New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-02
times in the very Folio be was examining 80 OF


nroo, of Mr. Golfers guilt, viz, toat there are
NOR. emsnd,t;o,s in the Folio than he has printed,
efficiently aDswers itself. II be bad taseh Tue
na;ns n invent the notes, would ne not nave
tprnea them all to account lie surely oio not
c.rce for the mere pleasure Of forgery. This,
Uhcb ia urged as the main reason to convict tne
pr,soper at the bar, ought to compel triumphant
acqmtts. |
But the prosecutors of Mr.. Collier do not rect
tb.ir case on the internal evidence and external
proofs touching the Indictment they find against
HIM Ttey bring oorroborative testimony as 10
obtr dealings of his 10 raise str ng sG'pcioa that
he 10 a Common Forger ard Utterer of base paper
The late Earl Of Elesmere gave Mr.. Collier acces
to the papers of bis family IN Brdgewater Hodse
Among them he fouod certain cument' relating to
the Shah. .peare family which he published IN the
Collections of the Camden Society. The autoen
tct, OF these pagers has always been dubbed; bu'
Tow MIR. Hamilton declares that they are IN the
same hand as toe emendat ons in the Coaier fono'
spd therefore forseries of bis. The present Lord
Ebesuere however dOes not see with the same
eyes but declares that there is pretense for say
ing the writing is alike in the two cases, but, cou-
rari@,se. quite different. Aud this is also the
opuion of other observers Dir. 5adnlton auO
brings into the case letter from Mrs. Aleyn 10
her husband. among the MSS. at Duwich College,
in which Mr. Collier declared, many years ago, tue
pane OF Mr.. Shakespeare of the Globe was men
toned, which words are not nov TO be found Bat
il his account of the paper be described 1t as being
;1at. Vphl mlpht
count for The part he then saw haviog disappeared;
and, moreover, IT appears that he took pains ID
have 1t Enclosed 10 an envelope aud iDdorsed I'm.
"portant document" precausion hardly consist
eDt with the supposltion of an intentional mlssIate
Dent of Its c0DteDIs.
! Another piecs of cumulative evidence, brought
against the unlucky commentator was tue Pet'tlon
OF the Players, found in the State Paper Office,
signed by Shakespeare among others, IN reply 10 d
complaint Of the noigbbors sgaOst the Globe Thea
ter. This Dir. Collier was the fret TO make public,
| and bis a6yerssries surmised that II might Do
another symptom of his coronic mania for forgery
| Accordingly, they procured the permission OF Sir
John R,mily, the Master Of the Role, to have the
| paper submitted TO commission OF photographers,
both OF them connected with the Bntisb Museum,
who pronounced it spurious, and the Mister or
deJed their sentence to be recorded with the docu-
uent. This Mr.. Hamilton declares to 90 IN tDe
sane handwriting as the notes IN the t0lio, and
thence would have it inferred that both were VIII
ten by one person, and he Mr. Collier. But tols
whole theory, promising as il looked, was blasted
hp no ta1t; nfM ar Lemon. %
ers of the State Papers to the eect, that the doc
| uuent in question was in the Record Oiiico before
| DR. Collier bad access TO it, as was well known TO
himself and Bis father before him and that 1t IS his
belief that it was his father who first showed 1t TO
MIR Collier As Mr.. Collier could Dot by posi-
biiy have forged the Petition, ard as the other for
genes were done by the same hand, it was clear
! that If cou'd not be he that was guilty OF them
This On the potbesis that the Petition is forgery,
| which the SbakespearolatOrs in England are by no
meal iDcbned to allow. Besides Collier, Dyce,
Hsbw.ll Charles Knight and other Shskesperian
students believe 10 to he AUTHENTICATED their Opn-
Jon is as likely to be received in the premises as
at of the Museum Jury.
This treatment really seems to have been hard
measure 20 be melted even to SbahesPerian Cum
peDiator. TO be tried for manifold orgeries, by
secret tribunal, which gave hun no chance of self
deepfe, and whose conviction and senteGce In one
wss the frst communication made ~ HIM OF its do
ings, was certainly rather less than fair play. 1t
was happy combination of circumst4nces which
bas enabled him TO clear himself so entirely as Is
done by the evidence of DR.. Weilesley and Mr..
Lemon on the only two material points affecting
biz honesty. The MS correctiODsln toe Folio having
been seen by the fret before II came into hs posses
sion, aud the Petition of tie Players being certified
t. by The last as III tie Record Office bsiore Mr..
ColheT had access to it, the whole charge OF forgery
falls forever TO the ground. The iDqairy naturally
occurs What motive could Mr.. baDton and biz
super,os in the Department Of MSS. Of the
British Museum have for making this gross
attack on gentleman Of uDnlemsbed char
acter1 And the 8Dswer is not far to seek
Mr Collier bst been guilty Of grave offences against
the onicisls Of the Museum. He promoted the
Roy al Commission Of Inquiry into its management
Of which he was the Secretary; he was actively
ged in the war Of the Catalogue, with which
the resders Of the historian Punch are not unia-
nihar; End the Duke of Devonshire and tae Earl
Of Elesmere wished TO put him at the bead of the
MSS. Department bow filed by Sir Frederick
Madden. These erie's, though we wlll hspe they
would not have led these gentlemen to tae lnven-
ton of Ii charges made against Mr. Collier,
family efficient to have stimulated the eager prose-
cution OF an investie atiOn for which there was a
prind fdoie occasion. That their eseeruess led toem