Certain conclusions, however, occur to us with reference to the whole history, up to the period of the Saxon invasion.

I. It is apparent that in their religious belief, and generally in their practice, the British Church agreed with the prevalent feeling and principles of the Church generally. They were not heretical, or in any respect peculiar, but were recognised as a part of the one great Christian body extended throughout the world. The faith, as described by Irenæus, Tertullian, and the other ante-Nicene Fathers, was theirs. In the Arian controversy they. took the orthodox side. The same result followed in the Pelagian controversies. There are indications in Gildas that they also shared the prevalent feeling as regarded martyrs and their remains; and their adoption of the early discipline in regard to widows, testified by Fastidius, and their acceptance of the monastic institute, introduced into the West by Martin, Bishop of Tours, are indications of their general tone of mind. Their hierarchy was exactly like that of the rest of Christendom, consisting of three orders.

As regards the Papal Supremacy, we find nothing of the kind here, or in other western countries beyond Italy. The extensive jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome (over the suburbicarian provinces) is indeed alluded to by the Synod of Arles, at which British Bishops were present. The Bishop of Rome was given certain powers of causing causes to be reheard by the Synod of Sardica in 347; and the Bishops of Britain seem to have been there also; but there was no recognition of a Papal Supremacy in this-it was merely conferring on the bishop of the imperial city certain privileges which he did not before possess; nor was this Canon acted on. In 378 the temporal sovereign enacted a law by which all bishops were made liable to be tried by the Bishop of Rome, and Britain, of course, was included amongst the rest; but this law was not acted upon, as is evident from the history of the African Church in the next century. The first interference in the affairs of the British Church by the Bishops of Rome was in the time of the Pelagian controversy, when Celestine is said to have commissioned Germanus and Lupus, Gallican bishops, to visit Britain. The authorities are rather various on this point, some ascribing the mission to the Synod of Gallican bishops; but it does not seem improbable that Celestine may have interfered, because he and his predecessor Zosimus had induced the Bishops of Arles to accept the delegation of authority from the See of Rome, and had thus made the first step towards universal jurisdiction. There is nothing whatever inconsistent with the spirit of the fifth century in the supposition that Germanus was sent with the authority of the See of

Rome into Britain. It was at this period that Zosimus endeavoured to extend his jurisdiction to Africa, alleging in its support the Canon of Sardica, which he represented as a Canon of the Synod of Nice. On the detection of his deceit, the African Bishops, headed by St. Augustine, passed Canons prohibiting any such jurisdiction as that claimed by Zosimus under penalty of excommunication. In Gaul, however, the Bishops of Arles accepted in this century the delegation of powers from the See of Rome; and it is very possible therefore, that a Gallican bishop going to Britain to meet a rising heresy, might have been authorized by the See of Rome as well as by the Gallican synod of bishops. Probably, if the Roman dominion had continued in Britain, or if Christianity had remained settled there, the Popes would have endeavoured to appoint a Vicar here as they did in Gaul, and Spain, and Illyricum; and very possibly they might have succeeded in the attempt, and a commencement might thus have been made of ordinary jurisdiction.

We apprehend that it would be difficult to prove that the British Church was in any material point different from the rest of the Western Church in the time of Gregory the Great. Its customs were certainly different in various points from those of Rome; and there are many reasons for thinking that they were derived from those of the old Gallican Church, with which the Britons were connected by immediate vicinity, by a common language, and by a common derivation, the Celtic race prevailing in each of the two countries previously to the invasion of the Saxons and the Franks.

The people of Wales and the Bretons form the remains of that people who once overspread the greater part of Britain and Gaul -relics of the aboriginal population of the West. There is a deep interest attaching to all that concerns the history of that most ancient race; but its national dignity stands in no need of fable and exaggeration to enhance it. A race whose forefathers stood in heroic opposition to the Roman legions-to the eagles of the Cæsars-may be permitted to indulge in those feelings of national pride in which Welshmen, to do them justice, are rarely deficient; but the fables of Geoffry of Monmouth, or the inventions of the Bards, only tend to invite criticism, and by their extravagance, to diminish the respect due to the far-descended race of the CYMRY.

ART. II.-History of the War of the Sicilian Vespers. By MICHELE AMARI. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by the EARL OF ELLESMERE. 3 vols. London: Bentley. 1850. LATE events have given a peculiar and painful interest to Sicily and her people and yet, perhaps, we are wrong, in attributing any especial importance to the Sicilian question. For, without entering into the merits of the late struggle between the insurgents and their conquerors, we may safely assert that there is no spot on the face of the earth where a Bourbon has trodden, from the day of Hugh Capet's successful treason to the present time, without leaving his foot-prints of blood; and that there is no people or potentate under heaven that has not sufficient reason and just cause to dread the very name of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs; always, of course, excepting the Emperor of Russia and the Pope of Rome. These worthies, the one from his political, the other from his religious antagonism, to the best and truest interests of our country, have found a constant and useful auxiliary in the foreign minister of the Queen of England.

