LIXXEAX SOCIETY OF LONDON. 29 



4. Tlie Contract ivith the Printer. 



The contract, of which a reduced facsimile appears opposite 

 p. 32, is the most important document relating to the 1849 

 booklet that 1 have received. It supplies a crucial test. If 

 it be genuine, the booklet receives sufficient confirmation, and 

 will be accepted by the reasonable critic. If it be proved a 

 forgery, the reasonable critic will conclude that the booklet is 

 a forgery also. 



Se\eral eminent authorities in Oxford to whom I shewed the 

 contract were quite satisfied with its appearance, and were 

 prepared to accept the booklet on its authority. I do not 

 think that any of them examined it very critically, for they 

 appeared to be satisfied with the inherent improbability that 

 it had been forged. Mr. Horace Hart remarked that the deed 

 was unnecessarily pompous and elaborate for so small a sum 

 as thirty dollars. 



After receiving several favourable reports, 1 took the document 

 to the Begins Professor of Modern History, Prof. C. H. Firth, 

 who at once expressed his disbelief in it, telhng me that he would 

 not think of accepting historical data on such evidence. He did 

 not consider that the brown stains looked genuine, and thought 

 that the effect had been in part produced by rubbing. 



Mr. J. F. Sleeper states that the lecture containing the word 

 " Agnostic " (App. p. 15) and some other manuscripts, being 

 crumpled and dirty, he damped them shghtly with a nearly dry 

 sponge, and then ironed them flat. Such treatment might have 

 caused the appearance noticed by Professor Firth. 



The document was then sent to Sir Frederick Kenyon, who 

 kindly expressed his opinion as follows ; — 



British Museum, 



London, W.C. 

 July 25. 1913. 

 I return the contract. I can't say I like the look of it. The brown 

 stain does not look natural; it has more tlie appearance of the coffee-stain 

 ■wliich one sees on faked documents than the genuine foxing. Otherwise 

 there is not much to take hold of, though I should have expected more wear 

 at the cracks of the folds. On the whole, though I should not like to 

 pronounce decisively, this document rather increases my distrust than 

 otlierwise. 



I have shown it to the present Keeper of MSS., who concurs; un- 

 fortunately we no longer have Warner available, whose experience is much 

 greater than ours. 



I next sent the contract to Sir George Warner, late Keeper of 

 the Manuscripts of the British Museum, who was then at 

 Llandrindod Wells. He kindly replied, Aug. 1, 1913 : — 



I have carefully examined the document which j-ou have sent me, hut 

 without further evidence cannot come to a positive conclusion respecting its 

 genuineness. So far as its general appearance goes, it certainly viiyld date 



