The inquiry of MR. R. W. DIXON is one that I feel should not remain unanswered; and a few circumstances that I can detail will be sufficient to prove that his brother Mr. J. H. Dixon only exercised a just discretion in rejecting the information offered by William Sidney Spence. On 4th March, 1848 (a few months, therefore, earlier than the letter which has been quoted), a communication was forwarded to me by Mr. Spence so similar, as to warrant the supposition that a set form was kept on hand to be copied in different applications with such variations as each case might demand, though even then a discrepancy has crept in that would render the evidence suspicious. The first paragraph is the same, except that Mr. Spence states he was engaged by the "_widow_ of Sir John Cotgreave," instead of the "_sister_." In the second the pedigree is said to be the "work of Randle Holme, 1672, from documents by William Camden," instead of the work of "the great Camden." Monsons, of course, are substituted instead of Dixons. Four generations from Sir John Monson temp. Edward III., instead of five generations from Ralph Dixon temp. Henry VI. And this Sir John is slain fighting under Lord Audley at the battle of Poictiers, 1356, as a counterpart to Ralph Dixon, slain at the battle of Wakefield, 1460. The third paragraph is word for word the same, except that, to be consistent with the descents, four shields with sixteen quarterings are offered instead of five shields with twelve. Lady Cotgreave is to vouch for the authenticity instead of Miss Cotgreave. The quarterings promised in the next paragraph are only partially the same, and the conclusion merely differs in wording by the substitution of the names of "Sir John Monson" and "his mother Elinor, daughter and coheir of Sir John Sutton, de Sutton and Congleton," in place of "Ralph Dixon and his mother Maude, daughter and coheiress of Sir Ralph Fitz Hugh," &c. I acknowledge that from the first I did not believe a word of this ingenious tale; in fact I was rather an unfortunate subject for Mr. Spence's purpose, having for years made the early history of my family my especial study; but having a friend resident at Birkenhead (a clergyman), I applied to him out of curiosity to find out something of my informant, who at least had shown some ingenuity. The answer was by no means in favour of Mr. Spence; and one fact was decidedly ascertained, that he neither lived nor was known in Priory Place, whence his letters were dated. I answered his letter, declining to give the remuneration of five pounds which he had asked; and on taxing him with the falsity of his residence, he said he had his letters left there for convenience.