Читать книгу The Pan-Angles - Sinclair Kennedy - Страница 5

A GREAT civilization has spread over the earth. Many millions of people believe it the best that has yet appeared. In it the faiths and strivings of a strong race are expressed. History teaches that it will be assailed by rival civilizations. Must it fall and its people be led into the bondage of alien ways?

The date at which a civilization begins must always be unknown, so slowly and steadily do the contributing forces operate. The birth of even so definite an organization as a nation is a matter of opinion. The United States of America, for example, may be regarded as having come into being on July 4, 1776, or at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, or at the end of the French War in 1763, or on anyone of various other dates, according to the historical bias of the chronicler. But before records now legible to us were made, the Pan-Angles were long past their beginning stages.

Thousands of years ago Europe emerged from the {2} glacial ice. Off its western coast lay islands. The largest was close to the continent, and whatever peoples made their way into Europe had no great difficulty in crossing the narrow water. Migration must have followed migration, as continental tribes, more progressive than the islanders, came with superior weapons and skill to conquer and colonize. Bronze drove out flint and iron overcame bronze. Settlements of invaders assimilated with the subject natives and themselves became natives to the next foreign exploiter. The resulting people became known to the Romans as Britons. Rome's traders saw that the land was worth possessing.

In the middle of the first century A.D., Imperial Rome was in a mood for further expansion. It became necessary to intervene in the affairs of the northern island, touched already by Roman influence, but as yet independent of that power. In the island there were many princes and many governments adequate to the local demands, but no organization for concerted action against a powerful intruder. Within fifty years the task of pacification was largely accomplished. The southern two-thirds of the land then enjoyed the beneficent rule of Roman administrators. They governed Britain for its own good—as they saw it. They made it as much as possible like Rome. Baths and temples, roads and bridges, and a firm law brought Roman enlightenment to uncultured Britain. The Latin tongue was the official language. Many Romans of the military and civil services married native women. For more than two centuries Britain was thus a dependency of Rome, and many Britons were proud to belong to the {3} great empire. The rest of the island, to which this boon was never extended, was inhabited by barbarous hill tribes, who, even when Rome was strong, could protect themselves, and who at favourable opportunities made raids against the loyal Britons. The Romans had come to Britain to rule it, but had remained Romans, had taken their orders from colonial secretaries in Rome, had left their Roman wives and children at home—presumably because of the severity of Britain's climate—and after an honourable term of service had retired on half-pay, or something as good. Just how Rome profited by holding Britain is immaterial now, whether by tribute levied and collected directly, whether through extended opportunities for trade, or whether in the employment ("outdoor relief," a Canadian might put it [3–11]) of a large military and civil force, paid, if Britain were self-supporting, by Britain's taxes. Perhaps the knowledge of having discharged a duty, shirking not the burden of the strong, was the reward Rome really prized.

A change of rulers was, however, in store for them all—Briton and Roman alike. By 350 A.D. a huge amorphous rival had begun to overflow its Northern forest, a race of strong, eager men seeking more land. That their first attacks were toward Rome itself showed the empire's weakness. Rome's intentions toward outlying dependencies may have been of the best, but it was powerless to fulfil them. The navy, such as it was, was forced to concentrate in home waters; and the army, called to protect the heart of the empire, left empty the barracks of Britain.

{4}

Then, on the disorganized Britain, borne by the north-east wind, fell the invaders. With them came many of our most cherished virtues and a new epoch of governmental theory. The Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Norsemen came, not to superimpose themselves as rulers, but to colonize. They brought their families along. The climate suited them nicely. They wanted to live there and make the country their country. The fact that it was already inhabited formed only a temporary obstacle. As has happened repeatedly in history, those who came were strong; those they found were weak. The right of prior occupation was matched against the right to take by force. In time the natives had disappeared and the newcomers were settling and improving the land. There was no looking back to a mother country for orders or protection. Their fathers across the North Sea had evolved certain governmental ideas. These the migrating generations had carried with them and planted in the new soil. They proved adequate; and if any tie bound the lusty offspring to the ancestral home it could have been sentiment only—unencouraged by written and electric communication. The sentiment was short-lived.

