Professor Freeman indulges in that species of raillery to which men usually resort when they are driven into a corner. “We are really not ourselves,” he says, “but somebody else.” “The belief as to their own origin which the English of Britain have held ever since there have been Englishmen,” and such incoherent trifling. The ordinary average Englishman has no independent belief on the subject. He is told in his youth the story about Hengist and Horsa, and if he remembers it at all it gives him no particular concern. The bulk of Englishmen and Scotchmen too, are profoundly ignorant as to their history and origin. The Englishman has some vague conception that he is an “Anglo-Saxon,” while the Scot takes it for granted that all Scotchmen are Celts, and that all art found in Scotland is Celtic. Sir Daniel Wilson could discern in the rude rock scroll the “stately Cathedral.” There are others “who can see a coffin in a flake of soot.” It is hardly by such an adversary as M. du Chaillu, Professor Freeman says: “that we shall be beaten out of the belief that there is such a thing as English people in Britain. Perhaps too we shall not be more inclined to give up our national being, when we see its earliest records tossed aside with all the ignorant scorn of the eighteenth century.” This is absolutely childish. It reads more like mental imbecility than intellectual acumen. M. du Chaillu does not deny that there is an English people in Britain. He only doubts that the English people are Saxon, and affirms that they are Scandinavian, and in this view of the matter he is sustained by many and strong presumptions. Neither does he ask us “to give up our national being,” which he does not assail. Macaulay says: “it is only in Britain that an age of fable separates two ages of truth,” and the void, it would appear, is to be filled up with “some hints” by Professor Freeman, who, to his own satisfaction, at least, has bridged over the dreary gulf. Professor Freeman thinks it odd that the so-called Saxons were led into such strange mistakes as to their own name and origin. Is it an exceptional thing for a nation to be mistaken as to its remote history? Can Professor Freeman tell us who were the aborigines of Ancient Greece? Professor Freeman declines to be brought from the North by M. du Chaillu even more strongly than he declines to be brought from the South by Mr. Seebohm. Mr. Seebohm, according to Professor Freeman, “does leave some scrap of separate national being to the ‘Anglo-Saxon invaders’ * * * * M. du Chaillu takes away our last shreds; we are mere impostors,” &c. Must a nation be accounted impostor because it does not possess an accurate knowledge of its remote history? We might, indeed, be justly termed impostors if in the face of overwhelming evidence we should continue to adhere to the foregone conclusions of dogmatic historians built on the fictions and figment of monkish tradition. “As far as M. du Chaillu’s theory