Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 4.djvu/235

ON TFIE CITY OF ANDERTDA, OR ANDREDESCEASTER. 217 tioii api)cared to require attention. In closing the remarks oifered I do not presume to alter in my favour the okl Latin sentence, and say, " Ed nostro tantas componcre Htes." Whenever, as in this instance, the decision can only be between different degrees of probabiHty, the opportunity nnist ever subsist of reopening the debate. As the en([uiry was commenced with no })reviously cherished theory or bias, so the wish and endeavour througliout have been to examine and to state every thing fairly and imj)artially on all sides ; and if the result shall be deemed to have gathered any addi- tional weight into the scale of truth, the writer's purpose will 1)0 fulfilled, and his labours amply recompensed. To one particular of the above line of argument much importance is confidently attributed ; which is, that no spot can possess any good claim, independent of authentic records, to have been a Roman city, unless exhibiting clear evidence of walls, or vestiges of walls, such as the Romans would have erected for its defence. Reasoning from this kind of testimony alone has effected my own conviction ; otherwise I might have felt most disposed to assert the credit of my native county of Kent, supported as I should have been by the concurrent opinion of one of our earliest and most celebrated anti- quaries. ARTHUR HUSSEY.