MR. INGLEBY will see that in the brief preface to the "monovolume Shakspeare," I expressly say that "while a general similarity (to the folio 1632) has been preserved, care has been taken _to rectify the admitted mistakes of the early impression_, and to introduce such alterations of a corrupt and imperfect text, as were warranted by better authorities. Thus, while the new readings of the old corrector of the folio 1632, considerably exceeding a thousand, are duly inserted in the places {74} to which they belong, the old readings, which, during the last century and a half, have recommended themselves for adoption, and have been derived from a comparison of ancient printed editions, have also been incorporated." I do not know how I could have expressed myself with greater clearness; and it was merely for the sake of distinctness that I referred to the result of my own labours in 1842, 1843, and 1844, during which years my eight volumes octavo were proceeding through the press. Those labours, it will be seen, essentially contributed to lighten my task in preparing the "monovolume Shakspeare." My answer respecting the passage in _The Taming of the Shrew_, referred to by MR. INGLEBY, will, I trust, be equally satisfactory; it shall be equally plain. I inserted _ambler_, because it is the word substituted in manuscript in the margin of my folio 1632. I adopted _mercatante_, as proposed by Steevens, not only because it is the true Italian word, but because it exactly fits the place in the verse, _mercatant_ (the word in the folios) being a syllable short of the required number. In the very copy of Florio's _Italian Dictionary_, which I bought of Rodd at the time when I purchased my folio 1632, I find _mercatante_ translated by the word "marchant," "marter," and "trader," exactly the sense required. Then, as to "surely" instead of _surly_, I venture to think that "surely" is the true reading: "In gait and countenance surely like a father." "Surely like a father" is certainly like a father; and although a man may be _surly_ in his "countenance," I do not well see how he could be _surly_ in his "gait;" besides, what had occurred to make the pedant _surly_? This appears to me the best reason for rejecting _surly_ in favour of "surely;" but I have another, which can hardly be refused to an editor who professes to follow the old copies, where they are not contradicted. I allude to the folio 1628, where the line stands precisely thus: "In gate and countenance surely like a Father."