

authentic proofs of the profound erudition of the S. Guillaume de

l'Isle, _of the Royal Academy of Sciences_, in the great number of

geographical works which he has executed for his Majesty's use, and

which have been received with general approbation by the public,

his Majesty, by the advice," &c. &c., "wishing to attach him more

particularly to his Majesty's service by a title of honour, which may

procure him at the same time the means of continuing works of such

usefulness, has declared, and declares, wishes, and enjoins, that

the said S. de l'Isle be _henceforward_ ['DORESNAVANT'] his first

geographer," &c. &c. This appointment was signed by the king, and

countersigned by the Secretary of State. It was distinctly sworn by

M. Teulet and M. Jacobs, than whom there could not have been higher

authorities on such a subject, that they had carefully examined the

map in question--and that, till the 24th August 1718, there never was

a map of De l'Isle thrown off having on its face the title of "Premier

Géographe du Roi;" but that, _after_ that date, this designation was

invariably added to his name;--and though the period of printing was

later than 1718, it was necessary to retain the original date of the

map, 1703, _in order to secure the copyright_; because the privilege of

printing it, as recited on the map, extended to only twenty years from

the time of the map being originally published. Thus was clearly and

most satisfactorily explained the erasure of the word "Géographe" after

the name of Guillaume de l'Isle, and the contemporaneous interpolation

of the new title of dignity--_Premier géographe du Roy_--between the

next line and the one following. All the three witnesses (MM. Teulet,

Jacobs, and Mr Lizars) swore, and gave conclusive reasons for doing

so, that the same copperplate was used in making the engravings--that

De l'Isle was in the habit of retouching his plates, and making

alterations in them from time to time; and great numbers of his plates

were produced, showing that, in the maps dated anterior to 1718, the

words "Premier Géographe du Roy" were _interpolated_; and in the one

before the court, the interpolated line was much "fresher" than the

rest of the inscription. In those subsequent to 1718 there was no

such interpolation, the words being always regular with the other

part of the title." In addition to this, it was proved, that the word

"Géographe" had been mechanically effaced from the copper; for, on

carefully examining the under side of the copper, there were "evident

traces of hammering, which had been done to fill up the spaces where

the words had been effaced." Nothing could be more lucid and decisive

than the evidence given by the eminent M. Teulet on these points; the

result being a downright demonstration, as far as the nature of the

case admitted of demonstration, that the copy of the map in question

could not have been, and was not, in existence, till after the 24th

August 1718. The prisoner's counsel, fearfully pressed by these

considerations, frankly--but necessarily--admitted, that "if the map

were not in existence till 1718, the writings on it purporting to be

dated prior to 1718 were forgeries." But he contended that, though

"he should be ashamed to deny that there were _strong reasons_ for

supposing the fact to be so, there was not _conclusive_ evidence that

the copy of the map in question was not in existence till 1718; for the

Crown had not proved a search of the Records of France prior to 1718,

and it might be, that the commission which had been proved, was not

the _first_ in favour of De l'Isle--there might have been a previous

one." "But this," said Lord Meadowbank, unanswerably, "was a strange

supposition, refuted by the patent proved before the jury. Had any

_former grant_ existed, it must have been there referred to; notice

of it could not have been omitted." One other suggestion was offered,

faintly, from a sense of its hopelessness; that the alterations on

the title of the map, might have been effected by the use of double

plates; the additional line having been inserted by a second impression

_on the same sheet of paper_. Such a process, however, could not have

_effaced_ the word "Geographe," or effected the changes which appeared

in the statement of De l'Isle's residence--the words "à l'Aigle d'Or"

being manifestly engraved on the site of only partially-obliterated

previous letters. That this, in point of fact, had been the process,

was distinctly sworn to by those who had seen the original plate.

Before quitting this part of the case, we shall quote a very critical

section of the evidence given by the Crown--that of Pierre François

Joseph Leguix, a print and map seller at Paris, whom the prisoner's

counsel made a very desperate effort to exclude from the witness-box.

He said, "My print-shop is in the Quai Voltaire, Paris. I remember _in

the winter of 1836-7_ a person coming frequently to my shop in search

of maps. I think he was an Englishman. The maps he sought for were maps

of Canada. He came during the length of five or six weeks. I sold him

several maps of Canada. He wished to get one map of a particular date.

_It was the date of 1703._ I sold him a map of 1703. It was procured by

me after considerable search. He came to my shop no more after getting

that map. It was similar to this [the one in question]. There were no

writings then on the back of it. He did not explain who he was, nor say

why he wished to have that map. He inquired chiefly for a map of 1703.

"_Q._--'_Have you seen the prisoner before?_'

_A._--'_Yes._'

_Q._--'_It was not he?_'

_A._--'_No, Sir._'"[41]

What a moment for the prisoner!

[41] Swinton, pp. 143-4.

In a letter written to the prisoner by Mademoiselle Le Normand, dated

Paris, 8th January 1839, occurs the following passage, (read in

evidence at the trial) which may possibly relate to the facts above

deposed to. "... Seulement _on a découvert l'homme du Quai_; on veut le

faire partir pour l'Ecosse; il déclare que voilà 18 mois il a vendu une

Carte du Canada à un Anglais, qui plusieurs fois est venu chez lui, on

lui a dit: le reconnaitriez-vous? _je le crois._"

Finally, M. Teulet proved that Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, died at

five o'clock in the morning of the 7th February 1715, by the following

examined extract from the Register of the Chapter of Cambray--"_Feria

2, die_ vii _Januarii 1715.--Hodie circa quintam matutinam obiit

illustrissimus Dominus Franciscus de Salignac de la Mothe Fenelon,

Archiepiscopus et Dux Cameracensis, sacri Romani Emperii Princeps,

Comes Cameracensis, etc. Requiescat in pace._"[42]

[42] _Id._, App. lviii.

The death of Flechier, Bishop of Nismes, in 1711, was also proved by

M. Teulet, who produced an examined copy of letters patent for the

installation of the successor of Flechier, dated the 26th February

1711; and one of the witnesses, M. de Pages, stated that the Bishop

died in the year 1710. Notwithstanding, however, this evidence, M.

de Pages, (a nephew of the Marquis de Valfour, and attached to the

Historical department in the King's Library, and possessing some

little familiarity with ancient manuscripts,) having brought over some

alleged writings of Louis the XV. and Flechier, said "that the writing

on the map attributed to Louis was _exactly like_ the specimens of

his writing which the witness had brought;" and of that attributed to

Flechier he said, "I think it is the same as the writing of his which

I produce." On this, one of the Judges (Lord Moncrieff) put this acute

question:--

"_Q._--'If you were assured that that map had no existence till 1718,

would you still say that the writing on it was Flechier's?'

_A._--'Wherever it might be placed, I find it conformable to the

writing of Flechier.'

_Lord Moncrieff to the Interpreter._--Remind him that he said Flechier

ceased to be Bishop of Nismes in 1710, and then ask him the question

again. [This was done.]

_A._--'It would be not the less like.'"

Lord Meadowbank, it may be observed in passing, regarded the writings

brought over by M. de Pages as "important," and handed them to the

jury, on their retiring to consider their verdict.

The signatures of Louis, Fenelon, and Flechier were attempted to be

proved also by certificates from M. Daunou, M. Villenave, and other

eminent French antiquaries; but as they were living, such certificates

were of course rejected. If these writings, then, _were_ forgeries,

they must have been most skilfully executed; and, in fact, the question

as to their genuineness or spuriousness excited--as we learn from Mr

Swinton,--great interest and much discussion in Paris. It may also be

here mentioned, as a somewhat singular circumstance, that, a few years

previously to this trial--as we also learn from Mr Swinton--a series

of portraits and autographs of illustrious Frenchmen, published by

Delpech, (Quai Voltaire, Paris,) contained _fac-similes_ of the writing

of Louis XV., Fenelon, and Flechier, exactly resembling the writings

on the map attributed to them;--and in the specimen given in that work

of the writing of Louis XV., which was taken from the collection of

M. Villenave above-mentioned, occur the very _two expressions_, and

_similarly spelled_, which are found on the map--"les c_e_rconstances

presentes"--and "or_e_g_e_nale." Mr Swinton speaks of this coincidence

as "remarkable;" but to us it appears not at all so. What is easier

than to conceive that, if the writings on the map were forgeries, the

fabricator had before him at the time these very fac-similes, and

astutely determined to introduce the expressions in question, with the

peculiar spelling?

