is said to have perished at sea; because, from the indexes and other materials, I have supplied the contents of the missing leaves. This is a second branch of the evidence, fatal in itself, and fatal, you must see, when combined with the others.

Then, in regard to the witnessing of Archbishop Spottiswood, the date given is the 17th December, 1639,-" Witness the most reverend father in Christ, &c. &c. our chancellor." It is in the capacity of chancellor that he is one of the witnesses to this document; and no doubt, when Archbishop Spottiswood held that character, he is to be found in all the records, and in all the charters of the right date, and which were in the regular form. But it has been proved to you, that so early as 1638, it had pleased his Majesty "for diverse good considerations, to commit the charge and keeping of his great seal to his dearest cousin and counsellor, the Marquis of Hamilton, his Majesty's commissioner, till his Majesty shall be graciously pleased to declare his further will and pleasure thereanent." So that he is not chancellor at this date, nor after it. So you will observe, that the great seal is put in commission, and the Marquis of Hamilton is made commissioner on the 13th November, 1638, and this he could only have been by Archbishop Spottiswood ceasing to be chancellor upwards of a year before the date of this charter, in which he is made chancellor in the testing clause. Then there is an extract of the commissioner's declaration anent the great seal on the following day, the 14th Nov. 1638. "The whilk day James Marques of Hamilton his Majesties Commissioner Declared to the Lords of Privie Counsell that according to ane warrant and direction sent unto him under his Majesteis royall hand That he had receaved the resignation and dimission made be John Archbishop of St Andrews late lord high Chanceller of this kingdome and otheris in his name of the office of Lord Chanceller And that the said archbishop had delivered unto him his Majesties great seale and cashett to be keeped by him during his Majesteis royall will and pleasure and whill his Majestie sall be pleased to give further signification of his Majesteis pleasure And that in the meane time till his Majesteis pleasure be returned That his Majestie allowed and willed the said Lord Commissioner to append his Majesteis great seale to all infeftmentis patents and other letters and writs whereunto the said great seale is requisite and necessar wherethrow his Majesteis subjects susteane no harme nor skaith be the want of the said seale and cashett." Then we have an interregnum as to the chancellor

ship; and in 1641, we have the choice of Lord Loudon as chancellor. This we have from the Act of Parliament preserved in the Register House, September, 1641. And then on the 2d October, two days afterwards, we have another act anent the delivery of the great seal to the charter, and an exoneration to the Marquis of Hamilton thereanent. He is thus exonered and relieved of the great seal two years after the date of this deed. So here are three years, during which time the great seal was in commission, and during which time Archbishop Spottiswood had nothing to do with it, and did not fill the office of chancellor at all. Is not this in itself then a most satisfactory and clear article of proof that this is a false and fabricated document ? But look to the testing clause of those deeds of 16:39, in favour of the city of Edinburgh and Heriot's Hospital, which are produced in evidence, just four days after the date of this fabricated document which bears to be witnessed by Archbishop Spottiswood. You have James Marquis of Hamilton, &c. as the witness in these charters four days after the date of the pretended one; and there is not one word mentioned about Archbishop Spottiswood. This is a matter thoroughly conclusive. If the document had been regular in its shape-if it had been found in the registers,this fact of itself would have been fatal to it as a genuine document. In short, the incongruities are endless. There is a grant of lands in New England, which the Scotch crown could not grant; and this is one of those blunders into which parties fall who meddle with matters they know nothing about. This is a circumstance that could not have existed in a Scotch charter. It could not have passed the seals with such a clause. Such a thing would not have been allowed to exist. It would have been a usurpation; and this of itself goes to prove that it is a false document. Then observe it is addressed to a commoner; and it is quite out of the common course that a commoner should be called "Our trusty and well-beloved cousin," as the grandson of Lord Stirling is so designed; and besides all these, there is the quæquidem, which could not have passed; and there is the want of the reddendo. No doubt, it is said that an excerpt might exist without the reddendo; but this is an excerpt founded on as containing all the elements of a completed charter, and without it the charter could not be expede. It would have been impossible to say what was to be paid. This may not be so strong a feature in the case; but putting the whole incongruities together, it is absolutely impossible to avoid the force of the conclusion, that it is a forged document.

