Stirling peerage

INTRODUCTION. g7
Unlikely to remember any such circumstances after the
lapse of so many years.
The evidence of M'Blain proves nothing as to the
source of information of Lady Mount Alexander, a
native of France, who, according to this witness, died
in 1772, at the age of sixty-five. In this case it is
impossible that her ladyship could have spoken from
her own knowledge, because, if she was sixty-five
years old when she died in 1772, she must have been
born in 1707 ; while John died in 1712, when her
ladyship was in France, an infant of five years old.
It seems, too, severely improbable, that she should
have made this youthful menial of fifteen — this ser-
vant's servant, (as is proved by her own evidence,) —
the confidential repository of her family annals, of dry
genealogical details, which were unlikely to interest or
be comprehended by her. Finally, it is abundantly
manifest that M'Blain is unworthy of testimony,
having the reputation of a perjured and improper cha-
racter. (Appendix, No. I. — Irish proof.)
The evidence of Eleanor Battersby is equally absurd
and useless. It is the report by a girl of thirteen of
what her grandmother's father had told her grand-
mother, regarding what neither could have had any
interest in, and which could not have taken place later
than thirty-eight years back. — Such is the amount of
the oral evidence.
As to the alleged Bible-inscription, which is printed
in Roman letters with a view to prevent detection of
pseudautograph, Mr Humphrys led a proof both in
England and Ireland. But all that is proved in
England is as to the signature of Abel Humphrys and
John Berry being genuine. That of Hannah Alex-
ander is in no way authenticated ; and there is no
> ^