The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-20 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 20, 1864.

vuRNI CURE, CARPETS, BEDDING, and
FLOORCLOTH, CARRIAGE-FREE to any house in
the kingdom, regardless of amount or distance. First• class
goods at second-class prices. Terms peculiarly liberal to
Clergymen and Gentlemen. An immense stock to select
from, displayed in Showrcoms occupying an acre of ground.
Every article warranted.
CLERGYMEN and GENTLEMEN ABOUT TO FUR-
NISH are respectfully informed that Messrs. Cobbett and
, are publishing an entirely New Edition of their un-
equalled lIOUSE FURNISHING GUIDE, illustrated by 410
admirable engravings of every description of Furniture and
Bedsteads, with prices attached. A copy sent gi atis and
post-free on application. This costly work also contains
complete estimates for furnishing on the following revised
scale :

A Six-roomed Parsonage £74 3 0
An Eight-roomed ditto
A Ten-roomed ditto
A Twelve-roomed ditto 391 11 0

Together with a ?rice List of purified Bedding, and a mass
of valnable inforrnationto all requiring'househAd furniture,
carpets, or bedding. References kindlypermitted to Cler,!y-
men and gentlemen in or near Great Malvern, Southampton,
Chichester. Bury, Ely, Preston, Grimsby, Ryde, Plymouth,
Wells, Oxford. Brighton, Gainsborough, Margate. Kidder-
minster, Wellington, Croydon. Cambridge, Staines, Dorking,
St. Alban's, Worcester, Ipswich, Peterborough, St. David's,
Wrexham, and above 500 other places in all parts of Great
Britain.
COBBETT and CO., General House Furnishers, Deptford-
bridge, London, S.E,

ATLANTIC and GREAT WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.
NEW YORK SECTION.

Notice is hereby given, that the Sum set apart for the re-
demption of Bonds under the operation of the Sinking Fund
has been applied to the PURCHASE of the undermentioned
BONDS of the NEW YORK SECTION of the said Com-
pany, viz.

Dols.

Bonds, Nos. 1,102, I,lo3—Two Bonds of 501 doss each... 1,000
Bonds, Nos. 155, 156, 57. 158, 159, 491, 515, 638, 754
Nine Bonds of 1,000 dols. each ... .

10,000
And that the Bonds, together with the Half-yearly Coupons
or Interest Warrants, from July Ist, 1861., to July Ist, 1E79,
both inclusive, attached to each of such Bonds respectively,
have been this day cancelled by the undersigned, Mr. William
Grain, of London, Notary Public.
W. GRAIN, Notary Public.
SAMUEL GURNEY,
• JOHN P. KENNAR D, Trustees.
CHARLES MOZL EY,
Atlantic and Great Western Railway Offices,
2, Old Broad-street, London, Jan. 15, MIL

THE CONSOLIDATED DISCOUNT
COMPANY (Limited).
No. 4, ABCITURCH-LANE.
Capital... £1,000,000.
DIRECTORS.
George Walter Constable, Esq. (Messrs. Constable and
Wykes), Mincing-lane.
George Denny, Esq. (Messrs. George Dena/ and Co.), Great
St. Helen's.
William Little, Esq., Director of the Cape Town Railway.
Wm. M'Arthur, Esq. (of the firm of Wm. and Alexander
M'Arthur, Australian Merchants,), 46, Moorgate-street.
F. J. Sargood, Esq. (Messrs. Sargood, King, and Sargood),
London and Melbourne.
Thomas Shepherd Richardson, Esq., Director of the Buenos
Ayres and River Plate Bank.
James Thompson, Esq. (Messrs. Le Gros Thompson and Co.),
Gutter-lane.
**Hugh Fraser Sandeman, Esq. Messrs. Sandeman & Co.
Richard Manners Sanderson, Esq.
*Samuel Baker, Esq.
* Committee of Management.
BANKERS.
The London and Westminster B.snk.
SOLICITORS.
Messrs. Sole, Turners, and Hardwick.
The business of this Company being in active operation, the
Directors are prepared to Discount approved Mercantile
Bills
and to make advances upon newotiable Securities.
Money received on deposit, at call and short notice, at the
current market rates, and for longer periods upon terms to be
specially agreed upon.