Of these separate colonies there were as many as there were tribes, and as many tribes as there were shiploads. They all came from the great Teutonic stock that covered so much of north-western Europe. Five hundred years they spent trying conclusions among themselves, deciding what should be the language, the law, the name, they were to hand down to us. The people long remained without any name common to all; but in time {5} their country became known as England. Here were established the characteristics that have marked us ever since. The framework of the language was set; the greed for land was indulged; and the instinct for self-government, unable to evolve for its own security any system of central control, proved finally the undoing of all the jealous little autonomies. When a single-minded force threatened their cherished liberties, they were capable of no single-minded resistance. A neighbour across the channel thought he could make good use of England, proved his point one day when the wind blew favourably towards Hastings, and became England's master.

Then began a new governmental era, one having no parallel in our history since. The Saxon had been in most recent supremacy. Wealth and power passed from Saxon to Norman hands. Had the Duchy of Normandy been large enough to form the centre of its ruler's activities, England, like the Britain of the past, would have become a dependency of a foreign power. Two factors prevented: England, because of its size and of its separation from the continent was the more valued possession of the two; and William and his followers, although considering themselves greatly superior in culture and breeding, were really of the same race as the men they conquered, and hence easily assimilated with them. Had this been an invasion of people, that is, of men with their wives and children—it must have meant extermination of the Angles, Saxons, and Danes, either in war or in economic strife. But no such colonizing force was at work. The lords of England were reduced {6} to peasantry, and the peasants of whatever origin kept on about their affairs. In time the new nobility was no longer foreign. Neither a dependency, nor a colony, England gradually absorbed the Normans and all the importance of Normandy.

From this assimilation England rose independent and a unit. The Normans, it has been said, crushed the Angles, Danes, and Saxons into one people.[6–1] Just as inexorably were the Normans themselves fused into the common mass—

"Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,

That heterogeneous thing, an Englishman: …

The silent nations undistinguish'd fall,

An Englishman's the common name for all.

Fate jumbled them together, God knows how;

Whate'er they were, they're true-born English now."[6–2]

Out of the vigour and strength that resulted have risen the Pan-Angles; and no foreign power since then has conquered or ruled them in England or elsewhere. With several governmental units co-ordinated to no central authority, England had been devastated and had been unable to repel invasions. These local powers were now combined under a strong unitary government. So efficient did it prove for many generations, that Pan-Angles as a whole are only now realising its limitations. For five centuries no change in circumstances warranted the consideration of any other.

Suddenly, in a few years, everything changed except the minds of men. The world began to {7} grow, and Europe was staggered by the knowledge of areas immeasurable as compared to the lands previously known. England then began to take its place as a great nation. In 1497 a ship, financed by Bristol merchants, discovered Newfoundland,[7–1] and the sea-divided control of the Pan-Angles was foreshadowed. From this date, perhaps, Pan-Angle history may most conveniently be reckoned. If so, four hundred and seventeen years lie behind us. Of these the first hundred are negligible. That was an age of fable, when the children of Europe went out on lonely quests and staked their lives in adventure for prizes whose value they could never know. Men left England and circled the globe; they fished in distant waters;[7–2] they bartered with strange peoples; but in the main they returned again to England. No colonial policy was required to meet their needs.

After 1600, however, they less often returned. They settled the new lands, and grew great in wealth and population. They organized governments and huge instruments of trade. Slowly the fabric grew that was to dwarf England in size and resources, and England, failing to understand that it was no loser thereby, but richer as a part of a {8} strengthening Pan-Angle civilization, found little light on the problems arising. In 1607 Virginia and in 1620 Massachusetts were permanently settled.[8–1] During the same years Englishmen were acquiring titles and trading rights in India. Here, at the outset, we have all the elements that long made for obscurity and discord.

