Some bronze weapons and implements, which have come into my possession, appear to be of so much interest in respect of novelty and peculiarities of form, manufacture, and ornamentation, as to make it desirable to bring them under the notice of the Society, with the object of placing them on permanent record in Archaeologia.

I have the honour of submitting to the Society, on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Silchester Excavation Fund, a full report of the discoveries made during the year 1901. This is also the record of the continued exploration of the site for the twelfth year in succession.

Work for the season was begun on 10th May by Mr. Mill Stephenson, who directed operations throughout until their conclusion on 13th November, with the exception of five weeks in July and August, when Mr. Herbert Jones was in charge. A deep debt of gratitude is due to these gentlemen for the time and trouble they have so freely bestowed upon the work.

The fall of two of the stones of the outer circle of Stonehenge, No. 22 and its lintel No. 122, on the last day of the century, directed the attention of the public, and especially of archæologists, in a very forcible manner to the insecure position of other stones in this venerable monument. At a meeting of the Council of this Society soon afterwards a resolution was passed and sent to Sir Edmund Antrobus, the owner of Stonehenge, expressing their desire to co-operate with him in any operations which might be advisable for its preservation. Sir Edmund accepted the offer, declined any pecuniary aid, and invited the Society to form, together with the Wiltshire Archæological Society, and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, a small committee to advise him as to the work required for the conservation of the monument and the order in which it should be carried out.

The work for the year 1901 began on 10th June, and was continued till 22nd October. It consisted in the excavation of the west wing of House No. 2, the rest of which had been uncovered in 1900, and of the whole of House No. 7. House No. 8, which was partly excavated in 1901, has been completed (with Block A) during June and July of the present year, 1902. Excavations were also carried on in the field adjoining the north gate, now the property of Lord Tredegar, F.S.A., the cost of which was entirely defrayed by him. As, however, these excavations are by no means complete, and many problems which they present still await solution, it has been thought better to postpone all detailed report of this portion of the work until next year.

The letters contained in the volume before us now preserved at Ditchley consist of five written by Charles II. and forty written by James II. while Duke of York. They are addressed to Charlotte Fitzroy, Countess of Litchfield, their daughter and niece. Sir Edward Henry Lee, the fifth baronet of that name, was by patent dated 5th June, 1674, created Earl of Litchfield, Viscount Quarrendon, and Baron Spelsbury. On 11th August, 1674, he was betrothed t o Charlotte Fitzroy, daughter of Charles II. by Barbara Villiers, Countess of Castlemaine, and on 3rd August, 1670, created Duchess of Cleveland. The bride and bridegroom were very young, he having been born 4th February, 1663, and she 5th September, 1664. A little later, on 22nd February, 1677, the actual marriage took place, and, as recorded on their monument in Spelsbury Church, “at their marriage they were the most graceful bridegroom and most beautiful bride, and that till death they remained the most constant husband and wife.” a Their married life lasted forty-two years, during which time she bore him eighteen children, the youngest of whom, Robert, eventually succeeded as fourth and last Earl of Litchfield.

From the artistic and antiquarian points of view, the systematic destruction of our old City churches under the Union of Benefices Act is greatly to be deplored. Under this Act the churches designed by Sir Christopher Wren have especially suffered; and here I will venture to say a few words on that famous architect and his work. A dire catastrophe sometimes calls forth the energies of the master mind that can grapple with it; this was the case, when, after the Great Fire of 1666, by which eighty-six parish churches were destroyed or severely injured, Wren at that time, hardly a professional architect, turned his attention to the City. He first produced a plan for general rebuilding, which would have given free scope to his genius, although at the same time destroying many links with the past. The chief public buildings were to have been grouped round the Royal Exchange, which would have formed an important centre; St. Paul's Cathedral being approached from the east by two broad converging streets. A river quay, in part adorned by the City Halls, would have extended from Black-friars to the Tower of London; while the churches, greatly reduced in number, were to occupy commanding and isolated sites, their burial grounds being outside the City. For reasons which it is here not necessary to discuss, this proposal was not accepted; and so the City grew again, more or less on its old irregular lines. To Wren, however, was assigned the task of rebuilding or repairing not only St. Paul's Cathedral, but, if we include St. Mary Woolnoth and St. Sepulchre, both only repaired, no fewer than fifty-two other churches, The remainder were not rebuilt, their parishes being united -with adjoining parishes which continued to possess churches. The ancient burial grounds were, to a great extent, retained, and burials continued in them until after the middle of the nineteenth century.

