temporary historian,* to have by that act declared William and his successors quietos ab ipso et regibus Angliæ in perpetuum de omni ligantia et subjectione de regno Scotia? But, if there was no acknowledgment of homage for the kingdom of Scotland, were there no feudal services rendered to the English monarchs by the Kings of Scotland, which might be considered an equivalent for a direct recognition of homage? There were none; and if there had been a vestige of one, it would have been produced by Edward. But, if there was neither homage for the kingdom of Scotland, nor any feudal right exercised by the Kings of England in Scotland, what was the English supremacy over that kingdom? It was, as Sir Francis Palgrave justly terms it,' of ' a very peculiar nature'-a tenure in nubibus-to which nothing but the power of Edward and the baseness of the Scotch mobility could have given, even for the shortest time, an actual and real

existence.

That Edward would have rejected with scorn the limitations assigned by Sir Francis Palgrave to his rights over Scotland, we have not a doubt. It was not as Bretwalda, Basileus, or Emperor, that he claimed the obedience of the Scots, but as the feudal superior and Lord Paramount of Scotland. When Roger le Brabazon, his Justiciary, addressed them at Norham, he told them plainly that his master had convened them, ut ipse tanquam superior et directus dominus dicti regni, per superioritatem et directum dominium hujusmodi, quod est suum, justiciam faciat universis; and demanded from them, in feudal language, their recognition of his superiority and direct dominion over Scotland. The language of Edward himself was not different from that of his Justiciary. When he directs his justices in the court of Common Pleas to receive writs from Scotland, he assigns as his reason, Quia regna Angliæ et Scotiæ, ratione 'superioris dominii quod in eodem regno Scotia obtinemus, benedicto altissimo, sunt conjuncta; and in all his public acts after the convention at Norham he styles himself, in addition to his former titles, the superior or Sovereign Lord of Scotland. The claim of his Justiciary at Norham, and the addition he afterwards made to his royal title, explain the salvo under which he accepted the homage of Alexander, and ratified the marriage articles between his son Edward and Margaret. His claim was directed to no antiquated or visionary dignity, but

* Hoveden, 377, à Savile.

Fœdera, i. 762.

Ibid. i. 757.

As such it was made at

to the feudal superiority of Scotland. Norham, and, however unfounded in right, as such it was accepted by the Guardians, competitors, and nobles of Scotland, and resisted by none till the intolerable yoke it imposed roused Wallace and the Scottish people to arms.

It is true that, in one of the petitions presented by Bruce, Edward is called by that nobleman his Sovereign Lord and Emperor; and that many a one of the Anglo-Saxon kings styled himself Basileus and Imperator. But, where these vain-glorious epithets had any meaning at all, they imported, not dominion over vassal kings, but the denial of subjection to any superior. They were declarations of independence, and nothing more. They proclaimed, not the assertion of authority over others, but exemption from the authority of any higher power. They were not peculiar to the Anglo-Saxon kings, but familiar to the petty princes in Spain and other parts who held themselves independent of the German and Byzantine emperors. As to the dignity of Bretwalda, we doubt whether it ever had a legal or permanent existence. It is a word unknown to Bede and to Alfred, and, as far as we have seen, it is to be found nowhere but in one solitary passage of the Saxon Chronicle, where it is used to designate those kings of the Heptarchy who, according to Bede, obtained for a time a predominant authority over the others. Of these dominant chiefs, Bede enumerates seven; three of whom were so far from possessing or claiming the sovereignty of Britain, that they are expressly said to have had no authority beyond the Humber; and to these seven, after an interruption of one hundred and sixty years, the author of the Saxon Chronicle adds Egbert as the eighth. We suspect the word Bretwalda or Bryten-wealda to have been the coinage of the Saxon chronicler; and the dignity itself, as implying the continual existence and acknowledged supremacy of some one of the Anglo-Saxon chiefs who had dominion over all the others, we believe to be a mere imagination of later times. From the death of Oswio to the final success of Egbert, there was nothing like unity among the Anglo-Saxon states. They were divided by the Humber into two distinct and unconnected political systems, which had few and transient relations, either of war or amity, with each other. At the head of the southern states was either Mercia or Wessex, but generally the former. Northumberland was engaged in frequent wars with Picts, Scots, and Britons of Strathclyde, and sometimes, but rarely, with the Mercians. With the more southern states Northumberland seems to have maintained hardly relations but those of religion; and, falling at length a prey any to intestine dissensions, it finally yielded, without resistance, to

Egbert. The superiority acquired by that prince over the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms escaped from the hands of his successors; and it was not till the complete subjugation of the Danish invaders, and coalition of the southern and northern states after the death of Edwy, that the whole of England was united in one monarchy. Nor was the union finally consolidated even then. It was dissolved for a time after the death of Canute, and can hardly be said to have had more than a nominal existence under the Confessor.