Let us now recur for a moment to the excerpt charter of the 7th

February 1639. On the assumption that it was a forgery--_what becomes

of the writings on the map of De l'Isle?_ They then speak of--are

bottomed on--a document of which there is no earthly trace whatever,

except in a forged extract! If the excerpt be annihilated, so is the

charter! And if so,--in the name of holy truth and ordinary common

sense, how comes it, but by a double forgery, that we find on the map

of De l'Isle, produced for the first time in 1837, _all the essential

elements of that charter_, as far as sufficed to further the interests

of the prisoner--viz., the altered destination of the titles and

property, set forth _verbatim et literatim_, in conformity with the

terms of the forged excerpt? "How, but through the evidence of one

in the possession of this first forgery of the charter," asked the

Solicitor-General,[43] "could the persons who executed the second

arrive at such a close and perfect correspondence with the terms and

effect of the former, as has been exhibited through the whole contents

of the last?"

[43] Swinton, p. 237.

The prisoner's counsel said, in defence to this serious section of

the charge--the map is not pretended to have been forged; nor is the

date "1703" false. Who Ph. Mallet, or Caron St. Estienne, was, "at

the distance of one hundred and thirty years, no one could tell."

Flechier was alive in 1707, and therefore _might_ have written the note

attributed to him in that year, and so with Fenelon. "Now, gentlemen,"

said Mr Robertson, "what is the case of the Crown on the map? I think

it rests entirely on the appointment of De l'Isle as _premier géographe

du Roi_," which was unquestionably the true--the inevitable--issue on

which to put the case; and he proceeded to contend, on grounds which we

have already indicated in passing, that the Crown had not established

the act of forgery, by clear, irrefragable, irresistible proof.

What, then, says the considerate reader, we ask, as we did in the

former instance--were these writings on the map of Canada--any or all

of them--genuine or spurious?

III. THE DE PORQUET PACKET. With every disposition to treat this item

of evidence with the gravity and impartiality befitting quasi-judicial

investigation, we acknowledge feeling extreme difficulty in doing

so. To us, as English lawyers, intense would seem the simplicity of

those expecting any rational being to give credit for an instant

to the contents of this astonishing packet, as genuine. Two months

after the judgment of the Lord Ordinary, pointing out the fatal flaw

in the prisoner's pedigree--(viz., the non-proof of two particular

steps in that pedigree--that John No. 3 descended from John No. 2,

and the latter from John No. 1,) a sensitive and conscientious thief

died--viz. in March 1837--in the exact nick of time, having kept by him

till that sad event a packet which he had purloined from his employer

in 1798[44] i. e. _for forty years_; and which packet contained four

family documents, of vital moment, applying themselves with miraculous

exactness to the deficiency in the pedigree aforesaid! We are here

stating shortly, but correctly, the effect of a document under this

head of the charge, set forth in the indictment. That document we

gave _verbatim_ in our last Number.[45] Messrs De Porquet, London

booksellers, received a packet by the penny post, on opening which

they found one addressed to Lord Stirling, accompanied by a note from

a "_Mrs. Innes Smyth_," (of whom no one has hitherto seen, heard, or

known anything whatever,) requesting them to send it to his lordship;

whose son happening in the month of April 1837--_i. e._, a few weeks

after the opportune death of the mysterious thief--to call at Messrs

De Porquet, they gave him the packet addressed to his father. Instead

of at once forwarding it to him, the young gentleman instantly took

it to his solicitors; and after an exciting colloquy as to what this

packet might contain, (the idea never occurring to him, that it would

be the proper formal course to send it off to his parent according

to its address,) it is arranged that they should go on the ensuing

morning to a notary public, and open the packet in his presence! This

was done; on which they discovered the interesting document above

referred to, explaining the theft of the packet which it accompanied,

cased in parchment, sealed with three black seals, "evidently," said

the young Alexander, in his letter to the prisoner, "my grandfather's

seals--not like those _we_ have"--and with the following words, also

instantly recognised as being in his grandfather's handwriting, on

the packet--"_Some of my wife's family papers_"--that wife being the

prisoner's mother, Hannah, daughter of John No. 3 (the Rev. John

Alexander,) the "person of such great humility, and so perfectly

unostentatious," according to her daughter's statement,[46] "that she

did not take upon herself the title of Countess, though she often

told her children that they had noble blood in their veins;--that

she had two brothers, '_John_' and '_Benjamin_,' who had fully

intended assuming their peerage honours, but for their premature

death--_unmarried!_--whereby she," the lady aforesaid, "believed

herself the last of the family of Alexander who were entitled to

be Earls of Stirling!" The sheet of paper accompanying this mystic

parchment packet had a black border, "owing to the death of the

thief!"--who "had never dared to break the seals"--the threefold seals

of the packet--"which accounts for the admirable state of preservation"

in which the contents were after this forty years' interval!!![47]

This inner packet the modest notary felt to be of too solemn a

character to be opened in his presence; and recommended its being

taken for that purpose to a functionary of commensurate solemnity--to

wit, a proctor.[48] No sooner said than done: away they went to

the proctor, with whom they were closeted five hours; and in whose

presence--and that "of four witnesses"--the young gentleman ventured

to cut the parchment over the middle black seal--and there appeared

four enclosures which completely settled the business in favour of the

claimant of the Stirling peerage. Never was anything so beautiful in

aptitude. First, was a genealogical tree--thus:

"JOHN,

Eldest Son, born

at Dublin, 1736, BENJAMIN, MARY, HANNAH,

_heir to the_ Second Son, Eldest Daughter, Second Daughter,

_title and_ born at Dublin born at Dublin, born at Dublin in

_estates_ (!) in 1737. 1733. 1741.

| | | |

| | | |

+-----------------+-----+-------+-----------------+

|

|

JOHN,

_Sixth Earl of Stirling,_ MARY, ELIZABETH,

_(dejure,)_ died at Dublin, Eldest Daughter born 1685, died

Nov. 1st, 1743, buried born 1683, died 1711, leaving

there. unmarried. ssue.

| | |

| | |

+----------+----------+----------------+

|

|

JOHN,

Married MARY HAMILTON

of Bangor; _settled at_ JANET,

_Antrim! after living many_ _only surviving child_

_years in Germany!_ Died _of the heiress of_

1712. Buried at Newtown. _Gartmore!!!_

| |

| |

"Part +-------------+----------+

Of the Genealogical Tree |

of the JOHN,

Alexanders of Menstry, Fourth Son--marry'd (1.) _Agnes Graham_,

Earls of Stirling in Scotland, the heiress of Gartmore! (2.) _Elizabeth_

_Shewing_ _Maxwell!!!_ of Londonderry; settled in

_only the Fourth and now-existing_ Ireland in 1646; died 1665.

_branch_ (!) |

Reduced to pocket size, from the |

Large Emblazoned Tree in the WILLIAM,

possession of Mrs Alexander, 1st Earl of Stirling--born 1580--m: Janet

of King St., Birm. Erskine. Had issue, 7 sons and 3 dau^{rs.}

By me, Died 1640. Buried at Stirling."

Thomas Campbell,

April 15, 1759."

[44] _Ante_, pp. 466, 480.

[45] _Ante_, p. 480.

[46] _Ante_, p. 467.

[47] _Ante_, pp. 481-2.

[48] Swinton, p. 263.