In Virginia and Massachusetts the land was suitable for the occupations and for the breeding of white men. These settlements were typical of many in North America, South Africa, and Australasia. The settler changed his latitude and longitude, but little else. He pushed back the natives, from the land he desired to use, gave the place an English name, and proceeded about his affairs with his fundamental ideals, habits, and institutions unaltered. He brought from England, besides furniture and bricks for his house, his language, his religion, and his notions of government. These he preserved and handed down to his children, who in turn thought and behaved as though Englanders, and in two localities, a hemisphere apart, named their land New England. Self-government was one of their inherited ideas; they believed that he who supports the government with taxes should be represented therein. Settlements such as these are here distinguished as colonies. The first sprang from England, and in some cases have themselves been the prolific parents of new colonies. But of whatever origin, all are a product of the individualism of the Pan-Angle civilization. In them self-government {9} has been a question of time only. "Assemblies were not formally instituted, but grew of themselves because it was the nature of Englishmen to assemble. Thus the old historian of the colonies Hutchinson, writes under the year 1619, 'This year a House of Burgesses broke out in Virginia.'"[9–1] However strongly such colonies may be attached by sentimental and political ties to some other governmental group, they belong to themselves alone. On terms of equality they are part of the Pan-Angle power that controls the world.

In India, and in the many other instances of the same sort, the land was not suited for the occupations and for the breeding of white men. It was filled with native inhabitants who neither gave way before the European, nor assimilated with him. The English language, law, and governmental forms might be superimposed to some degree, but the great bulk of the people continued to think, talk, and act in ways that were not our ways. Their civilization, however high, was not our civilization. Such lands, and only such lands, may be called "possessions" of any Pan-Angle nation. Ceylon belongs to the British Isles; the Cook Islands belong to New Zealand; Papua belongs to Australia; and the Philippines belong to the United States. Because they "belong to" another than themselves, these lands are called dependencies.

The men who ruled England in 1600 could not anticipate this distinction so as to make their phraseology, their thoughts and their efforts at {10} government correspond. Nor, as years passed, did they come to understand it. Often they knew little about these settlements, except that all were distant very many days sailing. In general, the tendency was to act as though all were possessions belonging to England and subject to its will. To the statesman in London it might seem at most a theoretical difference; not so to the man on the spot. If he were a colonist he felt his land a part of the Mother Country, or its equal in a larger group of which both were parts. His land did not and could not belong to England in any sense that gave him less liberty than Englanders enjoyed.

Here, on the one side, was a stubborn fact; on the other, an inability to recognize that fact. Friction resulted. In 1707 England united with Scotland to form Great Britain. But Great Britain, like England, thought colonies possessions. It so regarded the American colonies. Friction increased.

The colonists understood what it was to desire to be "part of" and to find they were considered as "belonging to." In Taunton, Massachusetts, they raised a liberty pole, October 21, 1774. From it flew the flag of Great Britain bearing the words "Liberty and Union." To the pole was affixed the following lines:

CRESCIT AMOR PATRIAE LIBERTATIS

QUE CUPIDO

"Be it known to the present,

And to all future generations,

That the Sons of Liberty in Taunton

Fired with a zeal for the preservation of {11}

Their rights as men, and as

American Englishmen,

And prompted by a just resentment of

The wrongs and injuries offered to the

English colonies in general, and to

This Province in particular, … "[11–1]

Not enough of the Pan-Angle statesmen of those days had the insight to read rightly that inscription. It was only by severing the Pan-Angles that the American colonies demonstrated that their citizens were the peers of the citizens of Great Britain.

Yet there were men on both sides of the Atlantic who even in those days appreciated that one group of English-speaking white men cannot be controlled by another. They understood the equality of citizenship in all Pan-Angles. Of these men it is enough to mention five: Burke of Ireland, whose words "ring out the authentic voice of the best political thought of the English race,"[11–2] and who gave us the "Conciliation with America"; Otis of Massachusetts, whose speech against the Writs of Assistance was only the beginning of his work; Galloway of Pennsylvania, the Loyalist who refused re-election to the 1775 Continental Congress when he had to choose {12} between America and Great Britain; Pownall of England, Governor of Massachusetts 1757–1760, and later Member of the British Parliament 1768–1780; and Franklin of Pennsylvania, who with Pownall worked for Pan-Angle unity on both sides of the Atlantic till he, like Galloway, had to decide, and ended by choosing not Great Britain but his own nation. The first was never in America; the second was never in England; the third saw England in his exile only after American nationhood was established; and the fourth and fifth knew both England and America.

