colonies towards every thing like a forced improvement in the condition of their slaves, or what they will term every interference between a man and his property, '-afford by far the most irresistible argument for refusing to trust them with the adoption of such a measure. And we shall close this article, by suggesting to those who may be called upon, in their official and public capacities, to consider the question, the topics of clamour and artifice by which they are likely to be assailed, and we will venture to predict, nearly in the same words in which they will be conveyed.

First, They will be told not to stir so delicate a question as that which lost us our North American colonies.' If by delicate, is meant nice, as a question of law, we have showed that it is one of the plainest which can be mooted; and that it is not the question which lost us America. But if a threat of following the example of America be meant, that is, rebelling;-then the answer is, that what was boldness in the one case would be impudence in the other; and that England must be reduced very low indeed, before she can feel greatly alarmed at a Carribbee Island, like Lord Grizel in Tom Thumb, exclaiming, ''Sdeath, I'll be a rebel.'

Next it will be said, What! interfere between a man and his own property-between the master and his slave?' To which the answer is obvious,-that it is exactly because man is the property of man-because the question is between a master and his own slave-that interference becomes necessary; but that the proposed interposition is moderate, systematic, and far from being minute and oppressive, differing signally from the attempts at interference made by the wisdom of colonial legislation-which were indeed mere pretexts, and in their nature incapable of being enforced, such as restricting the number of Jashes to be inflicted at one time. But as long as half a million of our fellow creatures are the property of a thousand or two, it becomes us to use all lawful means which are likely to be effectual in preventing a power so awfully liable to be abused, from working the degradation, the misery and the destruction of such a multitude of unoffending human beings.

Lastly, we shall be desired to leave those matters of internal regulation in the hands of the colonial legislators, whose interests must prompt, as their knowledge will enable them, to deal more successfully with a subject so complicated in its details. To which many answers at once present themselves. All this was said against the Abolition; and had it been listened to, in all certainty the abolition would never more have been heard of. And in order to teach us how far reliance can be

placed upon the course pointed out by colonial interests,' and local knowledge, we have only to read the statute books of the most accomplished, experienced, and enlightened of the islands of Jamaica, prohibiting the negroes from being taught; -of Barbadoes, punishing with a fine of 117. 14s. their coldblooded murder.

For these reasons, we can have no hesitation in anxiously exhorting all the friends of the Abolition, and the enemies of injustice and oppression, by what names soever they may be called, to rally round the measure brought forward at the close of the last session by Mr Wilberforce, after Mr Stephen, its learned and ingenious author, had retired from public life ;-retired, as we are well assured, upon grounds connected with that measure. We have too often had occasion to differ widely with both those eminent individuals upon political questions, especially with the latter, to leave any doubt in the mind of the reader that the feeble tribute which has here been bestowed, is extorted by the conduct of the men and the merits of the measure, without any personal or party feeling. But we might have been liable to the imputation of both, had we stifled the expression of sentiments so unavoidably called forth upon the present occasion, by that important subject which has now occupied these pages for thirteen years of various publick fortune-and which alone, perhaps, of all political topics, has afforded a point of union for the wise and the good of every class,-alone, in the mighty fluctuations of human affairs, has displayed a ground where men might conscientiously hold the same straight forward course, without being inconsistent. *

* The attacks which have recently been made upon the African Institution and some of its active members, particularly upon a gentleman to whose distinguished merits we have frequently borne our feeble testimony, the late Secretary, Mr Macaulay, would certainly have claimed our attention, had we been able to discuss in this Number the Annual Report. The defence, however, both of the Association and the individual, is fully before the publick; and as nothing can be conceived more satisfactory, the result has been so universal a conviction of the charges being entirely groundless, that we deem it unnecessary to do more than unite ours with the voice of all impartial persons who have bestowed any attention upon the subject.

ART. III.

OF

The Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church. By the Rev. JOHN LINGARD. Second Edition.

F all the virtues of an historian, impartiality is the most rare. Contemporary authors are exposed to bias by their enmities or their affections; and, among general historians, we meet with none who are entirely exempt from national partiality, or completely divested of the deep-rooted prejudices communicated by sect or party. Even the candid temper and philosophic mind of Hume were not proof against the influence of those passions. It would be unreasonable, then, to expect that a Catholic clergyman, zealously attached to his communion, should be able to write, with impartiality, the history of a pe riod obscured and perplexed by the controversies of Catholic and Protestant.

Let us do justice, however, to Mr Lingard. His work is the fruit of great labour and research. He has frequently detected, and exposed with success, though not without asperity, the errors of Protestant historians; and if he has sometimes treated his adversaries with flippant and offensive petulance, he has on many occasions pointed out and corrected their misrepresentations and mistakes. We find no fault with the opinions, expressed with freedom and supported with learning, which he has advanced and defended in his history. His subject naturally led him to topics of discussion between Catholic and Protestant; and we cannot blame him for espousing the interests, and maintaining the doctrines, of his own church. The usefulness of confession, the merits of penance, and the advantages of absolution, we leave him to settle with our divines. We cannot say we feel much interest or curiosity about the form of words, in which our barbarous ancestors chose to clothe their ignorance of the mystery of transubstantiation; but we can understand that Mr Lingard annexes importance to such inquiries. We can excuse his admiration of monks, and listen with patience to his eulogies of celibacy. We neither believe in the miracles, nor can give our implicit assent to the virtues and merits of his saints and confessors; but we agree with him in reprobating the rash and illiberal censures of modern historians, who stigmatize them in a body as a collection of knaves and hypocrites. To the clergy of the dark ages, Europe owes much of her civilization, her learning, and her liberty. But thongh we admire the warmth with which Mr Lingard vindicates the character of these men from unjust aspersions and indiscriminate abuse, we

