that one cannot at all wonder at the great liberality of the unknown gentleman on the prefent occafion, in giving up to the discoverer all his right to thefe valuable Mss. but one naturally wishes to know in what county this eftate lies, and whether any fuit has been inftituted within this last year, in confequence of this difcovery; as, on the trial of an ejectment, the learned courfel employed by the defendants (who, by themfelves, or thofe under whom they derive their title, must have been in poffeflion for near two centuries, (would, I apprehend, require a more explicit account of the manner and place in which thefe deeds were found, than that which has fo completely fatisfied the profound fcholars, antiquaries, and heralds, already mentioned.

Leaving, however, these confiderations, let us advert to the editor's ftatement above given in his own words; the fum and fubftance of which is, that the unknown gentleman has behaved moft liberally and honourably to him; that he defired his name to be concealed, left he fhould be expofed to the impertinence and cavils of criticifm; (in which he feems to be over-fcrupulous, for what imputation could fall on him, if it fhould be proved that all thefe controverted papers, which by fome accident have found their way among his family deeds, were forged by fome undifcovered perfon:) that therefore the editor thinks himself bound to act with equal honour to the unknown, and not to divulge his

name.

The fubfequent pofition, that the difclofure of the name of this gentleman would remove all doubts, is one, I conceive, to which no perfon who knows any thing of the rules of evidence will fubfcribe. It would not fubftantiate the moft infignificant paper that has been exhibited; though it is juftly required, and ought to be made, before any one of thefe pretended ancient Mss. can be entitled even to an examination. In the prerogative court, if any will or teftamentary writing is exhibited at a time when, or from a quarter where, it might not reasonably be expected, the party producing it is always asked,

in the first place, in what cabinet or coffer belonging to the deceased, or where elfe was it found; how long it has been in his poffeffion; when, and to whom he first mentioned the difco very, &c. The ground of thefe queftions is obvious. In fuch a cafe a sufpicion concerning the genuineness of the inftrument or paper produced naturally arifes; and to repel that fufpicion, and to fet the claimant rightin the opinion of the court, he is called upon to account for its not having been produced fooner, and to ftate where it was found. This is the first thing required to be done; without which the claimant is not allowed to advance a fingle ftep. His account, however fatisfactory, will not fubftantiate or ellablith the paper or inftrument produced; it merely entitles it to be read and exa. mined: and then it is to be tried by ail thofe tefts by which falichood is dittinguifhed from truth. But fuppofe a perfon fhould come into that court, and, after refufing to give any answer whatfoever to the inquiries which on fuch an occafion are always made, should throw his paper on the table, and address the very learned and reipectable judge who prefides there in these words: "Wherefore, fir, are you placed on that bench, unless you are able to afcertain whether the teftamentary writing under which I claim, be genuine or not? you have the aid of his majelly's advocate-general, a man of as much ability and integrity as any perfon who ever filled that high office; you are furrounded by many other doctors learned in the law; what avails all your reading, to what end have you expended fo many years in perufing your inflitutes, your pandects, and your codes, if all your lucabrations, and all your fagacity will not enable you to difcern whether this little paper be authentic or not I will give you no account of it; but I call upon you to do me juftice, and either to allow my claim, or to affign fome fatisfactory reafons why it fhould not be eftablifhed." What, I fay, would be the answer to this fine harangue? the claimant would be turned out of court, and his paper immediately flung after him.' Relinquishing every claim to that information

formation which would be required in the ecclefiaftical and common law courts, and which, in the prefent cafe, the literary world has an equal right to demand, Mr. M. undertakes to prove, from the orthography, the phraseology, the dates given or deducible by interence, and the diffimilitude of the handwriting, that not a fingle paper in this volume was written or executed by the perfon to whom it is afcribed. Some of the principal points eftablished in this inquiry, are as follows:

1. Queen Elizabeth's letter. The fpelling in this letter, as well as in all the other papers, is not only not the orthography of Elizabeth, or of her time, but is not, for the moft part, that of any other age, as appears from fpecimens of orthography from the time of Chaucer to near the end of the fixtenth century. The copulative and is never fpelt with a final e, nor is for fpelt forre. Mafter was, at this period, not fpelt masterre, but maifter. We find every where Hampton not Hamptowne. The queen's favourite wrote his name Leycefter, not Leycef terre. The fpelling in very many other inftances differs from that of the ftate papers in Elizabeth's reign. No fuch verb active as compliment was known in that age; ourselje was not written as one word, but our elfe. The word amufe, in its prefent fenfe, is perfectly modern. The globe theatre was not built at the time to which this letter must be referred. It is not probable that Shakspeare would have docketed this letter, without preferving the pretty verfes that occafioned it. The handwriting is too fall for the fuppofed time; it inclines to the right, whereas Elizabeth's genuine autograph is bolt upright: the letters are differently formed, as is fhewn in the genuine and fpurious alphabets given in the plate annexed, which affords ocular proof that the pretended letter is a bungling forgery.

11. Extracts from miscellaneous Papers 11. A Note of Hand and Receipt. Mr. Steevens and the author, in 1776, found in two out of three fignatures to the poet's will, that he had written his name Shakipere; but in

the third, they obferved a variation, which they then conceived to be an a this, they are now convinced, was a miftake; thinking it more probable that this additional mark was a fuperfluous ftroke, than that a man fhould, on the fame paper, write his name twice one way, and once another. The reader is enabled to judge of this by a fac fimile annexed. Another fignature of the poet has fince been found, and authenticated, which proves, beyond z doubt, that his own orthography of his name was Shakspere. The neceffary confequence is, that these papers, in which a different orthography is almost uniformly found, cannot but be forged. Arabic numerals are introduced here, contrary to the practice of that age. The title of his grace, given to Leycefter, was then appropriated to dukes. The poet's fignature is here in a new hand writing; and he writes Statford, for Stratford. The fignature of John Hemynge is evidently done by the fame perfon who has attempted to exhibit the hand writing of lord Southampton. Some writers lean their letters to the right, and fome to the left; but no hand writing was ever yet found, except that of a drunkard or a madman, that inclined alternately each way, as in Hemynge's fignature. His real autograph has been found, and it has no more refemblance to this fignature, than the Hebrew or Chinese character to the English. The form of a promiffory note was at that time very different from that here given.

IV. Letter from Shakspeare to Anna Hatherrewaye. No Annas are found at this period, but plain Annes. The lady's name was Hathaway, as appears from the register of Stratford, 1579-80. Dear and dearest were not ufual forms of addrefs. The fentiments are not fuited to Shakspeare's character.

v. Verfes to Anna Hatherrewaye. Namby pamby stuff, unworthy of Shakfpeare. Stretching out the word heavenne into two fyllables, makes the verfe, as Spencer fays, like a lame dog that holds up one leg.

v1. Letter from Shak/peare to the earl of Southampton. VII. The earl's anfwer. The hand-writing of the former

has