Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1853-08-16
a GLORIOUS NiBBI,E.


There is venerable scn!!man in Washington siys Tie
Boston posl) who claims own all the fishing grounds u
The British North Americas provinces lie i A!cXinAr
Humphrey the Earl OF Sr ne ami his tile Is founded "s
the original charcra OF Nov Scotia and ::.ia granted L
his ancestor Sir Wium Al:ande in 1921 aud G2S, whlcl
gave him and his heirs The mrlelc exclusive right o i-
ing within six leagues Of III shore for three Thousand ms
II is said that Robert j. WaAer who has examined the case
agrees with Jno H. Hays Lord Strings counsel that
there is no doubt of Stru hershp. idcny and itga
rights. II is moreover unccd by Washington cores
pondent of the New ok Herald that an American Com
pany, of Washington and Wall street formation, means 10
this claim By sending vessel 10 the fishing ground IN
question: by licensing aine and Massachusetts fisher
men TO prosecute their ba.nesa within the limits on
which they now cxclu.d by Great Britain. lllo'Ks
says the P0sO as though good many fish will be caush
year. If bait be plenty and fish likewise. The RrFuo
lie treats the whole story transparent huinbug II
says that the original granite made his whole right and
title Frenchnan and this assignment culs oil the
interest of the Alexauders In the grants The Republic
moreover says that this Lord Stirling has figured eX
ensively before the courts Scotland trial for forgery
Of documents necessary 10 show his descent from The Ear
of Stirling. Any who eads review of This uial, as
published Two three ye:s since in Backwoods Maga
zine will be apt concu that the succession the Title
and estate Of the Ears Of Stirling entaed upon heirs
male whereas the prcsen claimant derives his descent
through females only. TIL, even his claim Of descent
through heirs fem ale is fabrication That the PIC
tended character Of Nocodau under which he claims IL
forgery, and cannot be olh:rwisc Tha, "I.ord Stirling
only escaped conviction OF Orscry because Scotch Jnfy
have the privilege OF finding verdict mot proven nslcau
of guilty That the pssnl claimant Is rcccsnsco
as Lord Stirling, Above 10 vote at elections OF Scotch
ID IiOnu
the property OF the Eas of Stirling which is in h'
hands Of the Crown officers: wailing for an heir.
The Union very properly says that unahc see no"
the assertion OF this claim BY Lord Stirling interfere
with embarass the pen:ng negotiations the 'ss
RIGS. Great Britain as VT understand does not recognise
the validity of the claim, whilst the United States only
negotiating for such rights Great Britain possesses or
capable of giving lfLo4 Strings claim is valid is s
peror that of Grcat Britain; and as he no party 10 h
negotiation it cannot be affected by the result 1t may here
after become important question for investigation by ou
Governments but n regard this matter speak wii'""
any knowledge OF the view. of our Government and adrer
10 1t only because, as IN item oil intelligence 81 lars
claim brought forward in imposing manner is wei! ral
caated TO arrest public attention. The claim ol Lord S'
ling has undergone the scrutiny of eminent lawyers, snd
is presented under the authority and sanction n le'
names which are well calculated impress The public '
We have had an opportunity nf examining publication "
the SUBJECT by John H. Hayes Esq which is prepared WI"
decided ability and in ~hc Lord Strings claim Is v!
Gated by most Imposing array Of facts and anhorl!"S'
We find also that Robert J. Walker Esq, whose 'r"'
abilities give TO his opinions the highest claim consla
tiun, has expressed his unuubled conviction as !" ~
hcirsip, identity, and legal rights Of Lord Stirling h
pended 70 MIR. Hayes publication is short but comr'ehr
sVe opinion o! A. H. Lawrence Esq, nl this city, gt'''
man OF emlnence in his proessiun in which he DISGUISE
briefly and clearly what strikes s as the main questions
the case II the htrshp is conceded First, is the pest
claimant of the title OF the the real kcir ineaiy ue
cended from the original gran,ce2 On question the ae
adduced by Mr. Hayes seem Mr. L. to be conclusive
amongst these Is the fact that The claalan has obtained
verdcts OF ures upon The question of his hcrshlp TO III
original grantee These vedics were given in accoTdah
with the Scotch law, and our Understanding Is that sue
judgment is conclusive The second question: s "iic'e
Lord Stirling lost his rights by negligence want po'
session. We regard this the most difficult question; oo
Mr. Lawrence arrives al the conclusion that Lord Stfns
title remains good and is affected by negligence, wan
Of possession or lapse u ,me These remarks VIII eha'
readers 10 understand the character of Lord atFhns
claim, and the imposing force Of authority upon "hic
brought forword. We repeat that whilst thus coneeu
that the claim may become important, do not sec WY
should embarrass the pending negotiations"