overflowing with hot water.  From this a channel is visible in the pavement, in a line of direction eastward, conveying the water to Lucas’s Bath’ (pp. 20-21).  Thus then in 1763 (1) the north and south walls of the great Roman Bath had been traced 6ft. or 8ft. west of Lucas’s Bath. (2) Furthermore, starting from the centre of the west side of Lucas’s Bath, a line had been traced to the east steps of the great Roman Bath.  These are plain historical facts, open to everyone who will look into the plans of our baths, as given by Sutherland in 1763, and by Prebendary Scarth in his ‘Aquae Solis’ in 1864.  But our City Architect has been charged with suppressing these facts for his own glorification.  Now, Sir, I think no unprejudiced man, who has heard Major Davis’s addresses and read his books, can justly bring this charge.  If I mistake not, he fairly stated the case in 1880, both in his address before the Society of Antiquaries, and in his lecture at the Bath Literary Institution.  He has most certainly concealed nothing in his published works ’The Bathes of Bathe’s Ayde’ and ‘Guide to the Roman Baths.’  In the former work he says (p. 81), ’Dr. Sutherland indicates a large bath westward of that which had been discovered in his time, in fact there can be little doubt that the steps at the eastward end of a great bath had then been found;’ in the latter, whilst alluding to the published plans of Sutherland, he says (p. 10), ’These plans indicate a large bath westward of that discovered in 1754 (? 1755), in fact the eastward steps of a bath had then been found.’  Here then is a full and candid admission of all the facts known about the great Roman Bath in the middle of the last century; and this anyone can see by reference to the map in Prebendary Scarth’s ’Aquae Solis’—­the diagram (copied from Spry) there being almost similar to Sutherland’s conjectural plan of the baths, except that the section of Lucas’s Bath, correctly represented in Sutherland’s map is figured upside-down by Spry and Scarth.  It is quite clear what Sutherland knew of the great Roman Bath; it is equally clear that when he proceeded, on the strength of his very limited observations, to draw a conjectural plan of the whole bath, he fell into absolute errors, such as, commonly enough, spring out of hasty generalisations based on scanty data.  Thus, he gives the dimensions of the enclosure of the great bath as 96ft. by 68ft.; whereas, as a matter of fact, they are 111ft. by 68ft.  How is this discrepancy to be explained?  ‘A Citizen’ in your last weekly issue, says ’The alleged discrepancies in the measurements, which Mr. Davis has used to prove his case, are but the differentiations of the external measurements with the sinuous subterranean windings.’  These are indeed brave words, indulged in rather to diminish Major Davis credit than to rescue Sutherland; but a truer explanation of the real discrepancies stares any man in the face who will open Dr. Sutherland’s work.  There is no occasion to be wise beyond what is written: