The mischief that arises from apparently the most trifling inaccuracy in a statement of fact is scarcely to be estimated. A mistake is repeated, multiplied, and perpetuated often to an extent that no after rectification can thoroughly efface. Blunders even become sacred by antiquity; and the attempt to correct any misstatement, if it does not entirely fail through the subsequent destruction of evidence that would have contained the refutation, is frequently received with a coldness and suspicion, and can seldom, with every aid from undoubted sources, be brought to prevail against the more familiar and preconceived impression. An illustration of this may be seen in the reference made by your correspondent C. V. to the authority of Dugdale, as overriding the result of later investigations relative to the issue respectively of the fifth and seventh Lords Clifford of Westmoreland. The loose and ill-advised assertion of Miss Strickland, intended as it clearly was to insinuate a mean origin in Jane Seymour, and to lessen her pretension to an exalted birth, has fortunately received a most complete and signal disproof; but a question is now raised, which, if it can be supported, will suit Miss Strickland's view quite as well as her own inconclusive statement. I cannot but think that what she wished to say is, as hinted in the suggestion of C. V., that the claim contended for cannot be supported through the alleged marriage of a Wentworth with the descendant of Elizabeth Percy, because Elizabeth, Lady Percy's only daughter, Lady Elizabeth de Percy, who married John, Lord Clifford, is by _some_ ancient heralds stated to have left no daughter. This would have been an intelligible assertion, and not entirely inconsistent with what may be gathered from peerages, and other works compiled solely upon the authority of Dugdale; and it is indeed the very point of difficulty contemplated by your learned correspondent C.V., who if I do not mistake the signature, is himself an authority entitled to much respect. Dugdale, Collins, and Nicolas make the intermarriage of Wentworth to have taken place with a daughter of Roger, fifth Lord Clifford; and Dugdale and Collins are silent as to any female issue of John, the seventh Lord. Edmondson (_Baronagium Genealogicum_, vol. iv. p. 364.) adopts the same conclusion; but no higher authority is cited by any one of the above writers, upon which to found this statement. On the other hand, both Collins and Edmondson, in the Wentworth pedigree, show the marriage of Sir Philip Wentworth, of Nettlested, to have taken place with a daughter of John, seventh Lord Clifford. Edmondson describes the daughter as _Elizabeth_; but Collins more accurately calls her _Mary_. Banks (_Baronage_, vol. ii. p. 90.) gives both statements with an asterisk, implying a doubt as to which of the two is to be accepted.