( *9* ) 
The A. of this Commentary can’t but take Notice, 
That it is not reprefented aright by the Editor of the 
Bibliotheque choifie, Tom.X.XV . primzere partie. For pagg. 
125 and 6, He fays, \_ Beiges, qui des Provinces feptentrio - 
nales du Continent des Gaules s’etoient tranfportez en Angle • 
terre 5 autour de Bath & Wells ] Whereas the Commen- 
tary affirms no fuch thing, and in all likelihood Wells, 
and perhaps Bath too, is much later than the fettling 
of the Belg<e in Britain. In the 2d place, He obferves, 
That whereas the Bibliotheque affirms of the Bath Fa- 
bric [ ye que l 1 on avoit ignore jufqtt a prejent ] the Com- 
mentary quite otherwife fays, \_Fabricam Aquis, quod orbi 
liter ato jam din latuit , fuijfc Caddis. 1 ] pag. 189. Laftly, 
fpeaking of the round bottom’d U, invented (as Celia - 
rius affirms) about a hundred Years ago, This, fays the 
Bibliotbeque , is true, as to Jnfcriptions [ Cela efl vrai a l' 
egard des Infcriptions<~\ On the other hand, I take leave 
ro affirm, quod hujus eontrarium efl verijjimum : There 
being now to be feen in Cornwall an old Infcription 
with a round U. 
> 
A N 
/ 
