There is a passage in one of the Frankish annals which has not received the attention which it deserves, and which I believe throws a great deal of light on the history of the Danish revolutions of the early part of the ninth century. This chronicle was written in verse by a Low Saxon monk some time during the reign of Arnulph, who died in 899. Under the year 807 we read that a Norman chief named Alfdeni, accompanied by a great following, submitted to Charlemagne, and made a perpetual pact with him (Pertz, 1, 263). This notice I consider is very important. It is quite clear, from what we know of Norse modes of thought and habits, that this was no plebeian, but some distinguished chief. It is further clear that no Danish chief would put his head under the yoke of the Frank empire except under compulsion. That such a one should have willingly and freely subjected himself to the mighty Kaizer Charles is incredible; nor, again, is it to be supposed that a statement like this, in which an uncommon name is mentioned by the Saxon poet, was an invention of his own. The only alternative that remains is the view I would urge, namely, that he was a fugitive and an outcast. If a fugitive, he was in all probability escaping from the dominant chief of Denmark at this time, namely, Godfred.

Events in the history of one nation frequently bear a striking similarity to events in that of another. But along with the points of similarity, there are usually in such cases points of contrast also, which make the comparison more interesting than if the similarity had been complete. The life of Thomas à Becket, first the friend and chancellor, then Archbishop of Canterbury and the unyielding opponent of our Henry II., and his violent death before the altar of his cathedral, form one of the most remarkable episodes both in English history and in the history of the long struggle between the so-called temporal and spiritual powers, which is still continuing at the present day. Very singular, also and interesting are both the points of similarity and the points of contrast presented by the life of John of Jenstein, Archbishop of Prague, towards the end of the fourteenth century, and his struggle with Wenceslas IV., King of Bohemia and King of the Romans, as compared with the life of Becket, and his contest with Henry II. of England.

In the sixteenth century England had not become Empress of the ocean; but the enterprising spirit which mainly contributed to her pre-eminence had induced her even then to compete with Spain, Portugal, and Genoa, for the sovereignty of the seas.

A favourite project of English navigators was the discovery of a direct passage through the polar seas to Cathay and India. They imagined that this passage could be found by ships sailing from English ports in a north-easterly direction. This theory being supported by the renowned navigator Sebastian Cabot, a company was registered in England under the title of “Merchants A dventurers for the Discoverie of Lands, Territories, and Seignories Unknown.” Each member was to subscribe not less than twenty-five pounds, and the company in a short time raised a capital of £6,000. The majority were swayed by the hope of gain; but there were some who desired to solve an interesting problem, and to advance the commercial interests of their country; among these were the Marquis of Winchester, the Earls of Arundel, Bedford, and Pembroke, and Lord Howard of Emngham.

The principal component elements in the progressive struggle of the historical development of Idealism and Realism were, “Hellenism ” on the one side, and a misunderstood “Christianity” on the other. Hellenism, in spite of its Platonic idealism, still represented the embodiment of the forces of nature, while Christianity strove for the spiritualization and “disembodiment” of all phenomena, and of man himself. This tendency, which took its origin in the ascetics of India and the mystic priests of Egypt, produced that grand and mighty phenomenon of monasticism, the aim of which was to retire from the world, and to attain a state of conscious blissfulness in this life. Monks were said to be able to dispense with food, to float in the air, to have intercourse with angels and sometimes also with demons, to see with bodily eyes the glories of the saints, to pierce the future, and to lead an incorporeal life in spite of their living bodies. An EgyptoBuddhistic Platonism began to sway the minds of Christian believers, and they thronged in tens of thousands to people deserts and woods, mountains and sea-shores, with anchorets, pillar saints, coenobites, and hermits. Humanity was apparently altogether absorbed in a spiritualized stoicism, applying Epicurus's principles to an ascetic life, finding joy, contentment.

