The Greek MSS., or some of them, are still with the collection as above; and of course were not returned to the Vatican. H.S. Morley's Hotel, April 28. _Tablet to Napoleon_ (No. 17. p. 263., No. 25. p. 406.).--"C.I.R.'s" interpretation can hardly be admitted. The true meaning will be best exhibited by the following form:-- "Napoleoni, Ægyptiaco, Bis Italico, Semper Invicto." _Bis Italico_ alludes to his twice conquering Italy, viz., in his first campaign, and again in that of Marengo. C. _Malone's Blunder_ (No. 25. p. 403.).--"Mr. BOLTON CORNEY," in his answer on this subject, says very justly, that "before we censure a writer, we should consult his own edition." He has, however, not followed this excellent principle in this case, for he has certainly not looked at the Irish edition of Malone, on which the question arises. He has repeated what I had already stated (No. 24. p. 386.), that the mistake was _not_ a blunder of _Malone's_; and he has also pointed out, what had escaped me, Malone's supplemental note containing the first _three_ articles of the pretended will of _John_ Shakspeare: but when he adds that there is "_no fabrication_" and "_no mystery_" in the case, and that "the blunder of the Irish editor was merely in attempting to _unite the two fragments_ as published by Malone," it is quite clear that he has not seen the edition in question, and has, I think, mistaken the whole affair. The Irish editor did _not_ attempt to unite Malone's fragments--quite the contrary--he left Malone's first fragment as he found it; but he took the second fragment, namely, the exordium of the pretended will of _John_ Shakspeare, and substituted it _bodily_ as the exordium of the will of _William_ Shakspeare, suppressing altogether the real exordium of the latter. So that this Irish will begins, "I, _John_ Shakspeare," &c., and ends, "by me, _William_ Shakspeare." I have no doubt that the will of John Shakspeare is a forgery altogether; but the taking three paragraphs of it, and substituting them for the two first paragraphs of _William_ Shakspeare's genuine will, is what I call, and what no doubt "Mr. BOLTON CORNEY" will think, on this explanation of the facts, "an audacious fabrication." The best guess I can make as to how, or with what design, the Irish editor should have perpetrated so complicated, and yet so manifest a blunder, is this:--Malone printed the fragment in question at the end of his volume, amongst his "Emendations and additions," as belonging to "_the will before printed_," meaning the forged will of _John_ Shakspeare, but that the Irish editor understood him to mean the genuine will of _William_ Shakspeare; and so thought that he was only restoring the latter to its integrity: but how he could have overlooked the difference of names, and the want of continuity in the meaning of the documents, is still to me utterly incomprehensible. C.