_Secondly_, came a letter from the above-mentioned "Benjamin" to the

above-mentioned "John," his elder brother, (John No. 3,) speaking of

the tombstone, and giving many interesting particulars concerning

_John of Antrim_--his portrait, his education at Londonderry under

his _maternal_ grandsire Maxwell! his travels abroad, and "visiting

foreign courts," (as indeed Fenelon would seem to have testified, as

well as the aforesaid John himself, on Madlle. le Normand's map.)

_Thirdly_, a letter to the same "John," (No. 3,) from a certain "A. E.

Baillie," certifying as to the missing tombstone, who had written the

inscription, (which was given at length in Madlle. Le Normand's map,)

and assuring "John No. 3" that the writer had "always heard that _your

great-grandfather, the Hon. Mr Alexander_, (who was known in the county

as _Mr Alexander of Gartmoir_,) died at Derry, but 'the Papists of the

north' had unfortunately destroyed the parish registers." _Lastly_, "a

beautiful miniature painting of _John of Antrim_!"

Such were the contents of the De Porquet packet; and we must here

add, that the superscription on the parchment, "Some of my wife's

family papers," was clearly proved to be really the handwriting of the

prisoner's father.

The Solicitor-General, partly from the intrinsic preposterous absurdity

of this whole transaction, and partly from his extended and very able

analysis of the two former heads of evidence, dealt rather summarily

with the De Porquet packet. "This packet, too," he observed, "was

received through the post-office. We have not, therefore, had the

same means of tracing these documents as we possessed in regard to

the map."[49] His commentary, however, though brief, was cutting,

particularly on the "absurd solemnity" of the "opening" of the packet

by the prisoner's son, the "death of the thief in the very nick of

time," and the mysterious unknown "Mrs Innes Smyth." "I admit," said

he, "that there is no _direct_ evidence as to these English documents.

But it must be taken into account how closely the whole case is here

riveted and dovetailed together; so that I think the documents produced

are all parts and portions of the grand machinery of forgery which

has been set agoing here, to meet the effect of the Lord Ordinary's

interlocutor setting aside the panel's title."[50]

[49] Swinton, p. 263.

[50] _Ib._ p. 265.

The prisoner's counsel prudently dealt still more briefly with this

part of the case. The very little that he did say, however, was

excellently said. He dwelt on the proof that the superscription, "Some

of my wife's family papers,"[51] had been proved to be genuine. "Yet

a verdict of forgery is demanded on that paper, and all the documents

contained in that parcel are said to be forged--the one, because

we have proved it to be genuine; the others, because the Crown has

proved--nothing at all. That is the plain English of it, gentlemen, and

I leave it in your hands."[52]

[51] This superscription was charged in the indictment as a forgery.

[52] _Ib._ p. 293-4.

Lord Meadowbank dealt with this portion of the case at considerably

greater length, and very carefully. He remarked on the absurd

improbability of so notable a discovery being made at the precise

moment of difficulty, and in the manner alleged, by the son of

the prisoner--a packet full of most critical documents, sent

anonymously--exactly as in the case of the Le Normand packet, in both

respects--the one in April, the other in July next, after the Lord

Ordinary's judgment had indicated the _hiatus_ in the proof which

these two windfalls _exactly filled up_. The two letters enclosed in

it--viz., from Benjamin Alexander to his brother John, (No. 3,) and

from "A. E. Baillie" to the same person--Lord Meadowbank regarded as

"deserving the most serious consideration of the jury, not so much

for the sake of the letters themselves, as from being a part of that

great mass of evidence which bore upon the whole question of the

authenticity of these various productions."[53] He remarked strongly on

young Alexander's letter announcing to his father the discovery of the

packet--his going to a notary and proctor to have it opened, instead of

at once sending it on to his father. "For aught his son is supposed to

have known, or could possibly tell, it was strictly confidential to his

father, and he had no right to make any conjectures as to the contents

of it. Did you ever hear a more extraordinary story than he tells? I

leave it to you to consider whether such a proceeding can be accounted

for on any rational principle. Did you ever hear of such a thing as

this being done before? For my own part, the proceeding is altogether

incomprehensible upon any supposition but one--and that is, upon the

notion _that the contents of the packet were not unknown to some of

the performers in the drama, before ever it_ [the packet] _entered

the shop of De Porquet_." Lord Meadowbank laid great stress on the

following certainly very significant passage in this letter, relating

to the "_inscription_" mentioned in the two letters of "Benjamin

Alexander" and "A. E. Baillie,"--"You will see that the inscription

is _now made a good document, being confirmed_ by the letters of B.

Alexander and A. E. Baillie. The cause is enrolled to be heard on the

31st day of May." The son was writing on the 23rd April. "The better

to appreciate this letter," continued Lord Meadowbank, "let me recall

your recollection to the map of Canada. You have thus three letters,

and that inscription confirming _another inscription_ (as stated in

young Alexander's letter) _fixed on the map_; and if you do not hold

the map or the papers upon it to be genuine, you will consider how the

two sets of papers are affected by each other--the one produced at the

same moment to confirm that which had been produced before." As for

the superscription, "Some of my wife's family papers," the "writing on

the cover," said Lord Meadowbank, "may be genuine, while the documents

said to be contained in it may be forged; original enclosures may have

been withdrawn, and others substituted."--"If you have arrived at the

conclusion that the documents at the back of the old map are forgeries,

(and how you are to do otherwise it is difficult for me to imagine,)

I think you will not find it very easy to disconnect _this reference

to the inscription_, and to the alleged genealogy of the persons with

whom it was the object of the prisoner to connect himself, from these

documents, or to entertain any reasonable doubt that both are in _pari

casu_--were fabricated with the view of bolstering up one another,

and must be alike liable to the imputation of forgery: both sets of

documents were exactly calculated for making up those defects in the

chain of evidence pointed out by the Lord Ordinary. I shall conclude

what I have to say upon this matter with an observation which will

have occurred to yourselves--that if you hold _the excerpt charter_ a

forgery, and that the documents written and pasted upon the back of

the map are forgeries, it will be difficult for you not to hold that

this must affect in a most material degree the evidence relating to

the _other_ documents, which the public prosecutor avers to be also

forgeries. In other words, if you are satisfied that the proof is clear

that _any_ of these sets of documents are forged, but that the evidence

with respect to others is not so conclusive, you will have to make up

your minds whether, considering that the whole are so connected with

and bear upon each other, there can be any good reason for fixing a

character upon the one which must not also belong to the other."

[53] Swinton, p. 324.

We have been thus particular in laying before the reader the just

and able observations of Lord Meadowbank on this last portion of the

case, chiefly because of the result at which the jury arrived. It

seems to us not a little singular that one material enclosure in the

De Porquet packet escaped the notice of both the counsel for the Crown

and the prisoner, and also the judge: we allude to the Genealogical

Tree, professed to be certified by "Thos. Campbell, 15th April 1759,"

and forming one of the charges in the indictment. If this be really a

forgery, it seems one of extraordinary impudence.

Again, then, as in the two former instances, we ask the reader,

weighing well the evidence, and particularly the above observations

upon it of Lord Meadowbank, to say _Ay_ or _No_ to the question, Were

the documents contained in the De Porquet packet genuine or spurious?

Bearing in mind that all three were the contributions of anonymous

informants--the excerpt charter, sent to Mr Banks by--he knew not

whom; the Le Normand papers, by--an exceedingly mysterious and exalted

personage; and the De Porquet packet, by--a third mysterious unknown:

the first sent to the confidential agent of the prisoner in Ireland;

the second to one of his oldest and most confidential friends at Paris;

the third to his bookseller in London. It may also be worth mentioning

that neither Mr Banks, nor Mademoiselle Le Normand, nor either of the

prisoner's sons, nor his sister, "Lady Eliza Pountney," was called as a

witness by the prisoner, nor by the Crown.

