I have elsewhere stated my opinion that "all Jackson's emendations are bad." I should have added that some few are very plausible and specious, and worthy of consideration. I will mention one in _King John_, Act IV. Sc. 2. Pembroke says,-- "If, what _in rest_ you have, in right you hold," &c. Now, _rest_ and _right_ are no antithesis, nor are they allied in meaning. Jackson inserts a _t'_ between _in_ and _rest_-- "If, what _int'rest_ you have in right you hold," &c.-- which he supports by admirable parallels from the same play. I will cite one more example of Jackson's sagacity, from his notes on _1 Henry IV._, Act I. Sc. 3. Hotspur says,-- "Never did _bare and_ rotten policy," &c. Jackson reads,-- "Never did _barren_ rotten policy," &c. Mr. Collier never once refers to Jackson. Mr. Singer, however, talks familiarly about Jackson, in his _Shakspeare Vindicated_, as if he had him at his fingers' ends; and yet, at page 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. I may be in error, but I cannot but think such ignorance, on the part of professional Shakspearians, very culpable. C. MANSFIELD INGLEBY. Birmingham. _On Three Passages in "Measure for Measure."_--I have to crave a small space in your columns, which have already done much good service for the text of Shakspeare, to make a very few remarks on three passages in the play of _Measure for Measure_. It is no sweeping change of reading that I am about to advocate, nor, as I think, anything over ingenious; inasmuch as, in two of the passages in question, I propose to defend the reading of the first folio, which, I contend, has been departed from unnecessarily; while, in the third, I suggest the simple change of an _f_ into an _s_. In Act II. Sc. 4., these lines occur in Angelo's soliloquy, in my folio of 1623: "The state whereon I studied Is like a good thing, being often read, Growne feard and tedious." Mr. Knight, and other editors, read _feard_, as in the original, but give no explanation; though such a strange epithet would seem to require one. I propose to read _seared_, _i.e._ dry, the opposite of fresh. This, as the saying is, "requires," I think, "only to be pointed out to be admitted." Lower down in the same scene we find the following passage, in one of Angelo's addresses to Isabel: "Such a person, Whose creadit with the judge, or owne great place, Could fetch your brother from the manacles Of the all-building law."