[Footnote 12:  Pl.  VII. gives a correct plan of former discoveries as far as I have been able to ascertain, and these I have made up to April 19th, 1884.]

In 1871, whilst making some necessary excavation to remedy a leak from the King’s Bath that apparently ran beneath Abbey Passage, I found that the hot water, that was reached through layers of mud, Roman tiles, building materials, and mixed soil, was one and the same with the hot water of the Kingston Bath that then occupied the site of the Bath called Lucas’s Bath, discovered in 1755; and the levels were the same.  I pumped out this water with powerful pumps, emptying by so doing the Kingston Baths.  This enabled me to sink to a depth of 20ft., passing in so doing a flight of four steps at the point (A) on the plan (Pl.  VIII.), to the bottom of a bath which was coated with lead.[13] Being compelled by the then owner of the Kingston Baths to discontinue pumping, I was obliged to abandon my work; and having little hope that I should ever be allowed to recommence it, I removed a portion of the lead, which proved to be a thickness of about 30lbs. to the foot, placed on a layer of brick concrete 2in. to 21/4in. thick, and this again on a layer of freestone 12in., or rather a Roman foot 11-5/8in. in thickness, which was again bedded on rough stonework, the depth of which I could not ascertain.  Fortunately I did not again fill in the soil, but arched it in, building walls of masonry to keep it in position.  The Corporation having obtained possession of the hot water supplying the Kingston Baths, I should rather say, the right to the water that leaked from the King’s Springs, I again drained off the water, maintaining it at a low level by a laborious excavation and re-construction of the Roman drain which was conducted at great expense for two or three years.  This drain I followed several hundred feet until it reached the great well previously mentioned, making various and important discoveries; but, as I have already read a paper on this subject before the Society of Antiquaries of London, which will shortly be in the press, I will not repeat it here, but avail myself of the space allotted me in the Transactions of this Society for an account of the Great Bath, which I have, in great part, laid bare, soliciting a pardon if the account is somewhat tedious.

[Footnote 13:  The water, on ceasing pumping, rose to a height above the lead of 7ft. 6in.]

The bath, placed in a great hall 110ft. 41/2in. long by 68ft. 5in. wide, is about 6ft. 8in. deep.  The bottom, 73ft. 2in. by 29ft. 6in.[14] is formed as described in the last page.[15]

[Footnote 14:  The dimensions must not be taken to be quite correct in all cases, as there are discrepancies and inaccuracies in the building that prevent measurements being always reliable.]

[Footnote 15:  This bath is drawn to a large scale in Pl.  VIII.]