Professor Leo, of Halle, has called attention to a remarkable resemblance between the names of certain places in Kent, and settlements of the Alamanni upon the Neckar. A few of these, it must be admitted, are striking, but the majority are only such as might be expected to arise from similarities of surface and natural features in any two countries settled by cognate populations, having nearly the same language, religious rites and civil institutions. Even if the fact be admitted in the fullest extent, it is still unnecessary to adopt Dr. Leo’s hypothesis, that the coincidence is due to a double migration from the shores of the Elbe. Rectitud. sing. person. pp. 100-104. It has been already stated that Constantius was accompanied to Britain by an Alamannic king; and I cannot doubt that under Valentinian, a force of Alamanni served in this country. Ammianus says: “Valentinianus ... in Macriani locum, Bucinobantibus, quae contra Moguntiacum gens est Alamanna, regem Fraomarium ordinavit: quem paullo postea, quoniam recens excursus eundem penitus vastaverat pagum, in Britannos translatum potestate tribuni, Alamannorum praefecerat numero, multitudine, viribusque ea tempestate florenti.” Hist. xxix. c. 4. The context renders it impossible that this “numerus Alamannorum” should have been anything but genuine Germans. Thus far the object of this rapid sketch has been to show the improbability of our earliest records being anything more than ill-understood and confused traditions, accepted without criticism by our first annalists, and to refute the opinion long entertained by our chroniclers, that the Germanic settlements in England really date from the middle of the fifth century. The results at which we have arrived are far from unimportant; indeed they seem to form the only possible basis upon which we can ground a consistent and intelligible account of the manner of the settlements themselves. And, be it remembered, that the evidence brought forward upon this point are the assertions of indifferent and impartial witnesses; statesmen, soldiers, men of letters and philosophers, who merely recorded events of which they had full means of becoming cognizant, with no object in general save that of stating facts appertaining to the history of their empire. Moreover, the accounts they give are probable in themselves and perfectly consistent with other well-ascertained facts of Roman history. Can the same praise be awarded to our own meagre national traditions, or to the fuller, detailed, but palpably uncritical assertions of our conquered neighbours? I confess that the more I examine this question, the more completely I am convinced that the received accounts of our migrations, our subsequent fortunes, and ultimate settlement, are devoid of historical truth in every detail.