It is not my intention to follow Mr. Round through all his erratic criticisms of my paper. The greater part of them may safely be left to the discretion of your readers; at the same time, the want of candour by which some of his remarks are characterised, will not fail to be noted. Thus, for example, when he dilates upon the occurrence of the word “underlying,” instead of “unlying,” in my reference to the Laws of Athelstan, everyone will at once perceive that this accidental error of transcription (for which I cannot account) is at least quite immaterial to the point at issue, which turns entirely upon and is wholly centred in the question of the signification of the word _port_. It is to an examination, therefore, of Mr. Round’s strictures on my use of this word _port_ that I shall now advert. Mr. Round objects to the use of the word _port_ as synonymous with _gate_ where it occurs in the words “out of _port_,” or as I have rendered it “outside the port,” in the Laws of Athelstan; he rejects the identification with or derivation from _porta_, of the word “port,” as insisted on by Professor Stubbs, and he limits the word _port_ to mean only “a market or trading town,” totally discarding the notion of its having anything whatever to do with “a gate.” And first, as Mr. Round asserts that my rendering “outside the _port_ or _gate_” “is a mere gloss of my own on the word _port_,” perhaps he will be good enough to tell us in what light he regards the instance which he himself adduces of “New_port_ gate in Lincoln”? Would he in this case, according to his own rule, have the word _port_ rendered New _market-town_ gate? Again, in the case of the “Port of East-gate,” (_portam de East Gatâ_,) to which reference is made in the Charter of Henry I. to Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, it is quite manifest that here, as indeed in Newport gate, the Anglo-Saxon “geat,” on which Mr. Round dwells so fondly, is nothing more than the frequently observed reduplication of synonyms,[24] caused in this instance by the Saxons affixing this additional name of their own to the object, which under the Roman name of port or porta conveyed to them no intelligible signification. When, therefore, Mr. Round stigmatises my “rendering outside the port or gate” as “a mere ‘gloss’ of my own on the word port,” he must surely have overlooked these and similar instances in which the word _port_ is used synonymously with _gate_, and more especially the fact that precisely the same rendering of the word _port_ was given nearly three hundred years ago by no less an authority than Camden. Referring to the great Roman wall, Camden states that the “two forts called Castle steeds are to be seen in the wall, and then a place called _Port-gate_[25] where (as the word in both languages fairly evinces) there was formerly _a Gate_ (or sally-_port_) through it.[26]”