The mention there made of the recent discovery of one of these subterranean vaults or passages in Aberdeenshire, induces me to ask a question in regard to two subterranean passages which have lately been discovered in Berwickshire, and which so far differ from all others that I have heard or read of, that whereas all of them seem to have been built at the sides with large flat stones, and roofed with similar ones, and then covered with earth, those which I am about to mention are both hewn out of the solid rock. They are both situated in the Lammermoor range of hills. Those persons who have seen them are at a loss to know for what
purpose they could have been excavated, unless for the purpose of sepulture in the times of the aborigines, or of very early inhabitants of Britain, as they in many respects resemble those stone graves which are mentioned in Worsaae's Description of the Primæval Antiquities of Denmark, translated and applied to the illustration of similar remains in England by Mr. Thoms.
One of these cavities is situated on a remote pasture farm, among the hills belonging to the Earl of Lauderdale, called Braidshawrigg; and was discovered by a shepherd very near his own house, within less than a quarter of a mile up a small stream which runs past it, and on the opposite side of the water, a few yards up the steep hill. The shepherd had observed for some time that one of his dogs was in the habit of going into what he supposed to be a rabbit hole at this place, and when he was missing and called, he generally came out of this hole. At last, curiosity led his master to take a spade and dig into it; and he soon found that, after digging down into the soil to the rock, the cavity became larger, and had evidently been the work of human hands. Information was given to Lord Lauderdale, and the rubbish was cleared away. It (the rubbish) did not extend far in, and after that the passage was clear. The excavation consists of a passage cut nearly north and south (the entrance being to the south) through various strata of solid rocks, partly grauwacke, (or what is there called whinstone), and partly grey slate: the strata lying east and west, and nearly vertical. The whole length of it is seventy-four feet. From the entrance the passage, for four or five yards, slopes downwards into the hill; it then runs horizontally the length of sixty-three feet from the entrance, when it changes its direction at right angles to the westward for a distance of eleven feet; when it ends with the solid rock. It is regularly from three feet four inches to three feet six inches wide, and about seven feet high, the ceiling being somewhat circular. The floor is the rock cut square. The time and labour must have been great to cut this passage, as not more than one man could conveniently quarry the rock at the same time. It might have been supposed that this was a level to a mine, as copper has been worked in this range farther eastward; but the passage does not follow any vein, but cuts across all the strata, and keeps a straight line, till it turns westward, and then in another straight line; and the floors, sides, and roof are all made quite regular and even with a pickaxe or a hammer. There does not appear to have been at any time any other habitation than the shepherd's house, and another cottage a little lower down the stream, in the neighbourhood. The discovery of this cavern recalled to the recollection of myself, and some of my family, that a few years ago, in cutting a road through the rock into a whinstone quarry, about four miles south of Braidshawrigg, near a mill, we had cut across the east end of a passage somewhat similar to the one before mentioned, but running east and west; that we had cleared it out for a short way, but as it then went under a corner of one of the houses belonging to the mill, we stopped, for fear of bringing down the building, as this passage, though cut out of the solid rock, was not a mine, but had been worked to the surface; and, if it ever had been used for purposes of sepulture, must have been roofed with flagstones, and then covered with earth like other Picts' houses. But these roof-stones must have been carried away, and the whole trench was filled with rubbish, and all trace of it on the surface was obliterated. This passage we have lately opened, and cleared out. To the westward it passes into the adjoining water-mill, which is itself in great part formed by excavation of the rock; and the east wall of the upper part of the mill is arched over the passage. Beyond the west wall of the mill which adjoins the stream, there is a continuation of the trench through the rock down to the water, which serves to take away that which passes over the millwheel at right angles to where the rock has been cut away to make room for the millwheel itself. That which has been cut away in making the trench, is a seam of clay slate about three feet six inches in breadth, between two solid whinstone rocks. The length of the passage, from the east end, which terminated in rock, to the mill, is sixty-three feet. The mill is thirty feet, and the cut beyond it twelve feet: in all, one hundred and five feet. The average depth is about twelve feet; but as it slopes down to the stream, some of it is sixteen feet deep. It has been suggested that it might have been dug out in order to obtain the coarse slate; but the difficulty of working a confined seam like this, in any other way than by picking it out piecemeal with immense labour, seems impossible. It can never have been meant to convey water to the mill, as the highest part begins in the solid rock, and the object must always have been to keep the water on the highest possible level, until it reached the top of the millwheel. Nothing was found in either of these excavations.—After this long discussion, Query, What can have been the purpose for which these laborious works can have been executed?
J. S. S.
PRONUNCIATION OF "HUMBLE."
(Vol. viii., pp. 229. 298.)
It is my misfortune entirely to differ from Mr. Dawson (p. 229.) and Mr. Crossley (p. 298.) as to the pronunciation of humble; and permit me to say (with all courtesy) that I was unfeignedly surprised at the latter's assertion, that sounding
the h is "a recent attempt to introduce a mispronunciation," as I have known that mode of pronunciation all but universally prevalent for nearly the last forty years; and I have had pretty good opportunities for observing what the general usage in that respect was, as I was for some years at a very large public school, then at Oxford for more than the usual time, and have since resided in London more than twenty-five years, practising as a barrister in Westminster Hall, and on one of the largest circuits. If, therefore, I have not had ample means of judging as to the pronunciation of humble, I know not where the means are to be found; especially as I doubt whether humble and humbly are anywhere so frequently used as in courts: a counsel rarely making a speech without "humbly submitting" or making a "humble application." Now the result of my experience is, that the h is almost universally sounded; and at this moment I cannot call to mind a single gentleman who omits it, who does not also omit it in many other instances where no doubt can exist that it ought to be sounded.
Mr. Dawson believes the sounding the h to be "one of those, either Oxford, or Cambridge, or both, peculiarities of which no reasonable explanation can be given." Now I believe Mr. Dawson is right in supposing that that usage is general both at Oxford and Cambridge, and I rather think that not only an explanation of the fact may be given, but that the fact itself, that in both the Universities the h is sounded, is extremely cogent evidence that it is correct. It cannot be doubted that the fact that a word is spelled with certain letters is clear proof that, at the time when that spelling was adopted, the word was so sounded as to give a distinct sound to each of the letters used, and that clearly must have been the case with words beginning with h especially. When, therefore, the present spelling of humble was adopted, the h was sounded. Now, whilst I freely admit that the utterance of any word may be changed—"Si volet usus, quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi"—still it cannot be questioned that the usage must be so general, clear, and distinct among the better educated classes (where-ever they may have received their education) as to leave no reasonable doubt about the matter; and that it lies on those who assert that such a change has taken place, to show such a usage as I have mentioned. And when the number of the members of the Universities is considered, and their position as men of education, it must at least admit of doubt whether, if a general usage prevailed among them to pronounce a particular word in the manner in which it originally was pronounced, this would not alone prevent a different pronunciation among others from having that general prevalence, which would be sufficient to justify a change in the utterance of such word.