Roman roads, and encampments, wherever pointed out by Dr. Mason in his manuscripts.

"Yours to command,

29. "DEAR SIR,

JAMES ESSEX."

Cambridge, March 2, 1783. "On Sunday last I wrote to you, and sent my letter inclosed in a parcel, with a letter in answer to Mr. Herbert's query concerning Hall's Chronicle, and two catalogues of Mr. Cole's furniture. I said in my letter, I expected to hear within a week, who serve the Churches of Raveley and Upwood; I have since been informed, that the Rev. Mr. Wadeson serves Raveley, and lives at Harford; and the Rev. Mr. Cooper, who lives at Wistow, serves Upwood.

"Mr. Cole's books are gone to White's; I think you will find some curious notes in many of them, particularly in the History of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, by R. Masters, a specimen of which you saw in the manuscript volume he lent you. Bentham's History of Ely is full of notes; so are many others, perhaps more singular than useful.

66

"I am, yours sincerely,

JAMES ESSEX."

30. "DEAR SIR, Cambridge, March 18, 1783. "Our auction ended the week before last; but, the assizes coming on, and I being obliged to attend, I had no opportunity of writing to you sooner. I endeavoured to execute your commissions at the auction; but, notwithstanding the severity of the weather, it is amazing how many people attended the sale, and the prices they bid for every lot. Mr. Masters attended every day; and bought two cart-loads of rubbish, besides what he carried home in his coach.

"The first lot of glass, which was in the two bow-windows of the study, I bought for you, but could get no more; those in the parlour were sold for near £.4, and the odd pieces, lot 3, which altogether were not worth 5s. sold for nearly £.6 to a person who came more than thirty miles in the snow and rain to buy them.

"Mr. Tysons's drawing of St. Etheldreda was sold for near .1; other things in proportion. The lot of antiquarian prints, No. 9, contained some of those monuments (published by the Society) in Westminster Abbey, with three or four of your monuments; they sold for £.1. Ss. 6d. The Plan of London, in Elizabeth's time, by Vertue, sold for 8s. 6d. to a Fellow of Trinity-college; the other lots you marked sold for double their value. Among the plate was a large silver skewer, put in by the auctioneer, which sold for 8s. 11d. per oz. the buyer supposing it had been Mr. Cole's. The map No. 9 was a map of England of no value, put in by the auctioneer.

" I saw Mrs. Chettow at the sale, and inquired after the Map of Cambridgeshire, but she had not heard about the agreement you mentioned; and ain, yours truly, JAMES ESSEX."

31. "DEAR SIR, Cambridge, June 7, 1783. "I deferred writing an answer to yours until Dr. Smith's return from Lincoln, by whom I received another letter from Dr. Gordon; and I having now determined upon my journey to Lincoln, I hope it will suit your convenience to go with me. I intend to go through with my own horses, and make two days of it. You talked of meeting me at Lincoln; but if you can come to Cambridge, we may go from hence together, and return by Croyland. Dr. Gordon and Mr. Simpson will entertain you at Lincoln, while I am engaged in taking necessary measures in the church; and I shall find time, during two or three days we are there, to examine whatever you may discover worthy notice. I cannot conveniently go until the first week in July, and wish not to defer it longer, because it will interfere with my journey to Margate.

"I am, dear Sir, yours affectionately,

JAMES ESSEX."

32. "DEAR SIR, Cambridge, July 28, 1783. "I take the opportunity of Dr. Colman's passing through London to acknowledge the receipt of your parcel, and a copy of the History of Croyland; I wish I had read it before I went there, as it would have assisted very much in directing my attention to many things worthy notice. I intend to send you a plan of the Church in its original form, with a description of it, and such remarks as I have been able to make (upon the present remains) on the spot. I wish we could have spent more time there, particularly about the Bridge, of which much is said in the History. Upon this I have made a few remarks †, which, with those about the Church, will require some time to put together; but they shall be done as soon as I can conveniently do it, and submitted to your better judgment. As the two plates of Guthlac's Cross in your preface are very far from the truth, and that of Governor Pownall's not quite correct, if you will send the sketch and measures we took, or a copy of them, I will draw one more correct, and send with the other remarks, and am, yours sincerely, JAMES ESSEX."

33. "DEAR SIR,

Cambridge, August 11, 1793. "I have read the sheet of Camden relating to Croyland, and think it wants no addition. The plate of Guthlac's Cross wants some amendment; I have touched up the proof with Indian ink.

* See "Literary Anecdotes,” vol. VII. p. 382.

+ See p. 304.

If the engraver had observed the plan, he would have shaded the staves on the angles properly. I have not the measures of the letters, but you can examine their heights and distances of the lines by the scale I have added at the bottom of it.

"I should have no objection to visiting Croyland again, but cannot this year; I shall, however, make as many notes as I can recollect before we make another visit.

"Mylne has added little to the strength, and nothing to the beauty of Rochester Cathedral; I saw it two years ago with

some concern.

"The Rector of Landbeach * is not married, as said in the papers, to Miss F. She is a fine tall girl under twenty, but her fortune I believe not worth his notice. They talk of an agreeable widow with a large fortune, and an ancient abbey at her disposal. I dined with him at a Justices' meeting on Saturday fortnight, where they rallied him upon the occasion, which he seemed not displeased at.

"I am, dear Sir, yours sincerely,

JAMES ESSEX."

