an enemy become too powerful for an indolent and a disunited people.

The plenty and abundance afforded to the British people, was abused to the purposes of luxury and intemperance. Whether, as the effect of their vices, or from some inscrutable cause, they were visited with a most destructive pestilence: so that, to use the words of Gildas, the living were hardly able to bury the dead. In this deplorable condition, the rumour spread far and wide that their old enemies were preparing to invade the land, and to exterminate the inhabitants. The northern tribes had now signified their determination to obtain settlements in the more fertile regions of the south. In this emergency, the chiefs or nobles were convened to deliberate on the best measures requisite to be adopted for the public safety. Upon that memorable occasion, it is thought, they had recourse to the mode adopted by their ancestors, to delegate the public authority to one, who was to govern the kingdom, and head their armies. The person who was declared proper for so high and honourable a station was a prince, whom the Saxon annals call VORTIGERN, and the old British writers GWRTHEYRN, a Silurian chieftain, whose inheritance comprehended the territories of Erging and Ewias, on the banks of the Wye.

Vortigern soon proposed, or some of his counsellors advised that, in order to repel the ravages of the Picts and Scots, an alliance should be formed with the Saxons, known to be a brave people, and fit to assist them in the present exigency. The proposal was acceded to; and the consequence of it we shall consider in the ensuing chapter. Previous to that I shall offer some remarks on the chronology of the period which elapsed from the death of Maximus to the election of Vortigern.

Gildas has not attempted to assign any dates after the time of Maximus; he does not even notice the rise and fall of Constantine. Bede has supplied that deficiency: but a respected modern historian deems the chronology of Bede extremely erroneous. I shall mention here the dates assigned by various authors.

The first terrible devastation of the barbarous tribes, according to Gildas, was in consequence of the withdrawing of the forces to the continent, by Maximus. But Bede wrongly applies it to Constantine's usurpation: The second irruption of the barbarians does not appear to have been far distant from the first, as seems to be implied in the language of both Gildas and Bede. According to the latter, the third vastatio, or irruption, fell out A. D. 431.

According to Archbishop Usher, the first great irruption of the Picts and Scots, was A. D. 393. The second was A. D. 396; the third A. D. 431,

According to Camden, the dates are, the first under the reign of Honorius and Arcadius, and the administra tion of Stilicho; the second, sometime between A. D. 411 and 420. The third he considers to have happened after the space of sixteen years, or about A. D. 431.

According to Richard of Cirencester, the first irrup tion was A.M. 4396; the second, A. M. 4400; the third, A. M. 4446. The last date is represented to correspond with the twenty-third year of Theodosius, the younger; the three dates must, therefore, correspond with A. D. 393, 396, and 443; the two first of which accord with Usher:

Bishop Stillingfleet makes the first supplies to have been sent sometime between the death of Maximus, and the year 407; the second in the year 425; and the third in the year 443.

According to Mr. Turner, the first supplies under,

VOL. II:

Stilicho arrived A. D. 399, supposing the irruption of the barbarians to commence A. D. 388. The Roman legion he supposes to have departed A. D. 402. to assist A.D. against the Huns, in the battle of Pollentia; and it returned to quell the second great irruption in 405. The third irruption, according to the same author, was in 410.

It is not improbable that Gildas took his account of the three great devastations from traditions preserved in the form of Triads; and, therefore, he mentions three precisely; two of them falling out before the year 410, when the Romans abandoned Britain: but after that period, to the age of Vortigern, the provincial Britons were frequently harassed by the Highlanders falling upon the borders, and pushing forwards towards the south; one while for the sake of plunder, and another for the sake of conquest. The Hibernian Scots, crossing the channel, which Gildas calls Vallis Scythica, frequently infested the isle of Anglesea, and the shores of Arvon and Meirion; and at one time they formed settlements there, until expelled by the sons of Cunedda, who, having lost their own territory in the North, obtained fresh settlements by driving out the Gwydhelians, or Irish. But when a large colony of Scots settled on the north-western coast, and with the Caledonians, or Picts, combined their forces, and fell upon the country to the south of the Clyde, they poured in like an overwhelming torrent, not merely for the sake of plunder, and after obtaining that to retire to their native mountains, but with a purpose of settling in a more fertile clime, as well as to be revenged of the Britons of the south, whom they hated for their ancient connexion with the Romans, and for their religion.

That the Britons were not altogether so pusillanimous as we might infer from the dolorous account of Gildas,

is a conclusion grounded upon the national character in all ages. But that a civilized people should be startled at the approach of so fierce an enemy is not surprising, when we know that our more immediate ancestors of the last century were so terrified at the thought of the claymore, or broad-sword of the Scottish Highlanders. In some districts the people retained a portion of their ancient spirit: but in the towns and cities their habits were now rendered pacific; and they were disqualified for combating a ferocious enemy inured to hardship, and trained to slaughter.

If we can admit the position that the South-Britons, after the Roman force was withdrawn, prided themselves on their independence, instead of lamenting the departure of the Romans, as their protectors; then we can also believe that their energies were roused, and they were rendered capable of defending themselves against the Northern hordes: but I can see but very slight evidence of this being the case. It is true, after the Emperor Honorius withdrew the legionary force, the veterans remained some years after, and no doubt valiantly assisted the natives to repel the incursions of the barbarous tribes with some success. But when the veterans and principal Roman-British took their departure from the island, it would seem that the spirits of the Britons sunk at the thought of the ferocious habits of the Picts and Scots, and the Saxon pirates. As men that still clinged to the Romans for security, they therefore implored their succour, and appealed to the ancient connexion that subsisted between Rome and Britain.

Mr. Turner, although he professes his opinion that Britain never became subject to Rome after the year 410, yet seems to admit that application might have been made to the Romans for assistance from some particular districts: and we may indeed conceive that all the coun

try was not of the same sentiment, with respect to de pendence on Roman authority, and having recourse to Roman aid. Mr. Turner observes, "We can conceive that when the strength of the country was not directed to its protection, but was wasted in civil conflicts, the hostilities of the Picts and Scots may have met with some success; not opposed by the force of the whole island, but by the local power of the particular civitas, or district invaded, they may have defeated the opposition, and desolated the land of the northern borders, With equal success, from the same cause, the western regions of Britain may have been plundered by the Scots; and the southern, by the Saxons. Some of the maritime states, abandoned by their more powerful countrymen, may have sought the aid of Etius, as they afterwards accepted that of the Saxons: but we think the account of Gildas applicable only to particular districts, and not to the whole island."

But, without taking upon me to decide on any difference of opinion subsisting between our historians, on the history of this dark period, I shall only say that the account of Gildas, as it respects the state of Britain, may be considered, in the main, as a true statement, although strongly shaded with horror. As to the exact time that coincides with the three great devastations, described by him, it is not so material to determine questions that respect them. This we know, that the first refers evidently to the time of the usurpation of Maximus; and the last, with the application to Etius, could not be long before the invitation given to the Saxons. During the fifth century the Britons were at various periods greatly distressed by the depredations and ravages of their rude and savage neighbours, until reduced to the greatest extremity, which drove them to rash and precipitate counsels for a present relief.