MR. REARDEN, LAND ESTATE. and
HOUSE AGENT, SURVEYOR and VALUER, 19
and 92, PICCADILLY, near Cambridge Rouse, opposite the
Green-park, Established 23 Years, respectfully invites the
particulars of Landed Estates, Farms, and House Property
for Sale, to be Let, or wanted to Rent or Purchase, for which
no charge is made unless a treaty is concluded, and then
only his usual rates of charge, particulars of which will be
given on application. In all cases of his Letting Farms Mr.
Reardon charges tne Tenant only, and not the Landlord.
Particulars of Property fur Sale and to be Let will be given
personally, or forwarded free of charge. N.B —Several Town
and Country Residences, Landed Properties, arid Farms
wanted to Rent and Purchase immediately.

A NEW STYLE OF HOOP SHIRT Was exhibited
at the Indiana State fair. Leaden weights are attached to
the bottom hoop to keep the thing down on windy days.
SPOILS PROM THE SOUTH.—Numerons works of
art of great interest and value which have not paid
duty at the Custom-house or been known to belong to any
of our local connexions aro constantly turning up at our
picture sales. Others are to be found in the hands of the re.
gular picture dealers, or are offered to collectors by private
persons. When questions are put as to their ownership,
there is generally some hesitation about answering them.
Now, there is no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to
the reason for this mystery. It is well known to those who
have visited the South that in New Orleans and its neigh-
bourhood there were few families of any consideration that
had not collections of paintings and statuary, picked up
during their trips to Europe. Many of these acquisitions
are to be seen among the works that have found their way
into our auction. rooms. They are the °pima spolia, not of the
brave conquerors of rebel soil, but of the vultures—for the
most part Massachusetts Yankees—who follow in the train
of our armies. These fellows pilfer everything thty can lay
their hands upon, and works of art are especial objects of
their covetness, from the large price which they bring. in
New York. Wo have heard of one man—not a New Eng-
lander, however--who went to New Orleans almost without
a shirt to his back, and who since his return has been en-
abled to purchase a handoome house up town with the pro-
ceeds of his picture stealing. We would advise purchasers
to be cautious about buying any of the works thus offered
for sale. Where mystery is maintained about the owner's
name they may rest assured that the property has not been
honestly come by ,--,New York. IZeral4,

SHARESPEARLIti MONUME N TS,

(From the Times.)
Under this heading we propose to make a few remarks on
two distinct though allied subjects—on the monume:tB to
.
Shakespeare which various persons are proposing to build
in this the 300th year since he was born, and on what
equally characterises the year, certain mostremarkable edi-
tions of those works which, " making us marble" with asto-
nishment, Milton has described as the poet's best monu-
ment. It is impossible to think of any monument to Shake-
speare without at the same time turning by way of contrast
to the monument which Shakespeare has himself built—a
memorial to all generations--set up not in any one place,
but found in every country throughout the world and known
to almost every tongue. Especially
do we revert to the
latter kind of memorial when we call to mind what our
public monuments generally are. Very few are the monu-
ments of stone in which it is possible to excite the public
enthusiasm. We have all in turn been pestered to join
committees to build monuments. Most men that we know
would gladly join a committee to put down monuments and
to destroy the majority of our graven and our molten images.
A society for the suppression of monuments, or at least for
a thorough weeding and hoeing of them, would by no means
be the least valuable of public institutions.
I. It is taken for granted that in this 300th year since he
was born something must be done in honour of Shakespeare.
But why ? And what is the mystical value of 300 ? These
centenaries are an abomination in the eyes of most sen-
sible men. We had first the Handel Centenary, and
that was so successful because of the musical display
which it was possible to produce at the Crystal Palace
that it seems to have set people crazy. We had then in
quick succession a glorification of Burns, the tercentenary
of the Scottish Reformation, the bicentenary of English
Nonconformity, and now we ore jisked to celebrate the
tercentenary of Shakespeare's
.birth. We have little sym-
pathy with these displays. They do not become us; they
are remarkable for froth and emptiness; they generally
lead to a mighty gush of spurious sentiment and screeching
oratory; and they serve but the purposes of the smallest
parasites and busybodies, who from a study of the working
of committees have discovered that they are a grand modern
invention, like the solar microscope, for magnifying ani-
malcules. Animalcules got up a great committee by certain
well understood arts, and forthwith they look as big as the
committee with all its big names. The little creatures are
not without sentiment, and they base their committees on a
superfine sentiment, which in the case of the centenaries is
called hero worship, though in reality it is little better than
a vain superstition. Now, hating these centenary displays
very heartily, we allow that if an exception is to be made in
favour of any, it might be in favour of one that does honour
to Shakespeare, the greatest of all Englishmen, He is wor-
shipped among us even to idolatry, and we can look with
kindliness on almost any decent absurdity by which our
people propose to do homage to his name. But then, if any
such extravagance is to gain our sympathy, it is essential
that it should be decent, and that there should be an ap-
pearance of unanimity in it. We shrink from the selfish
intrigues of petty cabals and from the inglorious squabbles
of a committee which, proposing to direct the national taste
is certain important matters, begins its work by several
shocking exhibitions of bad taste.

