the very little, or almost nothing, to be gathered from one or two classical authors; and, if they have been so entirely annihilated, it is not unreasonable to assign their disappearance to missionary zeal; for there is abundant evidence that stone worship existed on an extensive scale long after Christianity had established itself in Western Europe. Hence the orders issued in the Councils of Arles (452) and of Tours (567). Laws and edicts regarding the same idolatrous practices were also promulgated by Charlemagne, and even down to the time of our Canute; so that, between secular and religious zeal, it is difficult to suppose that any monuments of such pagan superstition would be allowed to remain. Now, if this view is admitted as reasonable and probable, it must also be allowed some weight in the still disputed questions of our great circles of Wiltshire, Somersetshire, Cumberland, &c. If any of these, and especially the monuments of Stonehenge and Abury were druidic or heathen temples, as some able men, and among them Dr. Thurnam, have attempted to show, surely such important centres of pagan or druidic rites would have been the first monuments to be destroyed, whereas their remarkable preservation would indicate that they were in no way connected with such rites, but probably the chief and most important burial places of the district. Abury, it is true, has been sadly violated, so that little or nothing except its grand circular bank remains, but this barbarous destruction has been effected, not in early days by religious zeal, but in comparatively modern times by men probably more uncivilized and benighted than those whose zeal and labour erected such a memorial of themselves.

The theory of druidic altars being finally, it is to be hoped, disposed of, there still, as it appears, remain two questions connected with these megalithic remains, which may be still considered by some persons as not yet decided, although there is little difference of opinion as regards them among those who have given their attention to the subject. The first of these two questions is,

whether cromlechs may be divided into separate classes according to the number of stones of which they consist or from any peculiar circumstance of construction. The second is, whether it is to be considered as a rule without exception that all cromlechs were either concealed, or intended to be concealed and buried under a tumulus of earth, stone, or both materials.

It might, perhaps, be hardly necessary to remark on the first question, as the supposed division of such monuments into classes never was generally accepted, or would perhaps have been ever heard of, but that the division has been supported by a distinguished and well-known author. But since then this gentleman has, on further consideraation of the subject, altered his view, and is inclined to think that no such classification can be made out. The error (for such it may be termed) has evidently arisen from a too partial and contracted survey of monuments of this kind, and in not making sufficient allowance for the due effect of destructive time through many centuries and the still more destructive agency of human beings. Hence it has arisen that too many have looked on the shattered ruins of a cromlech as the original monument itself. From the same cause appears to have arisen also another very doubtful theory, namely, that there was a distinct class of stone monuments, called by French writers, Lichavens or Trilithons. It is hardly necessary to explain that by these names is understood a structure consisting of two upright stones surmounted by a horizontal one-thus forming a convenient and durable gibbet from which the druids may have suspended those whom they thought deserved hanging. But nothing satisfactory is known about such a kind of monument, and their entire existence is very doubtful. But if any

reliance can be placed on narratives recorded in the Memoirs of the Institute of France, such monuments did really exist. In the Memoirs for the year 7 of the new Republic is an account furnished by a M. Deslandes to M. Le Grand-d'Aussi, who communicated it to the Institute. This account stated, that on a large

plain near Auray there were from a hundred and fifty to one hundred and eighty stones grouped in threes—one horizontal one resting upon two upright ones. Such is

the story, and, if these stone triplets were arranged in a circular form, we might almost fancy a second Stonehenge once existed in Britanny; but unfortunately, beyond this information furnished by M. Deslandes, nothing more is known, and it is a doubtful matter if it really ever existed; although at the same time it would appear strange that such a communication should be made and inserted in the proceedings of the Institute unless there was some foundation for it. M. Mahé, who might easily have known the writer of the notice, tells us, in his "Morbihan " (1825, p. 38), that he has made inquiries about this plain and these stones without any success, and as Auray is within a short drive of Vannes, of the church of which place M. Mahé was a canon, it seems almost impossible that these monuments could have existed without his knowing something about them. In the new edition of Ogée's "Dictionary," under Auray, no allusion to it whatsoever is made, and the same may be said of Delandre's history of the department, and of other writers. If any explanation of the difficulty may be offered, it might be suggested that the number and arrangement of stones have been greatly exaggerated, and that they may have been a group of ruined cromlechs some of which might have resembled the cromlech in the parish of St. Nicolas in North Pembrokeshire, and which would exactly correspond to the French Lichaven, as having one stone supported on two others.

The other question is whether it is to be laid down as a rule that all cromlechs were at one time hidden beneath earthen or stone mounds, or at least intended to be so hidden. On this point also there is no difference of opinion among those best qualified to form an opinion, although it cannot be denied that there still remain some dissentients, who maintain that in some cases it is either most improbable or impossible that

they were so concealed. If it could be ascertained, it would most likely turn out that such dissentients have had but limited opportunities of examining many such monuments, or that their experience is confined to such remains as exist in these islands; and as these remains, with one or two unimportant exceptions, are nothing but the scanty relics of once complete chambers, it is not likely that they have come across examples which still wholly or partially retained their tumuli of earth or stone. Two or three such ocular proofs would probably induce such doubters to assent to the more general opinion. One of the usual stock arguments brought forward by such is that in certain retired and bleak districts far removed from human population, there could have been no motive to remove the superincumbent soil or stones, as the great distance to which the soil must have been carried would have made the operation too costly, and stones were to be had from other and more convenient spots; or else it is sometimes alleged that in some situations neither soil nor stones to heap up a large mound could be procured except under immense difficulties. But such objections are in reality none at all; for it is impossible to say what may not have taken place during the centuries since these mounds were first heaped up, and how much succeeding populations have changed their habitats: for what are now the wildest and bleakest moors, far distant from the nearest human dwelling, frequently exhibit traces of having been thickly inhabited, so that no safe inference as regards these very early monuments can be drawn from their present isolation and condition. It is, no doubt, difficult to picture the enormous amount of labour it must have required to cover up a monument like that of the Pentre Evan cromlech in north Pembrokeshire, under which three tall riders on tall horses can sit, and yet leave a considerable space between the top of their hats and the covering-stone; or to conjecture, if such an enormous tumulus once covered it, what could have become of the material, for at pre

sent there is not a vestige left of it on that bleak hill side. But all such difficulties and doubts must vanish while there are mounds still existing which would cover at once three such monuments as that of Pentre Evan.

Another argument has, however, lately been started by no less distinguished an individual than the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, who with serious gravity strongly protested against the theory of this universal covering up of these large chambers, because, as he argued at the Portmadoc meeting of last year, it was absurd to imagine that those who had put themselves to such expense and labour to erect these huge structures should immediately after, at a much greater amount of cost and labour proceed to hide them for ever from human sight. But Mr. Tite, unluckily for himself, forgot, for he could not have been ignorant of the fact, that both in this and other countries there do exist many such chambers of the largest size, still remaining under artificial mountains; for in some instances these are of such a size as to be mistaken for natural elevations. That they were covered up, and intended to be hidden, there can be no doubt. And what was thus the case in one instance may be assumed as at least probable in another. Mr. Tite and his objection may, therefore, be dismissed without further ceremony. there is one very simple consideration which seems to settle the point more completely and satisfactorily than more elaborate arguments. If the people who built these massive chambers intended them as receptacles of the dead, their great object would be to take precautions that those receptacles should be as protected as possible from decay and desecration. This was evidently their great object, and well must they have carried out that object if they erected structures which in some instances have come down to us as perfect as the day on which they were closed up. It is true that much uncertainty still exists as to the real age of these megalithic monuments; but even if they are assigned to the latest period,

But