Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-11

charlottesville very men most capable OF slit
ing documentary evidence; and through this
severe ordeal did Lord Stirling 60 four times
His case is the more strengthened, as in the
case Of the Title by opposition for on the lat
ter Juries, in particular, lawyers presented
themselves and sat on the Jury, who intended
no favor to Lord Stirling, (the Crown law
yers watching the proceedings) and yet they
unanimously concurred in the 0srdicts an his
favor.
To deceive the public on the Importance of
these verdicts, las the character of these Juries
is unknown out Of Scotland,) the opponents Of
Lord Stirling have had recourse to falsehoods
For instance, some months ago, an Engiishman
imposed a statement upon the editors of the
New York Tribune, which they accepted and
repeated in good faith, to the effect that these
Juries are assembled by the macers Of the
court, and before this drunken tribunal"
Lord Stirling went
The reader will hear with surprise that the
statement is q pure invention. Yet upon such
9 facts +" has the whole slanderous opposition Of
agents Of the British Government been based.
Years before Lord Stirling came before the
courts, the habit Of employing naacers to sum-
mon Jury in the absence Of q Judge, was
abolished by act of Parliament; and all his
Jury were assembled and acted under the inn
proved and strict system instituted by the act
Of 1921. We have for obvious reasons enlarged
upon this matter
II was after " the law had done all it could
do to invest Lord Startling with his rights" that
negotiations were opened with the British Gov
eminent. They we're chiefly characterized by
shutting and duplicity-their course was first
interrupted by forgery at the Colonial Office
in London, the object Of which was to get Lord
Stirling to place from which he could be car
ried away or kidnapped The forgery was the
act Of the Private Secretary of the Colonial
Minister, at the instigation Of his chiefs. All
these details, with letters and proofs, were pub
lished by the eminent London publishers, Ridg-
way & Co., and again in Edinburgh in 1885.
Copies are in the Capitol Library, and in MIR.
Peter Forces and other collections
The agitation in the Canadas, and tho acts
of Lord Stirling in thwarting Government
schemes in Parliament, were the cause of this
project to extinguish him quietly.
twas immediately after this had failed, that,
by gaining an agent of Lord Stirling, an ille-
gal action, in May 1888, was commenced
against him, to givs the impression, at home
and abroad, that his case was not settled !!
The judges would not dismiss it. They ioanted
to hold Lord Strings hands, whils they plum
dered his lands and sought means to tranquiliizs
the Canadas.
In the mean time, number of other docu-
ments came up and host Of evidence and wit
nesses, to strengthen the case; and, finally, in
1887, document was stolen from the Foreign
Office in France, and sent to Lord Stirling duly
certified.
The officers of State in Scotland, ON inquiry,
received from Paris assurances of its genuine
ness and one Of them thereupon congratulated
Lord Stirling's counsel upon it. But some of
those gentlemen formed plan for getting the
Office closed TO further Identification of the
document and proposed charging it as for
gerry; trusting to their influence to get the pres
emit witnesses and other proofs out Of the way !!
The plan was carried out partially, and thus
originated the pretended charge of forgery, Of
which Blsckwood gave an entirely fictitious
account some three years ago. In point Of
fact, we have reason to believe this charge was
merely got up to hide more effectually the real
Colonial Office Forgery; for the document
charged as forgery by Lord Stirling consist
cd Of sspenteep lengthy writings all in the hand
,critings of the parties srho signed them. If
they had charged mere forgery Of signatures,
that might have been possible; but here, a
man was actually charged with deed that
was physically impossible, and which the united
testimony of witnesses for and against Lord
Stirling declared would have defed whole
academy Besides, It was in foreign lam
gusge, and perfectly exact in the idioms and
expressions of the time, &c. But what is final:
Lord Stirling accidentally discovered docu-
mentary proof Of its existence fifty years ago !,
and also an old English gentleman, who had
seen it at that time.
In short, we do not know an instance Of such
reiterated outrages, as the whole illegal oppo.
sition to this established right has given rise TO-
The British Government, we understand, now
Indignantly denies that it had any hand in this
bad business But did it not wink at iti Was
il really deceived by the Grown agents, who had
an interest of some two or three hundred thou
sand dollars to break up the case?
Lord Stirling not only established his case in
Law, but every opposition strengthened him.
Why, then, persecute and ruin man, because
his rights are undeniablel
Now, in our view, this case involves two points
Of Importance: ist As to the Fishery title,
which affects US and, I'd, as to the violation Of
law and solemn judgments in tho person OF
an individual, which BY every moral and hu-
man Law affects all other individuals who have
alWa VA rights IN aaaert and maintain