proposes to publish afterwards. What Mr. Hallam calls an "edition," was
the first publication.

Mere accident enabled me to detect these errors. I am not a
bibliographer and do not know a ten-thousandth part of what Mr. Hallam
knows. I extract this note from my common-place book, and send it to
you, hoping to elicit the opinions of some of your learned
correspondents on the general accuracy in biography and bibliography of
Mr. Hallam's _History of Literature_. Has Mr. Bolton Corney, if I may
venture to name him, examined the work? His notes and opinion would be
particularly valuable.

As a few inaccuracies such as this may occur in any work of large scope
proceeding from the most learned of men, and be accidentally detected by
an ignoramus, so a more extensive impeachment of Mr. Hallam's accuracy
would make a very trifling deduction from his great claims to respect
and well-established fame. I believe I rightly understand the spirit in
which you desire your periodical to be the medium for emending valuable
works, when I thus guard myself against the appearance of disrespect to
a great ornament of literature.

C.

* * * * *

NOTES FROM CUNNINGHAM'S HANDBOOK FOR LONDON.

We have already shown pretty clearly, how high is the opinion we
entertain of the value of our able contributor Mr. Peter Cunningham's
amusing _Handbook for London_, by the insertion of numerous Notes _upon_