There remains to be determined, however, a question of infinite moment

to the prisoner--whether, in the event of the foregoing documents,

or any of them, being pronounced forgeries, he was guilty of either

having forged them, or having used and uttered any of them, knowing

them to have been forged? "This," said Lord Meadowbank, with an air of

deepening solemnity, "is the heaviest part of the charge against the

panel; and I assure you, gentlemen, that in the whole course of my life

I never addressed a jury with greater anxiety than I do at present."

Let us pause, however, for a moment, to see how this very grave

question was first dealt with by the counsel for the Crown, and then

for the prisoner.

I. The Solicitor-General, it will be observed, according to the

Scottish mode of criminal procedure, had only one opportunity of

addressing the jury--and that after the whole evidence on both sides

had been laid before them, and immediately _before_ the speech by the

prisoner's counsel. In England, the counsel for the Crown speaks also

only once, but that before the evidence has been adduced, unless the

prisoner call evidence--in which event the counsel for Crown "has the

last word," as it is called, "to the jury." This difference may perhaps

account for the earnestness with which the Solicitor-General, in the

case before us, appears to have "pressed for a conviction"--such is

the phrase used on such occasions in England. We are bound, however,

to say that, in our opinion, the Solicitor-General did not exhibit any

undue or unseemly eagerness; nor approach even towards unfairness, or

exaggeration, misrepresentation, or suppression. The prisoner, said he,

is at all events, _de facto_ the utterer of these various documents,

and the presumption is always against the utterer--especially when, as

in the present case, these documents were calculated to advance his own

direct personal interest exclusively. The _onus_ lay on him to prove

that he innocently uttered, having been deceived by others. Could the

jury, in the face of such a marvellous coincidence of times, of means,

of objects, believe that a number of different persons were concerned

in promoting the prisoner's objects and interests, and he all the while

profoundly ignorant of what was being done? The documents are all

proved forgeries; and these he utters, and for the advancement of his

own interests alone! In the agony of his difficulty--the crisis of his

fate--he goes to France clandestinely, and is proved to have been in

constant intercourse with Mademoiselle le Normand, and to have incurred

immense pecuniary liabilities to her at that very period; giving,

however, a most contradictory account of his relations and transactions

with her! Up to the hour of his trial, he had given no explanation

whatever of his doings at Paris, whither he went immediately after

Lord Cockburn's adverse judgment, and returned so shortly after the

discovery of the Le Normand and the De Porquet packets! And Leguix

is found selling a map of Canada, of 1703, exactly at the time of

the prisoner's being at Paris; and Mademoiselle Le Normand writes to

him--"They have found the man on the quay!"

II. The prisoner's counsel made an ingenious, eloquent, and judicious

address--very brief, and directed vigorously and steadily towards the

strong parts of the defence, and leaving untouched the formidable

points arising out of the prisoner's correspondence with Mademoiselle

Le Normand, and the conflicting accounts of his movements and

transactions given in his judicial examinations. All the forgeries are

charged on, or supposed to be, the act of _one man_--the prisoner;

yet not only does no single witness trace the faintest resemblance,

in any of the alleged forgeries, to the handwriting of the prisoner,

or Mademoiselle Le Normand, but an able witness for the Crown, Mr

Lizars, negatives such a fact. Well might the prisoner be deceived--if

the documents _were_ forgeries--when his counsel, his agents--the

Lord Advocate, and the Judge Ordinary, every one concerned during the

ten years' litigation--was so deceived, and never once suspected it.

Why did not the Crown produce Mademoiselle le Normand? And as to the

purchase of the old map of Canada from Leguix, on the Quai Voltaire, he

explicitly stated that the prisoner was _not_ the man! But there was

no evidence of the forgery, and therefore the guilty knowledge, using,

and uttering, fell to the ground. If even there were doubts on the

subject, the prisoner was clearly entitled to the benefit of them: his

character "was everything;" for he had received as high as man could

give. In an early part of his address, Mr Robertson averred that he saw

in the countenances of the jury "the cheering light of an acquittal--so

that he could almost stop _there_;" and his last sentence was one which

would be deemed highly objectionable on the part of counsel, under such

circumstances, in England--"_On my conscience I believe him innocent

of the crimes here charged_, and to have been merely the dupe of the

designing, and the prey of the unworthy!"[54] So solemn an expression

of belief could not, of course, have been made by a gentleman if he

were not sincere; but it is certainly not a part of the duty of counsel

to make such protestations; and in doing so he trespasses beyond his

province upon that of others, and that one the confines of which ought

to be most jealously and sacredly guarded--we mean the province of the

witness, and that of the jury. Bating a little wilful blindness to ugly

facts, which is occasionally to be found elsewhere than in Scotland,

the address of Mr Robertson was as fair as can be expected from a

prisoner's advocate, and calculated to make a strong impression upon

the jury.

[54] Swinton, p. 333-4.

III. Lord Meadowbank's summing up was long and elaborate: stern

and uncompromising from first to last in the expression of a very

hostile view of the whole case, as against the prisoner, but still

never straining the proved facts. It is the charge of an upright yet

severe judge, not ambitious of replying to the prisoner's counsel, but

vigorously expressing his own conscientious opinions.

It is evident that Lord Meadowbank regarded the advantage derived by

the prisoner from the presence in the dock of his distinguished friend

Colonel D'Aguilar, and also from the very flattering testimony to

character which he had received, as likely to prove a disturbing force

to the jury in forming their estimate of the case. He therefore, in the

first instance, addressed himself with a very evident air of anxiety

to this section of the evidence. "That of Colonel D'Aguilar," said

he, "of the gallant officer now seated with the panel at the bar,[55]

was not more creditable to the panel than it was to the witness.

It proved that his feelings of obligation, long ago conferred, had

not been obliterated by the lapse of time; and it was given with an

earnestness which, if it told on your minds as it did on mine, must

have been by you felt as most deeply affecting.... But in weighing

this evidence to the character of the prisoner, you must attend to

what that proof really amounts."[56] He proceeded to point out the

chasm of thirty years in their _personal_ intercourse; and then

exhibited, in lively colours, by way of set-off, the conduct of the

prisoner in raising large sums of money on false representations

as to his resources--"raising a sum of £13,000 on bonds granted by

him for £50,000. All this, gentlemen, is, to say the least of it, a

most discreditable proceeding on the part of a person bearing the

high character which has been given the prisoner.... It is for you,

gentlemen, to consider if the evidence which has been given as to

the character he once bore, be or be not counterbalanced by these

disreputable proceedings at a later period."[57]

[55] Such a thing would not be allowed in England, except, probably,

under very special circumstances. _We_ never witnessed anything of the

kind.

[56] Swinton, pp. 333-4.

[57] _Ib._, pp. 335-6.

The "evidence of the prisoner having _uttered the whole_ of the

instruments and documents charged in the indictment to be forgeries

has not been called in question by the prisoner's counsel, he not

having said one word on the subject. For my own part, I see no ground

for disputing that the whole were uttered by the prisoner, and I

shall content myself with referring to the evidence of the official

witnesses, who received them from the agents of the prisoner; who

again, in so producing, and so delivering them, acted under his

authority, and were the mere instruments for carrying into effect those

acts for which he alone can be responsible." Shortly afterwards, Lord

Meadowbank gave a blighting summary of undisputed facts.