During the past five or six years a number of interesting examples of enamelled glass have been sent to Europe from various sites in the nearer East, the principal localities near which they are said to have been found being Damascus, a spot in the neighbourhood of Aleppo, and at Koos and Fostat in Egypt.

One of these, the subject of the present paper, has come into my hands for the British Museum collection, through the liberality of Miss Alice de Rothschild. It is figured in colours in the accompanying Plate XIV. of the size of the original.

The manor of Ropley, like the manor of Meonstoke about which I read a paper in December, 1900, is a made up one. A number of ancient free tenements, holden by suit and service of the bishopric manor of Sutton, were purchased and thrown together between the years 1390 and 1476, and became the college manor of Ropley, the copyholders in which held at the will of the college as they had previously held at the will of the free tenants of the bishop, and attended the court of the college steward as they had previously attended the court of the bishop.

The Early Teutonic jewellery ornamented with garnets and glass pastes, frequently known as Orfévrerie Cloisonnée, has been so extensively discussed that it may appear almost superfluous to draw attention to it once more. But the publication in the following pages of objects now in the British Museum will, it is hoped, supply fresh links in the chain of evidence connecting it with the East; for it is now universally agreed that this kind of jewellery entered Europe from Asia, and it is with examples of early date from that continent that we are here chiefly concerned. The principal aim of this Paper is to make better known the armlet from the Oxus, and the reliquary from Afghanistan reproduced by figures 1 and 2 of the accompanying coloured plate (Plate XVI.). But in considering these objects it has been difficult to avoid speculation as to the origin of the style of ornamentation which they represent. The early date and pronounced Perse-politan style of the armlet bring us nearer to Egypt than anything hitherto discovered in the East, and in view of these facts, we are tempted to revive the question whether the Cloisonnée jewellery of Central Asia can have been introduced from the banks of the Nile. The opposite theory, which regards this jewellery as indigenous in Asia, has probably the balance of opinion in its favour; but in the present state of our knowledge, its acceptance would appear to involve something of a dilemma. For on this view the great antiquity of the earliest Egyptian jewels in this style would compel us either to prove that their Eastern prototypes were in existence some three thousand years before Christ; or to suppose two independent centres of invention, one in Asia, the other in Africa, thus severing Egypt from all connection with the development of the art on the neighbouring continent. Time may remove the difficulties incident to these alternatives, but at present neither of them is easy of acceptance. The perfection of the famous inlaid jewels of Dashur (figs. 1 and la), which belong to the twelfth dynasty (third millennium, B.C.), would make it necessary to assume from their rude Asiatic forerunners an almost fabulous antiquity. But so far as I am aware, neither Babylonia nor Assyria, Central Asia, or India, have as yet produced anything in this style of so remote a date; and though the early archæology of China is at present so little known that it may have many surprises in store, as matters now stand it is a legitimate inference that the Far East could hardly have exercised an artistic influence towards the West thirty centuries before the beginning of our era. The theory which derives enamelling from Asia, does not involve the same dilemma, because this was not one of the characteristic arts of Ancient Egypt.

The history of mural and panel painting in England before the sixteenth century may perhaps be divided into three periods. Firstly, that from the Norman Conquest, or possibly before, which continued during the wave of monastic enthusiasm which swept over Europe, and ended at the close of the thirteenth century. During this time there is every reason to suppose from the evidence of chronicles, fabric rolls, and works accounts that in England as well as elsewhere all the decorative arts were practised by persons associated together in schools or lodges with three gradations of members, namely, masters, workmen, and apprentices or novices. Art was at this date fostered by the monasteries, indeed, those who practised it were largely drawn from the inmates of the Benedictine houses, and it would seem that, at all events at St. Albans, the sacrists were themselves workers and sometimes held the rank of master workmen. During this period one man practised many arts. We know that Richard the Painter superintended the building of Hereford Castle in 1172, and, later, Master John of St. Omer, while making the great lectern for the chapter house at Westminster in 1253, had carpenters, masons, painters, smiths, and others working under his direction. Numerous other instances could be quoted were not the practice so well known as to make it unnecessary.

It is written in the fifth volume of the Minute Books of the Society that on Thursday, 1st May, 1746:

Mr. Birch brought an old draft in a Parchment Roll done in the year 1511 of all the Stone-Wells then at Clerkenwell. This Mr. Vertue was desired to take home and give some account to the Society the next meeting: the Roll is the property of Francis Godolphin, Esq.

By way of introduction to the subject I have the honour of bringing before you I will trace as briefly as possible the controversy as to the origin of those remarkable strongholds, found throughout the three kingdoms, of which the essential feature is a moated flat-topped mound. This was the “motte” of medieval French, the “mota” of mediaeval Latin.