I Beg that you will do me the favour to accept the accompanying Drawing, and (should you think fit) to lay it before the Society of Antiquaries. It is a careful representation, made by me at Pisa in 1825, of a sepulchral Monument of the date 1359, preserved in one of the chapels of the Campo Santo. As a work of art this piece of sculpture has considerable merit; there is some elegance in its general form, and great delicacy in the details; and the date, inscribed upon a fillet of the pedestal, gives it additional interest in the eye of an Antiquary.

In consequence of the conflicting opinions entertained respecting the origin of the Circular Towers of Churches, I have been led to ascertain their proportional number in Norfolk; in order to illustrate, if possible, their origin. In doing which, I find that they are more frequent in those parts of Norfolk in which thick beds of diluvial gravel occur; particularly in Clavering hundred (the south-east angle of the County), where they equal in number the square towers: they are found also in the northern part of Suffolk under similar circumstances, and that they are but thinly distributed, or entirely absent, in other counties of England. Their dimensions are small, and many of them have been finished with an octangular top, of comparatively modern workmanship; they are all built with flint boulders, with the exception of that attached to the church of West Dereham, which is of Car-stone; and I have no hesitation in stating my conviction, that they owe their form, not to any peculiar style, but have been thus built from necessity, in consequence of the absence of freestone in the soil; and that the necessity originally influencing the Saxons, extended itself to the Normans, as may be seen in the towers of the parish churches of St. Paul and St. Mary in Norwich, founded after the Conquest.

I have during the summer visited many of the round towers of churches in our native counties of Norfolk and Suffolk in the hope of determining their antiquity; and have examined others in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Sussex, and Berkshire, where there are a few examples, for the sake of comparing them with our own.

The publication of the curious Chronicle relative to the latter part of Edward the Third's reign, so ably illustrated by you in the last portion of the Archæologia, has led me more particularly to examine the volume in which that Narrative, together with many other historical and legal Tracts, is bound up, forming Nos. 6215—6232, of the Harleian Collection. The greater part of these Tracts, as you are, no doubt, aware, were certainly once in the possession of Stow (several of them being written with his own hand), and after his death [1605] passed, with his other papers, into the hands of Sir Simonds d'Ewes, whence they were transferred to the noble library of the Earl of Oxford. So far all is void of difficulty. But there is yet another possessor to be accounted for, between the period of Stow's decease and the acquisition of these MSS. by Sir Simonds d'Ewes—I mean, the person who has numbered, and prefixed a title to, the greater part of the contents of the volume in question, and who simply signs his initials R. ST. with the date 1615. I am unable, I confess, satisfactorily to ascertain the individual alluded to, but in No. 6219, I find a paper on the affairs of Scotland, headed by Stow thus: “Out of a great boke of Records borowyd of Master Stevenson.” I conjecture, therefore, that it is to this Master Stevenson we are chiefly indebted for the collection and preservation of the tracts, all of which are more or less valuable to the historian.

By the kindness of my friend Mr. John Payne Collier, I am enabled to transmit to you an original MS. belonging to him, of the time of Henry the Eighth, which, as it relates to contemporaneous events of much historical importance, you will perhaps deem sufficiently interesting to be laid before the Society. Though it bears the title of “Instructions to my Lord Privy Seal,” it was evidently intended by the writer, George Constantyne, to serve as his defence against misrepresentations which had been made to Thomas Lord Cromwell, concerning certain verbal communications in which he had recently been engaged with John Barlow, Dean of Westbury, and Thomas Barlow, a Prebendary of that Collegiate Church.

When at Cork, in the early part of the present year, I was informed that some subterranean Chambers had been recently discovered on a farm named Garranes, in the parish of Carrigtohill, about nine miles east of that city.

By the kindness of Mr. Cummins, the proprietor of the ground, I was afforded an opportunity of examining these Chambers, in company with Mr. Robert O'Callaghan Newenham, whose pencil has so skilfully illustrated the picturesque antiquities of Ireland. They are situated within one of those circular entrenchments, popularly (but I am inclined to think incorrectly) termed “Danish Forts.” The diameter of this entrenchment is one hundred and twenty feet; and at the third of that space from the south side appeared a circular pit, about seven feet in depth, and measuring five feet and a half in diameter.