On the 10th December 1836, the Lord Ordinary issued his note, pointing

out the evidence that was deficient: "The prisoner admits that he

left the country immediately afterwards, and went to Paris. Where he

went to then, he does not tell; under what name he went, he does not

tell; where he got his passport has not been discovered, because he

concealed the name under which he travelled. He continued in Paris till

the ensuing August, when he returned, as he says, to Scotland, to be

present at the Peers' election, and there he voted. He then despatched

his son to Paris, and _he_ returned with the map (which you are _now_,

in considering the case in this view, to assume to be a fabrication) in

the month of October, having all these documents written or pasted upon

it." Lord Meadowbank proceeded to point out a circumstance "of the last

importance to this branch of the case," which "had been lost sight of

by the prisoner's counsel, and had not attracted the attention of the

counsel for the Crown." And certainly the judge was right. This was the

"circumstance" in question. One of the documents pasted on the back of

the map was a portion of the envelope in which the supposed letter of

John of Antrim (John No. 2) had been enclosed; and on this envelope was

the impression of a _seal_. Now, in the prisoner's judicial examination

before the Lord Ordinary, (the step admitted by Mr Swinton to have

been "unusual,") he was shown the parchment packet contained in the

De Porquet packet, indorsed, "Some of my wife's family papers;" and

the seal attached "was an impression of his _grandfather's seal_ (John

No. 3); he had not seen that seal later than the year 1825; it is in

the possession of my sister, Lady Elizabeth Pountney." The judge then

pointed out to the jury a fact which he had himself discovered, that

the impression of the seal on this packet and that on the envelope on

the map _were identical_--a fact, indeed, which the prisoner himself

had admitted in another part of his examination. "Now, gentlemen,"

continued Lord Meadowbank, "supposing there was not another tittle of

evidence in the case to connect the prisoner with these proceedings,

see what this amounts to. You find a link in his pedigree wanting

in December 1836. Immediately after this has been pointed out he is

in Paris, and stays there till August. During this short interval

he is brought into immediate and close connection with this mass of

fabrications, of fabrications of no earthly use or moment to any

human being but himself, and having among them _the impression of

that seal which he admits to be in the possession of his own sister_.

Gentlemen, suppose that the name of Mademoiselle le Normand had never

been heard of in this case, I leave it to you to consider, whether the

irresistible inference be not, that that seal could have been appended

only by the person in possession of it, and, at least, that that person

was within his own domestic circle!"

Next followed some weighty remarks on the evidence of Leguix as to the

purchase, by an Englishman, in the winter of 1836-7, of the map of

Canada of 1703; and then Lord Meadowbank pointed out certainly a most

serious contradiction in the prisoner's statements, under his different

"examinations," as to the period of his becoming acquainted with Lord

Cockburn's judgment of December 1836. When first examined, on the 18th

December 1838, in answer to the direct question when he first knew of

that judgment, he declared that "it was not till the month of _March_

or _April_ following, [_i. e._ 1837,] that he was made acquainted with

that or any part of his Lordship's judgment or proceedings, _except as

to their general import_, which he had learned from a letter addressed

to him by his own family." Then he was asked whether he had not been

made acquainted with Lord Cockburn's judgment in the same month of

December in which it was pronounced. He declared "that _he had not_,

and even _then_, [_i. e._, 18th December 1838,] he knew nothing of the

particulars of that judgment." On the 14th February 1839, however,

on being again examined before the Sheriff, he declared that, "when

in Paris, in March or April 1837, he heard that Lord Cockburn had

pronounced an unfavourable judgment in his case; and _at that time a

copy of the printed papers of the judgment and of the note_ was sent

him by his family from Edinburgh, and until that time he was not aware

that Lord Cockburn had formed an unfavourable opinion of his case!"

"Here are declarations of the prisoner, contradictory on matters

as to which there could be no error in point of recollection,--an

important contradiction, and one testifying a desire of concealment

of the truth, which, in all cases like this, has ever been deemed

greatly to affect the innocence or guilt of a party." Again, "if these

declarations establish the prisoner's knowledge of what had been done

by Lord Cockburn, you are bound to consider whether that knowledge

does not materially affect the evidence of the fabrication of these

documents, as having been known to him, to whom alone they could be

useful."

Then Lord Meadowbank came to the prisoner's visits to Mademoiselle le

Normand--his having trafficked with her as far back as 1812, since

which time he said, "she had been in the constant habit of advancing

money to himself and his wife;" and yet her existence, even, was not

known to his most intimate friends! Then he admits that he and his

wife "desire her to institute a search for documents and charters to

support his claims;" that he had never dreamed of searching _in France_

for documents illustrative of his own pedigree; and it was with the

greatest surprise he afterwards learned that they had been discovered!

Then Lord Meadowbank contrasted the prisoner's statements as to the

paucity of his visits to this old lady with the evidence of one

Beaubis, the porter at the hotel where she resided, and who stated that

the prisoner "saw her _every night_." Infinitely more serious, however,

were the conflicting answers given by the prisoner, as to the nature

and amount of his pecuniary liabilities to Mademoiselle le Normand,

which Lord Meadowbank pronounced to be "a mass of contradictions." At

one time he stated that he had given her his bond for _four hundred

thousand francs_!--then only two bonds for 100,000 francs each, sent by

him to her in 1837!--"payable, palpably, on the event of his succeeding

in his claims on the Earldom of Stirling. This," continued Lord

Meadowbank, "perhaps affords a pretty good key for solving the mystery

of the interest that this woman has taken in these productions!" Having

adverted to various portions of this old lady's correspondence with

the prisoner, which had been seized at his house--certainly containing

matters pregnant with violent suspicion--Lord Meadowbank said, "These

are the circumstances from which you are to infer, or not, the guilty

knowledge of the panel, and of his being, or not, art and part in the

forgery of these documents. Remember, it is not said or proved that

he forged them with his own hand; the question is, whether he had a

knowledge of the forgeries that were going on at Paris during his

stay there.... You will judge whether his obligation to Mademoiselle

le Normand for 400,000 or 200,000 francs was or was not given for the

fabrication of that document. And in looking to that document itself,

[_i. e._, the map with its indorsements,] you will see his statement

as to _the seal_ on the back of it; and consider whether he be not

thereby brought into immediate contact with the fabrication of that

document, in consequence of the impression of the seal on its back,

which he admits was in the possession of a member of his family." Lord

Meadowbank proceeded to advert briefly to "the exculpatory evidence,"

and said that the fact of the fabricated excerpt charter having escaped

the notice of the Lord Ordinary, and also of Mr Lockhart, was "no doubt

a strong circumstance in favour of the prisoner," if that excerpt

charter had been _the only_ case against him; but it was altogether

a different matter when regard was had to the great number of other

documents alleged to have been forged, or knowingly uttered as forged,

by the prisoner. "Gentlemen," said Lord Meadowbank, "the prisoner

_may_ have been _a dupe_ in all these transactions;... but you have

it clearly made out that the only person who enjoyed the fruits of the

imposition was the prisoner himself!... Gentlemen, I have now laid

before you the whole case as it occurs to me. I have never bestowed

more pains upon any case than I have upon this; and in none have I ever

summed up the evidence with greater pain.... Our business is to do

justice, and you, in particular, have to weigh the evidence calmly and

deliberately; and, should you doubt of that evidence being sufficient

to bring the present charge home to the prisoner, to give him the

full benefit of that doubt. But, to entitle you to do so, these doubts

must be well considered, and the circumstances on which they are

founded deliberately weighed. To doubts that are not reasonable, you

have no right whatever to yield. You are not entitled to require from

the Procurator _direct proof_ of the facts laid in his charge. The

circumstances laid in evidence must be put together; and it is your

duty, then, to consider what is the reasonable inference to be drawn

from the whole of them: in short, whether it be possible to explain

them upon grounds consistent with the innocence of the party accused;

or whether, on the contrary, they do not necessarily lead to a result

directly the reverse."

The jury, thus charged with their solemn responsibility, withdrew to

consider their verdict; and as they were absent for FIVE HOURS, we have

time to ask the reader what would have been _his_ decision, as one of

that jury, on this deeply interesting, this most serious and remarkable

case.

_First_, Were any or all of these documents forgeries?

_Secondly_, If they were, did the prisoner forge them?

_Thirdly_, If forgeries, though not by the prisoner, did he use and

utter them with a guilty knowledge of their being forgeries?

