to afford a derivation of our name of England, as probable, at least as the ordinary one of _Angle land_. The word I mean is _Eng_, an old Danish name applied even yet to the level marshy pasture lands adjoining rivers. I believe the Saxons and Angles, from the time of whose invasion the name is supposed to date, first landed and possessed the Isle of Thanet, which in parts, especially those about Minster, and the river _Stour_, would answer very well to the description of Danish _Eng lands_. It is from this word I think the name may have sprung, instead of from the Angles, whom we have no reason for supposing to have been so superior to the Saxons as to leave the remembrance of their name to the entire exclusion of the latter.” M. Worsaae, in the first words of his history unwittingly confirms what Mr. Rowan here points out. “The greater part of England,” he says, “consists of flat and fertile lowland, particularly towards the southern and eastern coasts, where large open plains extend themselves.” There is a low-lying district of Aberdeenshire called the _Enzie_, a name of the same character, evidently imposed by the Northmen. This is pronounced by the natives _aingie_, the sound of the first portion of the name being as the _aing_ in the Scotch surname of _Laing_. The derivation just cited, coupled with my conjecture that the name Scotland is the ancient gothic _Skot-land_, land laid under tribute, Icelandic _Skat_, a tax (Skat-land) goes to confirm M. du Chaillu’s contention that the British people, and tongue (by tongue, I mean the present speech of the British nation) are of northern origin. The contention that the Danish influx into England was in any sense a mere infusion must in the nature of things be pure fiction. It was a full rolling tide of conquest and colonization swelling a population already essentially Scandinavian.