able to forward such casts, or rubbings, to his palæographical fellowmember at Oxford, and the correct reading will be sent down to Scotland by the next post. As for the Oghams, we could give readings of our own; but they ought to be referred to Professor Graves, at Trinity College, Dublin, who makes no more of an Oghamic stroke, or notch, than Mr. Westwood does of a palæographic scratching, such as we often indulged in during our happy school-boy days, when furtively playing on a slate at tit-tat-to!

The Oghams and inscriptions on these Scotch stones are subjects for separate grave disquisitions ;-and so we leave them.

We now come to the second point mentioned above, and advert to certain facts about the sites and states of these stones, &c., mentioned by the author when describing them.

In the first place, then, on perusing Mr. Stuart's accounts of the stones, delineated in the volume before us, it is impossible to avoid being struck with the constant mention of stone circles, tumuli, standing-stones, (or meini-hirion as we Cymry call them,) still to be found in Scotland. They seem to be far more numerous than what we now find in Wales; and we should like to see some competent Scottish antiquary compiling topographical lists, with suitable descriptions of every one of those uninscribed mute mementoes of the ancient inhabitants of that country. Dr. Wilson has only gone over the surface of the subject-most ably indeed; but it is worthy of being worked out in detail, and it cannot be undertaken with propriety except by this spirited Spalding Club, or by the Royal Society of Scottish Antiquaries.

In the second place, it is impossible to suppress one's regret, or rather indignation, at the numerous cases of wanton, unnecessary, mischievous destruction and removal of early remains of all kinds mentioned by Mr. Stuart. It would appear that the landowners of Scotland have not been one whit more enlightened in this respect than those of Wales, or of England; they seem not to have known the value of these silent but long-enduring proofs of national existence, these tests of national history, these relics of national honour. Sometimes we read of them being taken down for the sake of "improvement," sometimes for agricultural levellings, and sometimes by the landlords, but most commonly by the tenants. Scotch lairds would thus seem to have as ignorant stewards and bailiffs as those on the southern side of the Border. These accounts make us shrewdly suspect that Scots are "na sae unco' canny" as we used to think them. Since they find that it pays to preserve deer, cannot they be made to understand that it also pays to preserve ancient monuments? Why! it would be worth while for Scotch innkeepers-generally alive to their own interests-to form an association for the preservation of these early remains, whereby they might entice many a score of foolish, but money-bagged, antiquaries to cross the Tweed, or the Forth, or even some of the northern streams. There positively exists a numerous class of tourists who do annually go about looking after

old stones and green mounds; these men require conveyances; they must eat and drink; they must be lodged; they do not spend so much money perhaps as sportsmen, but they pay as well as artists at any rate. We seriously recommend this subject to the consideration of northern hosts; and, in order that we may not seem to accuse our Scotch friends of Vandalism unjustly, we close our notice of this book-this enviable book -with the following instances taken at random out of others to be found throughout it.

P. 17.-"The standing stone of Sauchope was till lately placed on an earthen mound, near to the burgh of Crail. . . . . . În consequence of the straightening of marches between two conterminous proprietors in 1851, the mound was demolished, and the stone removed to a position a little to the north of its former site." (It is certainly lucky that the stone was not demolished by these thick-skulls, whose mathematics were so scanty that they could not carry a boundary line right over a mound, but were forced to get the latter removed. Are there any schoolmasters in Scotland?)

P. 25.-"Several stone coffins have been found in the neighbourhood; and in a field lying westward from the church stood the 'Coort-Law.' It was an artificial mound, about 15 feet high, composed of a mass of stones, such as are found in the adjoining lands, and covered over with earth. When it was taken down there were several stone coffins found in it," &c., &c. (Why was it taken down? what was the good of doing this?)

P. 33.-" Of the stones at Kintore, Nos. 2 and 3 were found imbedded in the Castle Hill, a mound near the church, recently removed by railway operations, which was about 30 feet in height, by 150 feet in diameter." (Just as if the stupid railway surveyor could not have improved the radius of his curve, and gone round the hill instead of over it! We heartily hope that the dividends are under one per cent!)

P. 34.-"It is probable that some of the other stones in the Castle Hill were sculptured; but unfortunately they were speedily broken up for building railway bridges." (Stones are rather scarce in Scotland, it would appear!)

P. 39.-"The fragment was recently discovered in the Prince's Street Gardens, Edinburgh. It forms a cover to a bridge in one of the walks below the castle on the east side," &c. ("Forms," quotha! and at Edinburgh, the modern Athens! where there is a Royal Society of Antiquaries, and an University, and a Museum,-and a certain learned person, who has written a most valuable book on the Sculptured Stones, &c., &c. !)

And so on, and so on, usque ad nauseam. Whether these ancient remains were formed by the Goths or Vandals we doubt; but it is pretty evident that they have been in their custody.

Archeologia Cambrensis.

THIRD SERIES, No. XXII.-APRIL, 1860.

THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE. No. VI.

THE EARLS MARESCHAL.

(Continued from p. 11.)

V.-RICHARD MARESCHAL, Earl Mareschal, and of Pembroke, succeeded his brother, 6th April, 1231.

The new earl had lived much abroad. It is probable that, not expecting to inherit, he intended to settle in Normandy, and thus save the Norman possessions of his family; for, on his father's death in 1219, his brother, by charter in June, 1220, made over to him the lands for which Earl William the elder had done homage. No doubt the permission to hold lands under both crowns had been accorded specially to the late earl, who was feared and respected by the two monarchs, and we shall see that it was also extended to more than one of his sons. Richard may have been an executor of his father's will, for, 8th December, 1222, he was sued by the sheriff of Bucks for the earl's debt. 5th September, 1226, the sheriff of Hants is directed to hold his lands, probably on occasion of his taking some hostile step in France. (Exc. e Rot. F. I. 97, 147.)

Upon Earl Richard's accession he was serving with France in Britanny, the very province in which Henry and the English were about that time ignominiously

ARCH. CAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. VI.

M