These men did not discover to Pan-Angles the doctrine of no taxation without representation. That, like many other alleged Americanisms, was a Pan-Angle tenet already old. "The Principality of Wales, said Galloway, the Bishopric of Durham, and the Palatinate of Chester, laboured, just as America, under the grievance of being bound by the authority of Parliament without sharing the direction of that authority. They petitioned for a share, and their claim was recognized. When Henry VIII., he continued, conquered Calais, and settled it with English merchants, it was so incompatible with English liberty to be otherwise, that Calais representatives were incorporated in the English Parliament."[12–1] But these five men may {13} be said to be among those who rediscovered this tenet. As such they shared in the formation of the nationhood not only of America, but also of the five new nations of the Britannic world.

In 1801 Great Britain and Ireland were formed into one political unit under the official title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in these pages referred to as the British Isles. And still the distinctions between "part of" and "belonging to" were not understood in the British Isles. Colonies and dependencies grew in importance and size, many of the former having colonies and dependencies of their own; and still their radical differences were not clearly recognized. Repeatedly such colonies as Canada, New Zealand, or South Africa have reasserted the Pan-Angle principle that one group of self-governing white men cannot be the possession of another. So strong has been the effect of this reiteration that now there is some tendency in the British Isles to err on the other side, and to consider India, the Malay States, and other dependencies as though they hold, or should hold, the same status as colonies.

Failure to distinguish between areas that are self-governing and those that are not leads to a loose application of terms which contributes to further obscurity of thought. One recent instance is striking in its subtle suggestiveness. Most of the Malay Peninsula has been taken under the surveillance of the British Isles. Gradually one native ruler after another has been induced to desire the friendship of the men who came from the British Isles.

Some of the areas so acquired are dubbed {14} "States."[14–1] The collective government of this group of "States" has been given the grandiloquent title "Federated Malay States," The Pan-Angle student, familiar with federation in the English-speaking nations which have already succeeded in their autonomous efforts, cannot but be confused by hearing the word "federated" applied to regions where self-government is not even spoken of, and where the inhabitants take their political orders from such officials as are appointed by their white conquerors. The confusion is increased when a battleship guaranteed with funds of the Federated Malay States is presented to the government of the British Isles, and is made the occasion of fulsome speeches about the "loyalty" of the "King's subjects" in the Federated Malay States. The uninformed persons of the British Isles and elsewhere may not realize that this gift of the battleship Malaya means simply the imposition of additional taxes on the conquered subjects that "belong to" the conquering race. This is equally true whether or not has been obtained the approval of the figureheads that are known to the outside world as the "native rulers."[14–2] Such an instance {15} fogs our perception of the problems pressing for solution by the Britannic self-governing peoples.

This confused thinking and failure to appreciate the difference between "part of" and "belonging to" has delayed Pan-Angle progress. It led to the disrupting American Revolution, to the Canadian Rebellion of 1837, and to frictions less in importance only because they were more promptly remedied. It has been an unnecessary difficulty in the way of all schemes proposed for closer Britannic union. Are the self-governing colonies to be united to each other and to the Mother Country?—or to these and to the dependencies besides? The word empire is variously used, and the thought underlying it sometimes vague. To some Britannic writers it refers inclusively to every spot over which the British flag flies, classing all colours and conditions of men in one category.[15–1] Others restrict its use to self-governing areas and peoples.[15–2] To still other minds it connotes lack of self-government, and is applicable only to the dependencies.[15–3] The "imperial parliaments" conjured {16} up by these three definitions are vastly dissimilar. And the New Zealander, for instance, would like to know, before he becomes a party to one, whether he is going to help rule India, or to sit in joint deliberation with its representatives.[16–1]

The British Isles and the countries that have developed from British colonies form numerous and interrelated political groups. The largest, and now most important areas from a racial point of view, are New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland, Canada, the British Isles, and the United States of America. In this discussion these seven nations are considered as representing their race. Their peoples are known respectively as New Zealanders, Australians, South Africans, Newfoundlanders, Canadians, Britishers, and Americans. These seven nations hold in actual or allied control lands amounting to sixteen million square miles, with a population of five hundred and thirty-five million people,[16–2] or thirty and thirty-three per cent. respectively of the entire surface, and the entire {17} population of the world. Rome at her greatest dominated a population of one hundred and twenty millions.[17–1] In these seven nations more than one hundred and forty-one millions are white people,[17–2] nearly all speaking the same language, and all enjoying individual liberty of substantial equality. They govern themselves and they govern other peoples of other languages, colours, and ideals, to a total of nearly four times the entire Roman Empire. To the English-speaking whites these subject-peoples owe their privileges, such as they are. Success or failure in governing themselves and others depends for these whites on their ability so to control themselves that no foreign powers can interfere with this world-wide domination.

