Having received, from the Reverend Dr. Griffith, Rector of St. Mary Hill, the inclosed account of a curious discovery lately made at Colchester, I take the liberty to trouble you with it; that, is you esteem it at all worthy the attention of the Society, you may communicate it to them. I will only just take the liberty to add, that, in pulling down the old tower of the church at Mold, in North Wales, last year, a great quantity of grain was found buried under its foundations, in like manner; and that probably it was deposited in both places, in consequence of some ancient superstitious custom.

If you think that the following account of some customs in husbandry, and the prices of various articles relating thereto, in the time of King Richard II. will furnish any amusement to the Society of Antiquaries, you will please to lay it before them.

The original buildings of Winchester College were erected between 1387 and 1394, and among the most important of their fittings was the stained glass of the chapel windows. The general scheme of glazing must have been decided when the college was first designed, and the close iconographical relationship between the Winchester glass and that made for New College, Oxford, carries back the date of the design in outline to about 1380. At Oxford the chapel stood to the west of the hall, with a stone reredos covering the whole of the eastern wall, and a great west window; at Winchester this arrangement was reversed, the blank wall was at the west, while the great window of the chapel was placed in its eastern wall. Both windows consist of seven lights divided into two ranges by a horizontal transom; but the arrangements of mullions and tracery differ. In both cases the main subject of the glazing was a Tree of Jesse: the symbolic Vine springing from Jesse's loins and bearing in its branches a selection, more or less arbitrary, from the Kings of David's Line flanked by Prophets. The chief glass-painter responsible for the production of the glazing at both colleges was Thomas of Oxford, the head of one of the outstanding firms of glaziers working in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century. Master Thomas was already in high standing by 1386 and died about 1427. It is not certain that he was the designer of the glass, and it is evident from the portions of the original glass still extant that he employed a number of painters. This is confirmed by documentary references to his assistants, and for the production of such a large amount of fully painted glass a big firm must be assumed, rather than the small shop of an artist mainly concerned with design.

Before proceeding to a description of the Deeds and Seals, it will be convenient to give a short account of the early history of the Sydney family and of the means by which the lands to which these deeds relate came into their possession. The original home of the Sydneys was a farm, which still bears their name, in the parish of Alfold, on the borders of Surrey and Sussex, about ten miles south of Guildford. The first member of the family of whom we have any knowledge is a John de Sydenie, who occurs as acquiring land on the south of Chiddingfold wood (a few miles west of Alfold) sometime in the reign of Edward I. He may be the John atte Sydney who occurs as witness to a deed in 1313. This John was probably the father or grandfather of a John atte Sydenye, son of John and Isabella, who with Gunnilda his wife held lands in Surrey and Sussex, part of which had come to him through his mother. His home is described as La Sydenye, and one of the deeds in which he is mentioned was executed there: these deeds are dated between 1331 and 1345. Nearly eighty years later, in 1420, a Nicholas Sedenye of Alfold gave to his daughter Alice lands in Cranlegh called ‘le Thondurslaghus’, which came to him at the death of Gunnilda, his mother. Though the interval is a little long, one may conjecture that he was a son of the John atte Sydenye of 1331 to 1345, and younger brother of the first William Sedenye, who in 1393 acquired a tenement called ‘le Rotlond’ in Shalford, near Guildford, and ten years later a share in the manor of Loseley. In 1408 there is mention of William, and his son William, in connexion with Rudgwick, just over the Sussex border. This second William is probably the father of William Sydenye, the younger, who appears in 1427, for in the next year Alice, daughter of William Sydeneye, the elder, married Arnold, son of Thomas Brocas. In 1435 we meet with William Sydeney, the elder, of Cranlegh, and William Sydeney, his son, of Sussex, who in 1445 is styled William Sydeney of Kingsham, a house on the south side of Chichester. William Sydeney of Cranlegh died on October 8, 1449. On August 15, 1451, William Sydeney of Kingsham executed at Baynards a deed providing for the descent of certain of his lands. He died about a year later, but certainly before October 1452. This William Sydney of Kingsham is the first person of any importance in the genealogy. Though the family had gradually acquired considerable estates in Surrey and Sussex, they were till about this time at the best but small country gentlemen. William Sydney of Cranlegh used a seal with a simple capital W.; his son was the first to use an armorial seal, showing the Sydney pheon, on the deed of August 15, 1451. As the heads of the Kingsham and Cranlegh family of Sydneys had been for fifty years named William, it is possible that the long-continued use of a seal with a capital W may have been the origin of the pheon.

