A reply from Newcastle directed to Glengarry would be opened by Glengarry, and then, if Glengarry did not write Pickle’s epistle of February 19, 1760, where is Pickle? Mr. Millar suggests that, ‘if Pickle were a traitor in Glengarry’s family, he must have been in a position to intercept the reply to this letter, or the whole plot would have been exposed.’ This is a romantic hypothesis. There is no trace of any gentleman (such as Pickle was) eternally in attendance on Glengarry. And why did the hypothetical traitor offer to raise a regiment, which only Glengarry could do? There is no conceivable motive for writing such a letter on the part of any one but Glengarry, who was terribly pressed for money, and could raise a regiment. Besides, the physical impossibility of Pickle’s supposed personation has already been demonstrated. Glengarry, who had long been in very bad health, died on December 23, 1761. The nature of his will has been explained. The internal evidence of identity in the authorship of Pickle’s and Glengarry’s letters remains to be considered. Both write the same shambling style. In an age of bad spelling both have a long list of blunders in common. I give a few:— 1. aquent acquaint. 2. estime esteem. 3. tow two. 4. dow do. 5. sow so. 6. triffle trifle. 7. { jant } jaunt. { chant } 8. { utquarters out quarters. { utstation out station. 9. pick pique. 10. { Foraugustus } Fort Augustus. { forAugustus } 11. how who. 12. lick like. 13. supplay supply. 14. relay rely. 15. puish push. Of these, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 occur, sporadically, in other Scotch writers of the age, as in the Gask Correspondence. Pickle combines them all. But I have not elsewhere met 7, 8, 9, 10, 15. ‘How’ for ‘who’ (11) I have met in Macleod of Raasay’s letters in the ‘Lyon in Mourning,’ and in one letter of 1725, while ‘howse’ for ‘whose’ occurs in a Scotch epistle in the Cumberland MSS. The _accumulation_ of these fifteen mis-spellings is the common note of the orthography of Pickle and of Glengarry. It constitutes a note of identity of authorship. But, believers in personation may say, ‘Pickle had carefully studied and adroitly copied Glengarry’s orthography, as, _ex hypothesi_, he wished to pass for that Chief.’ Then why did he not also imitate Glengarry’s handwriting?