The value of Mr. Hall’s assertions, and the futility of his attempted reply, could hardly be more effectively exposed. I may add that I have still a few copies of my treatise available for presentation to libraries used by scholars. [9] See Index. [10] Archæological Review, iv. 235. [11] Prefixed to the Domesday volume published by the Sussex Archæological Society. [12] A generation later than Domesday we find lands at Broadhurst (in Horsted Keynes) given to Lewes Priory, which “usque ad modernum tempus silve fuerunt” (Cott. MS. Nero c. iii. fo. 217). [13] Anglo-Saxon Britain, p. 30. [14] Ibid. Dr. Guest suggested of Ælle, at the battle of Mercred’s Burn (485), that “on this occasion he may have met Ambrosius and a national army; for Huntingdon tells us that the ‘reges et tyranni Brittanum’ were his opponents.” But if the Saxon advance was eastwards, it could not well have brought them face to face with the main force of the Britons. [15] English Village Community, pp. 126, 127, etc. [16] Social England, i. 122 _et seq._ [17] 2nd ed. p. 178. [18] English Village Community, pp. 169, 170. [19] He writes, of _ing_, that “Mr. Kemble had overlooked no less than 47 names in Kent, 38 in Sussex, and 34 in Essex” (ed. 1888, p. 82). [20] The Lewes Priory Charters afford instances in point. [21] Archæological Review, iv. 233 _et seq._ [22] One would like to know on what ground the suffix “-well,” familiar in Essex (Broadwell, Chadwell, Hawkwell, Netteswell, Prittlewell, Ridgwell, Roxwell, Runwell), but curiously absent in Sussex, is derived from the Roman ‘villa.’ It is found in Domesday precisely the same as at the present day. Yet Professor Earle writes of “Wilburgewella” that it is “an interesting name as showing the naturalized form of the Latin _villa_, of which the ordinary Saxon equivalent was _haga_” (Land Charters, p. 130). This latter equation seems to be most surprising. It is traceable apparently to a charter of 855, in which we read of “unam villam quod nos Saxonice ‘an hagan’ dicimus” (Ib. p. 336), an obviously suspicious phrase. There is no ground for terming the ‘Ceolmundinge haga’ of a starred document (Ib. p. 315) a villa, while the ‘haga’ of another (Ib. p. 364) is clearly a _haw_, as in ‘Bassishaw.’ Yet another charter (Ib. p. 447) is not in point. [23] But the more closely one investigates the subject the more difficult one finds it to speak with absolute confidence as to the original existence, in any given instance, of an _ing_ in the modern suffixes _-ingham_ and _-ington_.