Free Thought may be defined as an independent act of the understanding: it corresponds with the French expression, liberté d'esprit. A power of concentrated attention is necessary in processes of reasoning, and forms the foundation of a free and accurate discriminating judgment. The late Dr. Carpenter, in his “Mental Philosophy,” remarks that “in all the leading objects of intellectual occupation, the abstractive power is brought continually into exercise, and hence one advantage of the pursuits of literature, and still more of science.” Copernicus was described by Kepler as a man liber aninto, free in thought, and on account of his unbiassed mind he was regarded as well qualified to undertake the difficult task of preparing an approximately correct diagram of the solar system.

The old legal dictum, that Christianity is “part and parcel of the law of the land,” had a more definite meaning in the days of Blackstone than now; and the somewhat popular saying, that “religion is an affair between a man and his God,” considerably modifies the fact every day, not only in England, but in all Europe. Christianity, of course, has not been interwoven with the laws of Western Christendom for so many ages without greatly moulding the men and the institutions of the present; but we can see that its influence will, in future, be felt less and less as a definite objective system, even if more and more (as we may trust) subjectively.

The Norman conquest, when William, Duke of Normandy, in the year 1066, landed in this country with a number of his chosen followers, and after killing King Harold in battle, and routing his army, established here the Norman sway, and introduced new laws and customs and manners, is one of those leading events in the history of this country by which the most important results upon its whole career, and more especially the cause of its civilization, were produced. True it is that the bulk of the people remained, and many of their institutions continued unchanged. But a great deal that was new was engrafted on the old. The native inhabitants were brought into immediate contact with the people of another country, who were not only more powerful than themselves, but who possessed different habits and pursuits and modes of thought, and who varied from them essentially in character and disposition; besides being used to a manner of living entirely varying from what they found here, and who were moreover determined, as the dominant power, to make changes in the government and institutions of the kingdom. Civilization was thus advanced by the coming in contact of the people of the two countries, and by the superior cultivation possessed by the Normans; and a very great stimulus was given to art, commerce, and national enterprise of every description. Hence, although I do not intend to give an account of the battles and political contests which occurred during their early career in this country, yet the Norman conquest is so intimately connected with, and had so important an influence on the habits, pursuits, and general condition of the people in this land, that it is absolutely necessary, in order correctly to become acquainted with the latter, to take a general survey of the former also.

I am not sure that I can say much respecting the Early Bills of Mortality, issued in thisand other countries, which may be regarded as entirely new. I shall endeavour that what I do say shall be entirely true; or where any doubt exists, I will endeavour to make the fact of its existence plain.

England, as we know, has taken its fair share in writing history, as the names of Gibbon and Grote among many others show. The history of the English has not, however, had the same care bestowed upon it, notwithstanding the work of such men as Kemble, Sharon Turner, Palgrave, Freeman, and others. What we commonly have is a history of this island of Britain beginning with Welsh and Belgians, and setting forth the landing and wars of the Romans Thus Earl Russell, the President of this Society, was right some years ago in saying that the history of the English themselves has yet to be written.

The notices which have appeared in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society of the accounts of God's house at Southampton, and other documents of a like nature, have led me to think that some accounts of the churchwardens' accounts preserved in the vestry of St. Michael's, Bath, might prove interesting to the members. Their existence was known only to a few, and as far as I am aware no accurate examination has ever yet been made of them, or if made, not published to the world. I became acquainted with them about a year ago, and gave a short account of their contents to the Bath Literary Club, in consequence of which the members determined to have them copied by a practised decipherer in the British Museum; and the Somerset Archæological Society has undertaken to print portions of them in their Transactions. As these, how-ever, will not circulate much beyond the county, and in many respects the documents in question differ a good deal from any already printed, as far as I have been able to ascertain, I think my paper this evening will not be regarded as a repetition of what is already known.

