the old bed. It is certain, I believe, that the original stone did
not bear the name of Shakespeare, any more than its successor: but
it is not certain that the four lines appear upon the new stone in
exactly the same literal form as they did upon the old one. {31} I
wish I could add that these two were the only occasions when either
grave or gravestone was meddled with. I am informed, on the
authority of a Free and Accepted Mason, that a Brother-Mason of his
has explored the grave which purports to be Shakespeare's, and that
he found nothing in it but dust. The former statement must be taken
cum grano. Granting this, however, the latter statement will not
surprise my valued friend Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, who thinks
he sees a reason for the disappearance of Shakespeare's Bones, in
the fact that his coffin was buried in the Chancel mould. {32} If
this be all the ground of his assurance, that nothing but dust would
reward the search, I would say "despair thy charm;" for many corpses
so buried have for many years been preserved in comparative
freshness--corpses which had been treated with no more care than the
body of Shakespeare is believed to have received. The last case to
come to my knowledge, was that of the Birmingham poet, John Freeth,
the father of my old friend John Freeth, formerly the Clerk (or
principal manager) of the Birmingham Canal Navigations. On the
destruction of the burial-place of the Old Meeting House, in Old
Meeting Street, Birmingham, in March, 1882, the coffin of the poet
was found in the earth, and on opening it, the face was almost as
fresh, and quite as perfect, as on the day of the old man's
interment seventy-four years before: and as to his bones? Does Mr.
Halliwell-Phillipps believe that in a period but little more than
double that of the poet Freeth's unmolested repose, namely 180
years, all Shakespeare's Bones would have been turned to dust, and
become indistinguishable from the mould in which the coffin lay? To