with me on the main subject of my contention, the preponderance of the Scandinavian element in the British Isles. Coming to the essence of the controversy, he says, “Where I agree with you thoroughly is in the belief that the prevalence and influence of the Scandinavian races in Britain and Ireland have been largely underrated, and that much due to them has been ascribed to the various peoples commonly classed as Celts.” “One has only to look at the people inhabiting Aberdeenshire, Angus, &c., to convince one’s-self that Norse blood predominates.” I regard the questions of races, art, and culture entirely from an outside or historic view. In the face of such facts as I have adduced to continue to call _Mac_ Celtic is simply persistent dogmatism--a perverse determination to adhere _per fas et nefas_ to a foregone conclusion. The prefix _Mac_ though found in Scotch Gaelic and other dialects of the Erse, has obviously been imported thither only as a foreign term, in the same manner that the Norse word _jarl_, an earl, found its way into the Welsh. _Mac_, as I have elsewhere pointed out, occurs in the Anglo-Norse dialect of Craven, West Riding of York. It was used in the sense of _son_ by the Danes and Northmen. It occurs as a prefix to an interminable number of personal names distinctively Scandinavian, and in one form or other is found in every dialect of the Teutonic. We must “deal with the evidence before us according to a rational appreciation of its force.” “_Plaid_,” the critic, affirms, “does not exist in Moeso-Gothic.” Thomson in _Observations_ prefixed to his Lexicon, says, “Plaid, a cloke in Moeso-Gothic, was the Icelandic _palt_.” I would rather believe that the critic of the _Literary World_ does not know where to look for the word, than that the erudite private secretary to the Marquis of Hastings in India, presuming on their ignorance, sought to impose on his readers a word which he knew did not exist. Again this critic says, “Denying to another (Anglo-Saxon) a word that does (foster).” The expression is confused, but he evidently means that “foster” _is_ found in Anglo-Saxon. In the text of my treatise I say, “Neither can there be any doubt as to the Northern derivation of the word _foster_.” To this I append a footnote taken from the _Quarterly Review_, vol. 139 (1875), p. 449. “The word _foster_ is not found in Anglo-Saxon, Moeso-Gothic, or German,” and at the same time indicate the source whence my information is derived. I accepted the statement on the faith of the writer. If it does occur, it only shows how little dependence can be placed on facts adduced by literary critics even in connection with such responsible publications as the _Quarterly Review_. Another evidence of disqualification as “a writer on Archæological matters,” is that the word _Celte_ cited from the Vulgate was shown long ago by Mr. Knight Watson to be a misprint for _Certe_. The critic must indeed have been much at a loss for a peg on