Not only so, but should the transactions be such as to extend themselves over a wide sphere, those who have regarded some portions of the detail are enabled, in after time, to speak of what they saw to others, and these again add to the information of the first, so that in process of time each one becomes a witness of the whole. It is not to be supposed that, in such relation from one to another, strict truth is always adhered to-allowances must be made to the natural dispositions, temperaments, and feelings-as one man may be of a loquacious turn, delighting in making the most of every thing he hears or sees, and for sheer love of gossip will extend his tale far beyond the bounds which his actual knowledge has set him; another may be of a cool, phlegmatic disposition, who perhaps scarcely conceives it to be worth his while to narrate one-half of the things which have actually taken place under his immediate notice; a third has his feelings so wrought upon by passing events, so zealous in either this or that cause, that he stays not to observe whether such things are or are not, but viewing everything through the perverted medium of his zeal, or party feeling, he arrives at conclusions which, from what he has seen or heard, he is not warranted in coming to. Still amidst all these, which seem anything but desirable for the elimination of truth, much and valuable evidence may be collected. Indeed if we confine ourselves, in the examination, to the most leading facts we shall generally arrive at pretty correct data to go upen. Now the very reverse of this is to be observed when transactions take place which in themselves are not of such importance as to concentrate into a focus, so

to speak, the observation of the age in which they take place. The witnesses are fewer in number, facts are more likely to be distorted, and the chances are many against their being truthfully handed down to future ages, or perhaps at all.

This train of thought suggested itself to my mind whilst endeavouring to make out to my satisfaction about the time when it might be supposed the Camp, of which I have spoken before, was constructed, and by what people. At the first blush there was so much external and internal evidence that the Camp was constructed by the army of the Parliament, that the case appeared plain enough. However, after careful search into history, and especially those parts connected more immediately with the formation of Camps, there appear to be so many grounds for coming to the conclusion that this particular one dates its origin from a time a long way antecedent to the period of the Civil War, that the most judicious plan seems to be to put both arguments fairly forward, and leave it to opinion as to which date should be selected, making this one observation that a personal survey, taken in connection with history, does certainly lead to a strong conviction that the Romans were the originators of the construction. We find that the ancient inhabitants of Britain, previous to the Roman conquest, although a bold and hardy race of men, were literally-both as regards their houses, dress, and military operations-nothing more than barbarians, ignorant of discipline and military experience. They lived in a level open country, without enclosure or any place of rendezvous or retreat, except their impenetrable woods, and inaccessible bogs and mountains;

in a word, they were unfurnished of all means of defence except their native courage and love of liberty. It is not then such men as these we could expect to be the authors of a means of defence which shows in every respect the general and soldier. But when we find that the active and experienced P. Ostorius Scapula was despatched from Rome, in the year 52, and upon his arrival found Caractiacus, a warlike and skilful British Chief, opposed to him, at once. so active and indefatigable as to require that he should raise a chain of forts along the river Nen in Northamptonshire, and on the banks of the Severn in Gloucestershire, there appears to be a key at once for explaining who were the originators of this and similar entrenchments which are to be found in many places on both sides of the river Severn. The form of the Camp is more likely to fix the origin than any other circumstances, but this is not always to be depended upon, for although wherever we find a camp which is a perfect square or parallelogramical, we cannot err in assigning it to the Romans; yet the converse does not hold good. For instance, the Berry, at Uley, two miles from Dursley, is undoubtedly a Roman encampment, and the form corresponds very materially, both in shape and situation, to the one under consideration. It is an oblong encampment, enclosing a space of nearly forty acres, and fortified with double entrenchments round the edge of the hill. Some coins of Antonius and Constantine have been found there. Yet, notwithstanding this, many cases occur in which camps which have been originally constructed by the Britons, subsequent to the Roman invasion, have been made use of by Danes,

Saxons, and Romans-as the one which is found on the top of Sponebed Hill, near Painswick, which consists of double entrenchments and inclosures, about three acres. This post

was also occupied by King Charles I. after quitting the siege of Gloucester. Hence arises a doubt which, although we may not be inclined to award the merit to the Parliament forces, still leaves it uncertain whether the Britons or Romans are to claim the priority. The circumstance, however, of there being camps within the distance of two miles, which are entirely different to this, tend much to give the preference to the former. These camps or vallations are three in number, upon the face of a slope, known as Cleeve Hill, and having a view which commands as great an extent of country as the one on Prestbury Hill; one is very large, a second smaller, and a third smaller still, but the whole of them are circular and consist of a single vallum or trench, with an embankment. Again, on Nottingham Hill, about a mile distant from these, are the remains of a double entrenchment, about a quarter of a mile long, nearly straight, and running from the brow of the hill towards Winchcomb. This in its construction is similar to the one first noticed, with this difference that one is somewhat crescent shaped, while the other on Vottingham Hill is straight, which would lead to the supposition that both were constructed by the same people.

The arguments which may be urged in favour of the camp on Prestbury Hill, having been thrown up by the Parliament forces, are briefly these. The appearance of the work is such as would almost warrant the assertion, that it bears the marks of too recent a date to entitle it to any great antiquity.

C

The embankments are nearly perfect, the trenches are as clearly defined as if but a few years had passed since they were first cut out by the hand of the workman. In no place are found masses of earth and stone-from the agger or mound above-washed down by the rains of ages, and filling up the trenches beneath. Scarcely does the original depth seem changed. Evidence, in abundance, is afforded by the heaps which are thrown up over the dead, at a very little distance from this spot, at a place called Stockhall-by skeletons which have been frequently dug up in the neighbourhood

"Last noon beheld them full of lusty life,
"Last eve in Beauty's circle proudly gay,

"The midnight brought the signal-sound of strife,
"The morn the marshalling in arms,-- the day
"Battle's magnificently stern array!

"The thunder-clouds close o'er it, which when rent
"The earth is covered thick with other clay,

"Which her own clay shall cover, heaped and pent,
"Rider and horse-friend, foe-in one red burial blent !”

-and by the remains of a small chapel, about a mile east of the camp, near Postlip, that the downs have been the scene of many bloody encounters, which history and the common legends of the neighbourhood ascribe to the Royal and Parliamentary forces.