Perhaps you would kindly allow me to say thus much; for the remembrance of the papers just alluded to renders a necessary protest against that gentleman's observations on the meaning of the word _delighted_ somewhat gentler. I happen to be one of the unfortunates (a circumstance unknown to MR. HICKSON, for the work in which my remarks on the passage are contained is not yet published) who have indulged in what he terms the "cool impertinence" of explaining _delighted_, in the celebrated passage in _Measure for Measure_, by "delightful, sweet, pleasant;" and the explanation appears to me to be so obviously correct, that I am surprised beyond measure at the terms he applies to those who have adopted it. But MR. HICKSON says,-- "I pass by the nonsense that the greatest master of the English language did not heed the distinction between the past and the present participles, as not worth second thought." I trust I am not trespassing on courtesy when I express a fear that a sentence like this exhibits the writer's entire want of acquaintance with the grammatical system employed by the great poet and the writers of his age. We must not judge Shakspeare's grammar by Cobbett or Murray, but by the vernacular language of his own times. It is perfectly well known that Shakspeare constantly uses the passive for the active participle, in the same manner that he uses the present tense for the passive participle, and commits numerous other offences against correct grammar, judging by the modern standard. If MR. HICKSON will read the first folio, he will find that the "greatest master of the English language" uses plural nouns for singular, the plural substantive with the singular verb, and the singular substantive with the plural verb. In fact, so numerous are these instances, modern editors have been continually compelled to alter the original merely in deference to the ears of modern readers. They have not altered _delighted_ to _delightful_; but the meaning is beyond a doubt. "Example is better than precept," and perhaps, if MR. HICKSON will have the kindness to consult the following passages with attention, he may be inclined to arrive at the conclusion, it is not so very dark an offence to assert that Shakspeare did use the passive participle for the active; not in ignorance, but because it was an ordinary practice in the literary compositions of his age. "To your _professed_ bosoms I commit him." _King Lear_, Act i. Sc. 1. {140} "I met the youthful lord at Laurence' cell, And gave him what _becomed_ love I might. Not stepping o'er the bounds of modesty." _Romeo and Juliet_, Act iv. Sc. 3. "Thus ornament is but the _guiled_ shore To a most dangerous sea." _Merchant of Venice_, Act iii. Sc. 2. "Then, in despite of _brooded_ watchful day, I would into thy bosom pour my thoughts." _King John_, Act iii. Sc. 3. "And careful hours, with time's _deformed_ hand, Have written strange defeatures in my face."