2. There is this objection against _eisell_ meaning a river,--Would the poet who took a world-wide illustration from _Ossa_, refer in the same passage to an obscure local river for another illustration? Moreover it does not appear to be sufficient to find any mere river, whose name resembles the word in question, without showing also that there is a propriety in Hamlet's alluding, to that particular river, either on account of its volume of water, its rapid flow, &c., or from its being in sight at the time he spoke, or near at hand. Can any of your readers, who have Shakspeare more at their fingers' ends than myself, instance any _exact parallel_ of this allusion of his to _local_ scenery, which, being necessarily obscure, must more or less mar the universality, if I may so speak, of his dramas. Could such instances be pointed out (which I do not deny) or at least any one exactly parallel instance, it would go far towards reconciling myself at least to the notion that _eisell_ is the river Essel. H. C. K. ---- Rectory, Hereford, July 28. LORD MAYOR NOT A PRIVY COUNCILLOR. (Vol. iv., pp. 9. 137.) I will not attempt to follow all the statements of L. M., because some of them are totally beside the question, and others contradict each other. I shall only observe that he totally mistakes _my_ argument when he says, as if in reply to me, that _it is not necessary to have the courtesy title of lord to be a privy councillor_. No one ever said any such thing. What I said was this, that the Mayor of London, like those of Dublin and York, had the courtesy title of _lord_, and that this title of _lord_ brought with it the other courtesy designation of _right honorable_, which latter being _also_ (but not _likewise_) the designation of privy councillors, had, as I suppose, occasioned the error now predicated of the Mayor of London being a privy councillor, which, I repeat, he is no more than any Lord John or Lady Jane, who have also the title of Right Honorable. L. M., however, states as a matter of fact, that "the Lord Mayor is always _summoned to council_ on the accession of a new sovereign." Now I assert, and I think have proved in my former note, that the Lord Mayor never was so _summoned to council_. I now add that he never has on any occasion entered the _council chamber_, that he has never taken the oath nor performed any act of a privy councillor, and that in short there is not the smallest doubt with any one who knows anything about the Privy Council, that the _Lord Mayor of London_ no more belongs to it than the _Lord Mayors of York or Dublin_, or the _Lord Provost of Edinburgh_, all of whom are equally styled Right Honorable, which title, I repeat, is the sole and silly pretence of this new-fangled hypothesis. C. "HOUSE OF YVERY." (Vol. iv., pp. 101. 136.)