These facts are well known to Sir Francis Palgrave; and yet he talks as familiarly of the ancient dependence of the Scottish Regulus on the Anglo-Saxon Bretwalda, as if there had been always a Bretwalda in existence to enforce or to receive it. An imaginary being is created to substantiate an imaginary right. It is clear, that while there was no Bretwalda there could be no dependence on a Bretwalda; and from the preceding facts it appears that for 160 years there was no Bretwalda, and that a person might be styled Bretwalda who had no dominion north of the Humber. Elle, who is counted the first Bretwalda, so far from possessing the empire of Britain, seems never to have emerged from the east of Sussex, where he first landed; and his greatest achievement seems to have been the destruction of Andredceaster, a British town in the adjacent weald. The pompous title of Bretwalda, bestowed on so insignificant a personage, seems to indicate, that it meant nothing more than the chief of the Anglo-Saxon chieftains; and that it neither conveyed, nor was supposed to convey, any claim to the general dominion or sovereignty of the island.

Many attempts were made by the Normans and Plantagenets to extend their domination over Scotland, but though occasionally successful for a time, they were ultimately foiled; and, for a hundred years before the death of Alexander, their efforts were reduced to harmless protests in times of amity, and to empty menaces on any appearance of war.

Sir Francis Palgrave is severe in his animadversions on the conduct of the Scottish Bishops. As religious men we do not vindicate these prelates for submitting to oaths which it is manifest they intended to violate on the first opportunity. But as citizens of an independent state, we cannot blame them for acting on the maxim, that to keep an oath of slavery is a greater sin than perjury. They saw their countrymen oppressed by foreigners, and felt it to be their first duty to relieve them from the yoke that galled them. That the oaths these prelates took were voluntary, it would require more than Edward's memorials to the Pope to convince us.

Among the memoranda preserved by Sir Francis Palgrave, there is one which confirms, if further proof were necessary, the share taken by Sir John Menteith in the capture of Wallace. To the servant who spied Wallace a recompense is given of forty marks, and sixty marks to be divided among those who assisted in making him prisoner. Immediately following, is a grant of one hundred pounds in land to Sir John Menteith; which there can be little doubt was made to him for his services on that occasion. It is certain that Wallace was betrayed into the hands of the English by persons in whom he had confidence; but we agree with Lord Hailes, there is no evidence that Menteith was or professed to be his friend. Menteith was at that time sheriff of Dunbartonshire and constable of Dunbarton castle, and so high in favour with the English monarch, that in the mock Parliament on Scottish affairs held in London, his name, as one of the Scotch Commissioners, was substituted by the express command of Edward, in the place of Earl Patrick, who could not attend.* But though guiltless of treachery to Wallace, we must confess our concern that a person, rewarded for the sacrifice of one to whom his country is so greatly beholden should have been ever admitted into favour by Robert the Bruce.

We cannot take leave of this volume without expressing our approbation of the clear and succinct analysis of its contents given in the introduction. In this, as in the former publications edited by Sir Francis Palgrave, he may be censured by his enemies and dectractors for the large and extensive commentary he has annexed to the original papers he has printed. We feel, on the contrary, greatly obliged to him for the facilities he has afforded to his readers of profiting by the documents he has published. We are persuaded that nothing is more conducive to the progress of historical literature than such expositions of the materials of history as will attract, not mere antiquarians, but men of enlarged and cultivated minds to peruse them; and we are glad to see, that in the recent publications of the Record Commission, this practice has been very generally followed.

In his appendix Sir Francis Palgrave has published, and in his introduction exposed, the forgeries of Harding, some of which seem to have deceived our most recent historians. These spurious documents appear to have been received by the English Government as authentic; and the falsifier was rewarded, though in his opinion inadequately, for his exertions. For what purpose he was countenanced, if not employed in this service, does not

appear. James the First of Scotland was prisoner in England when Harding began his forgeries; and Henry V., to whom they were shown at Vincennes, seems to have been deceived into a belief that the deeds produced to him were genuine. Whatever may have been the original object of the English in the encouragement given to this impostor, they judged wisely, on reflection, that it was better to unite the royal families of England and Scotland by marriage, than to revive and prosecute obsolete claims which had been so often tried and defeated.

ART. III.-Henrietta Temple, a Love Story. By the Author of' Vivian Grey.' 3 vols. 8vo. Second Edition. London: 1837.*

Venetia. By the Author of Vivian Grey,' and Henrietta Temple.' 3 vols. 8vo. London : 1837.

HESE are works of more than ordinary pretensions,—both dealT ing with difficult and elevated themes; the former professing to represent the passion of love in its most sudden and poetical form; the latter attempting, with scarcely even the shadow of disguise, to delineate the characters of Shelley and Lord Byron. Were we to say that in these bold attempts Mr D'Israeli (for we suppose it is now needless to treat the author as an anonymous novelist) has entirely failed, we should be doing injustice to the talent, liveliness, and eloquence which both works not unfrequently display were we, on the other hand, to say that he has produced any very finished, striking, or original picture, either of passion or character, or realized in any high degree the ideal conception at which he seems to have aimed, we should be doing still greater injustice to the cause of good sense, consistency of character, and moderation of expression. The marks of crudity in the conception,and of haste in the execution, which are every where visible, are not indeed difficult to be accounted for, when it is kept in mind that both these novels, each consisting of the established number of three volumes, have made their appearance within a year; and, even if a more patient attention had been bestowed on the plan of the story, or the details of character aud dialogue, we have the greatest doubt whether the result would have been such as to satisfy our idea of a good novel or romance. But unquestionably much which at present mars and impairs the effect of some of the best scenes-many overwrought

* Reprinted in Paris, by Baudry, in one volume 8vo.