We regard Lord Meadowbank's summing up as a dignified and righteous

one, blinking no responsibility, and making difficult matters plain

to the humblest capacity, and leaving no excuse for an inefficient

performance of duty. At length, however, after their long absence from

Court--a torturing five hours' absence--the return of the jury is

announced; the four judges resume their seats with stern gravity and

expectation; the agitated prisoner, still accompanied by his chivalrous

friend, Colonel D'Aguilar, appears at the bar; the anxious crowd is

hushed into silence; and the chancellor (or foreman) delivered in the

following verdict:--

I. "The Jury UNANIMOUSLY find it proved that the _excerpt charter is a

forged document_; and, BY A MAJORITY,[58] find it NOT PROVEN that the

panel forged the said document, or is guilty art or part thereof,--or

that he UTTERED it, knowing it to be forged." [Here arose a burst

of applause from the audience, in consequence of which the Court

immediately ordered the gallery to be cleared.]

[58] In Scotland, the verdict in a criminal case is according to a

majority of the jury; in a civil case they must be unanimous.

II. "UNANIMOUSLY find it proved that the _documents on the map are

forged_; and by A MAJORITY find it NOT PROVEN that the panel forged the

said documents, or is guilty art and part thereof, or that he UTTERED

them, knowing them to be forged."

III. "UNANIMOUSLY find it _Not Proven_ that the documents contained

in De Porquet's packet are forged; or were uttered by the panel as

genuine, knowing them to be forged."

IV. "UNANIMOUSLY find it _Not Proven_ that the copy letter to Le

Normand,[59] in the fifth and last charge of the Indictment, is either

forged, or was uttered by the panel as genuine, knowing it to be

forged."

[59] This was the anonymous letter to Madlle. le Normand, dated the

10th July 1837, accompanying the map professed to have been left with

her so mysteriously on the ensuing day. See it _in extenso_ in our last

Number, p. 482.

As soon as the chancellor of the jury had finished delivering the above

verdict the prisoner swooned, and was carried out of court insensible.

On one of his counsel certifying to the court, on the authority of a

medical gentleman in attendance on him, the continued indisposition of

the prisoner, and that it would be dangerous to bring him back into

court, his further attendance was dispensed with, the Public Prosecutor

consenting; and as soon as the verdict had been formally approved of

and recorded, the Court pronounced the following sentence:--

"The Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, in respect of the foregoing

verdict of Assize, assoilzie the panel _simpliciter_, and dismiss him

from the bar."

By the law of Scotland a verdict of "_Not Proven_" has the same effect

as a verdict of "_Not Guilty_," with reference to liability to a second

or subsequent trial on the same charge.

Thus ended, on Friday the 3d May 1839, this extraordinary trial--than

which we know none more so on record. That the jury found the slightest

difficulty in pronouncing the excerpt charter, and the Le Normand map,

with its indorsements, to be forgeries, no one can think probable;

but we own our very great surprise at finding them of opinion, and

that "unanimously," that the forgery of the De Porquet packet, and the

letter accompanying the Le Normand packet, had "not" been "proven."

One thing, however, is perfectly clear, that these forgeries could

not have been committed by lawyers, either Scottish or English; for

the slightest smattering of legal knowledge would have sufficed to

show the stark staring absurdity of imagining that such "_evidence!_"

could be received or acted upon, for a moment, by any court of

justice in a civilised country. In an English court, the De Porquet

packet would have been hailed, but for decorum's sake, with a shout

of laughter. A single rule of English law, that documents offered in

evidence--especially ancient ones--must be proved to have come from the

proper custody, would have disposed of the whole matter in a trice.

On what grounds proceeded the verdict of "not proven," with reference

to the charge against the prisoner of forgery, or guilty uttering of

forged documents, we know not, and it were almost idle to speculate.

We doubt not, however, that Colonel D'Aguilar played the part of a

guardian angel to his friend throughout his ordeal, and think that

the jury attached the utmost weight to the suggestion with which

the prisoner's counsel skilfully concluded his address, that "the

prisoner had been merely the dupe of the designing, and the prey of the

unworthy."[60] He may, indeed, have been a weak and insanely credulous

person, and may have unconsciously encouraged others to be guilty of

forgery, in imaginary furtherance of his own ambitious objects, by the

promise of liberal recompense in the event of his being successful--as

in the case of Mademoiselle le Normand, to whom he had given a bond for

four hundred thousand francs.

[60] Swinton, p. 300.

In conclusion, we have to express our obligation to the accomplished

and learned editor of the report of this trial, Professor Swinton, for

the fulness and fidelity with which he has placed it before us. It is

a valuable and deeply interesting addition to the records of Scottish

jurisprudence; and it is also well worth the while of an English lawyer

to procure and study it. Nay, even the novelist may find it well worth

his while to ponder its marvellous details.

THE DINNER TO LORD STANLEY.

Fifteen years have elapsed since Sir Robert Peel made his memorable

speech in Merchant Tailors' Hall; and the foundation was laid, in the

unanimity of three hundred and fifteen independent members of the House

of Commons, of that great party which at length proved triumphant in

the country, and some years afterwards returned him by a majority of

700,000 out of 1,000,000 of electors, and a majority of 91 in the House

of Commons, as Prime Minister of England. The victory then achieved,

the triumph then gained, rendered the future a matter of comparative

ease in Government, of certainty in anticipation. The nation had spoken

out: PROTECTION TO NATIVE INDUSTRY in all its branches--agricultural,

manufacturing, and colonial--was the principle which had banded the

majority together; and the victory was so great, the bond which united

them so strong, that, for this generation at least, all attempts,

by external aggression, to shake their government must have proved

nugatory. England was once again united: the great cause of domestic

industry of the universal people had triumphed. All that was required

of its leaders was to have remained true to themselves, to have adhered

to their principles, to have proved faithful to their professions;

and most assuredly the great majority of the nation would have proved

faithful to them. An opening was afforded, a foundation was laid, for

the formation of a great NATIONAL PARTY, which, discarding the now

senseless divisions of former times, was intent only on fostering the

industry of the whole working-classes of the community, and on rearing

up, on the basis of experienced benefits and acknowledged blessings, a

great and united British empire in every quarter of the globe.

What has prevented the realisation of so glorious a vision? what has

stepped between Great Britain and the diadem encircling the earth thus

presented to her grasp, and converted an empire which might now have

daily, and for centuries to come, been growing in strength, overflowing

with prosperity, unanimous in loyalty, into one declining in numbers,

shivered in power, divided in opinion? Whence is it that, while the

debates in Parliament are daily filled with the piteous, and, alas!

too faithful accounts of Irish destitution, of metropolitan suffering,

of agricultural distress, of industrial depression, the colonies are

all meditating separation from the mother country, and Government at

home, anticipating a severance of the empire which they can no longer

defend, are already, like the Romans of old, abandoning the distant

parts of the empire to their own resources? How has it happened that,

after reading a glowing eulogium in the leading articles of the _Times_

on the prosperous condition of the country, the increase of its exports

and imports, the cheapened food of its inhabitants, we read in the next

columns of the very same paper a piteous statement from Lord Ashley on

the frightful condition of the working-classes in the metropolis--a

heart-rending account from Mr Reynolds of the daily declining resources

and increasing pauperism of Ireland--an alarming statement, from the

official return, of the daily increasing importation of foreign grain,

at prices below what it can be raised at in this country--a decisive

proof, in the monthly return, of the decline of British and increase

of foreign shipping--and Lord Grey's circular to Australia and the

Mauritius, announcing the approaching withdrawal of the British troops

from those valuable settlements? Whence have arisen those obvious and

undeniable and well-known symptoms of national decline, immediately

after the opening of so glorious a dawn, and when the means of such

lasting and universal prosperity had, by the benignity of a gracious

Providence, been placed within our grasp?

