a circle,—which is not found on any of the paper of later date. This mark is distinctly visible on the folios bearing the notes of 25th and 26th February,
As from this evidence the idea of a later insertion of the papers had to be given up, there was still one suspicion left—that the two notes had been written in 1632 on blank sheets of Acts of 1616, of which there are so many, and the authentic notice of 25th February removed. But this hypothesis could not be maintained in face of the fact that, as a scrupulous comparison showed, several other annotations of 1616 are in the same hand as those of 25th and 26th February, while it is not to be found in any document of the later trial.
In the face of these decisive facts it seems no longer justifiable to maintain that the note of 26th February is a later falsification. Nevertheless, Professor Moritz Cantor, of Heidelberg, has conjectured, and Dr. Scartazzini has told us for certain, how the "falsifiers" went to work. In the Revista Europea, vol. iv. part v., 1st December, 1877, Dr. Scartazzini propounds his theory with an effrontery which is most convincing to a layman and astounding to the initiated. And yet it is entirely upset by one simple practical observation. His theory is that the page on which the genuine protocol of the proceedings of 26th February was written was cut out, that this was concealed by folding the edge the other way, while space was found for the existing forgery by transposing blank sheets. Now for our observation: Dr. Scartazzini quotes only the second paging, which was done after the assumed forgery, and it therefore permitted a transposition of pages according to the pleasure—not of the forger, but of Dr. Scartazzini. In 1632 there was a regular numbering from 949–992, originating in 1616, and no transposition of the Acts could have been made on Scartazzini's plan, without entirely disturbing it. His theory therefore belongs to the realm of impossibilities.
But firmly as it is now established that the document of