In honour of Shakespeare there are two committees at
work—the one in Stratford, the other in London. Both
claim to be regarded as national ; both declare that they are
powerfully supported ; and yet both cannot succeed. There
may be in the publio mind enough of sympathy for one ;
there is not enough for two. One of the two must either
be extinguished altogether or become auxiliary to the other.
See what is wanted. Each of the committees proposes as
the principal object of its scheme to build a monument. We
do not like the idea of a monument at all. There are
monuments enough. Above all, we stare at the suggestion
that the foundation of the monument is to be laid on the
23d of April. In three months the money is to be collected,
the site chosen, the artist appointed, the design drawn, and
the first stone laid. It must be a wonderful committee that
will do all this. And we are to have two magnificent
monuments, worthy of the nation, worthy of Shakespeare.
Where are they to come from? It would be a task of no
ordinary difficulty to get one; two are impossible. We
warn our literary friends not to be over sanguine. They
may deem themselves lucky if they get money enough for
one good monument, and the question is, shall this monu-
ment be at Stratford or in London. Our sympathy, in so
far as we have any sympathy with the movement, goes to
Stratford, both as a matter of necessity and from a sense of
justice.

The necessity lies herein that London stands for itself
almost alone. The provincial towns are supporting Strat-
ford, and will continue to support it. Against the metro•
polis the cry of centralisation has baen raised. Man-
chester, Birmingham, and, if we mistake not, Liverpool,
have all declared for Stratford; and this is but a sign of
wkat the provinces intend. They, and not only they, but
all Europe and all America, when they give to Shakespeare
a local habitation, think of him not in connection with Lon-
don, but in connection with Stratford, where he was born,
where he was educated, where he married and had children,
where his family seem always to have lived even when he

mself was in London, where he visited them from year to
year, where as he grew in wealth he bought house and
lands, where he retired in the fulness of his strength to
enjoy his days, where he died and where he now lies buried.
He came to London to push his fortune and to make his re-
putation; but he left it soon; there was a prospect of long
days before him in his native town, and ho died there in his
prime, one year younger than Mr. Thackeray, Stratford,
then, is the locality with which Shakespeare's name is
chiefly associated, We of the metropolis are bound to re-
member this, and must not be selfish. The country towns
have often assisted London, and it would be a graceful thing
for London now to assist a small country town—Shake-
speare's town. All things conspire to' this end. For not only
if London acted differently, would it fail to obtain in any
important degree the support of the provinces ; it is divided
against itself. We cannot take part in the feuds which dis-
tract ame, m whatitt of ra
is elegantly
elegantly called the National Shakespeare
Committee London ; but there is no doubt that this co 4
0 erasn
io ne
as .
Who are the treemitteo has been badly managed, that its executive has
not been wisely chosen, and that it has lost, if it ever pos-
sessed, the public confidence, To this day the committee
of management is unknown to the Public. It is true that
in various circulars which weo
nhave all seen the committee
seine of high station
iasn described e
repute.sc r ibed a
But s ind
these eP
work-
ing committee? At a meeting of the large committee of
400:held the other day to decide Pon a report, not a fifth
part of the grand list attended; those who did attend were
at daggers drawn ; the eating committee could not get their
mane
areof mere p ,
report passed; they were not allowed even to withdraw it;
and they had to submit to the ignominy
of its rejection by
vote. After a vote of this kind, equivalent to a vote of cen-
sure, the acting committee, whoever they are, ought to re-
consider their position and their objects. There is nothing
left for them but either to abandon their original project, or
to constitute themselves into a London committee, auxiliary
to the one at Stratford. In point of fact, a number of the
names in their general committee, such as those of Lord.
Carlisle, Lord Houghton, and Mr. Tennyson have already
appeared on the Stratford list, and today it is announced
that such men as Mr. loin Taylor, M. Theodore Martin,
Mr. Shirley Brooks refuse to have anything g more to do with
the London committee. Their example is sure to be fol-
lowed; the London committee seem doomed to failure, and
should be warned in time. In whatever is done for the
honour of Shakespeare unanimity is required, and our
counsels are for peace and unanimity. w 0 _
speak with per-
fect impartiality, for we must repeat that the scheme of a
monument finds no favour in our eyes, from whomsoever it