In making the following crude and superficial observations on those varieties of pottery known among collectors and amateurs as “Persian ware,” my object is to call increased attention to the subject” by adding the few notes which a recent tour through Syria and Egypt, and to Constantinople, has enabled me to gather, and more particularly as an introduction to the notice of the Society of a piece of this ware, remarkable for its beauty, and interesting from its having been made for a mosque of world-wide renown, and also as bearing an inscription informing us of the date of its manufacture, thus giving sure evidence as to the period of the perfection of this very elegant variety of the potter's art.

This curious horn, or rather elephant's tush converted to the use of a horn, is the property of the Right Honourable Thomas Lord Bruce, who, with equal politeness and generosity, has favoured the Society with a sight of the original, and the public with a representation of it in the annexed copper plate.

Some time since, among what are known as “the Shrewsbury Papers,” preserved in the Library of Lambeth Palace, then in the care of that learned and acute antiquary, the Rev. S. R. Maitland, I met with a very singular letter, no where noticed, respecting an interview between Henry VIII. and the Countess Dowager of Northumberland. She was Mary the daughter of George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, who came to the title in 1473, and did not die until 1541: her husband had been Henry Algernon Percy, grandson of the Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, who was killed by the populace in 1489, and son of Henry Algernon Percy, at whose instance, and under whose patronage, Skelton wrote the poem which comes second in the recent edition by the Rev. Alexander Dyce.

In attempting to investigate the origin and history of the bayonet, we encounter, at the outset, considerable difficulty; even the derivation of its name is involved in obscurity. In the dictionary of Cotgrave, first published in 1611, we find, “Bayonnette, a kind of small flat pocket-dagger, furnished with knives; or a great knife to hang at the girdle, like a dagger.” The same authority gives us “Bayonnier, as arbalestier (an old word).” In the “Glossaire de la Langue Romane,” of Roquefort, “Baionier” is explained as a crossbow-man. Neither of these words occurs in the dictionary of Palsgrave, published in 1530.

Among the various sites memorable from the greatness of the cities which once occupied them, there are few that equal in interest or surpass in historical associations that of Carthage. The myths respecting the foundation of that city, and the fate of its unhappy queen Dido, have received from the creative fancy of the poet such a semblance of truth as to make them assume a place in our recollections with the actual events of history. The extraordinary rise of Carthage and its equally extraordinary fall, the utter destruction of its records, the obscurity in which its language and art are enveloped, all concur to excite in us an interest and a curiosity in regard to everything connected with it, which is hardly awakened by the history, real or fabulous, of any other city of Pagan antiquity.

The route taken by Julius Cæsar in his Invasion of Britain has been discussed so often by learned men, that I can hardly venture to offer to the Society of Antiquaries a new investigation, leading to a conclusion, I believe, differing from all preceding ones, without a preliminary explanation of the reason which leads me to think that a new investigation is admissible. The reason then is simply this: that, in every one of the discussions which I have seen, the investigator has been contented with fixing upon some one indication contained in Cæsar's Account, and shewing that that one indication conforms to his theory, without any regard to the others. A more striking instance of this fault cannot be found than in D'Anville's essay. D'Anville takes a supposed expression of Cæsar's that his length of passage was 30 miles; he finds that the distance from Wissant to the Dover cliffs, increased by Cæsar's 8 miles' run along the coast, agrees with this pretty well; and for this reason and no other he adopts Wissant as the place of departure. But, in a record so uncertain as that of mere numerals, he never inquires whether other manuscripts give a different number of miles; he never critically examines whether the distance (whatever it may be) applies to Cæsar's passage at all; he never attempts to ascertain whether Wissant could possibly be suited to Cæsar's armament; he never even discusses Cæsar's movements before departing and after returning, or offers the slightest proof that Cæsar had ever been near Wissant. Yet on all these points the indications given by Cæsar are numerous, and are as explicit as they very well can be in reference to a country in which scarcely a single name was preserved by any following historian. Rennell, adopting D'Anville's starting-place, Wissant, without question, has attempted to fix Cæsar's place of landing in the neighbourhood of Deal by a solitary reason exactly similar to D'Anville's. Halley, professing himself totally uncertain as to Cæsar's starting-point, has reasoned with great acuteness on the phenomena of the tides as described by Caesar, and has compared them with his own apparently erroneous information; he concludes from these that Deal may probably have been the landing-place, but has not adverted to any other evidence. Yet there are numerous indications given by Caesar in reference to his internal progress in the country which ought to have been considered, at least so far as to shew that they are not inconsistent with the theory adopted. I might apply nearly similar remarks to the reasonings of other writers.

