To any person who reflects on the doctrine of the church of Rome in the article of marriage, it certainly must appear strange that the parents of the Count Cunio and his first wife, the mother of the twins, should have had the power of dissolving the marriage and of banishing the priest by whom it was solemnized; and still more singular it is that the Count Cunio, whom we must suppose to have been a good Catholic, should speak, after his father’s death, of re-establishing his marriage with his first wife and of publicly espousing her; and that he should make such a communication to her through the medium of her son, who, as well as his sister, must have been declared illegitimate by the very fact of their mother’s divorce. It is also strange that this piece of family history should come to the knowledge of the grandson of Jan. Jacq. Turine. The Count Cunio’s second marriage surely must have been canonically legal, if the first were not; and if so, it would not be a sense of duty alone to his second wife that would prevent him divorcing her and re-marrying the first. On such subjects the church was to be consulted; and to such playing fast-and-loose with the sacrament of marriage the church said “NO.” Taking these circumstances into consideration, I can come to no other conclusion than that, on this point, the writer of the history of the Cunio did not speak truth; and that the paper containing such history, even if it could be produced, is not genuine, as every other part of it which has the slightest bearing on the point at issue, is equally, if not more, improbable.