cannot approve of the artifices he not unfrequently condescends to employ, in order to palliate their faults, or throw a veil over their crimes. Where it serves his purposes of vindication, we find him suppressing or perverting the evidence of our ancient historians, and giving a false and partial colouring to the transactions which they relate. By dealing thus uncandidly with his readers, we fear he has excluded his work, which, in its general character is learned and liberal, from the place it would otherwise have justly merited among the best and most valuable of our modern histories. The instances we are going to adduce of this unfair and disingenuous conduct in Mr Lingard, relate, in general, to points of no great importance in themselves, but they show the spirit in which his book is written, and enable us to judge of the credit due to his conclusions, and of the confidence with which we may rely on his work as a safe and sure guide to historical truth.

The story of Edwy and Elgiva has been told by Hume with his usual felicity of narration; and no one, we will venture to say, has ever perused the history of their misfortunes, in the pages of that inimitable writer, without being inflamed with indignation against the rude violence of Dunstan, and the savage ferocity of Odo. We must confess that Mr Lingard has somewhat dispelled the charm. After the minute investigation he has bestowed on the subject, little remains of the romantic story of Edwy and Elgiva that is deserving of credit. The lady banished to Ireland by Archbishop Odo, and murdered on her return from exile, was the mistress, not the wife of Edwy. Of this fact we can bring evidence more direct and conclusive than that produced by Mr Lingard. In the history of St Oswald by Eadmer, there is the following decisive passage, which seems to have eluded the researches of Mr Lingard, as it had escaped the notice of all our former historians. Edwius, qui quartus a • præfato Æthelstano regni Anglorum sceptra tenebat, volup tatum amator magis quam dei, luxuriæ quam sobrietatis, libidinum quam castitatis, regiam dignitatem obscœnis operibus dehonestabat; ac viros virtutum parvipendens, contra æquum exasperabat. Unde beatus Dunstanus tunc temporis Abbas Glastoniensis, co quod ad suggestionem et imperium sæpe fati Odonis ipsum regem illicitis amplexibus violenter abstraxit, e patria pulsus est; et demum innumera per Angliam mala ab eodem rege patrata. Contra quem Odo armatura Spiritus Sancti præcinctus exurgens, iniquitatum illius publicus hostis effectus est; nec destitit, donec sopitis incestibus reguum ab infandæ mulieris infamia, cui rex idem omissa conjuge sua sæpius commiscebatur, expurgaret. Eam siqui

• dem suorum militum manu vallatus, a regali curia in qua

mansitabat vi abduxit, abductam perpetuo exilio in Hibernia ⚫ condemnavit. ' * It is true then, as Mr Lingard contends, that it was not the young aud innocent queen of Edwy who was banished to Ireland, but an unworthy rival, that resided publickly in the palace with her husband, and shared openly in his bed. But though the discovery of this fact materially alters the general complexion of the story, it is not the less true that Archbishop Odo was guilty of outrageous violence in breaking into the palace with his band of ruffians; and after he got possession of his prey, it is not the less certain, that he committed a wanton and unfeeling act of cruelty on her person, by disfiguring and branding her face with a red-hot iron, before he dismissed her to her place of exile. What course has Mr Lingard taken to vindicate the Archbishop from this charge of outrage, aggravated by cruelty?

He has told us, in the first place, that the great council of the nation had attempted in vain to interrupt the commerce of this woman with the king suspendii comminatione;' though he knew, that this menace proceeded not from the Witenagemote, or from any other judicial tribunal, but from the riotous and drunken party of prelates and nobles, whom the king left at table, when he retired to his private apartment after his coronation dinner. + And, in the next place, he would persuade us, that, in breaking into the palace, and in branding and banishing this unfortunate woman, the Archbishop was merely the executioner of a judicial sentence pronounced by an assembly of the nobility and clergy, in which that prelate had presided, in the absence of the king; though he had before him the life of Odo by Eadmer, in which it is expressly stated, that, • Pontificali authoritate usus (i. e. Odo) unam de præscriptis mulieribus, missis militibus a curia regis, in qua mansitabat, violenter adduxit; et eam in facie deturpatam ac candenti ⚫ ferro denotatam perpetua in Hiberniam exilii relegatione detrusit.' We are here distinctly told, that it was by his pontifical authority that Odo acted, and therefore not in his capacity of president of the Witenagemote.

The unfortunate woman, banished in this manner to Ireland, having ventured at a subsequent period to return to England, the retainers of the Archbishop intercepted her at Gloucester; and, to render her further escape impossible, they had the cruelty to divide the nerves and sinews of her legs, and to leave her

* Anglia Sacra, t. ii. p. 192.

† Anglia Sacra, t. ii. p. 105.

+ Ib. p. 84.