Monument, where
comes.
countrymen, lies
aofChair or Chairs
in such pomp " that Kings for such a tomb would wish to
shlalk.esWpeeerree,veenrsthtroinMedilitnonth' se ideal
tsofofahis
Shakespeare's
die." Our best thoughts about a monument will be a care
for Shakespeare's works, and various schemes have been
suggested to make manifest this care. Some
plays ; endowment o
othersf
proposea theat rsuggest the
at our Universities for the intelligent interpretation of
SAakespeare ; a third party suggest the distribution of his
works either gratuitously or at some very low
price ;
e theffor
rthe
establishment performanceo f
fourth advise the preparation of some splendid and unparal-
leled edition. The first of these schemes, involving the
endowment of a Shakespearian theatre, has been proposed
by Mr. Tom Taylor, Mr. Theodore Martin, and Mr. Shir-
ley Brooks, and looks the best ; it is, however, unnecessary
to pronounce an opinion on any of them, because they are
not fairly before the public. But we may bestow a few
words of praise upon one or two private attempts to show
care for Shakespeare's works. This year is remarkable for
the appearance of two first-rate editions of Shakespeare,
which if they are continued as they have been begun, will
have a standard value.*
Of these works the most curious is the reproduction by
photo-lithography of the first folio edition of Shakespeare's
plays. An instalment of the reproduction under Mr.
Howard Staunton's superintendence has now been issued,
and with it we are bound to notice the reduced reprint of
Mr. Booth, The first edition of Shakespeare's works is still
the most important and authoritative. That it is often erro-
neous we all know, but nitZt of us would agree with Mr.
Dyce in thinking " that an exile: reprint of the old text,
with its multifarious errors, forms a inure valuable contri-
bution to literature than a semi-correoted text, which,

* Shakespeare : The _First Folio of 1623, reproduced by
photo.lighography, under the supervision of Howard Stalin
ton. London, Day and Son.
Shakespeare: A Reprint of his Collected Works as Put
Forth in 1823, Part 11, containing the liietories. London,
L. Booth.
The Works of William Shakespeare: The text revised
by the Rev. Alexander Dyee. iu 8 vole, .3101, 1. London,
Chapman and Hail,

