_Cum Grano Salis._--Sometime ago I asked from what figure is borrowed the expression of "Cum grano salis," and have had no reply. I can't find it in Erasmus. Once a very clever Cambridge man said that it meant "the thing must be swallowed with a little Attic salt to make it go down pleasantly." I don't think that he was right. E. H. _Earl of Clarendon's Daughter, Lucretia._--I should be very glad to learn whether the great Earl of Clarendon had a daughter named Lucretia. A friend of mine is descended from Dr. Marsh, archbishop of Armagh, who (it is said) married Lucretia, daughter of the Earl of Clarendon, and was the father of Lucretia, wife of Dr. McNeil, Dean of Down and Connor. WEDSECNARF. _Vandyke's Portrait of Lord Aubigny._--Can any of your correspondents give any information respecting a portrait, by Vandyke, of George Lord Aubigny, brother to the Duke of Richmond and Lennox? There is no doubt that such a picture once existed. L. _Foundation Stone of St. Mark's, Venice._--In vol. xxvi. of the _Archaeologia_ is a paper by the late Mr. Douce, "On the foundation stone of the original church of St. Mark, at Venice," &c., accompanied by an engraving of the mutilated object itself, which also appears to have been submitted to the inspection of the Society of Antiquaries at the time the paper was read. The essay contains, in reality, very little information relating to the stone, and that little is of no very satisfactory kind; and I have never been able to divest myself of the idea that it bears somewhat the semblance of a hoax. Were I inclined to discuss the points which have suggested this notion, the necessity there is for brevity in corresponding with the Editor of "NOTES AND QUERIES" would preclude my doing it; but I must quote the following passage, which comes immediately after the statement that the original church, in the foundation of which this stone was deposited, was destroyed in 976. "It is very possible that, in clearing away the rubbish of the old church, the original foundation stone was discovered, and, in some way or other, at present not traceable, preserved." {89} If the fact is so, this stone, "of a circular form, the diameter six inches and a quarter, its thickness half an inch," must have been loose in the world for 858 years from its exhumation to 1834, when Mr. Douce's essay was read, and during that time has lost only the least important part of its inscription and ornaments. Can any one say where this stone now is? When and where Mr. Douce obtained it? And, I must add, what history was attached to it when in his possession? for he was not a person likely to possess such an object without, at least, endeavouring to trace its history. On these points the essay contains not a word. H. C. R.