Fraudsters and Charlatans (11 page)

It can hardly have been a coincidence that, soon after Tyrrell's split from Alexander, Sir Henry Digby took legal action to recover his money, giving instructions that Alexander be arrested as a commoner under the surname Humphrys. Digby said he had lent the money believing Alexander to be a peer and that he would be repaid at some future date. When the case appeared before Chief Justice Tindal at the Court of Common Pleas on 22 November 1831, Alexander claimed that as a peer of Scotland he was in a privileged position and could not be arrested. Tindal declined to comment on the validity of the peerage claim, which was not a matter for that court, but based his judgment on whether ‘he is in the eyes of the world appearing and acting as a Peer of Scotland'.
¹⁴
Since Alexander had by then voted three times as a peer, Tindal judged that the defendant had acted as a peer and was thus privileged to avoid arrest.

Alexander's attempts to interest potential purchasers of land were not meeting with success. Those who made enquiries were advised to steer clear of any deal, which made Alexander rage against officialdom. Matters were exacerbated by the recent boom in the settlement of Canada and the exploitation of its natural resources, which had given rise to the formation of companies to acquire the lands Alexander believed to be his own. Convinced that there was a government plot to block him from access to his established rights, he later wrote ‘an unparalleled system of injustice and persecution was organised, for the tyrannical purpose of overpowering me'.
¹⁵
His complaints to the authorities became more frequent and more persistent, and were, in the end, his undoing. In October 1831 he wrote to Earl Grey, First Lord of the Treasury, claiming his legal right of inheritance to the lands and lordships of Nova Scotia and Canada and protesting against the exercise of any rights over the lands by any other person. He also sent a manifesto to the public authorities of Nova Scotia refusing to recognise any allotment of territory made other than by his ancestor, but generously allowing ‘the Native inhabitants of Nova Scotia or Canada every preference over persons emigrating from Great Britain'.
¹⁶
Despite these setbacks, his agents were instructed to offer the lands for auction at the next opportunity.

In preparation for the sale, his solicitor wrote to Lord Goderich, Secretary for War and the Colonies, in December 1831, asking to open negotiations with the government to obtain ‘a full and satisfactory adjustment of claims and titles'.
¹⁷
Prime Minister Lord Howick replied the following month, stating that the government declined to enter into negotiations on the subject of the claims and suggested that Alexander ‘should be distinctly apprised that they are, and will be, altogether denied and resisted'.
¹⁸
When Alexander's solicitor wrote again, Howick replied that the title could not be recognised until established to the satisfaction of His Majesty or the House of Peers. Even Alexander must have known that this requirement was impossible, and he never attempted it.

In 1832 the Marchioness-Dowager of Downshire, a genuine heir of the 4th Earl, complained to the House of Lords about Alexander, pointing out that if the novodamus did exist (and she nowhere claimed that it did) then the earldom would be vested in her. On 19 March her memorial was referred to a select committee of the House of Lords, which had been appointed on a motion of the Earl of Rosebery to consider the subject of persons claiming dormant peerages voting at elections, to prevent, as Lord Rosebery put it, ‘the facility with which persons can assume a title without authority, and thus lessen the character and respectability of the peerage in the eyes of the public'.
¹⁹
Alexander naturally wrote a letter of protest to the committee, and on 7 May the committee reported its decision: in any case where there had been an objection to a vote on the grounds that the person was not entitled to the peerage, that person should not be permitted to vote again until he had established his right before the House of Lords. It was also decided that a new Roll of Peers should be drawn up, the names to consist only of those entitled to vote.

Alexander had more pressing things to worry about. On 15 June 1832 he presented a petition to the House of Commons against the application of the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Land Company for a charter of incorporation and protested against the acquisition of land by the Nova Scotia Mining Company, alleging that any occupation of the land by another party was an usurpation of his rights. He demanded compensation for the portion of his lands to be assigned, and objected to all pending applications.

From 4 April to 21 August 1832 a series of letters in Alexander's favour by a correspondent signing himself AB appeared in the
Morning Post
and
The Times
. Since one quoted the letter from Lord Howick, the writer was probably either Alexander or his solicitor.

