ch use of them as might be desirable.

During the four years in which I have been engaged upon this book, my
correspondents have been numbered by hundreds. Hardly a man living whom
I suspected of having worked for _Punch_, but I have communicated with
him; scarce one but has afforded all the information within his
knowledge in response to my application. Editor and members of the
_Punch_ Staff, past and present--"outsiders," equally with those
belonging to "the Table"--the relations and friends of such as are dead,
all have given their help, and have shown an interest in the work which
I hope the result may be thought to justify. All this mass of
material--all the evidence, published and unpublished, that was adduced
in order to establish certain points and refute others--had to be
carefully sifted and collated, contrary testimony weighed, and the truth
determined. Especially was this the case in dealing with the valuable
reminiscences imparted by _Punch's_ earliest collaborators, still or
till lately living. Of undoubted contributors and their work, it may be
stated, more than two hundred and fifty are here dealt with. A further
number cheerfully submitted to cross-examination on one or other of the
many subjects touched upon; and probably as many more were approached
with only negative results.

My special thanks are due to Mrs. Chaplin, the daughter of the late Mr.
Ebenezer Landells, who unreservedly placed in my hands all the _Punch_
documents, legal and otherwise, accounts, and letters, concerning the
origin and early editorships of _Punch_, which have been preserved in
the family; and to Messrs. Bradbury and Agnew, who have supplemented
these with similar assistance, as well as with books of the Firm
establishing points of literary interest not hitherto suspected,
together with the letters of Thackeray which illustrate his early
connection with and final secession from the Staff. Apart from their
general interest, these documents, taken together, establish the facts
of such very vexed questions as the origin and the early editorships of
_Punch_. This is the more satisfactory, perhaps, by reason of the
numerous unfounded claims--or founded chiefly on family tradition or
filial pride and affection--which are still being made on behalf of
supposed originators of the Paper. Even these partisan historians, it is
believed, will hardly be able to resist the proofs here set forth;
although attested fact does not, with th