This is literally all; and, I ask, can any "conclusion" be much more
inconclusive? Yet Mr. Collier has been so far misled by the deference
paid to him on the strength of his unquestionably great services, and
appears to have been so fully persuaded of the correctness of his
deduction, that he has since referred to as a _proved fact_ what is
really nothing more than an exceedingly _loose conjecture_.

Of the two editors whose names I have mentioned, Mr. Knight's hitherto
expressed opinions in reference to the early stage of Shakspeare's
career in a great measure coincide with mine; and I have no reason to
suppose that it is otherwise than an open question to Mr. Halliwell. For
satisfactory proof in support of my position, time only, I firmly
believe, is required; but the first stage in every case is to remove the
false conclusion that has been drawn, to weaken its impression, and to
reduce it to its true value; and that I have endeavoured to do in the
present paper. In conclusion, I take the opportunity of saying, as the
circumstance in some degree bears upon the present question, that the
evidence in support of the priority of Shakspeare's _Taming of the
Shrew_ to the so-called older play which I withheld, together with what
I have collected since my last paper on the subject, is I think stronger
even than that which I communicated.

SAMUEL HICKSON.

October, 1850.

[Footnote 1: This communication was written and in our hands before the
appearance of Mr. Halliwell's advertisement and letter to _The Times_,
announcing that the edition of Shakspeare advertised as _to be_ edited
by him and published by the Messrs. Tallis, is only a reprint of an