Which inscription, I am of opinion ought to be read as follows, viz. "Justinianus, Pater Patriæ, Vindelicianus, Mauritanus, Africanus, Sarmaticus, Britannicus, Imperator excellentissimus Romanorum, quater Prætor, Maritimum Castrum effecit, ad navigantium opus *." Which

may be thus englished, "Justinian, the Father of his country, the Conqueror of the Vandals, Moors, Africans, Sarmatians, and Britons, the most excellent Emperor of the Romans, four times Prætor, built this Maritime Castle for the use of navigation."

"This stone seems to have been the foundation-stone of a Fort, or Castle, built during the reign of the Emperor Justinian, for the protection of the sea-coast (here in Yorkshire) and by it's situation on a promontory, or head-land, which may be seen at a great distance, seems also to have been intended for a watch-tower, or light-house, to direct ships at sea to steer a proper course, either for that place, for Flamborough-Head, or for Whitby harbour. It has also been built on a square plat of ground, each side thereof extending about thirty yards in length; and probably continued standing there on the coast till the arrival of Hungar and Hubba, who demolished it, that it might be no impediment to them afterward on the march to the interior of Britain. Whether the model thereof might be taken from the watch-tower at Streanshalh, or that at Streanshalh was really taken from this, seems difficult now

* Mr. Charlton in his preface observes, "As to the reading in the last line of the inscription, it seems not so certain I was formerly of opinion it denoted the intention for which this Castle was erected, and ought to be read ad navigantium opus; but upon a closer examination of the stone, I am inclined to think the second letter in this line is G, and that the reading ought to be A. G. omnibus, where the two letters stand for the name of the General who acted under Justinian, here in Britain, and by whose direction this maritime castle was built for the protection of the coast."

C

to determine; for notwithstanding what I have observed in another place, it is possible they might both be the work of the Romans.".

"And here I cannot help animadverting on the great mistake that all our historians have fallen into, who sup pose, with Gilda and Bede, that the Romans entirely quitted Britain, never more to return, about the year 426, or 427; seeing this stone and castle plainly prove that they were there above a hundred years after that period, viz. in the reign of the Emperor Justinian, who held the Empire from the year 527, till the year 566. We will indeed readily allow that, before the arrival of the Saxons, the Romans withdrew all their forces out of Britain. But no sooner did Justinian assume the reigns of government, than, by means of Belisarius, Narses, and his other victorious Generals, he extended the Roman Empire to its ancient limits, and even took in Britain, as this stone demonstrably makes it appear. Nay farther, if we allow B in the foregoing inscription, to stand for Britannicus, we must own him to have been master of the whole island, and that both the Britons and Saxons were his vassals."

"This Castle on Ravenhill seems to have been built in, or soon after, the year 534; for in that year, it is certain, Justinian was the fourth time Consul, and most probably Prætor also, since these two dignities had then for many ages been almost always united together at Rome."

The conclusion, which Mr. Charlton has drawn from his explanation of the inscription, certainly militates against the authority of the generality of historians, respecting the period when the Romans finally abandoned Britain; and how far he has succeeded in correctly decyphering the characters, must be left to the Antiquarian Society, in whose possession the stone is said now to be. It was in the hands of the late Francis Gibson Esq., F. A. S. of Whitby, previously to his death.

SECTION SECOND.

INCURSIONS OF THE SAXONS AND DANES.

THE ROMANS were in possession of Britain upward of four centuries; but such are the revolutions of the world, that these mighty conquerors, who had subdued so many nations, and grasped at universal dominion, were reduced to the humiliating condition of seeing their own Empire subverted by hordes of fierce barbarians. About the year of Christ 446, they left this island, being five hundred and one years after their first descent, and four hundred and three after their settlement in

the country.

The Britons, deserted by their protectors, and enfeebled by a long subjugation, had neither the skill nor the courage to resist the incursions of the Caledonians, who broke down the wall erected by Severus, and subdued and wasted this northern part of the country, even to the banks of the Humber. In a moment of extreme despair, they invited over the Saxons, and by their assistance defeated the Caledonians; but this eventually became fatal to the independence of Britain. The Saxons, allured by the fertile plains of this country, had no desire to return to their own shores, and, having received considerable reinforcements, they bent their arms against the natives, and prosecuted their conquest with a ferocious spirit.

In the year 547, IDA, a Saxon Prince, attended with a numerous multitude of his countrymen, landed at FLAM

COAST.

BOROUGH-HEAD, and desolated all the neighbouring SEA He extended his conquests to the North, and having subdued the country now called Northumberland, the Bishopric of Durham, and the south-east part of Scotland, assumed the title of King of Bernicia.

ELLA, another Saxon Prince, about the same time quered Lancashire, and the greatest part of Yorkshire received the appellation of King of Deira. The Tees was the boundary between these two kingdoms, Bernicia being situated on the north, and Deira on the south.

The Saxons, about the year 550, had subjugated the whole of South Britain, with the exception of Wales, which they divided into seven kingdoms, called the Heptarchy. The ancient inhabitants were most of them expelled, and obliged to take refuge in the mountains of Wales, while the few who remained at the mercy of the conquerors, were reduced to the most abject servitude. The Saxon government, laws, manners, and language, were introduced, and so perfectly established, that all memory of the previous institutions was abolished, and a new order of affairs took place.

The historian, Gildas*, has depicted the character of our ancestors, at this period, in the darkest shades. Sensuality, effeminacy, and selfishness, corrupted and enervated the people, extinguished the love of country, and all the noble energies of the mind. The fierce contentions of rival Chiefs for power and dominion, and the turbulence of faction, under the specious appearance of patriotism, burst asunder the sacred bonds of national union.Britons armed against Britons fought with relentless

* Gildas Britannicus, surnamed The Wise, was the first of our English historians. He was born in the year 493, and died in 580.

fury, and thus became a devoted prey to the common

enemy.

Upon the corruption and disunion of the Britons, the ultimate success of the Saxons was grounded; and the same causes, in the order of Divine Providence, must produce he same effects in every age of degeneracy.

The Saxons were extremely partial to the Roman undations in Britain, to which, when they occupied them, they gave the appellation of Burgh, signifying, in the primitive and most limited sense, a tything, or a company of ten families of freemen, combined together as each others' pledges or security. But, as Castles and other fortifications were built for the defence of towns, the term Burgh then signified a fortified place. These Burghs were of royal creation, defended with walls or castles, inhabited by mechanics, tradesmen, and merchants, and enjoyed many privileges. The burgesses elected their own magistrates, and transacted public business in their genéral meeting, which was called a Burgmote. These privileges, and the exclusive enjoyment of markets and fairs, distinguished them from the villages, which were solely inhabited by persons employed in husbandry. After the Norman conquest, some alterations were made in them; but still the Burghs retained many of their former im munities.

Scearburg*, the most ancient name of Scarborough, is also of Saxon origin, Scear signifying a rock, and Burgh a

* Scearburg signifies, according to Camden, Burgus in præruptá rupe, sa Burgh upon a craggy rock. According to Somner, it is Urbs vel Arx in acuta, vel acuminatâ rupe sita, ut apud Brabantos Scharpenberg, į. e. Mons acutus; a city, walled town, or fort or castle upon a point, or situated upon a pointed rock, as among the Brabanters Scharpenberg, that is a sharp or pointed hill. Scary also signifies Collis petrosis et asper, a rocky and rugged hill.

Skinner's Dictionary. Art. Scarborough,