32 



PROCEEDl^S^GS OF THE 



signature last-mentioned, and, like it, obviously resembles the 

 one appended to the contract : — 



The two other signatures are of great importance, being much 

 earher- — the first, of Dec. 17, 1856, not eight years, the second 

 not quite nine years, from the date of the contract ; yet both are 

 very different from the signature on the latter. The first, the 

 receipt on a bill, is shewn slightly reduced; the second, on an 

 unreceipted bill, is of about half the original size, and includes 

 with the signature the upper third of the document, so that the 

 ordinary handwriting, as well as the signature, may be compared 

 with the contract: — 



/^,»;z^ ^c^^^ /efj~J 



OyU^ C/A^-^ '/K^(//a 



//U o^tU /i? 





"^ /irooC2a 5) (2 



^ 



/3 







2 > rf-cx 



r, ^ 



Sir George Warner wrote, Nov. 17, after receiving the four 

 signatures and tlie collotype of the contract: — 



I have received your five documents and have compared them. The two 

 dated in 1856 and 1858 supply the evidence wliich has hitherto been lacking, 

 and I am now convinced that the contract purporting to be dated 18 May, 

 1849, is nothing more than a forgery, as I have suspected all along. Both the 

 text and signature were evidently written by the same person ; but the hand 

 of the text has no resemblance to that of the items in the bill of 1858, nor 



