two parts, was found on the 13th of June, 1864, on a fragment of Roman pavement, between eight and nine feet deep, during excavations in the Highcross Street, Leicester, opposite the inn known as the Red Lion. The ring is a light one, weighing only fourteen grains. It is, from the style of lettering used in the inscription (there is no Hall mark), the work of the fourteenth century. The "chancon," "reason," or "posy," which appears incised on the outside of the ring, is "+AMOR VINCIT OMNIA," an inscription of considerable interest to the reader of early English poetry, inasmuch as Chaucer, in his prologue to his Canterbury Tales, describing the dainty prioress "Madame Eglentine," says she wore a cloak full neat, on her arm a string of beads:

"And thereon hung a brooch of gold full sheen,

On which was first written a crowned A;

And after Amor vincit omnia."

By MR. WILLIAM LATHAM, Melton Mowbray: A spur, spear head, and the head (much corroded) of a small spear or arrow, lately found near a human skeleton at Clipston. The spur, as shown by the large star-like rowell, belonged to a person living early in the fifteenth century.

By MR. Cox, Market Harborough: A Wedgwood medallion, formerly set in a ring.

MR. JAMES THOMPSON read the following paper on

THE JEWRY WALL.

Any archæologist familiar with the outlines of the Roman stations in this island, will find little difficulty in tracing on the modern map of Leicester, the line followed by three out of four of its Roman walls. It is readily perceived that on the north side, the wall ran from the site occupied by St. Margaret's Church, along Sanvy Gate and Soar Lane nearly to the river. Not more difficult is it to discover the line of the eastern wall, commencing at St. Margaret's Church and going southward up Church Gate and Gallowtree Gate to the Three Crowns Hotel. The third wall, it is equally apparent, lay along Horsefair Street and Millstone Lane, and terminated at its Southgate Street end, or a little nearer the Castle than that point.

The three lines thus given furnish the three sides of a long square, or parallelogram, and therefore we have the fourth side to look for, to complete the figure which the classical authorities define as that adopted in the formation of their encampments, by the Romans, at a certain period of their history.

When we have found the direction taken by this fourth wall, we have the four boundaries of this town, as they stood when it

was first fortified and occupied by the Romans, probably in the first century of the Christian era.

The three sides of a parallelogram being known, it is of course a mere question of measurement to produce the fourth; and thus if a line be drawn from the western extremity of the north wall near the Soar, to the supposed western extremity of the south wall (between Southgate Street and the Castle), that would be the fourth or west wall of the Roman city, in its original

state.

It was the custom of the Romans to place gates in the centre of each of these walls, usually midway between the corners, so that there were gates corresponding to the four points of the compass, and the two main streets ran from gate to gate, intersecting each other in the middle of the station.

Owing to the great changes which have taken place in all English towns of Roman origin, in the lapse of fourteen hundred years, the original arrangements of walls and gates have been much altered. In sieges, the walls have been overthrown, the houses burnt, and the gates destroyed. Time has also done its work, when towns have been left desolate for several generations, and subsequently once more populated. Hence it occurs, that though the solid walls may have been rebuilt from their strong foundations-the gates may have been replaced on new sites, and the heaps of rubbish within the walls may have been levelled down and new streets formed over them in new directions.

Such was doubtless the case in Leicester; and therefore, while we have the indications of three sides of the Roman station left, as above pointed out, and the names of three of the four gates still preserved, and the name of the fourth outlet still retained in the West Bridge, we find that since the departure of the Romans, the streets and the gates have been located in other places than where they would have been, had the Roman directions and positions of them been maintained.

We should, for example, have found the Roman North Gate a little more to the eastward of what we know was its place within the last century, namely, near the Duke of Cumberland Inn; and the Roman South Gate would have stood very near the site of Messrs. Nevinson's office in Wickliffe Street; the two portals being connected by a straight street, running nearly north and south. We should have looked for the East Gate about halfway between the sites occupied by St. Margaret's Church and the Three Crowns, whereabouts the Crown and Cushion stands, in Church Gate; and for the West Gate exactly where the Jewry Wall still rears its huge and scarred frontal.

Had no relic of Roman masonry existed on this spot, it is exactly the point where an archæologist, conversant with Roman remains, would à priori, have expected to meet with the western

place of exit and entrance for Leicester, during the residence of the Italian conquerors of the district in the city:

First. (As we have seen) because the Jewry Wall is on the line which the western wall of Roman Leicester must necessarily have followed, and because it is midway between the north-western and south-western angles of the ancient town boundaries; and

Secondly. Because, as an outlet leading to somewhere, it is on the line which the road connecting the Roman station with the old Roman road, known as "the Fosse," must have taken in a straight direction. If we refer once more to the map, and continue the street from the point between the Cherry Orchard and the site of Danett's Hall, down to the Bow Bridge, and then direct a line to the Jewry Wall, it will occur at once to the eye that this was the route of communication before the approach was diverted to the West Bridge in a zig-zag manner.

I may here observe that the sweep taken by the Fosse Lane, along the western and northern sides of the Roman station, seems to have been intended to facilitate the progress of troops, messengers, and travellers by the place, without the necessity of entering it and stopping in it; and therefore the western entrance would only be designed for the occasional use of passengers and horsemen, and would consequently not be so wide as the entrances provided for the regular passage of troops of cavalry or bodies of infantry.

