ER ali A 
233 
May 11. 
REV. HUMPHREY LLOYD, D.D., President, in the 
Chair. 
John Aldridge, M.D., and George Lefroy, Esq., were 
elected Members of the Academy. 
The reading of the Rev. N. J. Halpin’s Paper, on some 
passages in the lifeof Shakspere, was resumed and concluded. 
The object of this paper is to vindicate the poet’s memory 
from aspersions thrown upon his character, as a father and a 
husband, by Malone, Drake, De Quincey, Moore, &c. 
Those aspersions—unfounded in either fact or tradition— 
are chiefly inferences, rashly drawn, from the poet’s last will 
and testament, and consist of two charges, viz.: favouritism 
towards one of his daughters, and neglect of his wife: which 
Drake lays down as ‘‘ the most striking features” of that do- 
cument. To these are added, from other sources, calumnies 
respecting the education of his children, and jealousy of his 
wife; all of which it is the object of the paper to refute. 
The inference of favouritism towards his eldest daughter, 
deduced from the unequal division of his property, is shown to 
be false, by proving that the inequality was the result of the 
undutiful conduct of the younger, who had married a person of 
inferior station, who was either unable or unwilling to make a 
settlement upon her or her issue; whereas the elder had made 
a match to her father’s entire satisfaction. Malone, Drake, &c. 
assert that, at the time of making his will, the poet was igno- 
rant of his second daughter’s marriage, and still spoke of her 
as an unmarried woman; whereas the reverse is the fact. He 
was aware of the marriage, and thereupon made the fihal dis- 
position of his property ; and though his resentment prevented 
him from mentioning the husband’s name, he still indirectly 
recognizes the marriage, by including him as the husband 
