The Portland daily press., 1871-05-18
DAILY PRESS.
PORTLAND
THURSDAY, MAY 18 1871.
A Curious Story.
PORTLAND.


A report is current in the newspapers that
the heirs of Alexander Humphreys Alexander
had revived their factious claim of proprietary
rights in the Canadian fisheries. The basis
OF this remarkable claim.s Igrant made by
James l. of England to Sir William Alexan-
der, OF Menstrie, first Earl of Stirling. King
James was very desirous of colonizing Cana
da, especially the shores of the Gulf of st
Lawrence. Into this scheme, Sir William
Alexander warmly entered, and for his advo-
cacy of it he was created Earl Of Stirling, with
succession Of his heirs male. He was also
given by Royal letters patent large tract of
land, embracing the whole of Nova Scotia,
and large portion of Canada East. This
grant covered the most important mackerel
fisheries. The vice royalty of these immense
possessions-w carried with it the right
to create baronets of Nova Scotia all persons
who should purchase 10000 acres of land in
the colony-was likewise made hereditary In
the family of Sir William. The second Earl
of Stirling, becoming pecuniarily involved,
sold this canadian graut to French colopist-
By the treaty q fbsz, Inc Dfi{7sl Ss1y5;ss =
Canada were ceded to France and vera IN
lib, restored to England BY the treaty Of
Utrecht. In neither of these treaties Is there
any recognition of the claims of the Earl of
Sterling. With the eighth Earl, by reason Of
the failure oil male heirs, the Earldom became
extinct.
In 1924, Mr.. Alexander Humphries. ON the
ground that he had maternal grand father
OF that name, obtained royal permission to rs
sumo the surname OF Alexander, alleging
descent from Hon. John Alexander, fourth
son of the last Earl of Stirling.
Mr.. Alexander also alleged that all nearer
heirs to the Stirling property were dead, and
ne claimed the Earldom of Stirling and its
American possessions. This claim being un-
opposed, he was formally invested with the
title and possessions of Stirling at Edinburg
Castle Assuming the title, Mr.. Alexander.
IN 1925, voted as an Earl at an election of
Scottish Representative Peers. The Peers
permitted the vote to pass unchallenged. At
an election of Peers In 1880, he again offered
his vote as Earl of Stirling, but the Earl of
ROseberry protesting that the vote should not
be received until Mr.. AlexaHder's claim had
been decided good by the House of Lords, the
vote was rejected. In England he was allow
ed Peers privilege from arrest, but the
Crown lawyers of Scotland CHALLENGED the
privilege, and he was forced to prove the au-
thenticity OF his claims.
Mr.. Alexander represented a female de-
scendant, while the Earldom and possessions
OF Stirling were, by the grant OF James /.
confined to the heirs male. This difficulty
was met by the production of document,
purporting to be q copy of charter granted
by Charles l., confirming the first charter, aud
including heirs female in its privileges. This
document was sufficient evidence, so long as
the claim to the extinct Earldom was un-
challenged; but at the trial the production
OF the original became necessary. While in
France, in 1903, Mr.. Alexander became ac-
quainted with the celebrated fortune teller,
Mile. LIE Normand, and she advanced him
considerable sums Of money to carry on his
suit.
During the progress Of the suit, she pre-
sented him with a packet containing q large
French map of Canada, and some documents
which snpplied the missing links of evidence
necessary to perfect his claims. On present
ing these documents in Scotland, they were
pronounced iorgeries, and the claimant was
indicted for forging them. On the trial, the
documents were conclusively proved 10 be
forgeries, and on the question that the claim
ant forged them, or used them knowing them
to be fOrgeries, the jury found . verdict of
mot proven" Failing to establish his claim
| to the Earldom and estates of Stirling in the
Scottish Courts, Mr.. Alexander came to this
country, and in 1858 offered to sell his Cana
dian claim to the United States, and some
negotiations were actually held, but nothing
came of them.
The trial for forgery is reported in the Mod
| ern State Trials; it Is very evident that Mr..
Alexander had iull faith in his claim, and In
the genuineness of the documents offered In
support Of it. He was the instrument of
some designing persons, who used him for
the furtherance of purposes Of their own
That the Canadian possessions were sold by
the second Earl of Stirling has been clearly
established. In the original patent, the sue
cession was confined to the heirs male, and
authentic evidence of its extension to the
heirs female by Charles l., is wholly wanting.
Unless the heirs of Mr.. Alexander have OBJ
tanned better evidence than that which their
father possessed, they will be unable to estab-
lish their rights to the Canadian fisheries
N, r. Times.