THE drama which we now publish appears in the original folio edition of Shakspere's plays under the title of 'The Second part of Henry the Sixt, with the Death of the Good Duke Humfrey.' In the form in which it has been transmitted to us by the editors of that first collected edition of our author, it had not been previously printed. But in 1594 there appeared a separate play, in quarto, under the following title:-'The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the Death of the Good Duke Humphrey, and the Banishment and Death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragical End of the proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Jack Cade, and the Duke of Yorkes first Claime unto the Croune. Printed by Thomas Creede for Thomas Millington.' This play, in the entire conduct of the scenes, and in a great measure in the dialogue, is 'The Second Part of Henry the Sixt.' But the alterations and additions are so considerable that it has been held, of late years, that The First Part of the Contention,' as published by Millington in 1594, reprinted by him in 1600, and subsequently republished about 1619 as written by Shakspere, was the entire work of some other dramatist; and that Shakspere only added certain lines to this original, and altered others. This is the question which, in connexion with the more general question of the literary history of the Three Parts of Henry VI. and of Richard III., we propose to examine in a separate Dissertation. It has appeared to us, however, that it would be desirable on many accounts if we were to reprint 'The First Part of the Contention' as a Supplement to this Second Part of Henry VI., and 'The Second Part of the Contention' as a Supplement to the Third Part of Henry VI. To enable the reader fairly to compare the original and the revised dramas, we have modernised the orthography of the elder performances, as well as corrected the punctuation, and printed some lines metrically, which, although appearing as prose, were obviously intended to be read as verse; and the contrary. We have also, fo. the convenience of reference, divided each of these plays into Acts and Scenes. In every other respect we strictly follow the original copies.

IN our Notice to the First Part of this play we mentioned that we knew of no contemporary portrait or effigy of Humphrey Duke of Gloster. A figure supposed to represent him exists in a piece of tapestry belonging to St. Mary's Hall, at Coventry; but the tapestry is, in our opinion, of the date of Henry VII., although Major Hamilton Smith, in his 'Ancient Costume of England,' quotes the suggestion of an antiquarian friend that it was put up in all probability during the lives of Henry VI. and Queen Margaret, who both frequently visited the city, and were entertained in that hall. Our reason for doubting this circumstance is, that the costume is evidently of a later date than the accession of Edward IV., and that during the reign of that monarch, or of Richard III., not even the Lancastrian citizens of Coventry would have been likely to venture so ostentatious a display of the portraits of Henry, Margaret, Cardinal Beaufort, the Duke of Bedford, Duke Humphrey, and all the principal nobility and courtiers attached to the party of the Red Rose. We believe it to have been executed immediately after the triumph of Henry VII. at Bosworth Field; and, therefore, though we shall give two or three figures from it in this Part of the play as illustrations, they must not be taken as authorities for the dress of this precise period. The plates in Major Hamilton Smith's work are incorrectly drawn and coloured; ours were taken from a careful copy of the original tapestry made many years ago, and exhibit on the dresses of the King and Queen the peculiar pine-apple pattern so much in vogue during the close of the fifteenth century. The attitudes alone have been altered; Henry and Margaret being represented kneeling in the original. Of Cardinal Beaufort we give the effigy from his monument described in Part I. Of Edmund Beaufort, the Duke of Somerset in this Part of the play, we have no representation: he was buried in the Abbey of St. Alban's.

Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, is depicted on glass in Trinity Hall, Cambridge: the figure has been frequently but improperly engraved as Richard Duke of Gloster. Sandford mentions another painting on glass of this Richard Plantagenet, in the east window of the north aisle of Cirencester church in Gloucestershire, "having on the pomel of his sword the arms of

Mortimer Earl of March, it may be thereby to signifie that, although he was forced to use the blade to dispute his right to the crown, yet did he shroud himself under the shield or hilt of a good title." Of Humphrey Stafford Duke of Buckingham, or of the Cliffords, father and son, we have no representation: neither know we any of Richard Nevil Earl of Salisbury; but his son Richard Nevil Earl of Warwick is depicted by Rouse in the Warwick Roll, College of Arms, London, from which, by permission, our copy is made. The general costume of this period may be observed in our engraving from Lydgate's MS. in the Harleian Collection mentioned in Part I.; and, as a curious rather than an authentic illustration, we give (p. 81) the composition supposed to represent the marriage of Henry VI. and Margaret of Anjou, from Walpole's 'Anecdotes of Painting in England.'