justifiable insinuations, levelled against a gentleman whom we all know
to be a man of the highest personal honour.

The questions which are mooted in your pages ought to be discussed with the
mutual forbearance and enlarged liberality which are predominant in the
general society of our metropolis; not with the keen and angry partizanship
which distinguishes the petty squabbles of a country town.

ICON.

Our readers know that we ourselves recently noticed the tendency of too
many of our correspondents to depart from the courteous spirit by which
the earlier communications to this Journal were distinguished. The
intention we then announced of playing the tyrant in future, and
exercising with greater freedom our "editorial privilege of omission,"
we now repeat yet more emphatically. ICON well remarks that we are much
in the power of our contributors. Indeed we are more so than even he
supposes.

An article on the _Notes and Emendations_ which lately appeared in our
columns concluded, in its original form, with an argument against their
genuineness, based on the use of a word unknown to Shakspeare and his
cotemporaries. This appeared to us somewhat extraordinary, and a
reference to Richardson's excellent Dictionary proved that our
correspondent was altogether wrong _as to his facts_. We of course
omitted the passage; but we ought not to have received a statement
founded on a mistake which might have been avoided by a single
reference to so common a book.

Again, at p. 194. of the present volume, another correspondent, after
pointing out some coincidences between the old Emendator and some
suggested corrections by Z. Jackson, and stating that MR. COLLIER never
once refers to Jackson, proceeds: "MR. SINGER, however, talks
familiarly about Jackson, in his _Shakspeare Vindicated_, as if he had
him at his fingers' ends; and yet, at p. 239., he favours the world
with an _original_ emendation (viz. 'He did _behood_ his anger,'
_Timon_, Act III. Sc. 1.), which, however, will be found at page 389.
of Jackson's book." Now, after this, who would have supposed that, as
we learn from MR. SINGER, "MR. INGLEBY has founded his charge on such
slender grounds as one cursory notice of Jackson at p. 288. of my book,
where I mentioned him merely on the authority of MR. COLLIER." And who
that knows MR. SINGER will doubt th