The accompanying Drawings are traced from sketches I made at Pæstum in the year 1824, when in pursuit of professional knowledge there; they appear to me to possess a considerable degree of interest both architecturally and archæologically, and having lately heard a Paper read at one of the sittings of the Society of Antiquaries, when I was present as a visiter, on a somewhat similar subject, I am induced to submit them to their consideration, with a few remarks in explanation, and a few hints in the hope of elucidating them.

The two shields from the collection at Goodrich Court, which I have the honor to exhibit to the Society of Antiquaries, are antient British, and termed in that language the Tarian and the Ysgwyd (pronounced Usgooyd). Before entering upon the separate description of each, I beg leave to observe that much information respecting the aborigines of this island is to be obtained from the names they gave to things and places. The latter are either descriptive or commemorative, but as not wanted for my present purpose I shall not trouble you with citing any instances; the former are either indigenous or derived from a foreign source, and attention to this distinction will render great assistance in the investigation of any British antiquities.

Having recently heard that the luxuriant hand of nature is already verifying my fears, as to the very site of a highly interesting Bath, in the island of Lipari, becoming disputable, I feel it a duty to forward, for the Society of Antiquaries, the Model of this edifice, which I referred to in my description of that Country.

I Shall attempt in this Paper to prove that the plant called Viola by the Romans, is not, according to the received opinion, our common Violet, but the flower called Iris, and well-known in our English gardens. This idea first occurred to me, when in the winter of 1825-1826 I travelled on horseback over the greater part of Sicily, and observed, that amongst the numerous wild flowers which that genial climate was already bringing forth at that season, there was no Violet to be seen, but, on the other hand, a great abundance of Iris; and I have since been informed that such is likewise the case in southern Italy. This seemed to me to render it improbable, that a plant so common should have been unnoticed by the ancient pastoral poets, and that their strains should be devoted to one apparently of foreign origin, of later introduction, and of less general growth.

I enclose for your perusal, and if you think proper for that of the Society of Antiquaries, a Disquisition on the member of Architecture called an Oriel, wherein you will find the evidence on that obscure subject classified in a novel manner, and at least a plausible etymology suggested; though, to use the words of Lambarde, “contentinge my selfe to intermedle myne own opinion simplie, without eyther prejudice of any other man's that shall judge otherwise, or pertinacitie in myne owne when I shall hear a better.”

During the execution of the works of the new London Bridge, it became necessary to relieve the water-way of the River by the removal of two of the starlings and piers of the old structure, in consequence of the obstruction to the current by the erection of the cofferdams for the new works; in effecting this object, a practical opportunity presented itself of ascertaining the mode in which the piers of the original old Bridge were built. This subject having created much professional speculation, led me to preserve documents at the different stages of the work, that would enable me to form a judgment as to the manner in which our predecessors originally executed works of this nature, and I beg leave to have the honour of laying the result of my observations before the Society of Antiquaries.

The jealousy with which the increase of London was viewed by the Government, in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James the First, is a matter of sufficient notoriety. The Proclamations upon this subject from both Sovereigns must be in your recollection. The general interests of trade, the particular encouragement of apprenticeships, the dread of mischievous people congregating, the fears of lire, plague, and famine, and of the increasing price of provisions, all contributed to a narrow line of policy: so that the construction of buildings upon new sites was in a great measure forbidden unless licensed, as well as rebuildings upon old sites, except under restrictions which tended to beautify the metropolis, and to lessen danger as to fire. Nor was this jealousy confined strictly to the City. In the Proclamations of the 44th of Elizabeth, and of the 1st, 2d, and 5th years of James, we find the inmates of the Suburbs included.

When I last had the honour of seeing you, and showing you the Etruscan ornaments found in the Prince of Canino's excavations, I undertook, with your permission, to send you some account of these excavations, and your Lordship was so good as to say it should be read to the Society of which you are President. As nothing that I can have to say on the subject can be so interesting as the Prince's own account of the discoveries, I have translated the note at the end of the Catalogue which he has printed. I now have the honour of sending you this translation, together with the original, and also a collection of fac-similes of the inscriptions on the vases described. Should the Society be disposed to have these fac-similes printed, I shall be happy to furnish a translation of the descriptions also, which, in that case, ought perhaps to accompany them.