purged here and there of the grossest blunders,
continues still, almost in every page, to offend against sense
and metre." How nearly the established texts approach to
the original, and how much that original, as a whole, is
superior in authority to the received versions, is proved by
the demands that have been made for a reproduction—be it
faeaLeile or reprint—of the first folio. To meet the demand
eontainint: the Comedies, was published two years
ago ; while the secon
Mr. Beet, undertook a reduced reprint, of which the first
part,
Tart, containing the Histories, made
itsat..l
ppearance a few weeks back. To that work we can
give the greatest praise. It is 8,:y1
)osed to be the most ac-
curate reprint which ever has been made, and there has
evidently been such labour end love bestu'wed upon it as
reflect the highest credit on Mr. Booth and
4 associates.
The work, too, is wonderfully cheap; being of a reduced
size it is very handy; and for ordinary purposes it is s;'ffi-
cient. Still, the art of photography can surpass it, and the
first specimen of their photo-lithographic facsimile which
Messrs. Day and Son have just turned out, under the care
of Mr. Howard Staunton, will be regarded by Shakespearean
scholars with unqualified satisfaction. It is not the original
—that is all which can be said against it; but it is, we
believe, as near the original as it is possible for any fac-
simile to be. The first folio was printed with an old, bat-
tered, and rather dirty type. Here the nick of an fis
gone, which makes it look like the old form of s; there an
eis so broken that it is indistinguishable from c ; some-
times a letter is so clogged with dirt that it is difficult to
make it out ; often the type is out of gear, and the spaces
are capricious. Mr. Booth's reprint gives a fair idea of
these caprices ; he had a type specially cat for the pur-
pose. But, being a new, clean-cut type, it is scarcely able
to compete with photo-lithography in reproducing all the
vagaries of form which appear in a much-warn and blurred
character. We have been at the pains to compare both
Mr. Booth's and Mr. Staunton's work with the original,
and are astonished at the minute accuracy of both—but of
course in all the extremest minutice the photographic copy
is pre-eminent. It must not be supposed in every case,
however, that because a difference may be found between
Mr. Booth's reprint and Mr. Staunton's facsimile that
therefore one is wrong and the other right. Both may be
right. There are differences between different copies of
the first folio, for the work evidently underwent revision
and correction as it passed through the press. Mr. Staun-
ton follows mainly the celebrated Ellesmere copy from the
library of Bridgewater-house, in some respects the finest
copy in the world. But turn to the 18th,page of the fac-
simile, and we shall find in the first column, " These are
not natural evens," and in the second column, " Who how
now Stephano ?"—both characteristic errors of the Elles-
mere folio. In the copy followed by Mr. Booth the phrases
are given properly—" These :are not natural events," and
" Why how now Stephano P" Both of the reproductions
are right, and we give them both a welcome. They scarcely
interefere with each other in competition. The reprint is
cheap and purtable—the iacsimile is more expensive and
less handy, but in so far as we have seen it is a miracle
of accuracy that will rejoice the hearts of all
true Shakespeareans. As rumours have gone abroad
that the appearance of such a facsimile by means
of photo-lithography would be an impossibility,

it is pleasant- now to see the best contradic-
tion of such a report in the actual appearance of the work.
We have not examined every page, but those we have scru-
tinised yield convincing proof that the process is a trust-
worthy one. And if any infinitesimal errors should bo dis-
covered by other eyes, it should be remembered that this
first part is the most difficult of all to copy, because the
earlier pages of the Ellesmere volumes are in a less satis-
factory condition than the body of the work, The printing,
for example, on one side of a page shows, through age, on
the other side; and the photographer has peculiar difficul-
ties to encounter in getting rid of this appearance. The
portrait of Shakespeare by Droeshout on the titlepage of
the Ellesmere folio is a wonderfully fine example of the
famous engraving, and in reproducing its delicate shades
Mr. Staunton's process has been less successful than in
copying the caprices of typography. This, however, was
to have been expected, and rough as the copy is, it is, we
believe, as near an approach to a facsimile as at present it
is possible to obtain of any fine artistic work. The fac-
simile of these 64 pages cannot but surprise any one who
looks into it; and what a treasure it is may he estimated
from the fact that a copy of the original folio has sold for
£250.
Concurrently with Mr. Staunton another Shakspearean
scholar comes with a remarkable edition. It is Mr. Dyce,
the chief living authority in this kind of scholarship. His
work is announced as a second edition, but in reality it is
quite new. In his former edition of Shakespeare he ad-
hered slavishly to the text of the copies whenever by any
possibility a meaning could be twisted out of it, in this re-
spect following most of the recent editors. But the Cam-
bridge editors have carried slavishness to such an ex-
treme that he has been startled into common sense, and
abjures their superstition. The Cambridge edition of
Shakespeare has been highly praised, not for its text, which
shows a great lack of judgment, but for the collation which
accompanies it. Now, however, we shall have to give it
the praise of having given rise indirectly to the best text
of Shakespeare which has yet appeared. Mr. Dyce has
expres,ed a hope that in ceasing to be a timid editor ho
has not become a rash one. There is so much of slavish-
ness in Shakespearean criticism that possibly he will not
escape from this imputation, but he shall not hear it from
us. Perhaps an example will best illustrate the sort of
charges to which he will be exposed. In the first scene of
the Tempest, Gonzalo, on board ship, says, according to the
first folio, " Now would I give a thousand furlongs of sea
for an acre of barren ground—Long heath, brown furze,
anything. The wills above be done I but I would fain die
a dry death." The vast majority of editions follow this
reading, because a sense can be wrung out of it. Sir
Thomas Hanmer proposed an emendation—" Now would
I give a thousand furlongs of sea for an acre
of barren ground—ling, heath, broom, furze, any-
thing ;" and to support this suggestion there is in
Harrison's Description of Britain, prefixed to Hollin-
shed's Chronicles, a work which it it is known that Shake-
speare used, a passage where "Broom, heath, furze, brakes,
whin, ling" are mentioned as characteristics of barren
ground. Most persons would accept this quotation as con-
clusive, even it they were not quite satisfied beforehand that
Sir Thomas Hanmer's conjecture restored the sentence to
its proper balance. But Shakespearean editors are a stiff-
necked generation, and are not soon convinced of error. They
showed some hankering after the new reading, but could
never summon courage to adopt it. Mr. Dyce himself did
not adopt it in his last edition. He is now so disgusted with
the inanities of timid editing that, in effect, he says boldly,
"This will never do. Editing is of no use if it cannot cor-
rect obvious mistakes. The folio pure and simple is far
better than a semi-corrected folio." So he accepts Han-
mer's emendation, and we make bold to say he is right.

