The July number of THE ANTIQUARIAN MAGAZINE has now brought us Mr. Round’s third paper. Instead, however, of its containing, as we had been led to expect, some more fully developed account of his “natural and intelligible process by which the English word _port_ was formed,” and some evidence in proof of his strange and as yet unsupported assertion that the word _port_ was originally “coined by the English,” we find that he merely reverts to a further consideration of the word _port_, touching on the question of Newport gate, and barely alluding to the Welsh _porth_, two points to which it will be observed that I have here just adverted somewhat more fully. I now apprehend that I have been mistaken, but must confess that it never occurred to me that Mr. Round’s conjecture in his second paper as to the manner in which the minds of “the English pirates” would be likely to be affected by the word _portus_, was all he meant to tell us respecting “the natural and intelligible process by which the English word _port_ was formed,” or that he could seriously propose to put forward this crude assumption of his own for general acceptance on a question of this kind. Mr. Round’s observations in his third paper are not of a character to make it necessary for me in any way to alter or modify anything that I have already said. Indeed, so far as his introduction of the authority of Mr. Freeman is concerned, he has contributed only to strengthen my position, for the passage which he quotes from Mr. Freeman’s “English Towns and Districts,” (a work which I have not enjoyed the advantage of seeing,) may, _mutatis mutandis_, be equally well applied to the word port-reeve. If we merely substitute the word _port_ for “name of the gate,” and _in Port-reeve_ for “Nova Porta,” the sentence will read thus: “The abiding Latin port, in port-reeve, of itself goes far to show that there could have been no long gap between Roman or British and English occupation.” With this slight and quite legitimate alteration, (for the whole force of Mr. Freeman’s statement hangs on the presence of the word _porta_,) it would be difficult to express the point for which I have been contending in more apposite terms, and the circumstance that Mr. Round sees fit to question Mr. Freeman’s statement because _he_ can “find no evidence for it,” is a matter regarding which I do not feel myself called upon to enter. As Mr. Round now informs us that his paper is “to be continued,” and it appears to be uncertain when it will be brought to a conclusion, I deem it best no longer to defer forwarding this reply, more especially as he proposes to make some other words, with which I do not find myself in any way concerned, the subject of his future criticisms. In conclusion, I would observe that the result of my former paper was to bring me many interesting communications on the subject of which it treats.