First, then, as regards the term “port or gate.” In employing the term port or gate as I did in my first paper, it was in the full assurance that these words are here absolutely _synonymous_, and that I was strictly correct in thus using the word _port_ where it occurs in the Laws of Athelstan. On this point, however, Mr. Round thought fit to assail me, asserting that my “rendering outside the port or gate” was a mere “gloss” of _my own_ on the word “port.” In consequence of this strange and somewhat unintelligible charge I was led to look into the question more closely, and found, though previously unaware of the fact, that I was entirely supported in my view and use of the words both by Camden and by Sharon Turner. In my next paper I accordingly quoted from Camden that at “_Portgate_,” on the Roman Wall, there was formerly _a gate_, as “_the word in both languages_” (Roman and Saxon) “fairly evinces.” On this passage, which it will be seen completely establishes my case, Mr. Round “evinces” _his_ sense of fairness by suppressing all allusion to it. Again, it was pointed out that Sharon Turner distinctly uses the words as _synonymous_ where he speaks of “the _port_-gerefa _or_ the gerefa of the _gate_.” Nothing can be clearer or stronger than this, yet all notice of this is also suppressed, and Mr. Round, even after this has been pointed out to him, does not scruple to misrepresent me by repeating his assertion, and still arguing that in thus rendering the words “port or gate,” the words “or gate” are a mere “_gloss_” of _my own_. What opprobrium he intends to convey by the word “gloss” it is difficult to say, but, whatever it may be, your readers will now see that it applies quite as strongly to such high authorities as Camden and Sharon Turner as it does to me. Further on, Mr. Round states that he has proved by demonstration that the markets were not held at the gates. I remarked in my paper that he might have spared himself the pains of proving what no one ever doubted, “the well-known fact that the forum was situated in the centre of a Roman town or city”; but I also pointed out what Mr. Round appears still to be ignorant of, that _large transactions were conducted at the gates_, the levying of tolls and the sale and purchase of merchandise, and thus “the word _port_, originally restricted to _the gates_ where such extensive transactions were carried on, would at no distant period become applied,” in the way described, “to the town itself” (p. 114). This latter passage, and all allusion to it, Mr. Round also suppresses, satisfying his sense of fair and reasonable argument in this case by merely harping again on the statement that “_I proved_ by demonstration that the markets were never held at the gate,” which, in fact, no one at all conversant with the subject ever thought they were.