It is necessary to put this as strongly as possible in order to accentuate the distinction. Thus, when “A. H.” speaks of “lamentable confusion” (so well illustrated in his own letter), he is using “distinctly English words,” though they are derived from Latin originals. If I, on the other hand, should say “_Naviget Anticyram_,” I should be using distinctly Latin words. And, lastly, when “A. H.” seeks to “ramify” the “purport” of a paper (_ante_, p. 47), he is using an expression unknown, I believe, to any language, living or dead. As to the Welsh _caer_ or _kair_, I never said, or could have supposed, that it was derived from the Latin _castrum_. I merely quoted Mr. Allen’s reminder that, on the departure of the Romans, this native form supplanted theirs in place names, before the arrival of the English. _Ergo_, the erudition of “A. H.” is obviously _nihil ad rem_. As to _port_, what we have to account for is not, as “A. H.” crudely imagines, “the modern word Port,” but the Anglo-Saxon _port_, which can be conclusively shown to have been used _not_ in the sense of either _portus_ or _porta_, but of a market (or trading) town. Leicester and Oxford were obviously not “ports” in our modern sense of the word, but they _were_ “ports” in the Anglo-Saxon sense of it, and, as such, had a “portmanmote” for their governing body. We know, as I have shown, from Domesday, that Port Meadow, so-called from belonging to the town (or “_port_”) of Oxford, was in existence then as the town meadow. “Port Meadow at Oxford,” says Mr. Olifant (“Old and Middle English,” p. 78), “speaks of ... _port_, used by our pagan forefathers as a name for town; indeed, _port_ and _upland_ stood for _town_ and _country_.” To “Port Meadow” I may now add “Portmanseyt” (the _eyot_ of the Portmen or Burgesses), which stood near it in the river (“Calendar of Bodleian Charters,” p. 312), and also “two pieces of land and marsh-land _sometime called Portemarshe_ [cf. Portmeadow] and now being divided, called by the several names of the Easter Portemarche and the Wester Portemarche,” at Barnstaple, in 1610 (9th Rep. Hist. MSS. I. 214a). “A. H.” defiantly inquires, how “can the prefix [in Portway] be of English origin, if it means ‘carry?’” But _I never said it did_, or indeed mentioned it at all. A far simpler explanation of the word would be the “way” that led from one “port” to another. The solution of “A. H.’s” irritation is of course to be found in his eagerness to contend that “port” (in “port-reeve”) was “not introduced as a new English word, but preserved by Celto-Romans from Latin usage,” and that, consequently, “our Lord Mayor” can be traced through the Port-reeve to Roman times. This is the longed-for conclusion at which “A. H.” and Dr. Pring, though starting from opposite premisses, would arrive with equal confidence, the “dead certainty” on which “A. H.” so naturally dreads and so impatiently resents that discussion which it cannot stand. J. H. ROUND.