magnificent Survey of the Roman Wall: the late Archdeacon Phelps, who presented the Works of Gresswell: the Rev. Canon Gipps, who has given some good editions of the classics: Mr. R. S. Ferguson, who has given one of the few large paper copies of his Cumberland and Westmorland M.P's; and the Lord Bishop, who, amongst other valuable works, has presented a fine copy of Cave's Historia Literaria. Several Catalogues of the Library have been made at different times. The earliest appear to be two in manuscript, which answer to one another, the one being alphabetical, the other giving the books as they stood then on the shelves. These are without date, but seem earlier than a small printed catalogue of 1783 (which I was fortunate enough to pick up at a bookstall), and another manuscript catalogue of 1784, with which latter they generally, but not always, agree in the lettering of the books. The small printed catalogue has no lettering. There is another in manuscript, not quite finished, which was made in 1821 by one Thomas Young. The lettering in this also corresponds in general with that of the former catalogues. The last catalogue was made, in manuscript, in 1838 and in the interval between this and the one before it, the lettering of the books was entirely altered. The books in their present arrangement answer to the lettering in this last catalogue. All these catalogues are imperfect the writers of them having usually contented themselves with opening a volume at the first title page, and cataloguing that, without observing that several works, and those at times by different authors, were often bound together in the same volume. The last of them is the best: but it was made by a person who seems not to It may as well be noticed that the alteration in the lettering along with a blunder in one of the older catalogues, deceived Botfield, when he visited the Library in making his "Researches"-that wonderful book. The English Bible temp. Hen. 8, which he could not find under the lettering A. vi. 18, was in fact a Bible of Charles I, 1648: which is still in the Library. There never was a Bible temp. Hen. 8 there. UU have have known anything of Latin. A new catalogue, partly bibliographcal, is in course of preparation. The Library has not been without losses. It seems to have been the custom of the Chapter to have an annual search in November: and the records of several of these searches, preserved on loose pieces of paper, still remain. From these, and from comparing the various catalogues with one another, it appears that about fifty volumes are missing, and have been missing for a century and a half— since 1721. Happily they are not of the greatest value or rarity. A list of them is subjoined, in the hope that some of them may be recovered even yet. BOOKS WANTED. Confessionum Fidei Syntagma. Glanvil's Sermons. Bentley's Sermons. Popery, its Disloyalty. Godwin De Præsulibus. Roger's Characters. Sherlock on Death. Cawfield on Confirmation. De Legis Obligatione. Fearn's Reform of Ch. of England. on Religious Assemblies Human Prudence. 337 ART. XXIX.-The Carlisle Horns. By WM. NANSON, B.A. Read at Carlisle, December 9th, 1875. WAS asked a short time ago, by a member of the local committee, to prepare a paper giving some account of the very curious relic which is now exhibited to the Society. I had not then had an opportunity of seeing it, and knew nothing about it, beyond this, that Henry I. was said to have given to the Prior and Convent of Carlisle a certain horn, that there was somewhere in the Cathedral a pair of horns or tusks belonging to an animal of an uncertain sort, inasmuch as some said it was an elephant, but others a fish, and that these horns or tusks might be what Henry I. gave to the convent. Since then, I have been endeavour. ing to find out something about them, and I will now briefly tell you the result of my researches. They have, I find, been a puzzle for a long time, and about a hundred years ago attracted a good deal of attention, and were the subject of papers read before the Society of Antiquaries. The last time they were publicly exhibited was in 1859, when the Archæological Institute visited Carlisle. Since then they seem to have been nearly forgotten, and like many things that are carefully stowed away, they are very seldom seen. A great deal of what I have to tell you is derived from two volumes of the Archæologia. Vol. III. contains several papers on charter horns, and among them is one by Dr. Lyttleton, Bishop of Carlisle, which was read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1768. It is headed, "an account of certain Charter Horns in the Cathedral of Carlisle," and is illustrated by a fairly correct engraving, which shews that "the Carlisle horns" were in the same state then as they are now. The Bishop's paper is very short. He begins by saying that the horns. were improperly so called, being "certainly the teeth of some some very large sea fish," and then he states that they were given by Henry I. to the Prior and Convent of Carlisle when he enfeoffed them with the tithes of all the assart lands within the forest of Englewood to be held "per quoddam cornu eburneum "--by a certain ivory horn. In proof of this he gives an extract from the Pleas of Parliament of the 18th Edward I. I must return to this authority afterwards, because it will be necessary to scrutinize it rather carefully. The Bishop's paper concludes with this passage from Ray's Itinerary,-"They have preserved [at Carlisle] two elephant's teeth fastened in a bone like a scalp, which they call the horns of the altar," and it is evident that the Bishop had no doubt in his own mind that what you now see was the quoddam cornu eburneum" given by Henry I. He died within a month of the day on which his paper was read, and probably no misgivings on the subject disturbed his last moments. It was not till ten years afterwards that the Reverend Mr. Cole, F.A.S. took the opportunity of his having to write to then President of the Society of Antiquaries about a Roman fibula, to dispute the conclusions of their late worthy President, the Bishop of Carlisle, respecting "the Carlisle horns." From what Mr. Cole says, I fancy, he never saw the thing itself, and probably intends to follow the Bishop when he calls it "the great jaw of a fish!" but he says that the words "quoddam cornu eburneum " could not properly have been applied to such an object, and then he quotes a passage from Tonge's Visitation of the North. Thomas Tonge was Norroy King of Arms, and made an Heraldic Visitation of the North of England in 1530. It has been edited by the Surtees Society, and the passage is as follows: "BE YT NOTID, that the Monastery of Carlile was furst founded by KYNG HENRY THE FURST, the second yer of his raign. And the said kyng sent for the Prionr of Saint Oswaldys in Yorkeshire to be Priour of the said Monastery of Carlisle, whose name was Adelwald, which Adelwalde was after furst Byshop of the Diocese of Carlile, and Contynowed Prior withall. And the said King Henry gave unto the said Monastery a great horne of venery, havyng certeyn bondes of silver and gold, and the versus folowyng graven upon, Henricus primus nuster foundator opimus, ac dedit in teste carte pro Jure foreste. And [by] the said horne he gave libarte within the forest of England. And so restyth founder of the said Monastery our Souverayn Lord, Kyng Henry the viijth." Mr. Cole argues, that taking this account, it is quite impossible that these tusks can be the ivory horn of Henry I. which he conjectures was a hunting horn like some of those engraved in Vol. III. of the Archæologia. In this opinion he is certainly strongly supported by what Tonge says about its having "certeyne bonds of silver and gold." Whatever Tonge refers to was probably shewn to him when he visited the Cathedral in 1530, and what he saw he thought he sufficiently described when he called it a "great horne of venery." This is a remarkable expression, and a good deal turns upon the meaning we attach to it. Mr. Cole thought it was only a solemn way of speaking of a hunting horn, and so decided against there being any connexion between the tusks and Henry I. Bishop Lyttleton being dead, there would seem to have been no one who considered it worth while to dispute with Mr. Cole, and so the matter dropped. It is unfortunate that we cannot know what the Bishop had to say in support of his theory. One would like to know whether he grounded his positive assertion that these tusks were the gift of Henry I. to the convent upon the sole authority of the passage in the Pleas of Parliament, or whether he had any other ground for his belief. As he does not give any in his paper, I am disposed to think he had none, unless it were a general tradition to that effect. In one particular we may safely say that the worthy Bishop was mistaken, though he did not fall into very grievous error. It is certain what the tusks are in themselves, apart from any history they may have, or any use to which they may |