MR. HICKSON (Vol. ii., p. 329.) has laid down "a canon of criticism for the guidance of commentators in questions of this nature," so appropriate and valuable, that I cannot except to be bound by it in these remarks; and if in the sequel his own argument (and his friend's proposition to boot) shall be blown up by his own petard, it will show the instability of the cause he has espoused. "Master the _grammatical construction_ of the passage in question (if from a drama, in it dramatic and scenic application), deducing therefrom the general sense, before you attempt to amend or fix the meaning of a doubtful word." Such is the canon; and Mr. HICKSON proceeds to observe, in language that must meet the approval of every student of the immortal bard, that-- "Of all writers, none exceed Shakspeare in _logical correctness_ and nicety of expression. With a vigour of though and command of language attained by no man besides, it is fair to conclude, that _he would not be guilty of faults of construction such as would disgrace a schoolboy's composition_." With this canon so ably laid down, and these remarks so apposite, MR. HICKSON, taking up the weak point which Mr. SINGER had slurred over, observes-- "_Drink up_ is synonymous with _drink off_, _drink to the dregs_. A child taking medicine is urged to 'drink it up.'" Ay, exactly so; drink up what? _the_ medicine; again a defined quantity; dregs and all,--still a _definite_ quantity. MR. HICKSON proceeds: "The idea of the passage appears to be that each of the acts should go beyond the last preceding in extravagance. 'Woo't weep? woo't fight? woo't fast? woo't tear thyself? Woo't drink up eisell?' and then comes the climax--'eat a crocodile?' Here is a regular succession of feats, the last but one of which is sufficiently wild, though not unheard of, and leading to the crowning extravagance. The notion of drinking up a river would be both unmeaning and out of place." From this argument two conclusions are the natural consequences: first, that from _drinking up_ wormwood,--a feat "sufficiently wild but not unheard of," to eating a crocodile, is only a "regular succession of events;" and, secondly, that the "crowning extravagance," to eat a crocodile, is, after all, neither "unmeaning" nor "out of place;" but, on the contrary, quite in keeping and in orderly succession to a "drink up" of the bitter infusion. MR. SINGER (vol. ii., p. 241.) says: "Numerous passages of our old dramatic writers show that it was a fashion with the gallants of the time to do some extravagant feat as proof of their love."