Notices to Correspondents 47 Advertisements 47 Notes. A CAXTON MEMORIAL SUGGESTED. After Caxton had slept with his fathers for three centuries, remembered only by a few antiquaries, it was deemed fit that a public monument should record his merits. The Roxburghe club, much to the honour of its members, undertook to bear the cost of it, and to superintend its execution. With regard to its location, there was no question as to the paramount claims of Westminster. It was proposed, in the first instance, to place it in the collegiate church of St. Peter, within the precincts of which church Caxton had exercised his art. The want of a convenient space was rather an obstacle to that plan: a more serious obstacle was the amount of fees demanded on such occasions. It was then decided, and perhaps with more propriety, that it should be placed in the parish church of St. Margaret; and the execution of the monument, which was to be of the tablet form, was entrusted to the younger Westmacott.[1] An engraving of it has been published.[2] The inscription is "_To the memory_ of William Caxton who first introduced into Great Britain the art of printing and who A.D. 1477 or earlier exercised that art in the abbey of Westminster. This tablet _in remembrance_ of one to whom the literature of his country is so largely indebted was raised anno Domini MDCCCXX by the Roxburghe club earl Spencer, K.G. president." [Footnote 1: T. F. Dibdin, _Reminiscences of a literary life_. London, 1836. 8vo. i. 386.] [Footnote 2: J. Martin, _A catalogue of books privately printed_. London, 1834. 8vo. p. 486.] The monument, as a piece of sculpture, is simplicity itself, and therefore suitable to the place of its destination. To the inscription I venture to make some slight objections: 1. Whether Caxton "introduced into Great Britain the art of printing" admits of a doubt. There is no evidence to invalidate the colophon of the _Exposicio S. Jeronimi in simbolo Apostolorum_.[3] Dibdin fully believed in its authenticity.[4] 2. Caxton is very imperfectly designated. He was a well-informed writer, a most assiduous translator, and a very careful editor. As early as 1548, he was classed among the _Illustres majoris Britanniæ scriptores_[5]--but we are on the decline, it seems, in point of tact and intelligence. 3. The date of his decease, and the place of his burial, should have been stated. The facts are recorded in the accounts of the churchwardens of this very parish, and _nowhere else_.[6] 4. The inscription, as a composition, wants terseness: on this point, I content myself with giving a hint _typographically_.