All persons will, I think, agree with MR. WARDEN in his very just complaint of the carelessness with which many of the English Peerages are compiled. It would be a task, little short of a new compilation, to correct the errors and inaccuracies with which many of these productions abound, the less pardonable now, because of the facilities afforded for consulting the Public Records, should even our older genealogists, without such aids, be in some degree excused; but as MR. WARDEN invites, by a personal appeal, the rectification of a chronological error which has crept into all the Peerages, founded upon the authority of Dugdale, respecting the period of the death of Thomas, sixth Lord Fauconberge, I am induced to send you a few Notes, which a recent examination of the Records in the Tower of London has supplied. When the facts are made patent, there will be no need to dwell upon the inconsistencies pointed out by MR. WARDEN, and the alleged incompatibility in regard to age for an union between two persons of some note in family history, the son of the first Earl of Westmoreland and his Countess Joan and the daughter and heir of the Lord Fauconberge, who formed an alliance from which the co-heirs are, it is believed, represented at this day. The birth of William Nevill, Lord Fauconberge, afterwards created Earl of Kent, second son of a marriage which took place early in, or just before, the year 1397, may be assigned to in or about the year 1400; and we shall presently see that his future wife was born on the 18th of October, 1406, and married to him before the 1st of May, 1422. Walter, fifth Lord Fauconberge, died on the 29th of September, 1362 (Esc. 36 Edw. III., 1st part, No. 77.), leaving a son Thomas (issue of his first marriage with Matilda, sister and co-heir of Sir William de Pateshull, Kt., Esc. 33 Edw. III., 1st part, No. 40., and _Rot. Orig._, 34 Edw. III., Ro. 2.), then a minor, under eighteen years of age.