The Spanish statement is this: that Don Antonio de Solis, a well-known Spanish author, wrote in 1665 a romance, entitled “Aventuras del Bachiller de Salamanca, ó Historia de Don Querubim de la Ronda;” that Solis could not publish this in Spain, owing to its containing many allusions to persons then existing; and that Hugo, Marquess of Lionne, ambassador from France at the Spanish court, who was a man of letters, purchased not only a library of Spanish poets and dramatists, but also many manuscripts, which were afterwards seen in the library of the Marquess’s third son; that it is known that this son, Julio de Lionne, was intimately allied in friendship with M. Le Sage, and by him the manuscript of the Bachelor of Salamanca, “Don Querubim de la Ronda,” was confided to Le Sage, who divided the work, making from it the Adventures of Gil Blas, and the Bachelor of Salamanca. These assertions afford a presumption; but no more. At the same time, it cannot escape observation, that a complete refutation of these assertions, or at least of the result drawn from them, would be, the production by the heirs of M. Le Sage, of the manuscript, either of Gil Blas, or the Bachelor of Salamanca. But there are many proofs drawn from the work itself, strongly supporting the presumption afforded by the tale told by the Spaniards. Of these I shall state a few:--1st. There are many French words and phrases, which do not correspond with the usual elegance of Le Sage’s style, and which have the appearance of being literal translations of Spanish words and phrases. 2nd. There are innumerable Spanish proper names in Le Sage’s work, and particularly small villages, of which no foreigner could know the names, still less their geographical position. 3rd. We find in Gil Blas a variety of particular circumstances, usages, and habits, peculiar to Spanish provincial life, of which no stranger could have a sufficient knowledge. 4th. There are in Le Sage’s work innumerable errors in names of persons and towns, seeming to prove, that errors have arisen in copying the Spanish manuscript. The proofs of each of these might extend to a chapter: none of them, taken singly, amount to much; but when considered along with the story told of the manner in which the MS. came into the possession of Le Sage, unanswered, as it is, by the production of any French manuscript; and along with the admitted fact, that several of the incidental stories introduced into Gil Blas are to be found in old Spanish romances,--a strong conviction is produced, that Gil Blas is a Spanish, and not a French work.