The daily republic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1853-1853, 1853-08-13


ts correspondent on the rights of Lord aeirline Is
the fisheries. 1t questions these riexAe ON ~
ground of article in Blacksceod, which appsazsd
designodly to mislead the American mind IL the
time Of Lord Stirlings arrival among US.
The Black,cood argument and details are almost
pure fiction; or its writer himself styles it, a
romance. That is sufficient answer in ITSELF
Mr.. Walkers testimony, derived from inquiries
personally made in England and Scotland, will
satisfy any one ~ to the falacies of Blackwood' $
'sromance." But what then was the charge OF
forgery, which the British government itself has
repeatedly disclaimed having any participation in'
1t was charge got up by three crown lawyers
against document, stolen BY one Of their osc,.
agents from the .qmegican archives in Paris, and
owing to misconceptions Of their about date,
sent through an agent of French police "a woman
in their pay) to Lord Stirling. The latter, how
ever, had the good fortune to find proof of it's gem
uineness, and explain the error Of date made by
the ignorant Scotchmen.
The witnesses to support the crown case were
nearly all CRIMINALS under surveillance Of police.
They were prepared under the directions of the
notorious Vidocq, into tch0se hands the Groom la,c
yers in their despair placed their case All these
details will be given in due time, with all the evil
dence of the witnesses on both sides. 1t will then
b
crown case.-that the other witnesses testified in
fact for Lord Strling-and that "lo sape the honor
Of the GROOM compromised by its agents." the nu-
merous witnesses for Lord Stirling ,pere by Sc
cret understanding withdrawn. ~
Respecting the question Of heir male, which
this writer raises, let US for the sake of argument
admit it to be something Of an objection. What
then would it amount to? It amounts to this: that
Lord Stirling would have long ago lost his title;
but STILL according to the common law of Scotland,
he ,oould be heir to all the property fisheries, &C..
Why then does he bear the title? Why does
the House of Lords admit it, (See printed appeal
CASEY Because the only competent tribunal for
the trial of peerage is that of the Scotch Peers
themselves, who at once in 1926, and ever since
of course, admitted him to take his seat, on their
own personal knowledge of right to the honors.
And that right was confirmed by the iphole bench
Of judges IN solemn, decision, the only occasion
on ,chich doubt Of right to bear 1t .cas euer le-
gally raised.
Whose authority, then, is most important, the
Black,oood romancer, or the Peers and Judges of
Scotland' Isl
That the charter OF Novodamus did exist is we'll
known in Scotland. General d'Aguilar brought
with him from Ireland distinguished legal mon to
prove the existence Of an excerpt copy, Of that
charter in that country This is proved by the
crown report itself, garbled it is. But this evil
dence was arbitrarily refused by the court, when
it was found thus to overthrow the main point of
the crown charges
The whole of these iniquitous proceedings, of
which the British Government is ashamed, with
the testimony of all the witnesses will be shortly
given to the public.
Lord Stirling, with or without the charter of
Novodamus, is the last heir remaining who can
claim the rights to the fisheries, lands, &c.,. and
he has been proved to be the heir by the usual forms
Of lao.
The question then that arises is this: Are the
American people to have the benefit Of Lord Stir
ling legally established rights to the isheries' Or
is the British Government to retain the vantage
ground she now has in them? 1850
As to rights to lands, &c., they can be legally
maintained also, and will be maintained in spite
Of British influence and the aid ofVidocq and the
Black,Uood romances.
The statement respecting the grant to De Ia
Tour is simply ridiculous; as objection, it was
long abandoned by the British Government.
A BASE ACCUSATION REFuTED.-An English