66

Leaving, however, this august trio to that consideration which they deserve and receive at the hands of every true-hearted Englishman, let us proceed to the examination of the very exciting volumes before us. We had, at first, used the epithet interesting" but, on second thoughts, have felt compelled to substitute the phrase which we have adopted. For though there is much of stirring event and striking incident in this work, and though it contains a masterly narrative of an important war, abounding with many caustic remarks and eloquent passages, there is a decided want of interest, properly so called. And this arises not from any fault in the writer, though in the warmth of his Sicilian provincialism and southern enthusiasm he is sometimes rather carried away by his feelings, but from an essential defect in his subject. Almost all the persons who play a conspicuous part in the drama are so atrociously wicked, or so ineffably childish, that we can feel no sympathy either with their success or their defeat. Thus all the sovereigns, with scarcely an exception, are avaricious and cruel, monsters of tyranny and perfidy, whilst the patriots for the most part are worthy disciples of their royal instructors.

The insurrection and massacre, properly known as that of the Sicilian Vespers, awakens in our mind little else but horror and disgust, which is in no way removed by the atrocious tyranny that preceded and provoked it.

The character of Peter of Arragon: his duplicity, his barbarity, his ingratitude, is not in our opinion rendered worthy of admiration by his courage, his perseverance, and his policy.

His son James is an embodiment of perfidy. And his brother Frederick far too wanting in constancy of purpose, or consistency of principle, to win our respect.

The Angevin monarch, Charles the First of Naples, combines that selfishness and superstition, which so frequently characterise his family—a family, the animus of which finds its truest exponents in the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the pollution of the Palatinate.

But in darkest colours, a darkness that may be felt, though lurid with flame and crimson with blood, stand out the Roman Pontiffs and their emissaries.

The work, however, has its many powerful lessons, lessons which the present age may profit from, if it is so inclined; some of which we shall slightly indicate in the cursory notice which we are able to bestow upon it:

"After its occupation by Charlemagne," says Mr. Amari, "and the Othos, the greater part of Italy had remained subject to the feudal supremacy of the Emperors of the West; but these mighty men gave place to feeble successors; the turbulence of the great feudatories distracted the empire; and the German dominion soon became, at best, merely nominal on this side of the Alps. Meanwhile, the Church increased in power, and with the scriptural doctrines of liberty and equality, encouraged the Italians to throw off the yoke. Industry, commerce, science, and literature sprang up anew in Italy, to change the destinies of the world. Fostered by them, from the confused multitude of serfs, vassals, and lesser nobles, arose a new order-the people, sole basis of equal rights and civil freedom. Hence, when the feudal system changed into feudal anarchy, the latter, encountering this new order, gave rise, in the eleventh century, to the mercantile republics."-Vol. i. p. 17.

"Sicily, and the peninsula south of the Garigliano, though differing little from the rest of Italy in race, language, traditions, and manners, were subjected to a different form of government. While in the rest of Europe, the Northern races, losing the virtues of barbarism retained only its vices, Sicily, like Spain, was under the dominion of the Saracens, who, if not civilised, were enlightened, and full of the activity and energy of a recently regenerated people. The mainland province now invaded by the barbarians, now reconquered by the Greek Em

perors, split itself into a multitude of states, under various polities. Some of them were adopting the forms of the rising Italian republics, when a handful of Norman adventurers, summoned as defenders, made themselves masters of the soil, and established the feudal system. Crossing into Sicily, toward the close of the eleventh century, they drove out the Saracens, who were odious to the natives as foreign rulers differing from them in race and religion, and founded there a new principality. They were the first to introduce feudality, which, as it was already beginning to decline in the rest of Europe, here arose in a more equitable and milder form, being further modified by the virtues and ability of Roger, the leader of the conquerors, by the influence of the great cities, by the powers grasped by the Church on the head of Christian virtues, by the amount of allodial lands, by the wealth and number of the Saracens, subdued rather than exterminated, and even by that of the Christian inhabitants of Sicily. Thus Count Roger, as ruler of a free people, rather than chief of a turbulent baronage, and invested with the authority of pontifical legate (which is, even to the present day, an inherent privilege of the Sicilian crown), governed his new state firmly and orderly. It was raised to the rank of a kingdom by the second Roger, son of the count, who, by combined force and policy, wrested Apulia and Calabria from the other Norman princes, and then gallantly defended them with Sicilian arms against the barons, who there enjoyed greater powers, the Emperor and the Pope. Upon this he was hailed by the parliament, King of Sicily, Duke of Apulia and Calabria, and Prince of Capua; and at length, either of favour or necessity, recognised by the Pope. He centred the power of the magistracy in the crown, restrained the barons, established wise internal regulations, revived industry, and employed his arms with success beyond the limits of his kingdom.

"The newly-founded Sicilian monarchy had two opposing powers to contend with; these were the baronage (which, although not sufficiently powerful to set at nought the regal authority, was yet daring enough to provoke it), and the court of Rome. The latter involved our princes in the contests of Italy, now calling them to her aid, and now laying claim to their provinces, and openly combating them. Nevertheless the monarchy, based on a firm foundation, resisted these assaults from within and from without, strengthened itself by improved laws under the reign of the second William, and might, perhaps, after a long period of neutrality, have raised a true national standard in Italy, subdued the Emperor and the Pope, and occupied and protected the whole country to the foot of the Alps, had it not passed, by marriage, from the Norman line to the House of Suabia, which at that time wielded the sceptre of the empire."—Vol. i. pp. 21-24.

Then followed the long and deadly contest between the Popedom and the House of Suabia, which ended in the entire annihilation of the latter. At the death of the great Emperor, Frederick II., the reigning Pope, Innocent IV., redoubled his efforts