Perhaps no country in the world possesses so complete a series, as Ireland, of Domestic Architecture, in the full meaning of the words, that is, of human habitations; it begins with the underground abodes and the beehive houses of the earliest inhabitants of the island (belonging to the same period as the Cromlechs and Cairns), and is continued almost without interruption to our own day. But, before any attempt is made to describe or to classify the existing remains of human dwellings in Ireland, it is necessary to call attention particularly to the geological formation of the country. The nature of the building materials, as is well known, exercises great influence everywhere upon the architectural character, but nowhere else is this so evident and distinct as in Ireland. With a few rare exceptions, such as unfortunately are Dublin and Belfast, and their immediate neighbourhoods, stone is every where abundant, and generally of the same quality, extremely hard and durable, but very- difficult to cut or work in any way. A very large part of Ireland is an immense limestone plain, covered indeed in many places with extensive peat-bogs, but these are seldom very deep; in general the stone is very near the surface, and in many places it crops out. This limestone when broken up, and especially when burnt into lime and mixed with the peat, makes a very fertile soil. In many districts, especially in Galway, the surface is so much covered with loose stones of large size, that they have to be removed before the soil can be cultivated.

The investigation described in the following paper may perhaps throw some light on the nature of those remarkable sepulchral mounds, known as “long barrows,” which as yet remain the crux and problem of the barrow-digger and archæologist. Many of the long barrows of South Wiltshire were examined at the beginning of this century by Mr. Cunnington and Sir Richard Colt Hoare; but with so little return for the pains bestowed on them, that, though Sir Richard was satisfied of their high antiquity, he was utterly at a loss to determine the purpose for which such immense mounds had been raised. In another part of his “Ancient Wiltshire,” he tells us that he and his colleague “had at length given up all researches in them, having for many years in vain looked for that information which might tend to throw some satisfactory light on their history.” In the various long barrows which were opened by these investigators, we find that, with very few exceptions, human skeletons were discovered on the floor of the barrow, at the broad, or east end, “lying in a confused and irregular manner, and generally covered with a pile of stones or flints.” The total absence of bronze weapons, of all personal ornaments, and of urns of pottery, such as were constantly found by them in the circular barrows of the same district, is repeatedly noticed by Sir Richard Hoare, who observes that “their original purport is still involved in obscurity, and a further explanation of them would be a great desideratum.”

Some time has now elapsed since we received the first tidings of the discoveries of very ancient remains in the lakes of Switzerland, which have scarcely obtained the attention really due to their archaeological importance. These accounts were followed by an earnest appeal from the Society of Antiquaries of Zürich, praying our Society to undertake an examination of the lake Prasias, in the hope of verifying the descriptions of Herodotus, with which these discoveries in Switzerland seem closely to correspond.

In attempting to investigate the origin and history of the bayonet, we encounter, at the outset, considerable difficulty; even the derivation of its name is involved in obscurity. In the dictionary of Cotgrave, first published in 1611, we find, “Bayonnette, a kind of small flat pocket-dagger, furnished with knives; or a great knife to hang at the girdle, like a dagger.” The same authority gives us “Bayonnier, as arbalestier (an old word).” In the “Glossaire de la Langue Romane,” of Roquefort, “Baionier” is explained as a crossbow-man. Neither of these words occurs in the dictionary of Palsgrave, published in 1530.

In submitting the accompanying specimens of ancient pottery to the notice of the Society I shall not presume to hazard any theory respecting them; but merely state such facts relating to them as have come under my notice, and offer a few suggestions, with the view of deriving further information. The objects themselves I believe to be rare, and but little known or noticed even in Italy. On this account, as well as in hopes that they may serve to throw some additional light on the difficult subject of Italian ethnology, I have thought them not unworthy of examination, especially as at the present moment the attention of Roman archæologists is so concentrated on the later and more splendid specimens of fictile art, that the rude and aboriginal manufactures are not likely to receive from them much additional notice.

Were we to believe the general run of antiquaries, the interior of every old building invariably glowed with the richest gold and colour, and every village church was a Sainte Ohapelle, or a St. Stephen's, Westminster. Few, however, appear to have thought of supporting their theory by carefully taking off the whitewash of some of our smaller churches, on the chance of finding a rich polychromy underneath. Of late years the mania for church-restoration has been performing this office, and the old painters are found to have been no less consistent in their profession than were the old architects.

If any doubt could be entertained of the importance of collecting and embodying in our literature the scattered relics of the early history of geographical discovery, the doubt might find its answer in the eager curiosity with which the more cultivated Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of America look back to every minute particular respecting the early history of their adopted country.

The portrait of John, King of France, which is now placed in the Musée des Souverains at Paris, being, I believe, the only picture honoured by such a distinction, has an especial claim to our notice. Not only is it one of the earliest examples of portrait-painting which has been preserved to us, but the history of the monarch whom it represents is so closely interwoven with that of our own country, as to render him a subject of interest to English archaeologists.

Among the various sites memorable from the greatness of the cities which once occupied them, there are few that equal in interest or surpass in historical associations that of Carthage. The myths respecting the foundation of that city, and the fate of its unhappy queen Dido, have received from the creative fancy of the poet such a semblance of truth as to make them assume a place in our recollections with the actual events of history. The extraordinary rise of Carthage and its equally extraordinary fall, the utter destruction of its records, the obscurity in which its language and art are enveloped, all concur to excite in us an interest and a curiosity in regard to everything connected with it, which is hardly awakened by the history, real or fabulous, of any other city of Pagan antiquity.

By permission of the Earl of Verulam, conveyed to me through W. J. Thorns Esq., F.S.A., I am enabled to exhibit to the Society a Manuscript from the collection at Gorhambury, which has some peculiar claims upon the attention of historical antiquaries. It is entitled, “A True Relation of the proceedings in the last Session of Parliament houlden in the Fourth year of King Charles, A° Dñi. 1628,” and is a nearly contemporary MS. plainly written upon ninety-two leaves of paper of a small folio size.