Historians seldom trouble themselves much about the Great Seal of England; but that of James II forms an exception. Contemporary rumour seems to have associated it closely with the king's first flight from London, in disguise and by night, on 11 December 1688; and, from the contemporary Bishop Burnet and Rapin down to Miss Foxcroft in our own day, historians and memoir-writers of the period, with few exceptions of importance, have accepted this invitation to the picturesque. For the student of seals these excursions into his subject are flattering but rather embarrassing: Charles Bertie (in a letter to Danby), Burnet, Lord Campbell, and the second Earl of Clarendon (who quotes a letter of Barillon, the French Ambassador); Sir John Dalrymple and the Ellis correspondence; Miss Foxcroft; Halifax; King James himself; John Heneage Jesse and Bishop Kennett; Lingard, Sir Richard Lodge, and Narcissus Luttrell; Macaulay, Sir James Mackintosh (or his editor), and James Macpherson; Ranke, Rapin, Reresby, Smollett, Temperley—they are all in a tale. But not all, unfortunately, in the same tale. The king ‘took away’ the Great Seal; he was prepared l'emporter au besoin; he destroyed it; he told someone to throw it in the Thames; he flung it into the river himself; he gave it to the queen (who presumably took it to France with her); it was carried off by Jeffreys; it was delivered to the king by Jeffreys; the king took the seal and Jeffreys took the ‘purse’ —here truly is sufficient variety. The writers, in fact, agree in little save in telling a story of some kind about the Great Seal and giving no authority for it. James himself in a document of 1693 says merely (or his officials say for him) that he destroyed it. (The document is in fact an order for a (second) new seal, to be engraved apparently by one of the continental members of that Roettier family whom we are to mention below.) The story most generally accepted has been that the king threw it in the Thames during the first stage of his flight on 11 December, to which a certain number add sensational sequels: according to these it was recovered later in a fisherman's net and ‘restored to the Government.’

As a result of the destruction by the enemy of All Hallows, Barking, a portion of a Saxon church on the site was uncovered, and also some fragments of what must have been an imposing Saxon cross. A grant from the Society's William and Jane Morris Fund has enabled a protecting screen to be built in front of the main architectural feature exposed, a blocked archway, and, by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum, the principal fragments of the cross have been placed in a Museum repository. The Society has reason to be grateful to the vicar, the Rev. P. T. B. Clayton, for reporting the discoveries as soon as they came to his notice, and for the friendly and helpful way in which he and the staff of All Hallows collaborated with the Ministry of Works, the British Museum, and the Society in the task of quickly recording the finds and safeguarding them.

The following list contains five hundred and three items, as follows: (i) Three hundred and five structures which have been positively identified as brochs and are still in existence. For those printed in italics no dimensions or structural features are on record. (ii) Sixty-six sites of vanished structures which are known to have been brochs. These are listed as ‘broch sites’. In a few cases descriptions are on record. (iii) One hundred and thirty-two structures which probably are or possibly may be brochs, but which have not been positively identified as such. These are listed as ‘uncertain examples’.

Attention was drawn recently (Antiq. Journ. xxi, 1941, 158–61) to a sword of derivative Viking type depicted on an effigy in Furness Abbey, Lancs. The effigy is one of a group of related late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century monuments, of which the majority are recorded from Co. Durham. Another sword of this form has since come to notice in a similar context. The freestone effigy on which it appears is preserved in the Priory Church of Cartmel, which lies some ten miles to the east of Furness Abbey.

Although English embroideries have become a very popular subject of study and careful research during recent years, there are still a great number of hitherto unknown pieces scattered in private and public collections all over the world. Especially the works of the later medieval centuries are not yet properly collected and published, and regarding this later period much further research remains to be done.

The site to be described was discovered by the writer in a newly cut ditch three miles south of Cambridge on the Hills Road (fig. I). It was revealed in section as a small pit, about 3 ft. across by 2 ft. deep, sunk into the chalk (fig. 2), and investigation showed that the major part of it had already been removed: when cleared the recess was found to extend in plan barely a foot from the face. The spot lies at about 60 ft. above O.D., and the ground rises very gently on three sides, but is level or slightly depressed towards the north-west. The sub-soil is the Lower Chalk, which at this point is overlain by about 8 in. of brown soil and the same depth of dark plough-soil.

The collection of material for the Dictionary of British Arms under the Croft Lyons bequest has been in progress since early in 1940. It is thought that Fellows may now wish to have some account of the progress made, the problems met with, and the solutions proposed. An article which appeared in this journal in October 1941 explained that the material was being gathered from primary heraldic sources in card-index form, asked for help with the work, and set out in some detail the forms of entry decided on. The summary of cards written which follows will show how generous and notable the answer to the appeal for help has been. The annual income from the bequest is now about £600. From this Council has authorized for the present an expenditure of £300 a year, the balance being saved against the much heavier expenditure which the later, editorial, stage of the work will call for. Even now the rapid progress made has only been possible because the bulk of the indexing has been done by Fellows and others without payment, while there is at this stage no need for a paid editor or editorial staff. The bulk of expenditure so far has been on sorting and other office work, on the indexing of certain special sources such as the College of Arms and Lyon and Ulster Office Records, and on journeys, transport, photography, and materials.