(Vol. viii., pp. 461. 549.; Vol. ix., pp. 3. 204. 356.)

"Des gens qui Écrivent pour le Comte de Grammont peuvent compter sur quelque indulgence."—Vide Introduction to the Memoirs.

Grammont's first visit to England may have been in Nov. 1655, when Bordeaux, the French ambassador, concluded a treaty with Cromwell, whereby France agreed totally to abandon the interests of Charles II.; and Cromwell, on his part, declared war against Spain, by which we gained Jamaica. Another opportunity occurred in 1657, when Cromwell's son-in-law, Lord Fauconberg, was sent to compliment Louis XIV. and Cardinal Mazarin, who were near Dunkirk. The ambassador presented some horses to the King and his brother, and also to the Cardinal. They made the ambassador handsome presents, and the King sent the Duke de Crequi as his ambassador extraordinary to the Protector, accompanied by several persons of distinction.

Grammont was at the siege of Montmedi, which surrendered on the 6th August, 1657.

He accompanied his brother, the Marshal, to Madrid in 1660, to demand the hand of the Infanta for his sovereign. On the Kings entry into Paris the same year with his Queen, Madame de Maintenon writes:

"The Chevalier de Grammont, Rouville, Bellefont, and some other courtiers, followed the household of Cardinal Mazarin, which surprised everybody: it was said it was out of flattery. The Chevalier was dressed in a flame-coloured suit, and was very brilliant."

In 1662 he was disgraced on account of Madlle de la Motte Houdancourt, aggravated also, it is said, by his having watched the King getting over the tiles into the apartments of the maids of honour, and spread the report about.

The writer of the notes to the Memoirs supposes that the Count's circumstances were not very flourishing on his arrival in England, and that he endeavoured to support himself by his literary acquirements. A scarce little work in Latin and French on King Charles's coronation was attributed to him, the initials to which were P. D. C., which it was said might stand for Philibert de Cramont. There seems no reason for this supposition: his finances were no worse in England than they had been in France; and there is no doubt he made his appearance at the Court of England under the greatest advantages. His family were specially protected by the Duke and Duchess of Orleans, the favourite sister of King Charles; and the Count was personally known to the King and to the Duke of York; and from a letter of Comminges', dated 20th Dec. 1662, it may be almost inferred that the Duke sent his own yacht to fetch the Count to London. Bussi-Rabutin writes of the Count, that he wrote almost worse than any one, and therefore not very likely to recruit his finances by authorship.

The exact date of Grammont's marriage has yet to be fixed: probably a search at Doctors' Commons for the licence, or in the Whitehall Registers, if such exist, would determine the day. The first child, a boy, was born on the 28th August, O. S., 7th September, 1664, but did not live long. This would indicate that the marriage took place in December, 1663. From Comminges' letters, dated in that month, it must have been on a day subsequent to the 24th December. Their youngest child, who was afterwards an abbess, was born on the 27th December, 1667.

It has been stated that Grammont was the hero of MoliÈre's Mariage forcÉe, which was performed before the Court at Versailles in 1664. Comminges' letter of May 19-24, 1664, may allude to the Count's conduct to Miss Hamilton. He was twenty years older than the lady.

Under date of October 24-November 3, 1664, Comminges announces the departure from London of the Count and Countess de Grammont.

The Count was present with the King at the conquest of Franche Comte in 1660, and in particular at the siege of DÔle in February, 1668. The Count and Countess were subsequently in England, as King Charles himself writes to the Duchess of Orleans on the 24th October, 1669, that the Count and Countess, with their family, were returning to France by way of Dieppe.

In 1668, according to St. Evremond, the Count was successful in procuring the recall of his nephew, the Count de Guiche.

Evelyn mentions in his Diary dining on the 10th May, 1671, at Sir Thomas Clifford's, "where dined Monsieur de Grammont and several French noblemen."

Madame de SÉvignÉ names the Count in her letter of 5th January, 1672.

He was present at the siege of Maestricht, which surrendered to the King in person on the 29th June, 1673.

Madame de SÉvignÉ names the Count again in her letter of the 31st July, 1675.

The Duchess of Orleans (the second) relates the great favour in which the Count was with the King.

He was present at the sieges of Cambray and Namur in April, 1677, and February, 1678.

We obtain many glimpses of the Count and Countess in subsequent years in the pages of Madame de SÉvignÉ, Dangeau, and others, which may be consulted in preference to filling your columns with extracts.

In 1688, Grammont was sent by the Duke of Orleans to congratulate James II. on the birth of his son; in the Ellis Correspondence, under the date of 10th July, 1688, it appears there was to have been an exhibition of fire-works, but it was postponed, and the following intimation of the cause was hinted at by a person behind the scenes:

"The young Prince is ill, but it is a secret; I think he will not hold. The foreign ministers, Zulestein and Grammont, stay to see the issue."

Grammont died on the 30th January, 1707, aged eighty-six years; his Countess survived him only until the 3rd June, 1708, when she expired, aged sixty-seven years. They only left one child, namely, Claude Charlotte, married on the 6th April, 1694, to Henry Howard, Earl of Stafford; Marie Elizabeth de Grammont, born the 27th December, 1667, Abbess of Sainte Marine de Poussey, in Lorraine, having died in 1706, previous to her parents.

Maurepas says that Grammont's eldest daughter was maid of honour to the second Duchess of Orleans, who suspected her of intriguing with her son, afterwards the celebrated Regent. The Duchess, he adds, married her to Lord Stafford.