The words "the English-speaking, self-governing white people of New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland, Canada, the British Isles, and the United States of America," make a long expression. No suitable abbreviation seems to have been devised. The word Pan-Angle as a noun and as an adjective is here offered.

{18}

There are various reasons why other words are unsatisfactory. None in existence exactly denotes the meaning which is here desired. Anglo-Saxon may refer to the fusion of two stocks of conquering immigrants who contributed men and vitality of ideas to the present Pan-Angles. Sometimes, however, it has referred to only one of these tribes, the Saxons, and designated them as the Saxons colonizing Angle-land, as opposed to the parent stock, the Saxons of the continent.[18–1] Some writers have employed the word loosely as a collective name for all persons and ideas whose ancestry can be traced to the British Isles. Again, a literature, a law, an architecture, and a language is each called Anglo-Saxon. Moreover, there is a people called Saxons, and a land of Saxony, forming no part of the Pan-Angle group. Anglican is one of our race names, with its roots deep in the past, but it has already a restricted meaning as a name for one of our religious creeds. English is equally unsatisfactory. It is properly applied to our common language and to the people inhabiting a part of the British Isles. Even this seemingly simple meaning has not been faithfully preserved. Writers, otherwise careful, speak of the English flag and the English Parliament, when they mean the flag and Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Robert Louis Stevenson, by a recent student and author, was called an Englishman![18–2] This inexactness is equally distasteful to those to whom the appellation rightfully belongs, and to those who have names of their own of which they are proud.

{19}

To avoid confusion, the word English in this discussion is restricted as far as possible to the language alone, or is used in the sense of belonging to or originating in England. The term England refers only to the geographic area bearing that name.[19–1] The inhabitants of England are herein referred to as Englanders.[19–2] It would be well to have a name for these self-governing, English-speaking white people that would direct the mind back to the European stocks, whose bloods have mingled in the British Isles and in these six other nations, and that would suggest the origin of the ideals and of the men that have made possible the present world domination of these people. Failing such an extensively composite and suggestive word, resort is had to the name of one of these many tribes. They are but one of many peoples that went to our making. The Angles to-day exist nowhere as Angles. But they gave their name to our tongue and to the country through which we have inherited much. Every English-speaking schoolboy knows Gregory's exclamation at the sight of the fair-skinned children brought from Britain.[19–3] "Angels," they may have looked to the fervent {20} priest, on their block in the Roman slave market; but, as "inheritors of the earth, successors to Rome about to fall," he might prophetically have saluted them. Their political descendants have abolished slavery throughout a large part of the world. They are the white people who speak English, citizens of the autonomous nations: New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland, Canada, the British Isles, and the United States of America. Pan-Angles they are here called, and their nations, Pan-Angle nations.

[3–1] Round Table, London, September 1913, p. 639.

[6–1] C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, London, 1867, vol. i, p. 136.

[6–2] Daniel Defoe, "The True-born Englishman: A Satire," in Novels and Miscellaneous Works, London, 1855, vol. v. pp. 441, 442.

[7–1] Richard Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations Voyages Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation, Hakluyt Society reprint, Glasgow, 1904, vol. vii. p. 146: "IN the yere of our Lord 1497 John Cabot a Venetian, and his sonne Sebastian (with an English fleet set out from Bristoll) discovered that land which no man before that time had attempted, on the 24 of June, about five of the clocke early in the morning," Cf. Alfred Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire, London, 1891, p. 28.

[7–2] D. W. Prowse, History of Newfoundland, London, 1895, pp. 28, 58, 83.

[8–1] John Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbours, London, 1897, vol. i. pp. 93, 94; John Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, Boston, 1889, pp. 81–83.

[9–1] J.R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1883, p.69.