I trust that the Essay which I now offer to the Antiquarian Society will at least be free from the fault which I have pointed out. I have brought together every passage which I can find in Caesar bearing upon the place of his departure, his navigation, the place of his arrival, and his march after arrival. I attach no importance to the accounts of writers posterior to Caesar, for it does not appear that they ever visited the coasts of Gaul, still less the coasts of Britain; and their statements, if in opposition to a clear inference from Cæsar's, must be rejected. So far, however, as I am acquainted with them, they do not in any instance contradict the inference from Cæsar's narration.

One of the best-known documents in the possession of our Society is perhaps our MS. No. 108, with its detailed valuation of the Crown Jewels in 1649, and its uncompromising footnote ‘The foremenciond Crownes since ye Inventorye was Taken are accordinge to ordr of Parlamt totallie Broken and defaced’. We have seen it cited, in whole or in part, in various works on history in general and the Crown Jewels in particular, we have taken for granted certain conclusions from it, and we have perhaps been less ready to accept certain other conclusions drawn from it by other people. We think, in short, that we know it pretty well, and have seen all it has to show us; yet after all, this list of pieces of jewellery, with weights and valuations, may yield something more to us when we compare its information with thatsupplied by earlier inventories.

Though Britain contains within itself all the materials necessary for building, it is probable the ancient inhabitants lived in holes and caverns of rocks, or formed themselves huts, which they covered with turf supported by branches of trees bound together with twigs of ozier. In after-ages, when commerce brought the Phoenicians and other civilized nations acquainted with them, they learned from those strangers many useful arts. But their habitations, according to Caesar, were in his time little improved, their towns were only a confused parcel of huts, placed at a little distance from each other, without order or distinction of streets; they generally stood in the middle of a wood, the avenues whereof were defended with slight ramparts of earth, or with trees that had been felled to clear the ground.

The present study arose from the need to provide the background for understanding theheraldry mentioned in the post-mortem inventories of Henry VIII, and while it seems unlikely that this commentary will appear in the foreseeable future it fills agap in the heraldic literature. The role of the ‘British History’ in English royal propaganda and state ceremonials antedated the accession of Henry VII as is evidenced by the material prepared in relation to Edward IV's supersession of Henry VI in 1461. The role of heralds and kings of arms in rationalizing the arms and beasts required for the pageants etc is examined with the ways in which it was organized for entries and other ceremonials. The period also witnessed the introduction of new decorations f ortournaments – ciphers and impresses. The appendices provide editions of some hitherto unpublished texts which were devised for these purposes.

I have already described (Antiquaries Journal, iv, 329–46) the work carried out at Tell el Obeid during the winter of 1923–4 by the Joint Expedition of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania: here I shall deal with what was really the major operation of the season, the clearing of the Ziggurat at Ur itself. Upon this site from 120 to 200 workmen were employed continuously for four and a half months, first under the supervision of Messrs. Gadd and Fitz-Gerald, later under that of the whole staff. Khalil of Jerablus was native foreman at Ur while the Tell el Obeid excavations were in progress, and after they were shut down Hamoudi took over the head control of the entire gang; Yahia, Hamoudi's son, acted as clerk on the work and is responsible for a great deal of the photographic work. All the plans and drawings are by Mr. F. G. Newton.