The _Border Miscellany_, or, as it is printed on the illustrated cover, _Thompson’s Border Miscellany_, was published at Berwick-on-Tweed, March, 1852, price sixpence, and though consisting of only forty-eight pages, octavo, it contains several exceedingly interesting items, among which I would reckon an “Unpublished Letter of Sir Walter Scott,” “Atoms of Information,” and the article of rather more than eight pages, entitled “The Tweed and its Tributaries,” by a disciple of Isaak Walton. The extracts from the Books of Council and Session, under the heading, “Memoranda Scotica,” are also interesting, especially to those who may have the genealogy of the Oliphants and other Scottish families at heart. The story with which the _Miscellany_ opens, “Florrette; or, Henri Quatre’s First Love,” adapted from the German of Zschokke, by Bon Gualtier, is, in my humble estimation, a piece of dull, uninteresting reading. The poetry, literary notices, and some other odds and ends, do not call for special recognition. Here is the motto of this short-lived magazine:-- “L’ENVOY. For us and our Miscellany, Here, stooping to your clemency, We beg your hearing patiently. SHAKESPEARE (New Edition).” On the back cover the following note of warning appeared:-- “Publishers are warned that the articles in this Miscellany are copyright. When short extracts from any of the papers are quoted, it will be obliging if the name of the Miscellany be prefixed.” Who the editor of this venture was I know not, though I am aware that it was published by W. Thompson, at the time and place already mentioned. Perhaps some of your readers can throw light on the matter. P. J. MULLIN. _Leith, N.B._ PORTREEVE. SIR,--Should any of your readers feel further interest in this subject, I would beg to refer them to your September number for my defence against Mr. Round’s repeated attacks, and contrast my paper with the misrepresentations which are now made of it in his note for this month. I would fain assume that these misrepresentations are not intentional, and that they may rather be attributed to that “lamentable confusion--truly distressing confusion,” which another contributor to your pages has described as characteristic of a former paper by Mr. Round, and which, indeed, seems to pervade all his papers. That these misrepresentations, however, exist will not for a moment be doubted by anyone who may make the comparison above suggested, and their existence, from whatever cause arising, must for the future preclude my bestowing any further notice of anything emanating from Mr. Round. It seems almost unnecessary to specify any of the misrepresentations in question, but as something of the kind may be expected, and for the satisfaction of those who may not have seen my paper, or have an opportunity of easily referring to it, I will just cite one or two examples out of the numerous ones with which Mr. Round’s note abounds.