In October and November 1832 advertisements appeared in the newspapers headed ‘Nova Scotia New Brunswick, and Canada', proposing that a joint stock company be formed for locating the unappropriated lands in those places and giving notice that Alexander was the proprietor, warning that no grants of those lands could be made by any other person. The auction of the ‘increasingly valuable and important Freehold Property',
²⁰
with cultivable land, timber, and mining and fishing rights, was fixed for 7 November; but it never took place.

A paragraph appeared in
The Times
of 6 November 1832, presumably from the editor:

We observe an advertisement for the sale of sixty-three thousand acres of land in the province of New Brunswick at the auction mart tomorrow, the 7th instant, on behalf of the ‘Earl of Stirling'. It may not be improper to state, that on enquiry at the Colonial Department, we find that the Government do not recognise the claims which the gentleman assuming that title makes to the unoccupied land in the province; but have, on the contrary, directed the local authorities to oppose any entry which may be made on any such lands by persons deriving title from grants made by the ‘Earl of Stirling'.
²¹

This effectively stopped the sale, and Alexander later complained bitterly that
The Times
had also refused to insert another advertisement he had sent.

Parliament was dissolved in December 1832, but Alexander did not attempt to vote at the ensuing general election. Instead, he wrote a long letter to the peers of Scotland, explaining that he would not be appearing to vote as it was incompatible with his dignity to submit to derogatory treatment and also, since he did not have the support of the other peers, he was unconcerned as to the result of the vote. He concluded: ‘The day of retribution, I feel, is not far off, and then I may act a part which I have no doubt will cause me to be differently respected and considered by those who are now pleased to cavil about straws . . .'.
²²

Alexander's protests, petitions and attempt to auction land that was not his property were causing some irritation in government circles and led to a serious reconsideration of his case, in particular the court actions by which he had established his claims to the title and land. In 1833 the Officers of State for Scotland commenced an action to reverse his legal proofs. On 2 March of that year Alexander's action against Mr Graham was dismissed, and as a result some information emerged that was fatal to his case: Alexander had claimed to be the descendant of John of Antrim, son of John of Gartmore, but the defence produced a charter showing that Gartmore's legal heir was his daughter, proving that John of Gartmore had never had a son. This disclosure should have been the end of Alexander's pretensions, but the ‘Earl' was nothing if not obstinate, and this only led him to try another tack – to show that John of Gartmore had married a second time, to a Miss Elizabeth Maxwell of Londonderry, and that it was the second marriage that had produced a son. The fact that there was no trace of either the marriage or the son was not for Alexander the obstacle it might have been to others.

Throughout this time Mr Banks had been one of Alexander's busiest representatives and strongest allies. Now signing himself Sir Thomas C. Banks, Bart. N.S., he had been confident that the Crown would recognise him as Baronet of Nova Scotia, but his claims were ignored and consequently he took legal action. In 1834 he produced a pamphlet in his defence, in which he denounced the Scottish Officers of State as ‘Satanites' and ‘imps of the fallen angel', who ‘worshipped the golden calf' and wrote ‘as the lowest English scribbler in Grub Street'.
²³

Only a few weeks later Banks and Alexander had a serious quarrel. Banks ceased to act for Alexander, abandoned his legal actions, withdrew his pamphlet and renounced his title. From that moment on the two men were bitter enemies. Banks made no public statement as to the reasons for this breach, but Alexander later denounced his former confidante as a ‘traitor . . . an impostor . . . an extortioner . . . a detractor . . . a low-minded ruffian . . . a companion of the foul fiend',
²⁴
asserting that it was all about money. Money may well have been involved, as Banks's letters to Alexander had often mentioned the expense he had incurred during his research, which he was confident would be ultimately worthwhile. But it is possible to speculate about other reasons. When action was commenced to reverse the proofs of Alexander's peerage, he made great efforts to delay the proceedings for as long as possible, saying that he was looking for new evidence; and when the case was finally heard, one item was very noticeable by its absence – the charter excerpt. Alexander had instructed his counsel not to make use of it, which suggests that, by the time of his split with Banks, he may have known that the excerpt was a forgery. If Banks had demanded to know when he was going to be paid, he may well have told Alexander that he had forged the excerpt. Each man had the ability to drag the other down, but both remained silent. Perhaps, after more than ten years without result, Banks had concluded that the claims were specious and his client a fraud. Alexander dared not use the excerpt again and remained terrified that the man who knew most of his secrets had defected to the side of his enemies. His only recourse was to denounce his former ally as ‘a malevolent and mercenary agent' and ‘a vindictive and treacherous being'.
²⁵

