As I am on this subject, I shall further trouble you with a circumstance in connexion therewith, which has recently come to my knowledge. My friend, Mr. Herbert, M.P., of Muckross Abbey, Killarney, has also an old family picture of the same lady, with a very curious inscription, which, while it would appear to go far towards establishing several of her characteristic attributes, has also its peculiar difficulties, which I shall presently point out, in the hope that some of your correspondents who are learned in such matters may explain them. The inscription, which is on the canvass itself, is as follows: "Catharine, Countesse of Desmonde, as she appeared at ye court of our Sovraigne Lord King James, in thys preasant A.D. 1614, and in ye 140th yeare of her age. Thither she came from Bristol to seek relief, ye house of Desmonde having been ruined by Attainder. She was married in ye Reigne of King Edward IV., and in ye course of her long Pilgrimage renewed her teeth twice: her Principal residence is at Inchiquin, in Munster, whither she undoubtedlye proposeth (her Purpose accomplished) incontinentlie to return. LAUS DEO." Now, as to the authenticity of this picture, there can, I should think, be no question. It has not been _got up_ for the present antiquarian controversy; for it is known to have been in existence in the family of Mr. Herbert for a great many years. It could not well be a mystification of the intervening "middle age," for in that case it would doubtless have been brought forward at _the time_, to establish a particular theory as to this lady. I think, therefore, it is only reasonable to suppose that it was painted at the time it professes. It may also be mentioned, in corroboration, that a connoisseur who examined this picture for Mr. Herbert attributed it to the hand of Jamieson, the Scotch painter, who lived at a time that would render it quite possible for him to have painted it from life. So far so good. The main difficulty is that of the dates given in the inscription. If the Countess was 140 in 1614, and therefore born in 1474, she could have been but eight or nine years old at the death of Edward IV., and therefore could not have been married in his reign. It is difficult to account for this discrepancy, except by supposing that the old lady sank ten years of her age (and there are statements in existence of 1464 being the year of her birth); or else by supposing that the story of her marriage in the reign of Edward IV. was not her own, but communicated, at second-hand and erroneously, to the artist.