Fraudsters and Charlatans

Home > Other > Fraudsters and Charlatans > Page 8
Fraudsters and Charlatans Page 8

by Linda Stratmann


  Alexander was by now Headmaster of Netherton House, but, probably because of his legal expenses, the family were reduced to extreme financial distress and he was unable to pay the rent of his lodgings. The excerpt was just what he needed, a tangible document he could use to raise money. When Lockhart was shown the excerpt, he was surprised to find that it was identical word for word with the draft he had sent Banks; nevertheless, he did not raise any queries and, as instructed, commenced legal proceedings to prove the validity of the document. He also took action against John Watts of New York and William Duer of Albany, the grandsons of the American claimant, alleging that the excerpt had been stolen from the claimant’s grandmother at the general’s instigation. Neither Watts nor Duer was able to take the charge seriously, and, as there was no proof of the allegation, the action was dismissed on 4 March 1830. Another action attempting to use the excerpt to prove the existence of the novodamus of 1639 also failed.

  In October 1829, abandoning his school and indeed his butcher to whom he owed money, Alexander moved his family to London, taking apartments at the corner of Regent Street and Jermyn Street. He was introduced to the financial agent John Tyrrell, to whom he described his 11 million acres in Maine. Part of the land was occupied, and the occupiers were to give him a quarter of a dollar an acre to be confirmed in their titles, while his title to the unoccupied part was, he said, beyond doubt. He needed only to raise money for the legal expenses and the cost of sending someone out to Maine to take possession of the estates. If he could also raise money to prosecute his claims in Scotland, he added, he would then obtain possession of the estates of Gartmore, Tullybody, Tillicoultry and Menstry. Tyrrell took Alexander at his word and negotiated a number of loans, one of which was from Admiral Sir Henry Digby. Before long the sum of £13,000 was lodged in Alexander’s bank account, in return for which he signed a promissory note for £50,000. Moving to 20 Baker Street, he kept a carriage and lived in style. Despite the close professional relationship between Alexander and Banks, Tyrrell was instructed to say nothing to Banks about the loans he was raising. Alexander was considerably indebted to Banks, and probably wanted him to know as little about his current solvency as possible.

  Alexander did not personally attend the next peers’ election on 2 September 1830 but applied for, and was granted, permission to submit a signed list of the candidates for whom he wished to vote. When the name of Earl of Stirling was read out at the election, the Earl of Rosebery registered a protest, expressing the opinion that ‘it would be far more consistent with regularity and propriety, were those individuals who conceived they were entitled to dormant peerages, to make good their claims to them before the House of Lords, previous to taking the titles and exercising the privileges attached to them’.8

  Two days later Alexander launched an action in the Supreme Court of Scotland against Mr Graham of Gartmore, claiming the Gartmore lands for himself on the basis of the marriage of John of Gartmore. This was not to be resolved for two and half years, but while it was proceeding his efforts to establish himself as nearest heir to the titles of William, 1st Earl of Stirling, remained unchallenged and thus met with the approval of the courts on 11 October 1830 and 30 May 1831. Once again, the proofs he supplied were not subjected to enquiry. Among the documents he produced was a deposition said to have been made in 1722 by Sara Lyner, an 84-year-old widow, stating that her mother had seen John of Gartmore together with his only son, the alleged John of Antrim. The Lyner document also attested that the widow had been present at John of Antrim’s marriage and had looked after his son. Another affidavit, dated 16 July 1723, had been sworn by a Henry Hovenden, declaring that the Reverend John Alexander of Londonderry was the grandson of John of Gartmore and that he had personally seen the novodamus which had granted the earldom to William Alexander ‘and the heirs male of his bodye, which failing, to the eldest heirs female’.9 Why these people should have felt it necessary to make such affidavits was not clear at the time, and was only recognised as important with the hindsight of over a century.

  In January 1831 Alexander addressed a memorial to King William IV asking for a royal audience. This was refused: the Lord Chancellor replied that Alexander’s pretensions were untenable. The ‘Earl’ attended Holyrood to vote in the peers’ election on 3 June 1831, and this time the Duke of Buccleuch and the Earl of Lauderdale registered a formal protest at his vote being accepted, stating that ‘we have great reason to suspect the authenticity of the documents, such as they are, on which the claimant is said to rest his assumption of that title’.10

  On 2 July 1831 a final court action under the same uncritical system as before established Alexander’s rights to the 1st Earl’s inheritance. Lockhart was instructed to issue a proclamation titled Notice to the Baronets of Nova Scotia, addressed to the heirs of the original baronets created by the 1st Earl, advising them of their rights.

  An office was opened at 53 Parliament Street for the sale of land and debentures on the American possessions, and on 12 July 1831, describing himself as ‘Lord Proprietor of the Province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the adjacent Islands’,11 Alexander issued a prospectus to proposed investors, with details of the court actions that had ratified him as heir to the 1st Earl: ‘He is now desirous that the waste lands within his said territories should be settled and appropriated … . Either for absolute purchase or lease for a term of years,’12 estimating the value of the land at between 2s and 20s per acre depending on the quality of the soil and local advantages. As to the original grants made by Sir William, he declared that the crown was obliged to confirm these free of all expense, but large tracts of land remained unallotted. ‘At this time there is a particularly fine district of 1,000,000 acres of most excellent land in New Brunswick, comprehending every attribute of climate and soil to render settlements in entirety or in subdivisions according to the inclinations or capabilities of persons to take the whole or only proportions.’13 He also encouraged those who might wish to form a company, in which case he would take a tenth of the shares, the company having the exclusive rights of working any such mines that might be found. His prospectuses and advertisements were widely circulated in Britain, the United States and Canada. How many people were duped into investing and how much money he made from them has never been quantified.

  On 14 July 1831 Alexander decided to reward the efforts of Mr Banks, not with the money he undoubtedly owed him, but by granting 16,000 acres of land in Nova Scotia and creating him a baronet. A Mr Philippart (probably the historian John Philippart with whom the Alexanders are known to have corresponded) received a similar honour. In August 1831 Alexander wrote to the King once more, asking to be permitted to render homage at the forthcoming coronation. He was ignored.

  For the previous eighteen months John Tyrrell had been successfully raising money for Alexander on the basis of the charter, but in 1831, during a conversation with Banks, he received a considerable shock: the document that he had been led to believe was an original charter was in fact only an excerpt, and, moreover, had not been ratified as genuine. Despite Alexander’s confident assertions that the charter existed, it could not be produced. There was an abrupt termination of the business relationship. Tyrrell was later reticent in giving the reasons, perhaps concerned that he might be liable for prosecution, stating only that it happened because Alexander had said that others might do better for him. Banks alleged that it was because of the way Tyrrell conducted himself in business. The most likely reason was Tyrrell’s discovery that he had been induced to obtain loans under false pretences.

  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 p
eer 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

 

‹ Prev