No one need be told from what these melancholy results, after such

splendid prospects, have arisen. _It is dereliction of principle which

has done the whole._ A statesman was placed at the helm, of great

ability, of unwearied industry, of vast influence, but who wanted the

one thing needful for great statesman-like achievement--singleness

and consistency of principle. He rose to power by the exertions of

the Conservative party; and the first use he made of that power, when

fully acquired, was to spread dissension among that party, and for a

time destroy their influence. He made himself not the representative of

the nation, but of a section of the nation; not of the British empire

in every part of the world, but of Manchester and Glasgow. To their

interests everything else was sacrificed. The agricultural interest

was sacrificed by the repeal of the Corn Laws; the colonial, by the

equalising the duties on sugar and wood; the shipping, by the repeal

of the Navigation Laws; the manufactures for the home market, by the

unrestrained admission of foreign manufactured produce. The interests

of no class were consulted but those of the buyers and sellers of

commodities, and of the great manufacturers for the _export_ sale, the

class from whom Sir Robert Peel sprang; and as the interests of that

class are on most points adverse to the interests of the rest of the

community, the vast majority are now suffering for their benefit.

The time was when such an anomaly as this could not have existed.

Within the lifetime of half the present generation, the interests of

the merchant, the manufacturer, and the farmer were identified; and no

one of these classes could be benefited without extending the impulse

to all the others. The toast of "The Plough, the Loom, and the Sail,"

was as regularly to be heard at public dinners as that of the "British

Constitution, and may it be perpetual." But now neither is heard--they

have gone out of fashion together. Whence this extraordinary, this

woeful change, in so short a time, and in a nation which has not

been subjected to the convulsions of at least a violent and bloody

revolution? It is that the principle of protection to native industry

has been abandoned by the Government. A section of the community has

become so rich and powerful, from the shelter afforded to it during a

hundred and fifty years of protective policy, that it has succeeded in

setting all other classes at defiance, and changing our policy for its

own immediate benefit, but their certain decline and ruin.

This class is that of manufacturers for the _export_ sale. When Great

Britain was a self-supporting country, as it was to all practical

purposes down to 1842, the growth of our manufactures, whether for the

home or the foreign market, acted immediately and powerfully on the

interests of all other classes, agricultural and commercial, with which

they were surrounded. They eat the British or Irish farmer's bread and

beef; they were clothed in the British manufacturer's clothing; the

machinery they made use of was made by English hands; their goods, when

completed, were exported in British bottoms; and the profits of the

master manufacturers, who put the whole in motion, were for the most

part spent in the purchase of British luxuries and the encouragement

of British industry. Thence the universal feeling, that the interest

of all classes was identical, and that you could not benefit the one

without at the same time benefiting the others. But since the fatal

period when protection was abandoned, this mutual dependence has been

done away with--this great and beautiful bond of cohesion has been

destroyed. We can no longer give "The Plough, the Sail, and the Loom,"

at any public dinner. Every one feels that the interests of these

classes have now been set at variance. The old fable of the Sheaf of

Arrows has been realised. _One_ arrow, marked "Protection to Native

Industry," has been drawn out, and the whole sheaf is falling to pieces.

It is not surprising that consequences so wide-spread and disastrous

should follow the abandonment of the principle of protection to

native industry; for it is the cement which alone has hitherto held

together the vast and multifarious parts of the British empire. What

was it, during the war, which retained all the colonies in steady and

grateful loyalty to the British throne, and made even foreign colonial

settlements hail with joy the pendants of our fleets fitted out for

their subjugation, and in secret pray for the success of their enemy's

arms? It was a sense of individual advantage--the consciousness that

the Imperial Government on the throne knew no distinctions of locality,

but distributed the same equal justice to the planter of Jamaica or the

back-woodsman of Canada, as to the manufacturer of Manchester or the

farmer of Yorkshire. All were anxious to gain admittance into the great

and glorious empire, whose flaming sword, like that of the cherubim

at the gate of Paradise, turned every way, and which extended to all

its subjects, how distant and unrepresented soever, the same just and

equal protection. Norway petitioned to be admitted into the great

confederacy, and tendered its crown to Great Britain. Java mourned

being shut out from it. The day when the British standard was withdrawn

from the colonies, restored with imprudent generosity by victorious

England at the peace of 1814, was to them one of universal mourning.

There was no thought _then_ of breaking off from the British empire; no

mention of Bunker's Hill or Saratoga. The object of universal ambition

was to gain admission, or remain in it.

And what were the dependencies which were then so anxious to obtain an

entrance into, or retain their connection with, the British empire,

and are now equally, or more solicitous, to break off from it? They

were the West Indies, which at that period took off £3,500,000 worth

annually of our manufactures, and employed 250,000 tons of our

shipping; Canada, which has since, with 1,500,000 inhabitants, taken

off above £3,000,000, and employed 1,100,000 tons of our shipping; and

Australia, which now, with only 250,000 inhabitants, consumes above

£2,000,000 worth of our manufactures; while Russia, with 66,000,000,

takes off only £1,500,000 worth annually. So vast, various, and

growing are the British colonies in every quarter of the globe, that

half our export trade had become to us a home trade; and we enjoyed

the inestimable advantage, hitherto unknown to any country that ever

existed, of reaping domestic profits at each end of the chain which

encircled the earth. This it was which held together the British

empire, which preserved it intact amidst the greatest dangers, and

caused the industry of the heart of the empire to grow with the growth,

and strengthen with the strength, of its most distant extremities. In

casting away our colonies, in destroying the bond of mutual interest

which had so long held them in willing obedience to the heart of

the empire, we have voluntarily abandoned our best customers; we

have broken up the greatest and most growing dominion that ever yet

existed upon earth; we have loaded ourselves at home with a multitude

of useless mouths, which cannot find bread from the decline of the

colonial market, and let the boundless fields of our distant provinces

remain waste for want of the robust arms pining for employment at

home, which might have converted them into an earthly paradise, and

these islands into the smiling and prosperous heart of an empire which

embraced half the globe.

The emigration which has gone on, and has now increased to 300,000

a-year, has done little to obviate these evils: for, since protection

to our colonies has been withdrawn, four-fifths of it has gone to the

United States, where the principle of protection to native industry is

fully established, and constantly acted upon by their Government.

* * * * *

Matters, however, are not yet irremediable. Appearances are

threatening, the danger is imminent, but the means of salvation are

still within our grasp. All that is requisite is, to return with

caution and moderation to the Protective policy which raised the

British empire to such an unparalleled pitch of grandeur, and to

abandon, cautiously and slowly, the selfish and suicidal policy which

is now, by the confession of all, breaking it up. The great party--the

NATIONAL PARTY--which placed in Sir Robert Peel's hands the means of

arresting this downward course, of restoring this glorious progress,

still exists in undiminished numbers and increased spirit. It has

gained one inestimable advantage--it has learned to know who are to be

relied on as faithful to their principles, and who are to be for ever

distrusted, as actuated only by the motives of ambition or selfishness.

It has gained an equally important advantage in having had sophistry

laid bare by _experience_. We have now learned, by actual results, at

what to estimate the flattering predictions of the Free-Traders. The

frightful spectacle of 300,000 emigrants annually driven for years

together, since Free Trade began, into exile from the British islands;

the proved decline of the taxable income of the industrious classes

(Schedule D) by £8,000,000 since 1842, and £6,000,000 since 1846; the

rise of our importation of foreign grain, in four years, from less

than 2,000,000 of quarters annually to above 10,000,000; the increase

of our imports in the last eight years by sixty-eight per cent, while

our exports have only increased by fifty-one per cent during the same

period; the increase of crime in a year of boasted prosperity to 74,000

commitments, a greater amount than it had ever reached in one of the

severest adversity; the diminution of Irish agricultural produce by

£8,000,000 in four years, and of British by at least £60,000,000 in

value during the same period; the total ruin of the West Indies,

the approaching severance of the other colonies from our empire, or

their voluntary abandonment by our Government; the admitted increase

of the national debt by £20,000,000 during twenty years of general

peace;--these, and a hundred other facts of a similar description, have

opened the eyes of so large a proportion of the nation to the real

tendency of the new system, that it has already become evident, even

to their own adherents, that, at latest, at the next election, if not

before, the Protectionists will be in power.

