M. S. Baker, Lily Belling, Hetty Blakeston, Ines Bryson, F. Chute, Edith Collins, George R. Davidge, A. S. K. Ellson, Henry Goodwyn, Caroline S. Gregory, Caroline Gundry, Beatrice A. Hawes, Mrs. Hartnell, Marguerite Hendley, M. Hodgkinson, E. St. G. Hodson, Frances E. Kershaw, Mildred E. Lockyear, Winifred A. Lockyear, Jessie Mack, R. Pitman, E. G. Potter, Henzell G. Robson, Edward Rogulski, Annie Saunders, L. W. Siffken, Margaret B. Strathern, L. M. Todd, Mrs. C. E. Walker, Wm. Wearing, Gertrude Wearing. * * * * * EXAMINERS’ REPORT. Once again we have good cause to lament simplicity, nearly three hundred solutions being all but perfect. All those mentioned are word perfect, and the differences which separate the various classes are so slight as to be almost trivial. Let us be explicit: The prize-winners are perfect in every way. The most highly commended are perfect in word and form. Ten group the lines into two stanzas, four leave out the second e in blessed, three omit the note of exclamation in the last verse, and one writes an interjection o! with a small letter. The “very highly commended” list mentions those solvers whose only important fault was a failure to indent the second and corresponding lines. In division I. the lines were grouped into four verses; in division II. into one verse, and in division III. into two verses. Following close upon the steps of perfection is a batch of ninety-six solutions which give “noonday” as a compound word or, even worse, as two words. We do not attempt to deny that solutions with only so trifling an error are deserving of high commendation, but before their turn came the space at our disposal was filled. Some of our readers with that perversity which is the heritage of many puzzle solvers, will doubtless fail to discern the basis of sound common sense underlying our ruling and will denounce it as arbitrary. Candidly, it is sailing quite as near to the wind as we like; but necessity knows no law, so why should an examiner? And after all we are confident that the sweet reasonableness of our decisions will appeal to all but the unwise and prejudiced. A few solvers still persist in ignoring rule 2. It can hardly be because they fail to understand it, and this time we have refrained from mentioning any solver who has transgressed it. Two or three solvers spelt “luxuriancy” with an e instead of an a. This was a pity, because it is much safer in a close competition to spell correctly. There were not many fantastic readings to while away the tedium of adjudication. Perhaps the most curious was a rendering of the eighth line, found in several solutions:— “And all be thine, O specify!” Although the reading can be justified by the text, it has nothing else to commend it unless it be its eccentricity. The eleventh line was often translated:— “Should be so blind to testify.”