Traditionary lore, though on the whole generally founded on some fact or facts, which have become distorted, owing to their frequent oral transmission by persons utterly ignorant of their original signification, is scarcely ever to be relied on so far as individuals or dates are concerned. The stories do unquestionably attest the retention in the popular mind of something of import that took place in that vague period denominated the "olden time," but not always accurately what that _something_ may have been. The Adam de Bury referred to in the document quoted is either a myth, or the name has reference to some earlier individual interested in the castle at Bury. Indeed the family appears to have become extinct before the commencement of the civil wars referred to. On this point the documentary evidence quoted by Mr. E. Baines is very conclusive. There can have been no "Adam de Bury attached to the unfortunate Charles's cause," or his name would have appeared amongst the Lancashire "lords, knights, and gentlemen," who compounded with the sequestration commissioners for their estates in 1646. Cromwell's army could not have been placed on Bury Moor, by either Stanley or anyone else, in 1642-3, as that general did not enter Lancashire till 1648, and then his route lay by Stonyhurst, Preston, Wigan, and Warrington. Lord Strange's "army" of 20,000 men is but another form of expression for the public meeting held on Bury Moor, the numbers stated as attending which are doubtless much exaggerated. A similar meeting was held on Preston Moor, and, singularly enough, as it was a numerous one, the same authority employs the same terms--20,000--to express the fact. The placing of the cannon at Castle Stead is another proof of the ignorance of some of the transmitters of the tradition, the ordnance during Charles's time being useless at such a distance. The statement in Mr. Shaw's document that "coin of the Stuarts, etc., have been found in the foundations," is valueless, inasmuch as until the excavations in 1865, the soil about the _foundations_ does not appear to have been disturbed; and yet above the original surface, remains were found of various relatively modern dates, as might have been anticipated.