34. "DEAR SIR, Lowestoffe, Aug. 27, 1783. "I received your letter last night; and, supposing you wish for a speedy answer, have returned one as soon as I could. I do not understand why the Doctort should be out of temper with you about a matter which seems not to affect him; why should he be offended at your saying the West-gate did not stand in a direct line with the East-gate, unless he told you he had got it measured, and found they were directly opposite each other? The difference between you seems to arise from a mistake, neither of you being certain where the West-gate stood. If I mistake not, you suppose it was pulled down about sixty years ago; if so, it must have stood between the north-west angle of the Castle and the north-west angle of the town-wall, and consequently could not be opposite to the East-gate. Part of the East-gate was taken down within my memory, but I never heard where the West-gate stood. Mr. Lumby may remember it, and consequently where to measure from, and it appears by his measure that the two gates were nearly opposite each other.

"I think it is somewhere said, that the four Roman roads met at Lincoln. One runs through it from north to south; if the other can be traced from east to west, the situations of the two gates may be discovered, as it is probable the Roman town had four gates, leading to the four principal roads. Sir H. Englefield, I think, takes the West-gate of the Castle to be Roman; but I saw it last year, and concluding it was Saxon or Norman, of the same age with the Castle, I did not think of examining

Rev. Robert Masters. See "Literary Anecdotes," vol. III. p. 480. + Dr. Gordon, Dean of Lincoln.

its situation with respect to the place where the East-gate stood; but if Mr. Lumby took his measures from this gate, there must be a mistake about the West-gate being taken down sixty years ago; and we may conclude that the Castle gate was built on the site of the Roman gate when the Castle was built by the Saxons or Normans.

"I do not recollect that any thing was said upon the subject when we were at Lincoln; and if it had, I was so much taken up with the Church that I had no time to examine it. It is a pity we have not a good plan of the City. Dr. Stukeley has made one. How has he placed the gates? are they in a line with each other? If the Roman road cannot be traced through the place from east to west, how do we know whether there was a gate to the west?

"The Doctor consulted Mr. Simpson, who refers to his father's papers about the East and West-gates; but how could his father determine the site of the West-gate unless it was taken down in his time? He might perhaps have measured, and found the Castle gate was opposite the east, and from thence conclude it was the West-gate of the Roman town, or that it was built upon the site of it, as we may do from the measure lately taken; but I should be glad to know what Mr. Simpson has written about. I hope you will excuse this hasty letter; and believe me, yours to command, JAMES ESSEX."

35." DEAR SIR,

Cambridge, Sept. 22, 1783. "I received yours with Mr. Herbert's sheets by Mr. Nichols. I have examined Lambarde's account of Rochester-bridge, but find a difficulty in understanding him. The manuscript from which he has taken the account is curious, but does not contain particulars sufficient to give an idea of the structure of the bridge; it only mentions the works that were to be done by particular people. All I can collect from it is, that the bridge consisted of nine piers, which I suppose were built with timber (but of this I cannot be certain); it had eight arches or passages, over which the sylls were laid from pier to pier, and on them the planks which formed the floor of the bridge. The whole length was 26 yards, or rather poles, equal to 429 feet, including the abutments; these, I suppose, were about 10 feet each, the seven piers about 16 feet each, and the arches about 32 feet each, the breadth of the bridge about 17 feet clear, except over the two middle arches, which I believe were wider by three or four feet. The number of sylls or beams, which were about 40 feet long, was 97 or upwards; 28 of these, with about 26 rods of planking, belonged to those who built or repaired the nine piers, the rest to those who made or repaired the railing on both sides. I

would have explained all this by a plan *; but, Mr. Nichols leav ing Cambridge so soon, I had not time. If you think it necessary I will send it with my Observations on Croyland-bridge, &c. which I fear you will think too long, if not impertinent, though not yet complete. I am, yours affectionately, JAMES ESSEX."

36. "DEAR SIR,

Cambridge, Oct. 23, 1783.

"I take the opportunity of sending this to Mr. Nichols by a friend, imagining you have been some time expecting from me a plan of Croyland Church, according to my promise; but my eyes being very weak, occasioned by a cold I got since I came home, prevented my doing it. I have indeed made a longer and more trifling account of it than was necessary; but am not yet quite satisfied with some particulars in the printed account. When we were there, I had no opportunity of measuring the height of the ruins; but in page 85 it is said, the height to the roof is 25 yards; should not this be 22 yards?

"In page 94 it is said, the monastic apartments ranged on the south side of the Church, and were bounded on the south by a rill of water, whose obstructed channel is scarcely to be seen. I shall be glad to know whether the rill there mentioned

The subject of this letter will be illustrated by the following from the Rev. Owen Manning to Mr. Gough:

"DEAR SIR,

Godalming, Sept. 18, 1783. "As I never heard of the small History of Rochester you speak of, or ever looked into Lambarde before, I was consequently a perfect stranger to the Bridge in question.

"The first thing observable in respect to this bridge is, that the floor of it consisted of nine unequal portions of planking, to be kept in repair by nine different sets of persons; whence it is plain that what the author of the Text. Roff. calls piers, were not what we call such, viz. the sup porters, but the intervals between, or what in stone-work we call the arches.

"As 26 of our rods are equal to 4374 feet, there can be no doubt but that the word gỳnd was our rod. The river, you say, was but 431 feet wide; but they might think proper to extend the floor a yard at each end into the bank, in which case the bridge would be 437 feet long, and require so many feet, or 264 rods of planking.

"Syll was a large piece of timber hewn square, and applied either perpendicularly or horizontally; in the former case it was a column or supporter, in the latter it answered to our ground-sill, plate, or joist, according to the different places it occupied. In the present instance I take the sylles to have been the joists which lay across the bridge from side to side, to which the planking was nailed.

"You complain that you cannot find lyccan in the Saxon dictionary. You must not expect to find, in a dictionary where the orthography is preserved as much as possible, the false or degraded manner of spelling words, in a century or two after the language ceased to be properly Saxon; but though you do not find the word lyccan there, you will find Lecgan, ponere, as well as jacere. I am yours, &c. O. MANNING."