Who then were the _Jutnacyn_, who lived in Hampshire, as opposed to those of Carisbrook in the Isle of Wight? I imagine, without pressing the point, or supposing that anything important depends on it, that they were the _Exules_ of Asser, the remnants who escaped from the exterminating swords of Stuf and Wihtgar, in their conquest of the island. That they existed in the time of Beda is true; not however as Danes from Jutland, but as Britons from the land of the _Wiht-ware_. I do not profess to say why there was the double form _Vit_, and _Jut_--nor should I have identified them myself. It is not I who have done this, but Beda and Alfred; as must be admitted by any one who cannot shew a difference between the _Wiht-ware_ and the _Jutna-cyn_--both authors deriving each from the _Jutes_. Neither can I say how _Jutland_ came to be called _Vit-land_; I can only say that the change is no _assumption_. In a document of A.D. 952 we find it so called--Dania Cismarina quam _Vitland_ appellant.--_See_ Zeuss in _v_. As stated above, all this falls to the ground if any separate substantive reasons for considering the _Wiht-ware_ to be _Jutlanders_ can be shewn. But such are wanting. If either they or the Jutnacyn of the opposite coast of Hants were Danes in the time of Alfred and Beda, where were the signs of their origin? Not in their language; since no mention is made of the Danish in Beda's list of British tongues. Not in the names of geographical localities. Neither -_ware_, nor -_burgh_, (in _Gwith -wara -burg_) are Danish terms. Where are such signs now? The Danish termination for towns and villages is -_by_. There is no such ending in either Hampshire or the Isle of Wight. Did Jutes rather than Angles or any other allied population effect the conquest and occupancy of Kent, as they are said to have done? It is only the Jute origin of the _Jutnacyn_ or _Wihtware_ of Hants that the preceding reasoning impugns. The Jute origin of the Cantware, or people of Kent, is a separate question. I only suspect error here: the reasons for doing so being partly of a positive, partly of a negative nature:-- 1. As far as traditions are worth anything, they make Hengist a _Frisian_ hero. 2. No name of any Kentish King is Danish. 3. No Danish forms for geographical localities occur in the county. That the Kentish population has certain peculiarities is highly probable; and it is also probable that similar peculiarities on the part of the population of Hants brought the two within the same category. And hence came the extension of the Jute hypothesis to the _Cantware_. _Were there Frisians in England?_--The presumption is in favour of the affirmative; since the Frisians were eminently the occupiers of the German sea-coast. Again-- 1. A native tradition makes Hengist a Frisian. 2. Procopius writes that "three numerous nations occupy Brittia--the Angili, the Phrissones, and the Britons."--B. G., iv. 20.