have been examined by Mr. William Whitaker, Dr. Hinde, and the authorities at Jermyn Street. Mr. Whitaker writes: "I took specimen and slide to Jermyn Street and got Dr. Teall to look at them. He was struck with the great variety of the quartz grains in size and shape (under microscope), and that is not a sarsen character, the grains of these stones being fine. I then went up to the petrologic department, and Mr. Rhodes turned out a specimen which, under microscope, was rather like yours, though differing to the eye. Curiously enough, this was labelled 'Quartzite, Parkstone, 200ft. gravel."

After sending Mr. Whitaker the sarsen slide from Bridehead, I heard from him as follows:-" To-day I took them to Jermyn Street, and showed them to Dr. Flett, petrologist to the Geological Survey, and we compared them with some others. Dr. Flett detected some differences between your rock and greywether-slides. In the latter the cementing material is less in quantity and is largely secondary quartz; that is, quartz crystallised in the rock. In the former it is not so. He would, therefore, class your boulder as approximating to quartzite, and he concludes that it is not a greywether. Both quartzite and greywethers vary very

much."

Dr. March is not satisfied with this conclusion. He had occasion, some years ago, to go into the subject of quartzites, granitoids, and grits, and possesses micro-sections of Haslingden grit, Gannister grit, Gritstone from Lower Coal Measures, Gritstone from Devon, and Silurian quartzite from Ireland, Normandy, and Norway. All these show resemblances to, but are easily distinguished from, our stone; but on comparing this with the Bridehead sarsen he writes :-" These, I maintain, are fundamentally indistinguishable, though it is true that one has more cement than the other; but that is unimportant. I think it is true that there is more secondary quartz in the Branksome stone than in the Bridehead one, but this must certainly vary in different specimens. It is silicified Tertiary sand, and this sand is sometimes silicified

into a true quartzite, sometimes imperfectly silicified, and sometimes the sand and the gravel are not silicified at all, but quite loose, and these three stages occur almost in juxtaposition."

Apart from microscopic examination, the only kind of investigation possible was minute examination of the surface of the stone. This surface was clearly water-worn, which is not the case with ordinary sarsens. Then some of the convex curves strongly suggest glaciation. There are other marks which may represent groovings due to ice-action and deserve further investigation; but, unfortunately, no inconsiderable portion of the surface has been broken by the chipping of too curious investigators. Among the marks on the surface are two cup-shaped depressions resembling, on a small scale, the "glacier-mills bored in hard rock by the whirling round of stones in an eddy under ice. In this connection we may compare a stone lately found at Pokesdown, and in the possession of Mr. Chambers. This has several similar depressions from one to four inches deep, and one hole 15in. long, bored right through the stone. This stone weighs about 120lb., and is 18in. long, with a width of 12in. and a depth of 9in. It was discovered near the present surface of the ground. A fine-grained, light-coloured boulder, probably a sarsen, weighing 4 or 5 cwt., was dug out some few years ago from the nursery-garden of Mr. White, on the southern slope of Constitution Hill, Parkstone. It may be seen now near a gate-post.

Another very large stone, weighing, I believe, about five tons, was discovered some years ago near Winchester. Another large stone, weighing about half a ton, may be seen by the side of the road in Burgess Street, at the top of Southampton Common.

As isolated facts, these tell us little. But if a complete record can be made of similar stones found in the South of England, and especially of the strata in which they occur, a good deal may be learned therefrom. It is as a contribution. to such a record that the present note is offered.

The Vitt Family of Blandford

S. Mary.

By the Rev. A. C. ALMACK, M.A.

As far

S far as I have been able to discover, the connection of the Pitt family with the parish of Blandford S. Mary begins with the purchase of the advowson of the Rectory by Thomas Pitt, of Blandford Forum, in 1644 or '45. The previous owner was Robt. Ryves, who purchased it from Thos. Arundell, who was the original purchaser from the King after the Dissolution of S. Mary's Nunnery in Clerkenwell, to which house the manor and advowson previously belonged. This Thomas Pitt lived at Blandford, and was a brother of Sir W. Pitt, of Stratfieldsaye, in Berks, who was also owner of Steepleton, and from whom the Pitt-Rivers family are descended. Thomas Pitt bought the living of St. Mary's for the benefit of his son John in July, 1645. The Induction is duly entered in the register, and followed by the statement that he read and assented to the Articles of the Convocation of 1562. Of course this was in the troublous time of the Civil Wars; but John Pitt does not seem to have

been molested in his living. The entries in the register go on continuously, and in the same handwriting; but between the years 1655 and 1662 the book has been reversed, and the entries made at the other end. These were the years when the use of the Prayer Book was forbidden by law. The Act of Uniformity came into force on August 24th, 1662, and our entries are resumed on the old pages in the following September. John Pitt continued as rector at St. Mary's till his death in 1672, but must have lived in an older house than the present Rectory, which was only built in 1732-the year after the Blandford fire. He is chiefly known to us by the inscription on the tablet in the church which was placed there 40 years after his father's death by his second son Thomas, of whom we shall have a good deal to say further on. He is there described as 'Hujus Ecclesiæ per Viginti Octo annos Pastor Fidelis," and the words seem to imply that he did not relinquish his post during the troubled years of the Commonwealth. From the same source we learn that he had a family of nine children, of whom five-John, Thomas, Sarah, George, and Dorothea-survived him.

Before we pass on from this generation it may be well to mention that Thomas Pitt, of Blandford, had another son, Robert, who lived in the town and practised as a doctor, while his brother John and family lived at our Rectory. Robert Pitt had two sons-Thomas, who became a Master in Chancery, and Robert, M.D., who lived in Blandford, and was grandfather of Christopher Pitt, the poet, and translator of Virgil, who was rector of Pimperne.

To return to John Pitt at the Rectory. Judging from dates on the tablet, he was born in 1610, and became rector at the age of 35. He was probably married after he became rector in 1645. It is interesting to note that his Induction on July 31st must have nearly coincided with the gathering of Clergy and Clubmen on Hambledon Hill. The letter of Cromwell to Lord Fairfax, reporting the encounter with them, is dated August 4th. We recollect that just six weeks previously, on June 14th, the fatal Battle of Naseby was fought, and in the