The papers were no longer in it. Fassifern, being examined, could remember having abstracted no such deeds as interested the Court. Next day Fassifern asked for a copy of his statement, ‘as he was apprehensive he might have inadvertently fallen into some mistakes in the hurry of the examination, which he was extremely desirous to rectify.’ The Lords refused his petition: he might have a copy of his examination ‘when he is brought upon trial.’ Next day he was charged with being guilty, or ‘art and part in forging the deeds, or of using them, knowing them to be forged.’ He was to be detained in prison till his trial. He protested that he had already lain in prison for three months, on a charge (Pickle’s) of ‘being privy to unlawful designs carried on by disaffected persons’—namely, a rising to follow on the kidnapping of the Royal Family. He ‘has reason to believe that no such prosecution is seriously intended,’ which is pretty obvious, Pickle not being producible, but absent, at that very hour, in France, with Prince Charles! Moreover Fassifern was not told on whose information he was examined, though he was ‘heckled’ for several hours. The charge of forgery was, in fact, based, as usual, on the evidence of an Informer, whom we need not name. Here is a report of his accusations:— ‘... Says he has been certainly informed that Fassfarn caused Forge several Grounds of Debt, in Order to be the Foundation of Claims upon the Estate of Lochiel, some of which were written by Charles Stewart present prisoner in the Castle, and Lochiel’s name was Forged by one Allan Cameron of Landavrae, who could write like him, and there were Forced Discharges by Lochiel to his Tenants for Crops in 1746 and Proceedings in Order to prevent the Government from getting payment of the Rent of 1746 and arrears.’ Says on knowing this he ‘instantly told Crawfurd’! Now even the Government’s plea against Fassifern says no word of ‘forged discharges of Lochiel to his tenants!’[102] The interest of this case is partly the mystery—had Fassifern really been concerned in tampering with documents?—partly the procedure, which we know had political motives, and was iniquitous in method. As to Fassifern’s guilt, if any, we are not likely to learn the truth; as to the kind of justice he got—there can only be one opinion.