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 the truth of his assertion, that he has not even seen Jackson's book for near a quarter of a century, and that he had not the slightest reason to doubt that the conjecture of _behood_ for _behave_ was his own property?[2] But there is another gentleman who, although he has never whispered a remonstrance to us upon the subject, has even more grounds of complaint than MR. SINGER, for the treatment which he has received in our columns; we mean our valued friend and contributor MR. COLLIER, who we feel has received some injustice in our pages. But the fact is that, holding, as we do unchanged, the opinion which we originally expressed of the great value of the _Notes and Emendations_--knowing MR. COLLIER'S character to be above suspicion--and believing that the result of all the discussions to which the _Notes and Emendations_ have given rise, will eventually be to satisfy the world of their great value,--_we_ have not looked so strictly as we ought to have done, and as we shall do in future, to the tone in which they have been discussed in "N. & Q." And here let us take the opportunity of offering a few suggestions which we think worthy of being borne in mind in all discussions on the text of Shakspeare, whether the object under consideration be what Shakspeare actually wrote, or what Shakspeare really meant by what he did write.