[51] This superscription was charged in the indictment as a forgery. [52] _Ib._ p. 293-4. Lord Meadowbank dealt with this portion of the case at considerably greater length, and very carefully. He remarked on the absurd improbability of so notable a discovery being made at the precise moment of difficulty, and in the manner alleged, by the son of the prisoner--a packet full of most critical documents, sent anonymously--exactly as in the case of the Le Normand packet, in both respects--the one in April, the other in July next, after the Lord Ordinary's judgment had indicated the _hiatus_ in the proof which these two windfalls _exactly filled up_. The two letters enclosed in it--viz., from Benjamin Alexander to his brother John, (No. 3,) and from "A. E. Baillie" to the same person--Lord Meadowbank regarded as "deserving the most serious consideration of the jury, not so much for the sake of the letters themselves, as from being a part of that great mass of evidence which bore upon the whole question of the authenticity of these various productions."[53] He remarked strongly on young Alexander's letter announcing to his father the discovery of the packet--his going to a notary and proctor to have it opened, instead of at once sending it on to his father. "For aught his son is supposed to have known, or could possibly tell, it was strictly confidential to his father, and he had no right to make any conjectures as to the contents of it. Did you ever hear a more extraordinary story than he tells? I leave it to you to consider whether such a proceeding can be accounted for on any rational principle. Did you ever hear of such a thing as this being done before? For my own part, the proceeding is altogether incomprehensible upon any supposition but one--and that is, upon the notion _that the contents of the packet were not unknown to some of the performers in the drama, before ever it_ [the packet] _entered the shop of De Porquet_." Lord Meadowbank laid great stress on the following certainly very significant passage in this letter, relating to the "_inscription_" mentioned in the two letters of "Benjamin Alexander" and "A. E. Baillie,"--"You will see that the inscription is _now made a good document, being confirmed_ by the letters of B. Alexander and A. E. Baillie. The cause is enrolled to be heard on the 31st day of May." The son was writing on the 23rd April. "The better to appreciate this letter," continued Lord Meadowbank, "let me recall your recollection to the map of Canada. You have thus three letters, and that inscription confirming _another inscription_ (as stated in young Alexander's letter) _fixed on the map_; and if you do not hold the map or the papers upon it to be genuine, you will consider how the two sets of papers are affected by each other--the one produced at the same moment to confirm that which had been produced before." As for the superscription, "Some of my wife's family papers," the "writing on