Louisa, married in 1715, to M. de Goyon Matignon, a Breton nobleman, whose descendants, since 1733, when his father-in-law, Antonio, the last Grimaldi, died, have enjoyed both titles, Italian and French.

Paris, and whose motto, as may be seen on existing medals, "Victorem omnium vici," would seem the archetype of Scudéry's "Vainqueur du vainqueur de la terre," ridiculed by Boileau, and repeated by Johnson, in his letter of 7th February, 1757, to Lord Chesterfield. Her predecessor was Cæsar Borgia, congenial fruit of Alexander VI., the disgrace alike of the tiara and of human nature, whose name I introduce in order to mark some inadvertencies in an article, a stirring-I would say, a dashing, but an able and interesting one, by Mr. Macauley, in the 152nd number of the Edinburgh Review, under the head of "Ignatius and his Associates." Some startling assertions there occur, which would require support beyond the pledged word even of the accomplished ex-representative of the Northern Athens; for no other authority is apparent; but time and space compel me to limit my observations, with an accessory remark or two, to what relates to the Borgia family.

The primitive stock, in Spanish Borja, of antique establishment in the province of Valencia, ceased in Alphonso, who became Pope in 1455, under the title of Calixtus III.; but his sister having espoused Gofredo Llançol, a gentleman of the same province, the family name and property were transferred to him, who left two sons, Pedro-Luis, of whom we hear no more, and Rodrigo. The latter, eventually raised to the pontifical throne as Alexander VI., had, while a Cardinal, by Venezia, the wife of Domenico Arema, a Roman citizen, five sons, and a daughter, Lucrezia, of we may say, dubious fame; for the impartial Ranke has not unsuccessfully rescued her character from the depth of infamy, to which it had, in too credulous estimation, long sunk. The eldest son Pedro-Luis after his uncle, created Duke of Gandia in 1485, died young; when the title passed to the third son, John, the second, Cæsar, being then in the church; but the latter soon procured the assassination of his brother, on whose son, also John, by Maria Henriquez, devolved the dukedom. This third bearer of the title married Juana, daughter of Alphonso, the illegitimate son of Ferdinand of Arragon, by whom he had Francis, the fourth duke, who, on the death of his wife, Leonor de Castro, entered into the order of the Jesuits, of which, in 1565, he became the third General, and died in 1572, eminently distinguished for those virtues which justified his canonization by Clement IX. in 1671.

It will be seen from this genealogical deduction, derived from Imhoff's accurate volume, (1701, folio,) and St. Simon, (xix., page 259,) with Dr. Butler's Lives of Saints, under date of 10th October, that the reviewer was incorrect in representing, at page 347, the saint as Alexander's grandson, instead of great-grandson, and in giving the reader to understand that his descent from Ferdinand was legitimate in place of spurious. In fact, he

Amongst the noble alliances of this illustrious house, may be reckoned the marriage of Nicolas di Grimaldi, early in the sixteenth century, with the elder daughter of Louis de Villeneuve, Marquis de Trans, so created by Louis XII., in 1505, when that nobiliary degree was first introduced, as merely titular, unconnected with local jurisdiction, or princely right, into France. The second Marquisate was that of Nesle, registered in 1545, under Francis I.; but that of Trans did not survive the first bearer of the title. In England, the rank was of more remote adoption, having been conferred on Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, in 1386, as Marquis of Dublin, and, the following year, he was made Duke of Ireland, equally the first elevation to that rank of a subject not of blood royal. The earliest titular dukedom in France, as elsewhere shown, was that of Nevers, conferred on a foreign prince of the house of Cleves, in 1505; and Gaston de Foix, who married the younger daughter of the above Louis de

stood in relation to that monarch exactly as Charles Fox did towards our second Charles, no just boast of royal kindred surely, such as the article dwells on. Butler disguises not this latter blemish, but eludes all mention of the deeper stain impressed on the paternal escutcheon. The posterity of Francis have continued to enjoy the Grandeza; and several are known as authors. Even Cæsar, Macchiavelli's famed hero, possessed some poetic talent, to which Nero, too, as we understand from Persius, had pretensions; no accession of honor, indeed, to the children of song, or fancy, no more than is to the Bourbons his marriage with the daughter of Jean d'Albret, King of Navarre, great-grandfather of Jeanne, the mother of Henry, "le bon et grand Henri," the pride of their dynasty, and founder of their throne. (But see also on this family, page 342 of former volume.)

