Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 6.djvu/56

 42 NOTES AND QUERIES. WB. VL JULY 21,1900. in tlie second narrative, it cannot be shown that this had any connexion with the Shakespearian entries in the first. The question will naturally be asked, What, then, has become of Keeling's journal 1 All that can be said in reply is that it has disappeared since Mr. Rundall's time with the exception of the front page, which (in very bad condition) still exists at the India Office. Nor need we attach any dark signi- ficance to such a disappearance. The India House records had not always careful custo- dians, and many documents are known to have been disposed of or allowed to stray. The diary of Richard Cocks, the head of the English factory at Hirado, which is also quoted by Mr. Rundall as being at the India House, is not now to be found in the India Office collection ; but it is safe at the British Museum, and has been published under the editorship of Sir Maunde Thompson. Had it not been for its fortunate preservation in the national collection, its existence might by this time have been made a matter of doubt, and Mr. Randall's quotations denounced as forgeries. I submit, therefore, that the charge of forgery, on the evidence available, is at least not proven. The supposition that the pages containing the entries in question have been surreptitiously destroyed has been shown to be based on a misapprehension ; and we may add at least two reasons against the proba- bility of foul play. In the first place, both Mr. Kundall's good faith and his ability to detect a fraud of this description are beyond suspicion ; and, secondly, the deception would have been purposeless. The entries prove nothing as to the date of the plays or any other point of importance, and Mr. Rundall quoted them merely as interesting incidents. It is only fair to add that there is one feature in the quotations themselves which may have tended to strengthen suspicion, namely, that one of the entries purports to be for 31 September ; but apart from the unlikelihood of any forger committing so obvious an error, there is reason to think that this is merely due to a copyist's or a printer's omissio_n; and in the copy of Mr. Rundall's book in the India Office Library the date has been altered, possibly by that gentleman himself, to 31 March, 1608. If it •was altered by any one else, presumably this was done by some one who had checked the entry ; ana in that case we have a second witness. Obviously, however, this argument cannot be pressed. That plays were acted on board the East India Company's ships in their tedious and lengthy voyages is to some extent borne out by an entry in another journal of the time, now No. XII. of the Marine Records. This journal was kept by Benjamin Greene, a factor on boarq the Darling in the sixth voyage under Sir Henry Miqdleton. In his narrative Greene says nothing about any dramatic performance, but on a spare sheet at the end is copied out the following frag- ment, which, as will be seen, gives only the list of characters and a few lines of the opening dialogue. Possibly some reader of ' N. & Q.' may be able to identify the play. The entry is as follows:— Corns. Astorildo emperor coe- Carrabunculo R fletruria licia Brufard his bastard Cleobulo & Druball his sonne sonues Merinda his wife Corderia his wife Dionisia his faire < laugh- liuia her daughter ter Lord Pridamor Catropus Brufards frend lo: Parracie flox (?) the hostler Jack Pretty Cleobuloea Nibs the coachman man Racrox & Rabix [UUyibli] Tuckit Druballs man Attendants Cristobell Vna Plebia Curia &c. Enter at one dore—Coras ct Racrox at thother Ra. Wolmet frend what newes if thou wilt goe to the rose we will a cupe of merrigoe downe. Co. I pray keepe of you are a great disturber of the common. WILLIAM FOSTER. India Office, 8.W. THE CHINESE IN LONDON. IN the Daily Mail of 27 June there are two or three columns on ' London's Chinatown.' The illustrations represent (1) a prosperous London Chinee: (2) a Chinese grocery at 21, Limehouse Causeway; (3) the grave in Plaistow Cemetery of poor Ngeu Hwo-wan; (4) a London opium den. The letterpress gives wonderfully little information, but it reminded me that the subject, although a favourite one with the daily papers (I have myself at various dates written concerning it in the Globe, Morning Leader, Pall Mall Gazette, Standard, <fcc.), has never been thrashed out in these more suitable, because more per- manent, pages. The present juncture, when all eyes are turned upon China, seems a favourable one for repairing this omission. I remember the surprise of a novelist, whose knowledge of the metropolis is admittedly extensive and peculiar, when I introduced him to these opium and gambling houses. Indeed, although it has repeatedly been de-