under their “ tortudo” while throwing up an “ agger”. I feel great lresitation
therefore in accepting our Author’s conclusion that this irrsigrrifrcarrt hollow is
really the spot described in the quotation from Caesar p. I64 as “ the place in
the woods excellently fortified both by nature and art.” To an ordinary observer
it appears to be merely an old chalk pit , disused for many yearstas a few thorns
and ash have grown up in it), though in point of fact several loads of chalk were
taken from it when I altered the entrance to the Park at Bridge in l857——tlrc so-
called “ rampart” which exists in a very irregular form, would probably be the
top soil thrown aside by the labourers employed to get the solid chalk below. I
was quite unable to identify the “ mound which still remains to prove the
accuracy of Caesar‘s narrative”.

In Chapter VI our Author speaks of“ the heights of Garrington “ as being
artificially formed with several terraces to resist the attacks of the British
clrariots.Tlrese terraces seem to me only the natural geological forrrratiorr of that
part ofthe valley: but without venturing to speak so decisively as our Author
does, either for, or against, the work of nature, one is struck by the fact that the
side of the hill is here so “ precipitous" rratrally, that“ chariots could not
surmount it“, and therefore the enormous labour of fonning “ four or five
terraces succeeding one another” must have been wholly unnecessary.

With respect to the supposed traces of errtrenclrnrents in Bourne l"arl< described
on p. I9] I have carefully examined “the brow ofthe hill" in search ofthe “ two
parallel ‘lines of escarpments with others at their extremities at right arrgles”,
and must candidly say lean find nothing resembling tlrem~~-except lst the
traces of the ditches enclosing a strip of larrd(perhaps the first enclosed portion
of the Park)on each side of the great double avenue which "formerly extentletl
from the Dover road to the foot of the hill, corresponding with the existing
avenue at the back of the mansion"-and Zndly the banks and ditches of the
“Paddocks" nrentiorred by Hasted, enclosed at a later period by a succeeding
proprietor. Perhaps however the Author does not intend to refer to eitlrer of
these. He says his “ escarpments” are “ not easily cliscer'rred"--"wlriclr argues
their great antiquity",---possibly an antiquity ofa far earlier period than either
Britons or Romans. The two hexagonal enclosures,pl9l, surrounded by a bank,
there is no “ditclr”, and supposed to be “orrtposts” , are easily recognised: he
says “they are known traditionally as The F orts”: this is another instance of a
tradition known to hardly anyone.l have never heard it mentioned.But,
whatever else they may have been, they were certainly once plantations, as the
trees(Scotch firs) still existed forty years ago in one of them, and a few strrrnps
were visible in the other; the bank of the N.W. hexagon is still perfect, but after
nraking ample allowance for the levelling effects of time and weather, it seems
to me far too insignificant in its dinrensions to have ever been the errrbarrkrrrerrt
of a Roman “outpost” while it is exactly what one might expect to find a.s a
bank tlnown up to assist in protecting a plantation made perhaps less than I00
years ago. “The deep depression a few yards distant", supposed to have been
an “ amphitheatre”, I have been utterly unable to discover. Surely the /-\uthor