In an Enquiry which I addressed to you some years ago, concerning the death of Richard the Second, I took occasion to advert to the rumours prevalent after the date usually assigned to that event, relative to his supposed escape into Scotland, and his death and burial at Stirling. The story on which these rumours were founded, and to which no credit had been given by any English historian of established reputation, has lately been revived, and its truth defended with much plausibility and ingenuity, by Mr. Fraser Tytler, in an elaborate Dissertation subjoined to the third volume of his valuable History of Scotland. The name and authority of the writer would be sufficient to excite attention to his statements, even if they had not already attracted the notice of two of the most distinguished of his countrymen, though with different results as to the impression produced on them. Sir Walter Scott, on the one hand, has fully avowed his belief in the relation, while on the other, Sir James Mackintosh has, with equal decision, expressed his dissent from it. Had it fallen within the plan of the latter eminent person to state the reasons for his adherence to the common narrative more in detail, and with reference to the authorities on which they were grounded, any further attempt on my part to investigate the subject would have been superfluous. But, as the case now stands, I may be permitted to offer a more circumstantial reply to Mr. Tytler's arguments, bearing in mind the courtesy he has uniformly shown in his references to my former observations.

The Church of St. Olave, Southwark, was confirmed to the Prior and Convent of St. Pancras of Lewes, in Sussex, by William, second Earl Warren and Surrey, son of their founder, and in face of the Church on the south side of the way now called Tooley Street, contiguous with Carter Lane, they built, or became possessed of, a Hostelry for the convenience of the Prior and monks coming to London, and for the reception of strangers. It does not appear how they acquired this property; the charter of confirmation does not comprise any lands in Southwark. Earl William died in 1138, and there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the Prior had no lodgings in St. Olave's until a later period.

The Church of Preston, near Brighton, appears from various indications to have been built towards the end of the reign of Henry III. On the east wall of the nave, on both sides of the arch opening to the Chancel, the Commandments had been painted, which, becoming greatly decayed from damp and age, I endeavoured to scrape away; after removing many thick coats of whitewash and plaster, I gradually made out on the wall, northward of the arch, the painting of the murder of Becket, &c. (No. 1), and on that southward of the arch the various paintings (No. 2).

The great age of a pair of Candlesticks, and a curiously shaped Pix, induces me to presume, that the exhibition of them to the Society of Antiquaries might be attended with some gratification. The former were purchased at Aix-la-Chapelle, at the house of a travelling dealer, so that it is impossible to ascertain their original locality; the latter was bought in London, though a foreign importation.

I have the honour to send you a drawing of the Mausoleum of Theodoric at Ravenna, with a request that you will lay it before the Society of Antiquaries, if you shall think it deserving of their notice.

Although the building must be well known to many who have visited that City, yet, as I am not aware that any detailed representation of it has been hitherto published, I trust that a drawing taken on the spot in 1825 will not be destitute of interest in the eye of an Antiquary. I have of course represented the building exactly in its present state: originally it must have presented a very different appearance. During the lapse of thirteen centuries the earth has accumulated round its basement to such a degree as to conceal the greater part of it beneath the general level of the surrounding country; the two flights of steps therefore are of modern construction, and from an examination of the upper story it is apparent that a decagonal arcade formerly encircled it, which has since either fallen into decay, or perhaps been purposely despoiled of its component stones. The part now standing is in good preservation, and is formed of ashlared blocks of limestone of large, but irregular, sizes.

The body of St. Edmund reposed in a basilica of wood until Canute, in a kingly spirit, animositate regia, raised a stone church to the honour of the martyr, which Egelnothus Archbishop of Canterbury, dedicated, with pomp, in 1032: and it is a remarkable fact in the history of our ecclesiastical architecture, that within half a century after the erection of this church it was pronounced unworthy of the improvement which had at that time taken place in the art of building. Baldwin, Abbot of St. Edmund's, under the auspices of the Conqueror, laid the foundations of another church, because, says the monk Hermannus, a contemporary, hœc quoque simplici facta schemate, non sic artificalis ut quœdam construuntur hoc tempore. The Presbytery of Baldwin's church, by the same author compared for magnificence to Solomon's Temple, was consecrated in 1095.