It is somewhat remarkable that the extraordinary proceedings of this person should have been tolerated for so long a time by the law-officers of the Crown; but his growing audacity at last led to their interference, and what is termed an action of reduction was brought against him and his agent.  Lord Cockburn, who heard the case, decided, without hesitation, that his claim was not established, declared the previous legal proceedings invalid, and demolished the pretensions of the claimant.  Under these circumstances it was necessary to do something to strengthen those weak points in his title, which had been pointed out by the presiding judge, and Humphreys or his friends were equal to the emergency.  A variety of documents were discovered in the most unexpected manner, which exactly supplied the missing links in the evidence, and the claim was accordingly renewed.  The law-officers of the Crown denied the validity of these documents, which emanated from the most suspicious sources—­some being forwarded by a noted Parisian fortune-teller, called Madlle le Normand; and after Mr. Humphreys had been judicially examined with regard to them, he was served with an indictment to stand his trial for forgery before the High Court of Justiciary, at Edinburgh, on the 3d of April 1839.  The trial lasted for five days, and created intense excitement throughout Scotland.  During the trial it was elicited that the father of Mr. Humphreys had been a respectable merchant in Birmingham, who had amassed considerable wealth, had gone abroad, accompanied by his son, in 1802, and had taken up his temporary residence in France.  As he did not return at the declaration of war which followed the brief peace, he was detained by Napoleon, and died at Verdun in 1807.  His son, the pretended earl, remained a prisoner in France until 1815, and afterwards established himself as a schoolmaster at Worcester.  There he met with little success, but bore an excellent character, and gained a certain number of influential friends, whose probity and truthfulness were beyond doubt; some of whom supported him through all his career, one officer of distinction even sitting in the dock with him.  The public sympathy was also strongly displayed on his side.  But the evidence which was led on behalf of the Crown was conclusive, and a verdict was returned declaring the documents to be forgeries; but finding it “Not Proven” that the prisoner knew that they were fictitious, or uttered them with any malicious intention.  He was therefore set at liberty, and retired into private life.  Whether he was an impostor, or was merely the victim of a hallucination, it is very difficult to say.  In any case he failed to prove himself the Earl of Stirling.

THE SO-CALLED HEIRS OF THE STUARTS.