Sig._" If, therefore, the "excerpt" were a modern forgery, it would almost appear as if the fabricator, aware of the missing leaves of Vol. LVII., but not knowing _how very recent was the lettering on the back_--"Reg. Mag. Sig."--had taken it for granted that it was coeval with the original formation of the volume, or at least had been there for a century--viz. since 1723. But if this reference--"_Reg. Mag. Sig. Lib. LVII._"--were a forgery, it must have been a very modern one, necessarily _later_ than the year 1806, the date of Mr Thomson's rebinding of the Record, and changing the titling. But we have seen that the prisoner had accompanied his father to France in the year 1802, and did not return to England till 1814; and in the subsequent year told his own agent, Mr Corrie, that he had no documents to support his claim. Is it a fair inference from these dates that, down to at least the year 1815, the famous excerpt was not in existence--or at least unknown to the prisoner? So much for the negative evidence that any such genuine document as the alleged Charter of 7th December 1639 had ever existed. But, [23] _Ante_, p. 473. [24] Swinton, p. 205. [25] _Ante._ [26] _Id._, p. 475. Swinton, App., p. vii. [27] _Ante_, p. 484. [28] Swinton, p. 311. This seems a slight inaccuracy, on the part of the learned Judge, of fifty-_eight_ instead of fifty.--_Ante_, p. 484. THIRDLY, the excerpt itself seemed to furnish a most conspicuous and glaring demonstration of spuriousness: we allude to the alleged attestation of the Charter by ARCHBISHOP SPOTTISWOODE, in the capacity of "OUR CHANCELLOR" of the kingdom, and as such, keeper of the Great Seal. Spottiswoode, the Archbishop of St Andrews, was undoubtedly for a considerable period Chancellor of Scotland; and his name is found in the Records as an official witness to all Charters from the Crown, passing the Great Seal of Scotland during the time that he held it. In the excerpt Charter, he appears in that capacity at the alleged date of the instrument--viz, the 7th December 1639; but, behold! not only had he ceased to be Chancellor on the 13th November 1638, _but he had actually died on the 26th November 1639_--that is, eleven days before that on which he was made to attest the alleged Charter of Novodamus! These facts were proved, beyond all doubt, both directly and collaterally, as, for instance, by an instrument of a nature similar to that before the Court, dated only four days afterwards--namely the 11th December 1639--a Charter in favour of the City of Edinburgh, and attested, &c., not by "John, Archbishop and Chancellor," but by his successor, the Marquis of Hamilton, (whose appointment on the 13th November 1638 was proved,) and this very "William Earl of Stirling and Canada," and others: all of whom were also witnesses, on the same day, to another charter, to Heriot's Hospital. Here, then, was a great Charter, making under the Great Seal magnificent grants to a