It was not until December 1836 that the action to reverse Alexander's proofs was heard. In the interim Alexander continued to write to government ministers, including Colonial Secretary Lord Aberdeen, and successive Prime Ministers Lord Melbourne and Robert Peel, and on 6 January 1834 registered a strong protest at a grant of 500,000 acres of Canadian land to the Irish Colonial Association.

Shortly before the new hearing Alexander published a book, which was little more than a paranoical complaint that the government was attempting to subvert his lawful rights. ‘I must see whether, by boldly exposing the villainy and dark intrigue of my enemies, it is possible to open the eyes of the British public, who are not wilfully blind, to the existence of the foulest conspiracy against an individual that ever disgraced this country.'
²⁶

He remained unswervingly confident of ultimate triumph, stating that he had recently discovered another important document. Although he had still not traced the elusive charter, he claimed that ‘
the evidence respecting it is complete
'
²⁷
and that it had been ascertained that authenticated copies existed but ‘have been purposely withheld by persons who have them in their keeping'.
²⁸
Everywhere he saw enemies, plotters and schemers whom he supposed were dedicated to denying him his rights from motives of personal hatred. They were ‘malignant beings and the arch-traitor with whom they are leagued'
²⁹
– undoubtedly a reference to Banks – ‘ever on the watch for new opportunities for doing mischief'.
³⁰
The court action was a ‘shameful attempt to rob me of the whole advantages of my situation . . . for corrupt and abominable motives',
³¹
and he railed at ‘the combined attacks of swindlers, bill-brokers, pettifogging lawyers, and other unprincipled persons'.
³²

As ever, the complete proofs that Alexander claimed to possess looked much less convincing when examined with a critical eye. The documents he presented in court were a deposition from his sister, Mrs Eliza Pountney, who called herself Lady Eliza and who described her mother's belief in her descent from the Earls of Stirling; a deposition from a William Trumbull, which showed only that the 5th Earl's sons had died without issue; the affidavits of Sara Lyner and Henry Hovenden; and a paper alleged to be a page from a family Bible, giving the inscription on the tomb of the elusive John of Antrim, who was said to have been buried at Newtownards, near Belfast, in 1712, showing his descent from John of Gartmore. Unfortunately, the Bible itself was not available.

Piece by piece, Alexander's proofs were demolished. The Pountney and Trumbull affidavits made no mention of the supposed Gartmore connection, and proved nothing, the page said to be from a Bible was worthless without the original book and, still worse, expert testimony suggested that the Lyner and Hovenden documents were recent forgeries. Two stone-cutters from Newtownards who had worked in the old church there and knew it well testified that they had never seen a tombstone with the alleged inscription.

On 10 December 1836 Lord Cockburn delivered a devastating judgement. While there was no doubt that the claimant was the son of Hannah Humphrys (née Alexander), he had failed to prove the alleged connection between her father and John of Antrim and John of Gartmore. The Lyner and Hovenden statements were probably forgeries, but even if they had been genuine, they were just hearsay and insufficient for proving the existence of an individual, while convincing proof did exist that John of Gartmore had had no sons.

A few days later, Alexander, terrified of being arrested for forgery and debt, fled to France under an assumed name, leaving his family to do the best they could without him. He arrived in Paris on 21 December. One of the first people he contacted was Mlle Lenormand, who was living in an apartment at 5 Rue de Tournon. On a sign above her door she was described as a bookseller and author, but although she had published books on cartomancy and a memoir of the Empress Josephine, the only business she was known to conduct there was fortune-telling, assisted by a private secretary, Monsieur Triboul.