Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-05-21
A Curious Story.

From the Now York Times, May l5th.l
Our readers may have noticed few
lines in our news columns the other
day, to the effect that the heir of
Alexander Humphreys Alexander had
revived their fsctiOus claim of prOpri-
etary rights in the Canadian fisheries.
The basis of this remarkable claim is
a grant made by James l., OfEngland,
to Sir William Alexander, Of Men
strie, first Earl of Stirling. King
James was very desirous Of cOlOniz-
ing Canada, especially the shores of
the Gulf Of st, Lawrence. Into this
scheme Sir William Alexander warm
/ ly entered, and for his advocacy of it
he was created Earl of Stirling, with
succession to his heirs male. He was
also given by Royal letters patent a
large tract of land, embracing the
whole Of Nova Scotia, and a large pOr-
ton of Canada East. This grant COW
cred the most important mackerel
fisheries. The vice royalty Of these
immense possessions, which carried
with 1t the right to create baronets of
Nova Scotia all persons who should
purchase 1900 acres Of land in the
colony, was likewise made hereditary
In the family Of Sir William. The
second Earl Of Stirling, becoming pc
cuniarily involved, sold this Canadian
grant to a French cOlonist. BY the
treaty of 1882, the British colonies in
Canada were ceded to France, and
were, in l713, restored to England by
the treaty Of Utrecht. Ia neither Of
these treaties is there any recognition
of the claims of the Earl Of Stirling.
With the eighth Earl, by reason Of /
the failure Of male heirs, the Earl
dom became extinct.
In 1924, Mr.. Alexander Humphries.
on the ground that he had a maternal
grandfather Of that name, obtained
royal permission to assume the sur
name 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 he claimed the EarldOm of /
Stirling and its American possessions. !
This claim being unOppOsed, he was |
formally invested with the title and /
possessions Of Stirling at Edinburgh /
Castle. Assuming the title, Mr.. Alex
andeT, in 1925, voted as an Earl at an 4
2
Peers. The Peers permitted the vote
TO pass unchallenged. AZ an election
Of Peers in 1880, he again offered. his
vote as Earl Of Stirling, but the Earl
OF ROsebeIry protesting that the vote
should not be received until Mr.. Alex
ander's claim had been decided good
by the House of Lords, the vote was
rejected. An England he was allowed /
a Peers privilege from arrest, but the
Crown lawyers Of Scotland challenged
the privilege, and he was forced to
prove the authenticity Of his claims.
Mr.. Alexander represented q female
descendent, while the E8rldOm and |
OF Stirling were. by
the grant Of James l., confined
to the heirs male. This difficulty
was met by the production Of dOcu-
ment, purpOrting to be a copy of a
charter granted by Charles l., con-
frming the first charter, and includ-
ing heirs female in its privileges. This
document was sufficient evidence, so
long as the claim TO the extinct Karl
dom was unchallenged; but at the
trial the production OF the original
became necessary. While in France,
.n 1903. Mr.. Alexander became ac-
luainted with the celebrated fortune
teller, Mile. lie NOrmand, and she
advanced him considerable sums Of
money to carry out his suit. During
the progress Of the suit, she presented
him with a packet containing large
French map of Canada, and some
documents, which supplied the miss
ing links Of evidence necessary to
perfect his claims. On presenting
these documents in Scotland, they
were pronounced forgeries, and the
elalinant was indicted for forging
them. On the trial the documents
were c0nclusively proved TO be for
gerles, and on the question that the
claimant forged them. or useJ fheDo
knowing them TO be forgeries tbe
jury found verdict of ''aof DroTyaT y
Failing to establish his claim IN fhe
EarldOm and estates Of Stirling in fbe
courts, Mr.. Alexander came
to this country, and in 1853 offered to
sell his Canadian claim to the United
States, and some negotiations were
actually held, but nothing came Of
them.
The trial for forgery is reported in
the Modern State Trials. 1t is very
evident that MT. Alexander had full