As regards the architecture, quaint old Stow has the following:

"I am extremely pleased with the front of Somerset House, as it affords us a view of the first dawning of taste in England, this being the only fabric which deviates from the Gothic or imitates the manner of the ancients. Here are columns, arches, and cornices that appear to have some meaning. If proportions are neglected, if beauty is not understood, if there is in it a mixture of barbarism and splendour, the mistakes admit of great alleviation."

The old building was demolished in 1776, and Sir William Chambers appointed the architect of the new edifice. The accounts of the building are in the Library of the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Next to Somerset House was Arundel House, formerly the Bishop of Bath's Inn.

Hollar's view shows a large courtyard with buildings. To the left, what appears to be either the hall or possibly a chapel, with four windows in the Perpendicular style; a half-timber structure is next to it, and beyond that an open shed. To the left, another building with a sundial.

In another view, the building last mentioned is on the right, and next to that a row of outbuildings. Facing us, there is to be seen a building with a high-pitched roof, with an open staircase which projects over the courtyard, and the windows are under the steep pitched gable. Just to the right of this is the top of a church tower, possibly St. Clement Daues.

In the view looking towards London we are supposed to be on the battlements. Middle Temple Hall is directly in front, and St. Paul's and other churches in the background. Norfolk, Howard, Arundel, and Surrey streets now occupy the site.

The site was bought on the death of Lord Seymour, brother of the Protector, by Henry Fitzalan for the "incredibly small sum of little more than £40," we are informed by Strype.

Essex House.-Essex House stood next to Arundel House; a plan of both is given in Walford's Old and New London, vol. iii, p. 72. Of the old house, nothing now

remains but the Water-gate at the bottom of Essex Street. It takes its name from the Earl of Essex, the unfortunate favourite of Queen Elizabeth. His son was the great Parliamentary General. About the year 1640 the house was divided. In 1682 Essex Street was built on onehalf of the site. The present houses, however, date from the middle of the reign of George III.

Upon the opposite side of the Strand some other houses were to be found. Camden House afterwards became the site of the Olympic Theatre. Drury House, which gave its name to Drury Lane, stood at the Strand end of Wych Street or (as found on old maps) Aldwyche. Burleigh House stood between Wellington Street and Southampton Street; on Lord Burleigh's death, in 1598, it came to the Earl of Exeter. Exeter Change was erected on the site. This was taken down in 1863.

Southampton Street now occupies the site of Bedford

House.

EARTHWORKS OF THE MOATED MOUND

TYPE.

BY T. DAVIES PRYCE, Esq.

(Read at the Nottingham Congress, 1906.)

HE moated mound is, perhaps, of all earthworks the most interesting, for it presents to us archæological evidence of a past upon which history has of late shed considerable light.

In this Paper the subject will be considered somewhat broadly, but a special enquiry will be made into its geographical distribution, with the view of arriving at some approximate conclusion. as to its source and date of origin.

The question whether it must be traced to the military genius of one nation, or whether it arose more or less of necessity out of certain social and political conditions, which have in the past been the common possession of many nationalities, will also be discussed. The influence exerted by natural and geological conformation on the development of the mound fortress must likewise be noticed. It will be well, in the first place, to clearly define this type of earthwork.

The moated mound is an artificial-or partly artificialhillock, surrounded by a fosse. The fosse is usually, but not invariably, furnished with a further defence in the form of a rampart on its counterscarp. In some instances, the mound is additionally defended by a second, or even a third, fosse and rampart. Its height varies from 10 ft., as at Woolstaston, Shropshire, to nearly 90 ft., as at Thetford. It is generally flat-topped, and sometimes its summit is defended by an earthen parapet. Occasionally

the summit is scooped out, and a saucer or cup-like depression is presented to the observer. Least frequently of all the summit may be rounded, as at Donaghpatrick, Ireland.

Sometimes the mound stands alone, but usually one or more enclosures are found in connection with it, and these vary in size from half an acre to six acres.

The form of the enclosure varies greatly it may be oval, more or less rectangular, or crescent-shaped. The enclosure, or court, is generally raised above the level of the surrounding ground.

The position of the mound in relation to the court is not constant. Sometimes it is placed, as at Kilfinnane (Ireland), in the centre of a circular or oval circumvallation; oftener near one extreme of the inner circuit of the enclosure, as at Thetford, Newtown, and Rathkeltair, and in a number of Welsh examples; but most frequently in English examples, it is so situated that two-thirds of its circuit projects beyond the general line of the attached enclosure, the whole presenting the appearance of a figure of 8, or of a roughly oval earthwork, with an hour-glass contraction at the junction of the mound and court. Laughton-en-le-Morthen exemplifies this type.

Sometimes the fosse which surrounds the outer circuit of the mound is not carried completely around its inner portion, and thus no ditch separates the mound from the enclosure, as at North Elmham and Lydham. Rarely the mound has no fosse of its own, as at Bramber and some Welsh instances. As a rule, that portion of the fosse which intervenes between the mound and court has no rampart. Exceptions to this rule are to be found at Newtown and other places.

Moated mounds may thus be described as simple and complex. The complex form may be roughly divided into two categories- those in which the mound is placed definitely within the enclosure, and those in which it stands to some extent without the enclosure, i.e., on its enceinte.

I have entered somewhat tediously upon the numerous variations of this class of earthwork, because it is necessary

to insist upon a point, too often overlooked, and it is this: that there is no one specific type of moated mound; on the contrary, it is to be found in a great variety, both as to form and size.

Some exception might be taken to the title of this Paper, inasmuch as I have employed the term moat in its late or transition form of ditch, and not in its original sense of mote or "motte."

It is admitted that the title is not an ideal one: it has, however, one important property, and this is that it is structurally descriptive.

The terms "motte" and "motte and bailey" do not appear to me to be judicious, for they carry with them a suggestion of Norman origin, a preconception which it is necessary to avoid. Before entering upon the subject proper of this Paper, it may be well to point out that enclosures are not peculiar to artificial mound forts. They are frequently to be found in connection with the drystone forts of Ireland, as at Dun Conor and Grainan Aileach. The effects of time upon these earthworks, both in its destructive and constructive aspects, must also be borne in mind.

Much discussion has ranged round the question of the date and source of origin of the moated mound.

2

The late Mr. Clark1 attributed them to the Saxons and Danes, but this view which was first questioned by Mr Round, has still further been shaken by the valuable papers of Mr. George Neilson, Mrs. Armitage, and Mr. St. John Hope, and again by a contribution of Mr. Round's, on the "Castles of the Conquest."

6

So far from accepting Mr. Clark's views, the trend of recent antiquarian opinion is distinctly in the direction. of regarding all moated mounds as of Norman origin."

1 "Mediæval Military Architecture."

2 "Quarterly Review," July, 1894, No. 357, pp. 27-57.

3 "The Scottish Review," vol. xxxii, pp. 209-238.

4 "Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland," vol.

xxxiv, pp. 260-288.

"The Archæological Journal," vol. lx, No. 237, pp. 72-90.

6 "Archæologia," vol. lviii.

7 See Papers by Mrs. Armitage :

vol. xix, pp. 209-245, 417-455; vol. xx, pp. 711-718; also "Antiquary," vol. ii, New Series, Nos. 8 and 9.

1906

17