in matters relating to the Roman period: his opinion, therefore, must be received with due caution. Horsley says" I have elsewhere observed, how careful the Romans were to have their stations placed near a river, and that there is no situation they seem to have been so fond of, as a lingula near the confluence of a larger and smaller river. If we run along any military way, we are almost sure to meet with a station, wherever we meet with a river at a reasonable distance from a preceding station. How far Roman coins, especially a number of them, found at any place may be looked on as an argument of a Roman station or town, is a question that may deserve a further enquiry. It is evident that they are not an infallible criterion; and yet I believe them to be a strong collateral evidence. It is certain, in fact, that these coins are often found in such stations; and I am of opinion, that they were generally laid up there or severe infirmity. Sixteen years before his death a paralytic stroke deprived him of the use of his lower limbs, and confined him entirely to bed. In this lamentable state he preserved the most equable frame of mind. His mental faculties and memory were not affected, and he received the visits of his friends with kindness and cheerfulness. His very latest years were devoted almost entirely to preparations for a future state. To his kind friend George Allan, Esq., of Grange, on one of his last visits, Cade presented the Poly Olbion, Harding's Chronicle, Knight's Erasmus, and Clarendon. All his illustrated books of antiquities he had, he said, sent as a present to the son of his early benefactor in business, who, one is sorry to add, sold the volumes in Cade's lifetime. His reading was henceforth confined to religious subjects; and if he derived no very clear or actual theological knowledge from the vast mass of tracts and sermons which he devoured, yet were his individual views clear and cheerful, and he awaited his dissolution with firm resignation and unshaken reliance on his Saviour. He died at Gainford on the 10th of December, 1806, and was interred with his parents at Darlington.-SURTEES. lost by the Romans, or other inhabitants. They are sometimes found in Roman vessels, though the famous pot at Brough near Cataract will not perhaps be so readily confessed to be Roman. Coins have often been found under, or near to Roman altars; they are also frequently found in such places, as not only appear from other evidences to have been Roman stations, but where there is no manner of proof of any subsequent British or Saxon buildings upon them."† "Several methods," adds Horsley," have been used for fixing the situation of those places or stations, whose names occur in ancient authors; as also for finding out the names of such places, as appear by visible remains, and evident marks, to have formerly been Roman cities or forts, though now in a ruinous state, or quite demolished. Affinity in sound has been much used by the best antiquaries, though by none, I think, so'much as by our learned Cambden but it is evident that this method (especially where a loose is given to the imagination) is very uncertain, and has actually led this excellent author into many errors. Yet I do not say that it is to be altogether neglected, but only that it ought to be used with caution, and rather as a collateral evidence; except in some particular cases, where the resemblance is so manifest, as to render the argument drawn from it conclusive; as See "Bruce's History of the Roman Wall," second edition, p. 416, for an account of a hoard of Roman coins enclosed in a skiffshaped vessel, with a circular handle, and lid having a hinge at one end, and fastening with a spring at the other, discovered in an ancient Roman quarry on Barcombe hill, near Thorngrafton, Northumberland, "Britannia Romana," p. 393. London, Verulam, Cataract [Catterick]; Londinium, Verulamium, Cataracto. Indeed where no better evidence can be had than a much less affinity of sound, we must take up with such as we have, but ought then to remember, that this sort of evidence should weigh more or less in proportion to the real affinity, and not that which is only imaginary. And I would in most cases rather choose to trust to the sense, than the sound; and think the same meaning of the ancient and modern name deserves chiefly to be regarded when this is apparent and real. It may also be worthy of remark, that the ancient name is more frequently retained in the modern name of the river on which the Roman towns have stood, than in the present name of the places themselves. The names of towns may depend on the pleasure of the inhabitants, or other people near to them; but rivers (which might be distinguished by the names of those towns) run through large tracts of ground, and are not so liable to a variation in their names; nor are there such frequent occasions for changing the name in the one case, as in the other.* Ptolemy is the earliest author who mentions the river Wear; but, unfortunately, his geography of this district is greatly perplexed by a mistake he has committed respecting the relative position of part of the north of England and the whole of Scotland with the other or southern portion of Britain. In forming his map of Great Britain, he seems to have made use of two distinct surveys, one reaching northward to the Roman Wall, or the river Vedra (where, as Horsley conjectures, his grand turn begins), the other including the country beyond. "Britannia Romana," p. 353, In piecing the two together, he has turned the western part of the northern survey to the north, thus converting degrees of latitude into longitude, and vice versa. The province of Galloway being thus transposed to the northernmost angle of the island, and Caithness extended eastward a considerable way across the German Ocean! Horsley, whom Dr. Bruce so justly styles the father of the science of Archæology, rectifies this blunder, and enables us to determine, with tolerable precision, the relative positions of the various tribes, states, estuaries, rivers, and chief towns, with their longitude and latitude, noticed by that illustrious author. Ptolemy, after describing the northern, western, and southern sides of Albion, comes to "The description of the next side lying towards the south-east, along which flows the German Ocean, after the promontory of Tarvidium or Orcas, mentioned before," [and, after mentioning the names and latitude and longitude of nine places lying on the S.E. part of his map, we come to the] Horsley thinks "Dunum is the bay at the mouth of the river Teese, which parts the county of Durham from Yorkshire," and that " Vedra must be the river Tyne, on which stands the town of Newcastle. And," he adds, "I know no other name for the Roman station and town at the mouth of this river near South Shields but Ostia Vedrae.' If we consider the station itself, the altar inscribed to one of the Antonines [discovered there], and the nearness of the place to the Roman Wall; one can scarce suppose that the river and station should be wholly unknown to Ptolemy; and yet, unless these be their names, they are nameless in this geographer. I own," he acknowledges, "the force of this argument is abated, when we consider that neither Newcastle, nor any other of the Roman places on the wall, are mentioned by this ancient author; but it is true that towns, rather than forts, came under Ptolemy's notice."* Elsewhere that eminent antiquary observes" Vedra is the only river which Ptolemy names in these parts; and one would rather take this for the Tyne than the Were, as being more considerable, and in all probability much better known;" and yet, after all his trouble, reasoning, and conjecture, he seems to have had some doubt in the matter, for in a note he adds, "perhaps Vedra has been the name both of the river-Tyne and Were. The tract that lies between the two rivers, and is bounded on each side by them, is now called Werewickshire." Now, what suggests itself to our mind is (says a writer in 'Hogg's Weekly Instructor,') that 'Vedra' is the Wear,' "Britannia Romana," p. 377, + Ibid, p 103. เ |