208 Bp. Berkeley's Family.-Sir Thos. Hunt, of Norfolk. [March, from the rest as a younger son's portion, for the paper relates only to two mibts of Shenston. I dont know what the word "mibts" means. I am anxious also for some information on another subject, which I think must be generally interesting, namely, the descent of the very celebrated Dr. Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne. In the first account of his life, which may be seen in the Encyclopedia Britannica, he is stated to be the son of William Berkeley, Esq. of Thomastown, a cadet of the family of Earl Berkeley, of Berkeley Castle. In his life, written by his brother (who must have known how the fact stood), he is merely stated to be the son of William Berkeley, Esq. whose father came to Ireland soon after the Restoration, and obtained the collectorship of Belfast, the family having greatly suffered for their loyalty to Charles the First. Now it is well known that Sir John Berkeley, of a very distant branch of the Earl of Berkeley's family, suffered greatly for his adherence to Charles the First, but on the restoration was created Lord Berkeley of Stratton, and became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. His title however became soon extinct, and it seems very probable that the Collector of Belfast was a natural son of his, and obtained the Collectorship from his father the Lord Lieutenant, it being a very natural post for the latter to confer in such a case. The pre tension contained in the original memoir shows that there must have been some sort of ground for such a claim, while the silence of the Bishop's brother on the point, seems to show that there was something in it too delicate to allow him to insist on it. This, coupled with his assertion that the family suffered for their loyalty to Charles the First, and our knowledge that Sir John Berkeley did so suffer, and was afterwards sent to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant, seems almost to decide the point. The title of Lord Berkeley of Stratton died, I believe, with his son. A. S. at Folsham (not Folkham) in Norfolk, where a monument to his memory on the north side of the chancel, still remains, but much defaced by a fire which happened there in 1770, by which several houses were consumed, and when the Church also took fire, and was burnt in such a manner that nothing but the walls were left. Sir Thomas Hunt was lord and patron of the parish of Folsham, which he purchased in 1582, of Edward Parker, Lord Morley, and was a benefactor to the poor of the adjoining parish of Hilderston, where his ancestors resided, as appears by a monument originally placed at the east end of the south aisle of that parish church, but removed, when the Church was repaired about twenty years since, into the nave; it is probably in memory of the father and mother of the above Sir Thomas Hunt, and, if so, was erected by him. It is a small arched monument of Sussex marble, inlaid with the figures of a man, his wife, and their children, in brass, above a shield with the arms and crest of Hunt; and beneath the following inscription in old English characters: "Enter'd a couple heare dothe ly, that hatefull deathe did kill, Whiche lyvinge loved as man and wife, and bent to God there will, Whose names to tell, thus weare they called that death hathe refte of life, Edmon Hunt the gentilman, and Margret hight his wife; Children these had fourtene in all, daughters four, and sonnes tene; These Two infantes dyed, thre marchants weare, lawiers foure, and one devine; Huntes huntinge abrode the chase one Hunt oute-hunted the rest, Who made this stone in memory how God his huntinge blest, Who hopes by fayth heaven for his haven in Christ that he shall finde, Where welcom once no farewell is; suche welcome God us sende! Obiit ille anno Domini 1558, Octobris 11, Obiit illa anno Domini 1568, Decembris 3." As the above is not noticed by Parkin the Norfolk historian, nor has to my knowledge ever appeared in print, you will perhaps think it worth preserving in your columns, and by so doing will oblige a constant reader, and one who has venerated this ancient monument ever since his boyish days, when taught to read it by the old parish clerk, then almost the only person in the village who was able to instruct him. A. P. 1831.] MR. URBAN, Ancient Coins, Ring, &c. Claremont, near I ENCLOSE drawings of two coins, both, I believe, unpublished, and the latter unique. The first (Plate II. Fig. 1), is a penny of King John, the obverse bearing the usual legend, JOHANNES REX; the reverse is remarkable by having WILELM. P. ON. DIV., which I am not aware occurs on any published coin until the time of Edward I. when the name of Robertus de Hadlee appears on some of the pennies. I have seen but one other penny of John bearing a similar inscription, which is in the collection of my friend George Petrie, esq. to whom I am indebted for the subject of the present drawing. The second (Fig. 2) bears on the obverse three crowns in a shield, with a small figure of 1 over it-the legend obliterated, partly by the coin having lost somewhat of its circumference; the reverse has a star of 12 points, divided by a long cross running out to the edge of the coin, the centre of the cross forming a rose. The letters DVBL only remain of what was probably the original inscription, CIVITAS DVBLINIE. This coin is copper, and weighs above 7 and nearly 7 grains, which is the weight assigned by Simon in his Essay on Irish coins (ed. 1810) p. 21, to a coinage of brass money of Henry VI, A.D. 1459; the penny of which was to weigh 60 grains, and the eighth part of the penny 7 grs. Whether this should be referred to Henry VI. or, as the type would rather lead us to imagine, to his rival and successor Edw. IV., and to whom I am disposed to place it, I leave to more learned antiquaries. This coin was turned up singly in the garden of the National Institution for the Deaf and Dumb at Claremont near Dublin, and is now (together with. the penny of John, already described), in my possession. J. H. 209 ter Church in Thanet. I send for your inspection a similar article of much finer workmanship (Fig. 4). It is of silver, gilt, and in length, including the moveable ring, 24 inches, the breadth across the legend is 4ths of an inch, and the thickness one-eighth of