Although Mr. Dyce is the most learned of Shakespeare's
editors, and though he is the chief authority on most ques-
tions of verbal criticism connected with our old poets, the
respect which we pay him is not unqualified, In the first
place, he wants originality of conception. He seldom
originates, however he may adopt, an emendation. In this
respect he is far behind Mr. Staunton, who as a verbal critic
is the most original of Shakespeare's recent editors. Still
more is he behind the late Mr. Sidney Walker, to whose
critical notes he is largely indebted. In the next place, he
is rather captious in his style, and snaps at other critics
in such a small way that he fails to inspire everybody with
confidence in a judgment which seems so apt to cavil.
He cavils at innocent though, perhaps, vague expres-
sions, and we maintain that he does himself injustice.
Lastly, in a number of instances, he errs in his critical
judgment. Thus, for example, every one knows the cele-
brated speech of Prospero on the insubstantial nature of all
earthly things, which ends with the phrase "leave not a
rack behind." Mr. Dyce insists that it should be "wreck,"
and put this into his text. The reason is that though there
are examples in our old writers of " the rack," as applied to
the clouds, he cannot find an instance in which " a rack"
is used in the same sense. This is scarcely cogent enough
to justify the change, So, again, with the Cambridge
editors ho persists is not seeing the chronological value
which attaches to "it" as a possessive case. As the pos-
sessive of " it" we have in Shakespeare various forms—it,
its, his. In our day the second of these forms has banished
the others ; in Shakespeare's time it was but coming into
use. Mr. Dyce thinks that in this respect we ought to
modernize Shakespeare, and banish from his pages a recog-
nised grammatical form of the time because it does not suit
modern ears. There is no room for argument here. We
can only say that scholars will not thank him for obliterat-
ing from the page what is one of the most curious land-
marks of the language. If we find in Shakespeare such a
line as, "The innocent milk in it most innocent mouth,"
this, as part of the grammar of the time, is as much entitled
to preservation as if we had found in the same line the mo-
dern " its." Once more Mr. Dyes follows the Cambridge
editors (theoretically, however, not really) in dealing with
another grammatical peculiarity which we find in Shake-
speare. A noun plural with a verb singular is of fre-
quent occurrence in Shakespeare. How is an editor to
deal with such a construction ? The Cambridge editors de-
cree that when this form of construction proceeds from
the lips of any low fellow it may be allowed to remain ; if
it comes from a Prince or any of the higher personages it
should be corrected, because it will not do to let Princes
speak grammar which offends a modern ear. We laughed
at this canon of the Cambridge editors as worthy of Jenkins.
To our amazement Mr. Dyce says in his preface that the
rule of Jenkins is right; only he takes care not to follow it
in his text. In another respect, also, he dissents from the
Cambridge editors. He has no mercy on their crude ideas
as to Shakespeare's versification, and ho follows a much
safer guide, Mr. Sidney Walker. Mr. Walker, however,
was rather extreme in his views—we are all apt to go to
extremes when we are merely jotting our opinions in note-
books. This very able man never learnt the caution which

PRICE .4d.
STAMPED ....sd.

an attempt really to edit Shakespeare would have taught
him—his works are all posthumous, and they require to be
read warily. Mr. Dyce seems to us inclined to follow him
to implicitly, Dr. Guest goes to one extreme in his ideas
of Shakespeare's versification ; Walker goes to the other,
and would cut and carve the poet's lines with arithmetical
regularity. This is surely a middle course.
Notwithstanding these objections to Mr. Dyce's edition,
it is a great work, worthy of his reputation, and for the
present it contains the standard text. Two such editions of
Shakespeare in one year as Mr. Staunton's facsimile of the
first folio and Mr. Dj ce's final revision of the text are an
honourable testimony to the regard in which the poet's
memory is hold, and are the best signs of a Monument
which we can discover.

