FIFTHLY, Not satisfied with these rigorous assaults upon the genuineness and authenticity of this unfortunate document, the Scotch lawyers detected, as they considered, several serious _intrinsic_ evidences of spuriousness. _First_, the alleged charter professed to convey estates which had _never belonged to the Scottish Crown_--viz., lands, provinces, and territorial rights in New England. "It is not possible," said Lord Meadowbank, and the professional witnesses supported him, "that a charter granted by a king of Scotland could convey--or be granted, as if it had conveyed any property not belonging to the Crown of Scotland. That such a SIGNATURE should have passed the Barons of Exchequer, and their officers, is beyond all belief:" for it must be remembered, that the "Signature" is, in its first stage towards a charter, submitted to a Baron of Exchequer, to be "revised," before the sign-manual is affixed to it. This is, undoubtedly, a fact lending great weight to any really inconsistent or objectionable provisions in the "Signature," or subsequent charter. _Secondly_, In Crown charters of resignation, to which that in question professed to belong, it was proved that the _dates_ of the resignation were "invariably given:" here were none--and this objection also must have escaped the somnolent Baron of the Exchequer of 1639. _Thirdly_, The "Charter" stated a resignation to have been made by a grandson of the Earl of Stirling, in the Earl's lifetime; which resignation the grandson had no title to make; and till he had, _having_ nothing, he could resign nothing according to the law of Scotland; and such could never have passed the Exchequer. _Fourthly_, The alleged charter professed to convey the titles and dignities of the earldom; the Earl professed to resign his earldom, which the king, by that deed, was made to reconvey, with _precedency from the date of the first grant_. "This," said Lord Meadowbank, and the evidence supported him, "I believe to be altogether unprecedented. It was totally unnecessary--the precedency conveyed following as a matter of course. I have seen many such grants, and _never_ such a dignity reconveyed, with such a stipulation." _Fifthly_, While the invariable practice, in Royal Charters to Peers, is to address the one concerned as "_consanguineus_ noster," and never to give that title to a commoner, the alleged charter in question twice applied that title to Alexander, the son of the peer, (consequently a commoner,) and _not_ to the Earl himself!