Of _local_ surnames few will be introduced; for, as nearly every landed property has given a name to the family of its early proprietor, it would be impossible to include all the names so derived. Only the more remarkable ones of this class, which would appear at first sight to come from a totally different source, will be admitted. Blennerhasset, Polkinghom, Woodhead, Wisdom, Bodycoat, and Crawl, for example, are names of places, and surnames have been derived from them, although few except the persons resident in the particular localities are aware that any such places exist. Most of the names that baffle all historical and etymological acumen are probably of this class. I wish it to be understood that my dictionary will only include family, that is, _hereditary_ surnames. Merely personal sobriquets which died with their first possessors (and which are found in large numbers in ancient records) will be passed by, unless they should illustrate some appellative which has descended to our times. In conclusion, this work is by no means intended to supersede my _English Surnames_, which contains much matter unsuited to dictionary arrangement, and is intended to convey information on a neglected subject in a popular form. The illustrations in the _Dictionary_ will for the most part be new, with references to the _English Surnames_ for others. The foregoing announcement was intended to be sent to "N. & Q." some weeks since. I am now induced to forward it without further delay, because I see the subject of surnames introduced in to-day's number by two different correspondents. COWGILL, the first of these, could, if so disposed, render me efficient help. As to the remarks of J. H. on the works of "Lower and others" (_what others?_), they clearly show that he has never read what he so summarily condemns, or he would not now have to ask for the supposed number of surnames in England, which is given in my third edition, vol. i., preface, p. xiii. Though I am, perhaps, more fully aware than any other person of the defects and demerits of my _English Surnames_, I think the literary public will hardly deny me the credit of "_some_ study and research," praise which has been awarded me by better critics than J. H. It is not my practice to notice the censures of anonymous writers, but I cannot forbear adverting to two points in J. H.'s short communication. In the first place his desire for a work giving _all_ the names used in England, and "showing when they were first adopted or brought into this country," shows his entire want of acquaintance with the existing state of the nomenclature of English families. A glance at a few pages of so common a book as the _London Directory_, will convince any competent observer that there are hundreds upon hundreds of surnames that would baffle the most imaginative etymologist. Secondly, J. H. proposes that an author treating on the subject of family names, should begin "with the Britons." Does he really