NATIONAL SHAKSPERE COMMITTEE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SlR,—The undersigned, feeling it incumbent upon them
to withdraw from the National Shakspere Committee, aro
desirous of stating their reasons for doing so.
Their strong anxiety that a national tribute to our greatest
poet should be worthy of its object, and their equally strong
conviction that those who have assumed the direction of the
movement do not comprehend, and therefore will not satisfy
the expectations of the nation, have compelled them to take
the unpleasant step of separating themselves from gentle-
men with whom they have endeavoured to co-operate.
Without dwelling upon the irregular and unbusiness-like
character of the proceedings of the executive body, the un-
dersigned complamed that more than half a year has been
wasted in procuring a list of names which would have been
given in without solicitation, had a practical and worthy
scheme been laid before the public.
It was not until December last that the question of the
site of the proposed memorial was referred to a sub-com-
mittee for consideration, and the all-important question of
the nature of the memorial was not taken up until the pre •
sent month.

At this moment—within little more than three months
from the 23d of April—the committee is as ignorant as the
public where the memorial is to be placed, and what it is
to be.

That a monument worthy of Shakspere, and to be reared
by the united energies of the three kingdoms and the 50
colonies, can he devised, discussed, and accepted by the
country within a few weeks, is an idea too absurd to be en-
tertained by a nation of practical men who hold Shakspere
in befitting reverence.
Had the executive a due appreciation of their task, it
might have been possible to arrange some pleasant celebra-
tion for the 23d of April, while teking time to consider the
question of memorial with the care it demands ; but the
executive, having wasted so much time, are now endeavour-
ing to hurry matters, and in order to do so have obtained
leave to take a step which must deprive the memorial of a
national character.

The general committee, after showing its estimate of its
executive by rejecting a draught report prepared and im-
properly put into circulation by that body as the report of
the committee, followed up what was in effect a vote of
censure, by appointing a sub-committee to prepare another
document to be issued to the public. This sub-committee
unanimously decided that it would be premature to address
the public until the site and memorial committees should
have reported. It was agreed that it would be absurd to
make such an appeal in the absence of a definite object.
On Monday last this report was presented to a meeting
of the general committee, and was approved by it.
The general committee, after it had thus decided that it
was in no condition to address the nation, having no infor-
mation to communicate, was induced to stultify that deci
sion by voting that the public should be appealed to, and
moreover that it should be asked for a definite sum. It
had occurred to somebody that the memorial ought to cost
£30,000, and that this notion should be presented to the
nation, which, however, was to be at liberty to give more if

it pleased, and was to bo assured that any surplus should be
laid out philanthropically.
This final blunder, the conclusion of a series, appears to
the undersigned to be fatal. They are therefore compelled
to withdraw from co-operation in a scheme which, as at
present managed, must end in discreditable failure, and
draw down universal contempt upon English protessions
of reverence for Shakspere.
Tom TAYLOR. THOMAS WALKER.
THEODORE MARTIN. ROBERT BELL.
SHIRLEY BROOKS, C. L. GRITNEISEN.
J. S. BREWER. HAIN FRISWELL,
T. DUFFITS HARDY.

Her Majesty's Paddle Yacht Alberta.

