The changes which have taken place of late years in the procedure at our Anniversary Meetings have materially altered the position in which the President finds himself on these occasions. Formerly the whole programme of reports, elections, and address was carried through in the afternoon, doubtless with the intention of leaving the evening free for a dinner, if the Fellows decided to have one. To that end elections, report, and address were taken simultaneously, with the result that the two latter were periodically held up by the declaration of the opening of ballots or of their results. From the President's point of view the procedure had its disadvantages and also its advantages. It was doubtless irksome to have to break off in the course of a carefully-prepared speech, but it must be remembered that a good part of that speech consisted of records of elections and deaths of Fellows, with obituary notices, all prepared by the Society's officers and entailing on the President no more mental effort than that required by the reading of them. Now it is far otherwise: the annual dinner is becoming only legendary, and the President's address occupies its place in the programme; nor is it now his office to refer to the state of the Society's boilers, or to note the setting up of a flagstaff on the Society's premises. He is left to his own resources, and, as I myself can vouch, is torn between the apprehension of producing a discourse bearing too close a likeness to the general run of former addresses, and that of straying into side issues of small practical value.

Before considering the actual gun which forms the title of this paper, it may be of some interest to give some details of the manufacture and use of gigantic guns for oriental war operations, for these present certain problems of manufacture, transport, and practical use which deserve more than passing consideration. A great deal of this material has been collected by that indefatigable student of all matters connected with artillery, General Sir Henry Lefroy, who was responsible for the foundation of the Royal Artillery Institution in 1838, and, in addition to his military duties, was a keen scientist and particularly interested in meteorological survey work, which he carried out in the observatories of St. Helena, Toronto, Lake Athabasca, and elsewhere.

I do not propose on this occasion to make any contribution to the exceedingly obscure and difficult question of the origin of the law of treasure trove. The writer who has most recently discussed the subject, Mr. Cecil S. Emden, states the object of his article as being ‘to emphasize that, the law of treasure trove being indefinite, the practical difficulties in its administration which may arise are due not so much to the complexity attaching to particular cases as to the haze in which the origin of the law rests, and to the casual manner in which the rules have taken shape’. Where many better qualified writers have too often, like the celebrated ‘Mr. Parker, made the case darker, which was dark enough before’, further discussion by one who has no legal qualification is hardly to be encouraged. I shall confine myself therefore to a consideration of the definition of the subject, of the rules governing the administration in recent times, with especial reference to this country, and to the bearing of these rules on the interests of archaeology. Such references to older law and usage as cannot be avoided are made without any claim to original research.

The top of a censer in champlevé enamel recently dug up at Barnham, Sussex, was exhibited by the kindness of Mr. F. C. Eeles at the ordinary meeting of the Society on 30 January 1930. It was found in the earth at the east end of the chancel of the church. It is possible that further excavation may bring to light some further fragments of what must originally have been a very attractive object. As will be seen from the representation it is pyramidal with four tiers. The lowest was adorned with four raised foliated ornaments, somewhat like leopards’ faces, fixed on by pins to the smooth surface, which is ornamented with a running water-leaf pattern which shows clearly in the illustration. One of these applied ornaments has come off, but the pin shows the place where it has been. To the rim below were attached four loops for the chains to run in. One of these is lost, but the holes for its attachment can be seen on the right of the spectator. They are fixed at points exactly half-way between the applied bosses, though lower down. The tier above the lowest is pierced with 12 keyhole-shaped holes in groups of three, divided by a semicircular ornament in the space vertically above the bosses on the lowest tier. The tier above this again is pierced with 11 holes, similar though not quite so long vertically. These are divided by small vertical dotted lines in pairs, and below are 16 triangular insets for enamel or composition. These are divided into pairs by eight holes for pins. Two only of the pins remain. Their use is not apparent. The top tier has ornament all over it, forming four triangles patterned, divided by broad bands to the top and slightly tapered downwards. These bands are ornamented with double lines of dots as are the divisions between the holes in the tiers below.

The village of Ballineen is on the railway-line, 9 miles west of Bandon, or 25 miles westward from the city of Cork. Three-quarters of a mile southward from Ballineen, on a farm named Curraghcrowly West, a remarkable Souterrain was discovered in April 1929. See 6-in. Ordnance Map, Cork, 109. The geographical position is Lat. 51° 43′ 23″ N.; Long. 8° 57′ 17″ W. Ireland, 1 in. Sheet 194.