It is, likewise, an error to describe Francis Xavier, at page 298, as the son of a Grandee, which, though of noble birth, (or a hidalgo,) in the continental sense of the term, his father was not, no more than with us, a person by birth and social position, a gentleman, can be called a nobleman—a rank corresponding with the Grandee of Spain, and Grand Seigneur of Franceas remarked at pages 321 and 365 of the first volume.

Villeneuve, was created Duke of Nemours, that same year, being the second promotion.

From a very rapid insight of this second volume of the pixónovos peer, I have deduced these cursory remarks, which a more searching perusal would, I apprehend, have the effect of enlarging. "Prætor non curat de minimis," may the learned writer, in recollection of enjoyed magisterial supremacy, be deemed warranted to object in explanation; but a little anecdote, and of a primary personage, too, in professional fame, may not be unavailably submitted to his lordship's attention, should any chance attract his eye to these columns. Nor, I will add, are the statements of which I have challenged the accuracy, so devoid of interest as to disentitle them to minute consideration; for Louis XIV., and his successors, with Maria Teresa and Frederick, are no unimportant names in history. The little circumstance for which I solicit his lordship's attention is this:

When Sir Astley Cooper was preparing to present his standard work, on "Dislocation," in 1822, to George the Fourth, at the birth-day levee, kept on the 23rd of April, his secretary, Mr. Augustine Waller, to whom he had committed its revision and publication, happened to be indisposed, and requested of me to undertake the task. In the trifling verbal corrections which I had, in consequence, to note, (for the professional portion was beyond my reach,) I remarked the date of the 31st of November, affixed to one of the cases reported in the Appendix, and, of course, placed it in the Corrigenda, trivial though the fault appeared. The Baronet, however, considered the oversight more seriously, and, in impressive words, testified his morti

fication at having suffered it to escape him. "What credit!" exclaimed he, "can I expect for facts declaredly registered as they occur, if they appear recorded, like this, on a non-existing day, while they form the basis of my system, and support my resulting views ?" The whole sheet was accordingly cancelled, rather than exhibit the correction in the errata; an example of sensitive accuracy, rarely, I apprehend, to be paralleled. Sir Astley was not aware of my participation in the matter; and it was from Doctor Waller, who, on his recovery, waited on his patron with the prepared volume, that I learned the latter's emotion, on what he termed his oscitancy.

The approximation of two such men as the allaccomplished peer, and great operator, might suggest some observations on the comparative advantages, social or political, of their respective professions, not omitting the collateral advancement in public life of the proficients in science, or votaries of literature, as now so signally exemplified in France, were I possessed of leisure or information necessary to impart adequate effect to the subject.

The constantly occurring instances of inaccuracies, which I have felt bound to notice in Lord Brougham's late productions, are not, the reader may rest assured, of studied search. On the contrary, I can truly aver, that it deeply pains me to discover, in so gifted a personage, such utter indifference to ascertained facts in his statements. But how pass, unrebuked, the assertion of Lord Stanhope, in the report of his interview with the notorious Fouché, adopted by Lord Brougham, in the third volume of his "Statesmen," page 125, "that Fouché had never been at Nantes,"

whereas he was born in that city, the 29th of May, 1763, partly educated there, and, during the earlier period of his public career, uniformly distinguished as, "Fouché de Nantes?" Lord Brougham, in that volume, appears to recant the too favorable representation of the terrific "Comité de Salut Public," conveyed in his previous apology for Carnot, a member of that sanguinary embodiment of the agents and reign of terror. His lordship is right in retracting, even though constructively rather than avowedly, the error; but altogether, I hesitate not to say, that the French articles of his publication display no deep knowledge of their subjects, or of the nation. At page 123, Lord Stanhope says, " that the memoirs published under Fouché's name do not appear to be authentic." This is an expression of doubt, when he must have known, had he, as he and Lord Brougham were bound to do, when writing on the subject, inquired, that not only was the authenticity disclaimed by Fouché's relatives, but that the printer was fined at their suit, for the fabrication; and that the printer again brought an action against M. Beauchamp, (the author) and recovered damages, for having imposed the work on him as genuine. (See Gent. Mag. for November, 1842, page 488.) Fouché represented, in the Convention, his native department, La Loire Inférieure, of which Nantes is the capital.

Again, at page 144 of his lordship's volume, in denial of the insult, asserted by Junius, to have been offered to the King, it is added-" This was in 1769, when George III. had nearly attained his thirtieth year," but, born the 4th of June, 1738, that Sovereign had, of course, passed his thirtieth year, and, in fact,