Sir Jonas Moore, Surveyor of the Ordinance, told me that when the Duke of York sent him to survey the manor of Dauntesey, formerly belonging to Sir Jo. Danvers, he did then take a survey of this designe, and said that it is feazable; but his opinion was that the best way would be to make a cutt by Wotton Bassett, and that the King himselfe should undertake it, for they must cutt through a hill by Wotton-Basset; and that in time it might quit cost. As I remember, he told me that forty thousand pounds would doe it. But I thinke, Jo. Collins sayes in his papers, that the cutt from Ashton-Kains to Charleton may bee made for three thousand pounds. [Some of the above facts are more briefly stated by Aubrey in his “Description of North Wiltshire” (printed by Sir Thomas Phillipps, Bart.) They are however sufficiently interesting to be inserted here; and they clearly shew that, notwithstanding Aubrey’s credulity and love of theory, he was fully sensible of the beneficial results to be expected from increased facilities of conveyance and locomotion. On this point indeed he and his friends, Mr. Mathew and Mr. Collins, were more than a century in advance of their contemporaries, for it was not till after the year 1783 that Wiltshire began to profit by the formation of canals. Sanctioned by the approval of King Charles the Second, for which, as above stated, he was indebted to Aubrey, Francis Mathew published an explanation of his project for the junction of the Thames with the Bristol Avon. This work, which advocated similar canals in other parts of the country, bears the following title: “A Mediterranean Passage by water from London to Bristol, and from Lynn to Yarmouth, and so consequently to the city of York, for the great advancement of trade.” (Lond. 1670, 4to.) An extract from this scarce volume is transcribed by Aubrey into the Royal Society’s MS. of his own work; and a copy of Mr. Mathew’s map, which illustrated it, is also there inserted. The liberality of Sir James Shaen in the purchase of Mathew’s papers, and the apathy of the London aldermen, until too late to secure them, are amusingly described. Similar instances of civic meanness are not wanting in the present day; indeed the indifference of corporate authorities to scientific topics is strikingly illustrated by the fact that the Royal Society has not at present enrolled upon its list of Fellows a single member of the corporation of London; whereas in Aubrey’s time there were no less than three.