[11–1] P. D. Harrison, The Stars and Stripes, Boston, 1906, p. 24; ibid., p. 23: "The Taunton flag was the regular English [Great Britain's] flag, adopted by the union of the aforesaid crosses upon a red field. Its significance lay in its motto, signifying that there was at that time no thought of severance from the mother country, their only thought being liberty of action; and it has historic value because it was the first to wave with that motto."

[11–2] Woodrow Wilson, Mere Literature, Boston, 1900, p. 105.

[12–1] A. L. Burt, Imperial Architects, Oxford, 1913, p. 60. Henry VIII. above should read Edward III. After the battle of Crecy he besieged Calais in 1346. Cf. C.A.W. Pownall, Thomas Pownall, London, 1908, p. 204, who refers to the same ideas as above, quoted from the 4th edition (1768) of Thomas Pownall's The Administration of the Colonies. For maps of these four historical areas, see W. R. Shepherd, Historical Atlas, Boston, 1911, pp. 74 and 84.

[14–1] For a definition of grades of government of dependencies of Britannic nations, see An Analysis of the System of Government throughout the British Empire, London, 1912, pp. 59–61.

[14–2] Round Table, London, September 1913, p. 697: "It is not true that she [Malaya] was offered as the result of pressure by the British Government. She owes her existence partly to the imagination of the Colonial Secretary in the Malay States, who would by general agreement have been well advised to keep his visions to himself instead of communicating them even to sympathetic chiefs, but the Government in the 'Malay States certainly received no suggestion on the subject from the Colonial Office.'"

[15–1] Ency. Brit., vol. iv. p. 606. "Ency. Brit." in this and subsequent notes refers to Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Cambridge, England, 1910. Also Empire Movement (Non-Party, Non-Sectarian, Non-Aggressive, and Non-Racial), London, 1913; Leaflet 19, Shorter Catechism: "The British Empire is that portion of the Earth's land surface which is subject to the authority of King George."

[15–2] J. R. Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1883, p. 46: "The English Empire is on the whole free from that weakness which has brought down most empires, the weakness of being a mere mechanical forced union of alien nationalities … the English Empire in the main and broadly may be said to be English throughout."

[15–3] Cf. G.R. Parkin, Imperial Federation, London, 1892, p. 248: "Unquestionably confusion of thought is caused by the careless use of the term Empire into which English people have fallen. Applied to India and the crown colonies it is admissible, … As a name for the 'slowly grown and crowned Republic' of which the mother-land is the type and the great self-governing colonies copies, the term Empire is a misnomer, … "

[16–1] Richard Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, London, 1905, p. 276: "Indeed, the inclusion of India involves the reductio ad absurdum of the imperial-federation theory which forms the logical complement of the expansion-of-England theory."

[16–2] Whitaker's Almanack, London, 1913, pp.479, 646: 16,897,126 square miles and 535,753,952 persons.

[17–1] An Analysis of the System of Government throughout the British Empire, London, 1912, p. v, gives the Roman Empire population as eighty-five millions and the British Empire as four hundred and ten millions. But see Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London, 1782, vol. i. pp. 51, 52: "We are informed, that when the emperor Claudius exercised the office of censor, he took an account of six millions nine hundred and forty-five thousand Roman citizens, … it seems probable, that there existed, in the time of Claudius, about twice as many provincials as there were citizens, … and that the slaves were at least equal in number to the free inhabitants of the Roman world. The total amount of this imperfect calculation would rise to about one hundred and twenty millions of persons."

[17–2] Cf. post, p. 81, note 1.

[18–1] Cf. Ency. Brit., vol. ix. p. 588.

[18–2] Price Collier, England and the English, London, 1911, p. 341.

[19–1] As to quoted passages, the reader is cautioned to distinguish in each instance the meanings of the terms England, Britain, Great Britain, British, Britannic, etc. The usage in one quotation may differ from that in another and from that in the non-quoted passages. The terminology in the latter has been adopted to accord with the most accurate and consistent present usage. The only innovation in terms here employed is the word Pan-Angles.

[19–2] Sir Walter Scott, The Abbot, iv.: "I marvel what blood thou art—neither Englander nor Scot," quoted in New English Dictionary, Oxford, 1891—"Englander."

[19–3] Ency. Brit., vol. xii. p. 566.

{21}