Queen Margaret of Logy, the second consort of King David de Bruys, has been hitherto considered, by all our historians I believe without exception, as the only Scottish queen whose filiation and family are unknown. Even the late Mr. Riddell, nothwithstanding his well-known legal acumen and profound antiquarian research, was unable to, do more than prove that Margaret was notthe daughter, but the widow of a Logie, although she had been hitherto designated the daughter of Sir John of Logy in all the histories of Scotland, both old and new, where her parentage is stated. The accurate Lord Hailes styles her merely “Margaret Logie,” while in his Appendix, showing the succession of the kings of Scotland, with their marriages, children, and time of their death, he writes—“2. Margaret, daughter of Sir John Logie, Knt, 1363. She survived her husband.” (Annals of Scotland, edit. 1797, vol. ii., pp. 284–5, 288–9, 375–6; III. Append., p. 115 seq.; and third edit., 1819, vol. ii., pp.314–5, 318–321, 460–1.)

In recent lectures delivered at Birmingham Mr. Froude referred to the strained relations existing between England and the colonies, and indicated the temporary nature of the present arrangement. The question, in his opinion, is one which if left to the course of events will settleitself by the colonies drifting further away; but that if this people deem the continued union of the empire worth struggling for, and prepare themselves to encounter and overcome difficulties, then might accrue advantage to Great Britain and benefit to all Englishspeaking people. To quote Doctor Parker Peps, the country ”must be called upon to make a vigorous effort in this instance; but if our interesting friend should not be able to make that effort successfully, then a crisis must arise.” But Mr. Froude apparently falls into a similar error to Sir Julius Vogel, who imports Will into a subject which is one of natural forces only and purely. An important section of the Liberal party cannot “design or favour ” the break-up of the empire, at their will; neither can Mr. Froude nor Mr. Forster, whatever their wishes may be, suggest a practical basis of permament legislative union. Lord Blachford, Mr. Goldwin Smith, and others may indicates the tendency of natural forces, may mark on a chart the course of the Gulf Stream; but who can resist those forces? If one dare to predict at all, the growth of nationality in our colonies and the capacity of the Anglo-Saxon race point to another and a more beneficent result than even the federation of the British Empire, namely, the union consequent upon a common interest, opinion, language, and sympathy, of the English-speaking people throughout the world.

It is with unaffected diffidence that I find myself occupying a chair once honoured by so illustrious an historian as Grote, and so recently adorned by a man so memorable in the history of this century as the late Earl Russell. Each of these eminent men had special qualifications for the post of President of the Royal Historical Society such as I cannot pretend to possess. Both were historians, and both had taken an active part in the political events of their times. If in Mr. Grote the historian predominated over the politician, he yet largely contributed to shape and propagate the political ideas which have since inspired the measures of the party to which he belonged. If the reputation of Earl Russell as a statesman obscures that which he acquired as the historian of the British Constitution, his life from first to last was devoted to historical studies, his writings and speeches teemed with illustrations drawn from history, and perhaps more than any statesman of his age he kept in view historical precedents i n every measure which he framed, and in every State paper which he wrote; while he fixed his gaze on history as his guiding star throughout his long voyage over the dark and troubled waters of political strife.

In making some researches into the migrations of the Norsemen in early times, I have been much struck with the apparent absence in the ordinary sources of information of anything which could resuscitate for us a picture of the condition of things in North Britain at the beginning of the ninth century, when the isles and coasts of Scotland were so terribly harried by the pirates. Recently the profound researches of Dr. Reeves and Mr. Skene, both of them worthy to rank among the greatest names in our historic literature, have accumulated a great mass of material, from which, and from other sources, it is possible to clothe with interest the somewhat dry bones of the early annalists, and I have thought that a careful survey of this seldom trodden field would be acceptable to the Fellows of the Royal Historical Society, and if they deem it worthy I hope to give in a second paper a similar picture of the Irish religious foundations, whose wealth and insecurity were the chief temptations to the rovers and buccaneers of the ninth century. In this paper I have gathered to a focus the information I have been able to meet with about the condition and surroundings of the Columban clergy, and described the doings of the pirates from the year 793, which I believe was the first occasion when they molested our shores, to the year 806, when “the family” or brotherhood of Iona, the mother monastery of the order, was burnt, and its inmates massacred and scattered.