On the other hand, what have you in its favour? Where does it come from? Have you any explanation of its existence ? We have the whisperings of a witness that it had come from Ireland, and we heard something of Conyers who had signed an affidavit certified by another party; but there is no name-nothing proved to you as regards it. How it came into possession of the pannel we know not. All that we know, is, that it is got out of his hands by Mr Lockhart when he went to Worcester. Let the forger be who he may, it is a forgery to all intents and purposes. It may be open to the prisoner to say that he has been deceived; but whatever he may say, it is a forgery, and you are bound, so far as we have yet gone, to find a corpus delicti; to find here that there has been a forgery. Then not only is it a forgery, but it is a modern forgery, it is a forgery since the date of 1806since the rebinding of the charters in the Register House under Mr Thomson, when that titling on the back was introduced; and this is not an unimportant fact, because it brings the forgery down to a date posterior to the return of the prisoner from France. It is not a document which the family could have known previously to his going abroad in 1802, and therefore I bring it down to a period subsequent to 1806. I bring it down to 1814 when the prisoner came back from France. Passing over, in the meantime, the documents that were transmitted through the penny-post in 1837, be so good now as turn your attention to the second charge which has reference to the French documents. Here again-I am not going to inquire at present who may have been the forger of these documents. I am to inquire if the documents on the back of the map of Canada are forgeries in themselves. I am not at present to direct your attention to the writings that have been superinduced upon the map as containing internal evidence of falsehood. What I wish you should confine your attention to in the meantime, is, whether, in regard to the dates of these respective documents, the map, the ipsissimum corpus of the paper, on which these writings are made, was in existence at the date of these writings,—the writings bearing the signature of Mallet, in 1706, of St Estienne, of Flechier and Fenelon, and of John Alexander, in 1707. The three first of these are written on the body of the map, and the two last are pasted upon it. Therefore, in order to make it possible that the three first in 1706 and 1707 could have been genuine, the paper on which the writings are must have existed in these years. Here again you see what has led to the blunder in the title of the map itself. The forger of the excerpt laboured under the

mistaken belief that volume 57 of the registers had perished at sea; and here again the forger of the documents on the back of this map laboured under the mistaken belief, induced by the date of the title, that this paper was in existence in 1703, and of course that a map in 1703 might have been written on in 1706 and 1707. But here the forger was not aware that there was evidence, about which no Jury can entertain a doubt, that though 1703 stands here as the date of the map, it is, as the witnesses swore to you, the date of the copyright of the map-the date of the original publication-the date which, in all successive impressions cast off from the original, even with alterations on the title and body of the map, were still to be preserved, because it was the date from which the copyright was to run, and that for twenty years from 1703. Now, if it had been in 1718 when the privilege of twenty years would not have been run, it would not have accorded with the fact. All the impressions subsequently thrown off have reference to the date of the copyright, and therefore the date of 1703 still remains. It is proved that this custom of throwing off impressions from time to time is the practice of all engravers to supply the demand for the sale; and here you have accordingly before you different impressions of this map thrown off at different times, bearing alterations on the title and otherwise. You have one impression thrown off so late as 1783, when there had been a new privilege, and the date came to be altered, but in all the others you have the date 1703. But then you have, in accordance with that date, every thing as to the title and residence of the engraver. In 1703 De Lisle was not the first geographer to the king,- he was not even geographer to the king,- he was simply geographer, and such was his designation in the original map. Accordingly, in this map of Canada, marked B, you have his designation "Guillaume de Lisle, geographer," in one line, the word geographer" coming in quite regularly in the arrangement of the title, so as to fill up the line without a blank space; therefore you have no blank after De Lisle, and you have nothing inserted between and the line below. Then you have a copy of the map libelled on, the next in point of date, and here you have a blank, the word "geographer" having been effaced, and you have the insertion of the words in a crowded state, "first geographer to the king." When he became the first geographer to the king, he effaced his original title, and took the title of his promotion; and as it could not have been put in in the regular way, it is crowded in between the two lines, as I

mentioned. Still 1703 remains, because this map bears the privilege of his Majesty for twenty years. I do not know that your attention was previously called to it, but it is worthy of your observation that there are the markings, in the same line as the residence, of the letters of the previous inscription that had been effaced in the copper.

(Mr Adam Anderson.-It appears to be lithographed.

The Court.-What words are effaced?

Mr Robertson.-Part of the original address.) There is a space of fifteen years in which there are other changes of residence, and being in the constant habit, in all his changes of residence and office, to alter the title accordingly, it is plain that in the intermediate space there must have been changes of a similar nature. It also goes to strengthen the evidence that it was not, and could not, be a map of the same date of 1703. Then there is the map in the untitled volume, which still continues to bear 1703, but at the bottom there are the words "First Geographer to the King, and to the Academy of Sciences." This is an impression of 1745, at which time the maps were the property of the author's son-in-law. They leave the original title till after the death of De L' Isle, but here is evidence that the alteration is made a new patent is given -- and it is entered at the bottom.

Now, we have put in evidence the patent in favour of De L'Isle, of date 24th August, 1718: "Patent of first geographer to the king, for the S. De L'Isle. This day, &c. The King, being in Paris, having authentic proofs of the profound erudition of the S. Guillaume De L' Isle of the Royal Academy of Science, in the great number of geographical works which he has executed for his use, and which have been received with general approbation by the public, his Majesty, by the advice, &c. wishing to attach him more particularly to his service, by a title of honour, which may procure him, at the same time, the means of continuing works of such usefulness, has declared and declares, wishes and enjoins, that the said Sieur De L'Isle be henceforward his first geographer, to enjoy in that capacity the honours, authorities, prerogatives, franchises, liberties, wages, and rights, thereto belonging, which his Majesty has fixed at the sum of twelve hundred livres per annum." Therefore, the title of Premier Geographe du Roi did not exist till 1718. What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? Is it to be supposed that the title existed in these maps prior to the date of the appointment? You have Teulet-a more distinct witness no Jury ever had before them—you have him speaking