--------

This new yacht, of 391 tons and 161-horse power of en-
gines, recently launched from Pembroke dockyard, and now
fitting at Portsmouth for her Majesty's private service, was
tried a second time under steam at Portsmouth yesterday
and on this occasion under the personal supervision of Rear
Admiral R. S. Robinson, Controller of the Navy, who was
accompanied by Rear-Admiral George Elliot, the energetic
superintendent of Portsmouth dockyard. Captain H.
Broadhead, commanding the Steam Reserve of the port
and her Majesty's ship Asia, had the command of the
yacht, the detailed working of the trial being carried out
by Messrs. Murray and 'Ward, of the dockyard steam fac-
tory, and Mr. Murdoch, inspector of machinery afloat,
Mr. Credo*, master shipbuilder of the yard, and part of
his staff were also on board. The conditions of yesterday's
trial were very different to those attending her trial on
Thursday last, and as reported in the Sun of the following
day. On that occasion she drew 7ft lin of water aft, and
6ft 10in forward, being thus 3in by the stern. Yesterday
she was trimmed at an equal draught forward and aft, or
" on an even keel," to use a technical phrase, and this at a
draught at starting of 6ft Min. This, as will be seen;
gave the ship a less average draught of water and conse-
quently considerably loss displacement yesterday than on
Thursday, and had therefore an important bearing in rela-
tion p the ship's speed and her behaviour under steam, and
especially so at full power. This alteration in the vessel's
draught was attained by taking all her movable weights that
could be possibly spared out of her—such as her anchors
and chains, boots' davits (the latter massive enough for a
frigate), &c., and starting her with only 14 tons of coal in
her bunkers, in lieu of 25 tons as on Thursday, and only
partially replacing those removed weighty by nine tons of
iron ballast on the upper deck, which served as trimming
ballast during the trial.

Shortly after noon, the Controller having arrived on
board, the Alberta turned ahead and left Portsmouth har-
bour for the measured mile in Stokes Bay, gradually in-
creasing the revolutions of her engines until reaching the
maximum number on Thursday-49—when she was placed
on the mile, and a pair of runs taken with full-boiler power
with the following results :

Time. Speed. Revolutions
in. S. Knots. of Engines.
First run.... 3 58 15.126 49
Second run.. 3 44 16.071 49
Steam, 271 b; vacuum, 26k.

The mean of the two runs gave the ship a speed of 15.59 S
knots against 15.161 knots obtained with full-boiler power
on Thursday's trial. These two runs were deemed sufficient
with full-power, and the ship was then run off the mile
ground and through Spithead, to give time for blowing the
water out of the two after boilers, and trying her next over
the mile with her two forward boilers, or half-boiler power.
In trying the yacht with half-boiler power on Thursday it
was done in the ordinary manner—simply by shutting off
one-half the boilers. By, however, getting rid of the water
altogether from the two boilers cut off yesterday the yacht
got rid of so much weight, and the result of this measure
was that on the required amount of ballast halving been
shifted from forward to aft to still keep the vessel on an
even keel the ship's draught of water was reduced from Eft
101 in to 6ft Sin. Under these very advantageous condi-
tions a pair of runs were taken over the mile with those re-
sults :

Time. Speed. Revolutions
m. s. Knots. of Engines.
First run.... 422 13'740 411
Second run.. 4 0 15.000 41
Ship's mean speed of the two runs, 14.307 knots, against
14.244 knots on Thursday. The difference in the gain in
speed between the full and half power runs is a sufficient
proof that the vessel is overweighted, or perhaps, speaking
with a more correct definition, that the engines and hull
are out of proportion to each other. The difference in spee
id
in the runs obtained yesterday, and those of Thursday s
due solely to the decreased draught of water and consequent
hull displacement. This latter circumstance, together with
the fact that yesterday the yacht was sailed on an even
keel, instead of three inches by the stern as o n Thursday,
also doubtless had considerable effect in reducing the size of
the rolling waves of broken water which curl in under the
vessel's quarters aad rise up on the bluff of the bows. Yes-
terday, although, as wehave said, these unpleasant accom-
paniments to a vessel's course were reduced in size, they
were not prevented, and the Alberta under full-power car-
ries with her on her course a perfect tempest of a sea when
the water clear of her is, comparatively speaking, smooth
as a mill-pond. Yesterday's trial gave no reason for mate-
rially altering the opinion expressed relative to the form of
the Alberta's hull in the report of the trial which appeared
in The Sun of Friday last. It may be considered possible
to explain existing defects to a certain extent by referring
io the restrictions laid upon the designers relative to her
length and draught of Water, but this would not meet the
entire case, nor, indeed, should explanations at all be
needed to render perfect in the present day a yacht spe-
cially designed and constructed for the service of tilt
Queen. It is very probable that the visit of the Controller
to the yacht yesterday will cause some alterations in seve-
ral portions of her fittings, which are almost as unartistic in
their character as is the hull.

The machinery of the yacht during the trial was in charge
of Mr. Matthews, one of the partners in the firm of Penn