Another writer says, that although Grammont's daughters were not handsome, yet they caused as much observation at Court as those who were.

W. H. Lammin.

Fulham.

Count Hamilton is little to be trusted to in his chronology, from a mischievous custom that he has of, whenever he has to record a marriage or love affair between two parties considerably different in age, adding to that difference extravagantly, to make the thing more ridiculous. Sir John Denham is a well-known instance of this; but another, which is not noticed by the editor of Bohn's edition, nor any other that I have seen, is his making out Col. John Russell, a younger brother of the first Duke of Bedford, to have been seventy years of age in 1664, although his eldest brother was born in 1612, and the colonel could have been little older than, if as old as, De Grammont himself.

J. S. Warden.

BOHN'S REPRINT OF WOODFALL'S "JUNIUS."

When a publisher issues a series of such works as are comprised in Bohn's Standard Library, and thereby brings expensive publications within the reach of the multitude, he is entitled to the gratitude and the active support of the reading portion of the public; but, if he wish to be ranked amongst the respectable booksellers, he ought to see to the accuracy of his reprints. Bohn's edition of Woodfall's Junius, in two volumes, purports to contain "the entire work, as originally published." This it does not. Some of the notes are omitted; and the text is, in many instances, incorrect. I have examined the first volume only; and I shall state some of the errors which I have found, on comparing it with Woodfall's edition, three volumes 8vo., 1814. The pages noted are those of Bohn's first volume.

P. 87. In his Dedication, Junius says: "If an honest, and, I may truly affirm, a laborious zeal." Bohn turns it into nonsense, by printing it: "If an honest man, and I may truly," &c.

P. 105. In Letter I., Junius speaks of "distributing the offices of state, by rotation." Bohn has it "officers."

P. 113. In Letter II., Sir W. Draper says that "all Junius's assertions are false and scandalous." Bohn prints it "exertions."

P. 206. In Letter XXII., Junius says, "it may be advisable to gut the resolution." Bohn has it "to put."

P. 240. In Letter XXX., Junius says: "And, if possible, to perplex us with the multitude of their offences." Bohn omits the words "us with."

P. 319. In Letter XLII., Junius speaks of the "future projects" of the ministry. Bohn prints it "future prospects."

P. 322. In the same letter, Junius says: "How far people may be animated to resistance, under the present administration." Bohn omits "to resistance."

P. 382. In Letter LIII., Horne says: "And in case of refusal, threaten to write them down." Bohn omits "threaten."

P. 428. In Letter LXI., Philo-Junius says, "his view is to change a court of common law into a court of equity." Bohn omits the words "common law into a court of."

P. 437. In Letter LXIII., Junius writes, "love and kindness to Lord Chatham." Bohn omits "and kindness."

P. 439. In Letter LXIV., Junius speaks of "a multitude of prerogative writs." Bohn has it "a multitude of prerogatives."

P. 446. In Letter LXVIII., Junius says to Lord Mansfield: "If, on your part, you should have no plain, substantial defence." Bohn substitutes "evidence" for "defence."

These are the most important errors, but not all that I have found in the text. I now turn to the reprint of Dr. Mason Good's Preliminary Essay. The editor says: "The omission of a quotation or two, of no present interest, and the correction of a few inaccuracies of language, are the only alterations that have been made in the Preliminary Essay." We shall see how far this is true. Such alterations as "arrogance" for "insolence," p. 2.; "classic purity" for "classical chastity," p. 3.; "severe" for "atrocious," p. 15., I shall not particularise farther; but merely observe that, so far from being merely "corrections of inaccuracies of language," they are frequently changes of meaning.

At pp. 4. and 5., extracts from speeches by Burke and North are introduced into the text. In Woodfall, they are given in a note, so as not to interrupt the writer's argument.

Occasionally, a sentence is partly rewritten. I take one specimen. Dr. Good says that, "But for the Letters of Junius, the Commons of England might still ... have been exposed to the absurd and obnoxious harassment of parliamentary arrests, upon a violation of privileges undefined and incapable of being appealed against—defrauded of their estates upon an arbitrary and interested claim of the crown." In Bohn, p. 5., the words are altered to "have been exposed to arbitrary violations of individual liberty, under undefined pretexts of parliamentary privileges, against which there were (?) no appeal—defrauded of their estates upon capricious and interested claims of the crown."

Dr. Good, to show that Burke could not be Junius, cites several passages from his works; and then proves, by quotations from Junius, that the opinions of the one were opposed to those of the other. In Bohn's edition all these quotations, which occupy twelve octavo pages in Woodfall, are omitted as unnecessary, although the writer's argument is partly founded upon them; and yet the editor has retained (evidently through carelessness), at p. 66., Dr. Good's subsequent reference to these very quotations, where, being about to give some extracts from General Lee's letters, he says: "They may be compared with those of Junius, that follow the preceding extracts from Mr. Burke." This reference is retained, but the extracts spoken of are omitted.

Some of Woodfall's notes are wholly left out; but I will not lengthen these remarks by specially pointing them out. The new notes of Bohn's editor offer much matter for animadversion, but I confine myself to one point. In a note to Sir W. Draper's first letter (p. 116.), we are told that Sir William "married a Miss De Lancy, who died in 1778, leaving him a daughter." In another note relating to Sir William (p. 227.), it is stated that "he married a daughter of the second son of the Duke of St. Alban's. Her ladyship died in 1778, leaving him no issue." How are we to reconcile these statements?

H. Martin.

Halifax.