The posterior part of the skull presented a very distorted appearance, and, instead of the occipital bone being convex externally, it was flat; and the lines (to which the strong muscles of the neck were attached), which usually curve outwards, were very prominent, and ran directly outwards. The base of the skull was perfect, excepting the styloid processes of the temporal bone, which had been broken off. The right mastoid process appeared to have been destroyed. In the upper jaw there was only the remains of one old stump; the teeth had fallen out by reason of the decay of the alveolar processes. Immediately under the left eye (in the superior maxilla or upper jaw), and continuous with the orbit, was a large circular piece of bone broken out. The pelvis was perfect with the exception of the lower part of the sacrum. The remaining

bones of the arms and legs were entire.

The bones which were recognised as belonging to the female skeleton were but few in number, belonged principally to the left side, and were very perfect.

The skull was small; and, with the exception of the left temporal bone and styloid processes, was entire. The teeth were all missing. The lower jaw was wanting. The pelvis was large and well-formed, and measured from anterior superior spinous process on one side, to the same point on the other, 10 inches, from sacrum to pubis 5 inches, and the transverse diameter was 5 inches.

Common to both: Twenty-nine ribs, beside fragments. Thirty-six vertebræ, more or less perfect, beside fragments. Metacarpal, metatarsal, and phalangeal bones, sixty-one in all. Seven tarsal bones.

There were ten teeth in good condition, five of which were double-fanged. One tooth was much decayed.

15, Lambeth Terrace, 2nd September, 1871.

CHAS. SANGSTER, Surgeon.

Memorandum by JOHN W. OGLE, ESQ., M.D., F.S.A.

"There were two skulls, one much larger than the other, with a retiring forehead, very full and broad at the back of the head; the other, apparently that of a woman, having more forehead and much less preponderance behind. No lower jaw to either, and no teeth in the upper jaws. The large skull had the frontoparietal suture partially separate, and the other one had the left temporal bone almost quite wanting. No mark of injury otherwise on either. Bones of every part of the human body; also leg-bones, and a scapula of other animals. Curious, dark, very light

weighted mass, said to have come out of the skull; this was reddish-brown, very friable, something of the shape and size of a patella, smooth and concave on its inner surface, very rough and fissured, and elevated on its outer surface. Query-Dried blood, or brain, or bone."

Letter from PROFESSOR GEORGE BUSK, F.R.S.

MY DEAR MR. SCHARF,

32, Harley Street, 8th March, 1872.

I have measured the seed with which you filled the male skull found in the tomb of Richard II., and find that it occupies about eighty-nine cubic inches.

This capacity is below the average of English skulls, and very considerably under that of the more ancient inhabitants of Britain. The mean capacity estimated from the data given by Thurnam and Davis in "Crania Britannica" of ancient Britons, as they term them, appears to be 96.3 cubic inches, of those in the Roman and Romano-British barrows 92.8 inches, and of the so-called Anglo-Saxons 91.2 inches.

I am unable to refer to satisfactory data respecting more recent skulls, but I fancy the mean capacity for men in this country may be taken at from 90 to 92 cubic inches. It would seem, therefore, that if this skull was filled as full as it would hold of the rape-seed, and that the seed has not shrunk since, King Richard the Second was not distinguished by the size of his brain. What its quality may have been is quite another question.

Yours very truly,

GEO. BUSK.

APPENDIX (B).

LIST OF OBJECTS FOUND IN THE TOMB OF KING RICHARD II. IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.

1. Plumber's shears with fleur-de-lis mark.

2. Wooden staff, query bow or part of a sceptre.

3. Brown leather riding gloves, one pair. The fingers of the right hand bent, those of the left quite straight. They are of flexible leather, without lining, gilding, or indication of the former attachment of precious stones. They are sewn with leather of the same colour, and appear by their creases to have been worn. (See woodcut.)

4. A smaller pair of leather gloves, much more rotten, about seven inches long.

5. Double rose in lead, the same pattern on both sides.

6. Four small fragments of green porphyry slab, smooth, flat surface.

7. Small fragments of wood, like twigs. One piece of very light yellow colour, shaped like a reel, having black lines round it.

8. Pieces of linen, leather of shoes, binding, and plugget of tow.

9. Four pieces of shaped cork.

10. A handful of toy marbles.

11. Three tobacco-pipe bowls, one with stem five inches long.

12. Seventy-two copper coins and tokens.

13. Alabaster carved flower, with green centre, outer leaves gilt, a fragment.

14. Two segments of a common leather ball, measuring 2 inches from apex to apex.

15. Gilt wooden finial, perhaps part of a sceptre.

16. Fragments of window-glass, plain and wrought.

17. Decayed pieces of Purbeck marble.

18. Small square piece of cedar-wood.

19. Iron buckle.

20. A Jew's harp.

21. Leaden round buttons, dog's bell for collar.

22. One flat button of copper gilt, with basket pattern on it.

23. Bird's bones.

24. Two long pieces of corroded steel, query weapons, one of them was 1 foot inch long. 25. Ten human teeth found in sifting the dust, in good condition, five of them double-pronged.

a The bark upon these was perfect when they were first found, but they almost all crumbled to dust when touched. These had doubtless been placed there as a precaution against witchcraft. Similar twigs were found on opening Henry IV.'s tomb at Canterbury Cathedral. See "A brief account of the examination of the tomb of Henry IV. 21 Aug. 1832," by J. H. S. [Dr. Spry, then canon of Canterbury.]

26. Three broken knives with handles, one of them a small table-knife.

27. Iron nails of the coffins.

28. A paving-tile, painted with a shield bearing three lions.

29. Seven silver coins (a harp on one).

30. Fragment of wood, possibly of a sceptre.

31. Small fragment of a stone cusp or spandril.

32. Fragments of red glazed pottery, like of a pipkin.

33. A small piece of corroded sheet-lead.

34. One iron square-pointed nail, seven inches long.

35. Nine fragments of iron nails, seven with heads, and the longest measuring 2 inches, were found among the human bones.

36. A peach-stone. Splinters of wood.

37. Bottle-stamp, Dr. Blair, 1763. [Dr. John Blair, prebendary of Westminster, 1761-1782.] 38. Two cut pieces of glass and crystal, apparently from a ring.

39. Small lump of uncertain matter formed like a patella.

40. Some fragments of the silk pall with a spotted pattern.

XIII.-Notes on the Keep, the Roman Pharos, and the Shafts at the Shot Yard Battery, Dover Castle. By LIEUTENANT W. EMERSON PECK, R.E. Communicated through Her Majesty's Secretary of State for War.

Read June 27th, 1872.

I. THE KEEP OF DOVER CASTLE.

TRADITIONALLY the erection of the Keep of Dover Castle is ascribed to Bishop Gundulf, the brother-in-law of William the Conqueror; but, while the absence of ornaments and the severe simplicity of the interior mark its early character, the style of the exterior, in which the flat pilaster, so typical of the early Norman castle, has developed into the protruding square turret, seems to denote a later date.

As the Pipe Rolls of Henry II. record the large expenditure of 1,0857. on Dover Castle, it is possible that the exterior was remodelled at that time, a surmise which derives support from the discovery of a second string-course beneath the present one, during the repairs of the upper part of the south-west tower. The following records of expenditure are derived from The Architect of May 27, 1869.

The Pipe Rolls of 1160 allude to the castle being repaired, and notice the various repairs and additions to existing buildings.

The castle was nearly rebuilt under Mauricius (Engeniator) at an expendi

exclusive of architects' fees. (As a means of comparison it may be observed that

Orford Castle was built in 1163 at a total cost of 3231.)