’When, as we may suppose, they have run a length proportionable to their width, they compose a bath, which may indeed be called great, 96ft. by 68ft.’  The fact is, Sutherland supposed that the dimensions of the great Roman Bath would observe the same relative proportions as Lucas’s Bath.  The room of Lucas’s Bath, let it be remembered, was 43ft. by 34ft., or rather 30ft. 6in. from the face of the pilasters.  In other words, the length was equal to the diagonal of the square of the base.  Then, having observed that the base of the room of the great Roman Bath—­formed by the length of Lucas’s Bath—­was 68ft., Sutherland assumed that its length also would be equal to the diagonal of the square of base, namely 96ft.  This patent error, assuming that the unknown would have a relative correspondence with the known quantities, was the fruitful source of many more. (1) The dimensions of the outer rectangular area formed by the room of the great Roman Bath being false, the dimensions of the inner rectangular area formed by the water surface of the bath were necessarily false also. (2) Steps were observed at one end only of the water surface of Lucas’s Bath; therefore it was inferred that steps would be found at one end only of the water surface of the great bath, the eastern end as figured in the maps of 1763 and 1864, whereas we now know that steps run all round. (3) The exedrae at the back of the schola having no existence in Lucas’s Bath, were omitted from the conjectural plan of the great Roman Bath. (4) Lucas’s Bath being a plain hall without piers, Sutherland assumed the same form for the hall of the great Roman Bath, and altogether omitted the arcades that divide it into three aisles. (5) Not to dwell on other errors built on the baseless fabric of conjecture, it is evident that Sutherland imagined a system of baths existed west of the great Roman Bath similar in all respects to that known to exist east of the great Roman Bath.  But here, again, theory has been upset by facts.  And now is a fitting opportunity to draw attention to what has been actually discovered west of the great Roman Bath, namely, the octagon Roman Well, which I should be disposed to consider Major Davis’s greatest discovery, though I observe that hostile critics take no notice of this, possibly because it is beyond the region of dispute.  If any one, able to point what he reads, still believes that the great Roman Bath was ever practically opened up in the last century I would refer him to Mr. Moore’s able and suggestive paper, entitled ’Organisms from the recently discovered Roman Baths in Bath,’ read to the members of the Bath Microscopical Society, in May, 1883.  Once more I insist that we must clearly separate what Sutherland knew from what he conjectured.  Indeed, Sutherland himself fairly draws the distinctions.  On page 21 he says, ’This ground plot is exhibited in the plate annexed, as far as the earth is cleared away.  The remainder is supposed, and drawn out