Miscellaneous Notes on Deneholes. 
89 
But the most interesting point about No. 5 was the fact 
that the partition between it and No. 6 had been broken 
through, so that we thus obtained admission to a shaft-closed 
pit (No. 6). The shaft of No. 6 appears to be that nearly due 
east of No. 5, about twenty yards away, on the other side of 
the parish boundary. No. 6 may consist of either four or six 
chambers, but, in consequence of the tumbling-in of the shaft, 
only two of them could be entered. The floor of No. 6 was 
apparently somewhat higher than that of No. 5, the level of 
the roof remaining the same ; its height therefore was rather 
less. The two chambers entered were alike in shape, and at 
one time resembled, in all probability, those of the other pits. 
But on each side of their semicircular ends the sides of the 
chambers were indented by recesses of similar shape, but 
slightly smaller in size, the beginnings of passages intended 
to join the chambers together, leaving but pillars between 
their mouths. One of the two chambers of No. 6 was, as 
nearly as could be measured, 29 ft. 6 in. long from the centre 
of the shaft; the other, that adjoining No. 5, about 28 ft. 
As to the cause of the entrance from No. 5 to No. 6, due to 
the breaking-through of the partition between them, the 
evidence seems to me to point towards the conclusion that it 
is of ancient date, and was made when these Deneholes were 
in their prime. The proprietors of these two adjoining pits 
would seem to have recognised their nearness to each other, 
and to have planned so as, if possible, to avoid communication. 
The testimony to this in the case of No. 5 is the unusual 
shortness of the chamber nearest No. 6, though one of the 
two which are usually the longest. In No. 6 also the chamber 
adjoining No. 5 is somewhat shorter than the other one 
entered, though not markedly so. But as, judging from 
appearances, it seems just as likely that the entrance was 
accidentally made when rounding off the chamber belonging 
to No. 5, as in finishing that of No. 6, it seems worth while 
considering by whom the burglarious entrance was probably 
effected. The verdict, I think, must be against No. 6. For 
the facts that the No. 5 people had reduced their floor to a 
level below that of No. 6, and had made up for unusual 