Lord Stanley has announced, with the candour and straightforwardness

which become a lofty character, what are the principles on which he

is prepared to accept office. He was instantly to have taken off the

Income Tax, which presses so severely on the industrious classes, and

supplied the deficiency, which would amount to about £3,000,000, by

a moderate import duty on all _foreign_ commodities. The effect of

these measures would have been incalculable: it is hard to say whether

they would have benefitted the nation most by the burdens which were

taken off, or those which were laid on. The first would relieve the

most hard-working and important part of the middle class, and let

loose above £5,000,000 a-year, now absorbed by the Income Tax, in the

encouragement of domestic industry; the second would produce the still

more important effect of enabling the nation to bear the burden of the

necessary taxation, and compel the foreigners, who now so liberally

furnish us with everything we desire _tax-free_, to bear the same

proportion of our burdens which we do of theirs. A large part of the

taxes of Prussia, and all the Continental States--the whole of the

American--is derived from import duties; and in this way our artisans

and manufacturers are compelled to pay a considerable proportion,

probably not less than a half, of the national burdens of these states.

Meanwhile their rude produce is admitted duty free to our harbours, so

that we get no part of our revenue from them. They levy _thirty per

cent_ on our goods, and the whole of that goes to swell their revenue,

to the relief of their subjects; we levy _two_ or _three per cent_ on

their grain, and the miserable pittance is scarcely perceptible amidst

the immense load of our taxation.

The benefit of the fiscal changes which Lord Stanley proposed would

have been great, immediate, and felt by the most meritorious and

heavily burdened class of the community--the middle class; the

burden for which it would have been commuted would have afforded a

certain amount of protection to native industry, so as to relieve

the most suffering classes engaged in production, and that at the

cost of a burden on consumers so trifling as to have been altogether

imperceptible.

To illustrate the extreme injustice of the Income Tax, and the way in

which it presses on the most industrious and hard-worked, as well as

important class of the community, we subjoin a Table of Schedule D

(Trades and Professions) for the year ending 5th April 1848; and we

take that year in preference to the subsequent ones, to avoid the

objection of the commercial crisis of 1848 having rendered the view

partial and deceptive.[61] From this important Table it appears that

the sums received from persons _under_ £500 a-year were--

| CLASSES. |Tax Received. |No. of Persons.|Income Assessed. |

| +--------------+---------------+ |

| Under £150, | £73,539 | 34,270 | £2,521,334 |

| £150 and under £200, | 178,986 | 38,825 | 6,136,676 |

| £200 " £300, | 195,036 | 29,909 | 6,686,939 |

| £300 " £400, | 139,904 | 15,043 | 4,796,729 |

| £400 " £500, | 89,856 | 7,324 | 3,080,766 |

| +--------------+---------------+ |

| | £677,321 | 125,371 | £23,222,444 |

And the incomes above £4000 stood thus:--

| CLASSES. |Tax Received. |No. of Persons.|Income Assessed. |

| +--------------+---------------+ |

| £4,000 to £5,000, | £50,500 | 400 | £1,731,412 |

| £5,000 to £10,000, | 149,740 | 788 | 5,133,931 |

| £10,000 to £50,000, | 191,687 | 371 | 6,572,146 |

| £50,000 and upwards, | 50,184 | 22 | 1,720,593 |

| | | | |

| | £442,111 | 1581 | £15,158,082 |

[61] _Table showing Number of Persons charged for the Income Tax, and

Sum received, for the Year ending 5th April 1848 (under Schedule D.)_

| CLASSES. | Income on | Number of | Amount of Tax |

| |which the duty| Persons in | received from |

| | is charged. | each Class. | each Class. |

| +--------------+---------------+-----------------+

| | £ | | £ |

| Under £150 a-year | 2,521,334 | 34,270 | 73,539 |

| £150 and under £200 | 6,136,676 | 38,825 | 178,986 |

| 200 " 300 | 6,686,939 | 29,909 | 195,036 |

| 300 " 400 | 4,796,729 | 15,043 | 139,904 |

| 400 " 500 | 3,080,766 | 7,324 | 89,856 |

| 500 " 600 | 2,858,869 | 5,532 | 83,384 |

| 600 " 700 | 1,884,934 | 3,043 | 54,976 |

| 700 " 800 | 1,542,040 | 2,124 | 44,976 |

| 800 " 900 | 1,417,502 | 1,713 | 41,343 |

| 900 " 1,000 | 821,923 | 875 | 23,973 |

| 1,000 " 2,000 | 6,832,015 | 5,234 | 199,268 |

| 2,000 " 3,000 | 3,431,064 | 1,483 | 100,073 |

| 3,000 " 4,000 | 2,342,674 | 703 | 68,328 |

| 4,000 " 5,000 | 1,731,412 | 400 | 50,500 |

| 5,000 " 10,000 | 5,133,931 | 788 | 149,740 |

|10,000 " 50,000 | 6,572,146 | 371 | 191,687 |

|50,000 and upwards | 1,720,593 | 22 | 50,184 |

| +--------------+---------------+-----------------+

| | 59,511,547 | 147,659 | 1,735,753 |

_Note._--From a Return ordered by the House of Commons to be printed

31st May 1849.

So that out of £1,685,977, which was the sum received from persons

in trades and professions in Great Britain that year, no less than

£677,000 came from 125,371 persons whose incomes were under £500

a-year, while only _one thousand five hundred and eighty-one_ persons

were assessed as having incomes above £4000! This dreadful tax

therefore is, _par excellence_, the shopkeeper's, manufacturer's,

and professional man's tax; and they are assessed for it in numbers

sixty times more numerous than the rich. And yet the assessment of

all is laid on at the same rate! Is it surprising that the Chancellor

of the Exchequer said, in support of this tax, that it was so unjust

to all, that no one was worse off than his neighbour, or had any

reason to complain? And let every tradesman, manufacturer, clerk,

and professional man, who pays this odious and unjust tax for the

next three years, recollect that he owes the burden _entirely to the

Free-Traders_; for if they had not been in a majority in the House of

Commons, Lord Stanley would have come in and taken it off.

Two statesmen, belonging to different schools, have come prominently

forward during the late Ministerial crisis; and to one or other of

them, or perhaps to both alternately, if they live, the destinies

of the empire, for a long period of time, will in all probability

be intrusted. These are Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham. Both are

men of great ability, vast application, extensive experience, tried

business habits, great oratorical and debating power; but, in other

respects, their characters are as opposite as the poles are asunder.

As usual, in such cases, while their characters bear the marks of

distinct individuality, they are the types or representatives of

the two great parties which now divide the British empire. The

first is straightforward, intrepid, and manly--patriotic, but not

vacillating--willing to undertake the burdens of office, but unwilling

to do so unless he can carry out the principles which he deems

essential to the salvation of his country. The second is ambitious,

cautious, diplomatic, desirous of power, but fearful of the shoals with

which it is beset; and desirous so to shape his policy and conceal

his intentions, as to avoid shipwreck by coming openly into collision

with any powerful party in the state. The _device_ of the one is the

steady polar star of duty; the guide of the other the flickering light

of expedience. The first refused the Premiership when offered to him

by his sovereign, because he thought the time had not yet arrived when

he could carry out his principles; the latter has so often changed

his side, and held office under so many parties, that no man alive

can tell what his principles are. The first broke off from Sir Robert

Peel in office, when he deserted his principles; the latter deserted

his principles to join Sir Robert Peel when entering on power. The

first, while still in opposition, has already announced to the country

what line of policy he is determined to adopt if placed in power; the

last has talked of a mutiny in the army as a reason for continuing

the ruin of agriculture, and a rebellion in Ireland as a reason for

tamely submitting to Papal aggression. The one is of the true breed of

the British lion, the other a mongrel cross between the Whig and the

Free-Trader.

_Printed by William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh._

[Transcriber's Note:

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]