It has often been noticed, that when a writer wishes to support some favourite hypothesis, he quite overlooks many important particulars that militate against his own view of the case. The Rev. Mr. Corser, in his valuable communication respecting Sir George Buc (Vol. ii., p. 38.), is not exempt from this accusation. He has omitted the statement of Malone, that "Sir George Buc died on the 28th of September, 1623." (Boswell's _Shakspeare_, iii. 59.) We know _positively_ that in May 1622, Sir George, "by reason of sickness and indisposition of body, wherewith it hath pleased God to visit him, was become disabled and insufficient to undergo and perform" the duties of Master of the Revels; and it is equally _positive_ that Malone would not so circumstantially have said, "Sir George Buc _died_ on the 28th of September, 1623," without some good authority for so doing. It is only to be regretted that the learned commentator neglected to give that authority. Mr. Corser wishes to show that Sir George Buc's days "were further prolonged till 1660;" but I think he is in error as to his conclusions, and that _another_ George Buc must enter the field and divide the honours with his knightly namesake. It is perfectly clear that a George Buc was living long after the date assigned as that of the death of Sir George, by Malone. This George _Buck_, for so he invariably spells his name, contributed a copy of verses to Yorke's _Union of Honour_, 1640; to Shirley's _Poems_, 1646; and to the folio edition of Beaumont and Fletcher's _Plays_, 1647. Ritson, then, when speaking of Sir George Buc's _Great Plantagenet_, as published in 1635, was rather hasty in pronouncing it as the work of "some fellow who assumed his name," because here is evidence that a person of the same name (if not Sir George himself, as Mr. Corser thinks) was living at the period. The name, if _assumed_ in the case of the _Great Plantagenet_, would hardly have been kept up in the publications just alluded to.