I think it well here to state that the foregoing observations were written in reply to Mr. Round’s first paper, but it was deemed advisable to defer their publication until after the appearance of a second promised paper, in which Mr. Round undertook to prove that port in Port-reeve was derived from _portus_, and not from _porta_, and stated that he would offer “a most satisfactory explanation,” which would “completely justify us in accepting the _portus_ derivation.” Now, however, that the second paper has appeared, it would seem that he must have found the handling of this “_portus_ derivation” a more awkward business than he had anticipated, for the result is that he abandons it altogether, and arrives at the conclusion that the Romans could never “have called an inland town a _portus_,” nor in his opinion “_a porta_” either! Having thus made a summary despatch of this “most satisfactory derivation,” Mr. Round next shifts his ground _in toto_, and calls on us in his second paper to accept a new theory of his own, which he is about to propound, and by which he “claims _port_ as an English word, in itself distinct from the Latin words _Porta_ and _Portus_.” Whether he will be more successful with this new “theory” than he has been with his unfortunate “_portus_ derivation” we are to be left in uncertainty until the appearance of his third paper. In the meantime, if in claiming port as an English word Mr. Round means an Anglo-Saxon word, I would observe I am aware of its occurrence in Lye’s “Anglo-Saxon Dictionary” (fol., vol. ii.), where we find “Port, a port. Portus. To tham porte, ad portum, Bed. 4. I. Civitas. Oppidum. Into tham porte. In civitatem; Ælfr. Gr. c. 5. Potius tamen, _Porta_ civitatis vel oppidi.” Thus, then, we see _port_ even here referred back to _porta_, a city-gate, as the source of its original and most accurate derivation or meaning. It seems somewhat strange, amid the great uncertainty attending his own views, as shown by the variety of derivations which he has proposed, that Mr. Round should have failed to avail himself of the opportunity afforded him by the Celtic. In the excellent dictionary, the “Antiquæ Linguæ Britannicæ Thesaurus,” by the Rev. T. Richards, we find “Porth, a door, a porch, a haven,” and we learn that the same word exists in the Armoric. I am quite aware of the great similarity, or as it has been termed “the cognate character,” of many Celtic and Latin words, but notwithstanding this knowledge, and all that Mr. Round has also advanced on the subject, I would still maintain, in the instance of port-reeve, the usually adopted derivation of _port_ from the Latin _porta_. All notice has likewise been omitted by Mr. Round of the word _port way_, and the customarily accepted Roman significance attaching to it, and also of the common words _porter_ (a door-keeper), and _portal_, the derivation of which is, I believe, universally referred to the Latin _porta_.