an inch; the weight not quite one ounce. The two pins, which are supposed to have confined the end of a leathern thong, remain firmly riveted near the extremity; the round hole underneath the quatrefoil is very distinct, and I suppose might be made for the purpose of receiving a small hook, by which the article in question and the scabbard supposed to have been annexed to it were more securely suspended from the belt; the two pins being scarcely sufficient for supporting so heavy an appendage as a sword. The ring proceeds from the mouth of a wolf or some other animal; this is also the case with the specimen (which is now in my possession) engraved in your volume for 1818; but in that éngraving the head of the animal does not appear. I consider that the ring was fastened to the belt, and that the legend was at the end near the hilt of the sword; this idea is confirmed by the appearance of the metal near the top of the hole, on the under part, which is worn or become thin rather on one side, and I have no doubt by the friction of the hook which assisted in confining it to the belt. Allow me to add a suggestion relative to one of the seals engraved in your number for November 1829; which represents a squirrel, and is inscribed CRECZCECEL. I think it probable that this belonged to one of the family of Creswell, who bore three squirrels for their arms, and a squirrel for their crest. Yours, &c. R. ALMACK. MR. URBAN, Stoke Cottage, Gosport, Nov. 4. IN your number for July, (p. 17) your correspondent T. A. presented you with what I was preparing to of The use of these brass ornaments not being precisely ascertained, we will not express a decided opinion; but we must confess that we rather lean to the idea of that correspondent who suggested that they were made to fasten books: see a note to the list of plates at the back of the title-page to our vol. c. part i.-Edit. 210 Roman Antiquities found at Lancing Down. fer an account of the Roman Remains on Lancing Down, Sussex. He has therefore saved me the trouble of sending drawings of several of the articles found, as described by him, to the correctness of which I am happy to bear testimony. I visited these interesting remains several months ago, and found they corresponded with the description given, to which I beg to offer a few additional observations. That the building, whose foundation alone remains, was a temple, or one dedicated to religious purposes, there can be but little doubt. Its size and form prove that it was neither a villa nor a common residence; and the uncommon circumstance of its being surrounded by graves shows that it was considered a sacred spot, and set apart for sacred purposes. That it was exclusively British, Saxon, or Roman, is not probable, since remains of all these people have been found in and about it. Several of the brooches and bone combs are exceedingly rude, and are most probably British. But there are indubitable evidences of its being chiefly of Roman workmanship. The tesseræ are such as are generally found in common pavements of their villas, being formed of pieces of dark grey limestone, about an inch square. There were also fragments of common black pottery, and I have in my possession a few pieces of the fine Samian ware made only by them. The coins also prove the same. It is well known that the Belgæ had very numerous settlements on the extensive downs that are on the southern coast, and at no place are their remains more frequently found than along the range of which Lancing Down forms a part. It is therefore probable there was a colony on this spot or in the neighbourhood (in support of which I shall presently bring another proof), and that here was the edifice where their religious rites were performed. When the Romans became masters of this part of the country, and established themselves in the different camps on the heights, they improved upon the rude structure of the Britons, and formed a temple according to their own plan that would serve for the use of the neighbouring stations, which are to be seen on the west, north, and east: indeed there is evidently a narrow raised way, almost [March, in a straight line, from this temple to the great camp called Cissbury, (the station or camp of Cissa), about a mile to the north-west. The room in the centre mentioned by T. A. was undoubtedly the Sanctum Sanctorum, into which the priest was accustomed to retreat from the worshippers, to hold (as he wished them to believe) more intimate communion with the Deity. The stucco on the exterior has evidently been sprinkled with some red liquid. Is it too much to suppose it to be the blood of the animals sacrificed? Boars' tusks and other bones were found. The most interesting of the surrounding excavations is the small circular bath, the dimensions of which prove that it was used not for common purposes, but for sacred ablution, connected with the rites of the temple. The narrow bronze spoon represented among the other relics in the number for July, was undoubtedly used for the service of religion. The small urns found at the bottom of the narrow graves (some of which are not above a foot in diameter) probably contained the ashes of the heart. That which I have in my possession is three inches wide, and two deep; a sketch of which (Fig. 5) I send you. In the grave No. 10, as represented by T. A., were the bones of a fowl, and a fibula in the shape of a cock. The bones were most likely those of that bird; as they have not unfrequently been found with the remains of the dead. At the bottom of an urn discovered in the castle bank at Lewes, formerly a Roman station, almost in a line with those near Lancing, the skeleton of a cock was found, which I saw in the splendid cabinet of G. Mantell, esq. of that place. Mr. Medhurst has made several other interesting discoveries in the neighbourhood. About a mile from the pavement towards Cissbury, he opened a tumulus which contained a skeleton, with the right arm extended, and in the hand a curious but rudely formed small urn (Fig. 6) about three inches deep, and five wide at the projecting rim that forms the termination of the bars. This also, which is of an uncommon form, probably contained the ashes of the heart. Being informed by him that several skeletons had been found in digging for chalk in a large pit, a quarter of a |