When we consider how little we know of the great poet, and the possibility of finding something more by an examination of his tomb, it seems as if, with proper care, an investigation might be made that would possibly reward the trouble.” The writer concludes thus—“Is it not advisable, then, to avoid waiting till it is too late? That is to say, unless, as I may fear, it is too late already.” 12.—Warwickshire Man, A, in the _Argosy_, of Oct., 1879, in an article entitled, “How Shakespeare’s Skull was Stolen.” The _vraisemblance_ of this narrative is amazing. But for the poverty of the concluding portion, which is totally out of keeping with the foregoing part, one might almost accept this as a narrative of fact. 13.—GOWER, RONALD, in the _Antiquary_, of August, 1880, vol. ii, p. 63, “The Shakespeare Death-Mask,” concludes thus—“But how, may it be asked, can proof ever be had that this mask is actually that of Shakespeare? Indeed it can never be proved unless such an impossibility should occur as that a jury of matrons should undertake to view the opened grave at Stratford; they at any rate would not need to fear the curse that is written above his grave—for it says, ‘Cursed be _he_ (and not _she_), who stirs that sacred dust.’” This is a ‘new version’ of the time-honoured line. I note too that Lord Ronald reproduces the “legal friend’s” joke in Mr. Parker Norris’s article. But I do not say he ever saw it. 14.—HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS, J. O., in his _Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare_, 1st edition, 1881, p. 86: 2nd edition, 1882, p. 172: 3rd edition, 1883, p. 233: writes thus— “The nearest approach to an excavation into the grave of Shakespeare was made in the summer of the year 1796, in digging a vault in the immediate locality, when an opening appeared which was presumed to indicate the commencement of the site of the bard’s remains. The most scrupulous care, however, was taken not to disturb the neighbouring earth in the slightest degree, the clerk having been placed there, until the brickwork of the adjoining vault was completed, to prevent any one making an examination. No relics whatever were visible through the small opening that thus presented itself, and as the poet was buried in the ground, not in a vault, the chancel earth, moreover, formerly absorbing a large degree of moisture, the great probability is that dust alone remains. This consideration may tend to discourage an irreverent opinion expressed by some, that it is due to the interests of science to unfold to the world the material abode which formerly held so great an intellect.” Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps has more faith in the alleged precaution than I have. Surely a needy clerk, with an itching palm, would be no match for a relic-hunter. May we not here read between the lines, _q. d._, ‘to allow any one to make free with the masonry and explore the sacred dust?’