It matters little to the public who was the perpetrator of the present forgery. It may have been “_the late_ Mr Robert Walker,”[97] who is so ready with an entry from “the Bishop’s Diary” in its support—a “Diary” which, like Mr Sobieski Stuart’s MS. itself, formed “part of the Douay papers.”[98] It may have been the defunct porter of Auld Reekie, John Ross, from whom one of the copies is said to have been procured. And _apropos_ of this latter possibility we would recommend Mr Sobieski Stuart to again look at his original MS., and consider whether what he has taken for the signature of the well-known bishop, John of Ross, be not in fact a quaint attempt of his friend the sword-player to write his own name in an old hand, after practising upon the fever and ague notice which accompanies it.[99] To this taunt John Sobieski Stuart made no reply. Possibly it was beyond his power to give any example of the bishop’s signature beyond the one in his possession. And yet the propriety of comparing an authoritative example of Leslie’s handwriting with that appearing in the _Vestiarium_ obviously suggests itself, and did not escape Sir Thomas Dick Lauder’s observation. He wrote on 20th July 1829,[100] enclosing Sir Walter Scott a traced facsimile of the signature for his satisfaction, and adding “it is not impossible you may know of or hear of some signatures of John Leslie’s to be found in some of the public collections in Edinburgh. If so, it would be curious to compare this facsimile with it.” Of this request no notice appears to have been taken by Sir Walter, and Sir Thomas again returns to the charge on 29th November,[101] when he asked Sir Walter for his opinion of the authenticity of the signature, and requesting him to return the facsimile. But the day of Sir Walter’s own trouble had come, and he contented himself with returning the facsimile to Sir Thomas without any attempt at verification. One obvious explanation of Sir Walter’s proceeding is that the public records were not then so accessible as they are now, and a search must have proved both tedious and expensive. Of Leslie’s signature as Bishop of Ross (Jo. Rossen.) not many examples are available, but the Editor’s attention has been drawn to one in the _Lord Treasurer’s Accounts_. It is submitted that the reader may be able to form an opinion as to whether the facsimile in the _Vestiarium_ is more likely to represent the signature of the Bishop of Ross or the scrawl of an Edinburgh street porter of 1819. D. W. S. [Illustration: Signatures [102] [103] [104]] FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 1: _The Heimskringla_, or Chronicle of the Kings of Norway. Translated from Icelandic of Snorro Sturleson, with a preliminary dissertation, by Samuel Laing, Esq. London: Longmans, 1844. Magnus Barefoot’s Saga (written by Snorro Sturleson 1178-1241), Vol. III., p. 139.]