In proof of the conjecture that the road formerly went from the Jewry wall to the Bow Bridge, and so on to the Fosse, it may be stated that traces of a paved road between the Jewry Wall and the river, several feet below the present surface, have been met with in Talbot Lane.

Having thus far shown the probability that the Jewry Wall was originally the western entrance of Ratæ, let us now turn to the structure itself, and its appearances on both sides, and in the foundations, to ascertain whether they warrant the strong presumption of its having been what it is here supposed to have been.

It

The Jewry Wall had two faces distinctly visible, before the buildings now seen at the back of it were raised. That which is now built against and concealed, was the side which was presented in the early history of the place to the approaching visitor. was the western face of the wall, as that we now see was its eastern face. The western face offered two openings, or entrances, each about nine feet wide, and about twenty feet high from the original level, with an interval of fifteen feet between the two arches. On the eastern side (as the visitor perceives) are four arches; but it does not appear that the two at the extreme ends of the structure were ever carried through, the two openings on the eastern side having passed through the two inner arches on the western side; though not in their centres. It has been

suggested by Mr. Henry Goddard (and I think not without reason) that the two extreme arches on the eastern side served as small guard-rooms or apartments for the sentries on duty.

Two objections have been raised to the supposition that the Jewry Wall was the original western gateway of Roman Leicester. First. It is alleged that in all probability there was no such wall or entrance on that side; as the river protected it from sudden assault, and as the ground between the wall and the river is proved to be full of the remains of Roman buildings formerly standing there, which, it is alleged, would not have been the case had a town wall existed in the direction assumed in this paper-the supposition being that no erections would have been placed in such a position, namely, exposed outside a mural defence.

To all this it may be replied that whatever examples may exist of a contrary practice, it is certain the Romans did protect their stations on the banks of rivers by raising walls on the sides nearest to the rivers. Such was the case at York and Chester; and at the present time, the angle and part of a wall on the side nearest the Usk-a much more formidable stream than the Soarmay be seen standing at Caerleon, formerly a Roman station. I visited the site a month or two ago, and walked along the course of what remains of its ancient boundary, and there noticed the fact of the preservation of part of the wall on the side near the river. But in the case of Leicester, it seems probable the population increased during the Roman occupation, to such an extent as to induce the rulers of the place to build upon the space between the wall and the river; and, therefore, the western wall would by degrees be afterwards removed, leaving only the gateway standing.

Secondly. It is said the Jewry Wall might have been part of a Roman temple, or a Roman bath, or some other public edifice, and that the fragment now remaining is one end of such edifice; the greater portion of it having (we are told) probably stood on the site now occupied by St. Nicholas' Church.

Within the present month excavations have been made, under the management of a Committee of your Society, in the foundations of the northern end of the Jewry Wall; to such a depth as to show the exact nature of two of the piers-namely, that at the extremity, and that to the left hand, between the two arches. Now, had the building been brought forward, as conjectured, in the direction of the church adjoining, the foundations of one or both piers would have afforded evidence of the fact: on the removal of the earth, the lower courses of the walls (had they existed) would have been exhibited. But the result is the very reverse of this-the piers have been cleared of the rubbish, and show that they were distinctly finished off with two set-offs or footings, which are continuous along the sides as well as face of

the piers or buttresses. The fabric did not, then, come forward in the direction of the church.

As, in addition to the clear indications of the western side of the Jewry Wall having never been other than a wall with two openings in it, we now have the indubitable proof that the eastern side was not the end of a structure standing on the site of the church, but simply an arcade, we are shut up to the inference that it was originally a gateway solely.

This conclusion has derived additional strength from the recent examination of a part of the wall, which lies under ground, beyond the northern end of the relic now visible above ground. This seems not to have been "bonded in" the Jewry Wall itself, but the latter to have been built up against it; and it is not quite clear that the "bonding" was carried out all through the line of the underground masonry at the back of the arches; this favouring the presumption that the wall first built with two openings in it, was at some period taken down to the surface of the ground in this part, and then raised again, above a certain level, a structure of homogeneous masonry. The conclusion here arrived at respecting the Jewry Wall is further fortified by the discovery, north and south of it, at considerable distances, of portions of that which, doubtless, constituted the town wall.

To sum up: it may, I think, be now regarded as beyond controversy, that as the relic we are speaking of bore no evidences on its eastern face of being anything but a wall, and on its western face of being a row of arches merely, and not part of any building -and being in the locality where the western entrance would be most likely to be met with the Jewry Wall was the western gateway of Roman Leicester.

The REV. J. H. HILL then read the following paper:

BATHURST OF HOTHORPE, IN THE PARISH OF

THEDDINGWORTH, LEICESTERSHIRE.

Upon the south wall of the north chapel, in Theddingworth Church, there is a handsome monument of marble recording the death of George Bathurst, of Hothorpe, Esq., and Elizabeth, his wife, who was the third daughter and coheir of Edward Villiers, of Hothorpe, Esq. This George Bathurst was a staunch Royalist in the days of King Charles I., and had no less than six of his sons killed in battle, whilst fighting under the royal standard. The Bathursts were originally seated at Bathurst, in Sussex, but they were despoiled of their possessions in that county during the wars of the Roses. In the time of Henry VI., Laurence Bathurst resided at Cranebrook, in the county of Kent, and left three sons, Edward, Robert of Horsemanden, and John of Staplehurst.