what is now called Appleton Brook, a stream in Appleton parish to the south-west of Oxford, is called Wasa or Wase; while in the Tithe Awards it is called Osse Ditch, both names being forms of the name 'Ouse.' Also in Buckland parish near Faringdon, Berkshire, the Tithe Award marks an Ouse Ditch which is the Wasa of the Saxon charter of Buckland. The river name Itchen occurs in both Hampshire and Warwickshire; but there is also a small stream in North Hampshire which probably had that name in Saxon times. Thus it is evident that even minute streams such as the Ouse Ditch in Buckland, a mere trickle of water, might retain their old names.

Of a more specific Celtic element we should expect to find traces in Cumberland, where the region was part of the British kingdom of Strathclyde in quite late Saxon times; in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where the mysterious little British kingdom of Elmet survived the Anglian invasion of the north-east; and all down the marches of Wales, in Cheshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, and Gloucestershire, as well as on the marches of 'West Wales,' in Somerset and Devon. So far as these books cover this ground their evidence is interesting.

The pure Celtic element in Cumberland is very much smaller than might have been expected on historical grounds. Out of the several hundred names in the county which he cites, Prof. Sedgefield distinguishes only twenty-eight as purely Celtic, and only seven others as containing Celtic elements. The distribution of these names is somewhat noteworthy. They form a thin fringe round the basin of the Eden. It looks as if they were the homes of people who had been driven out of the river valley itself by new-comers who came up the river. The Norse is the strongest element in Cumberland and Westmoreland, but there are a great many names of Anglian origin. There is, too, a Danish element of places ending in -by, the distribution of which seems to show that their Danish founders made their way by the great pass through the Pennines from Yorkshire by way of Brough-under-Stainmore into the upper valley of the Eden.

In South-west Yorkshire the Celtic survival, apart from the usual river-names, is mainly confined to names

of some valleys, hills, woods, lanes, and hamlets. Of these there are a considerable number. The mountainous region at the junction of the Pennines and the Peak formed the stronghold of those Britons who maintained their independence against the first attacks of the Angles on northern Britain. The Scandinavian names in South-west Yorkshire are numerous; and, though there are always certain difficulties in distinguishing between names of Norse and those of Danish origin, they appear in this district to be mainly Norse. Mr Goodall's examination of them has led to one important conclusion, namely that, though in certain districts, as for instance in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield, the Domesday survey indicates a Scandinavian settlement of the period before the Conquest, in certain other districts, where there are numerous Scandinavian names not mentioned in Domesday, their presence is due to the repeopling of the district, after the devastation of William the Conqueror in 1069, by immigrants brought from Cumberland and the North-west.

The Scandinavian settlers who landed at the mouth of the Mersey, and settled in the Wirral between Mersey and Dee, and also in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, seem to have made their way to other parts of Lancashire, and even to have crossed the Pennines into Yorkshire, for the pre-conquest settlement near Huddersfield appears to have come from the west. Mr. Duignan notices traces of them in a few names on the highlands of North Staffordshire. When the Cheshire place-names are thoroughly investigated we shall know more of these Norsemen; but already it is fairly clear that they made their way up the Mersey and its tributaries, reaching North Staffordshire by the line of the Weaver. The surviving Celtic element in Staffordshire is confined to a few scattered names, of which the best known is Cannock. There is no distinctly Celtic region in the county.

Mr Mutschmann draws a very interesting conclusion from consideration of the Scandinavian names in Nottinghamshire. The bulk of the names in the county are of Anglo-Saxon origin, but a considerable number of Scandinavian elements are present.' The distribution of the latter, he thinks, would show that the Scandinavian Vol. 228.-No. 453. 2 A

invasion, which ultimately led to the settlement of the Norsemen in large numbers, was of a comparatively peaceful nature. The Northern new-comers apparently did not try to oust the original occupants of the land, but were satisfied to settle in the marshy, sandy, unattractive regions left vacant by the Anglo-Saxons.

If such results have accrued from the scientific survey of the names of a few English counties, then there is every hope that results of much greater historical importance may be attained when the survey is complete. Local interest will always attach itself to these books; but a rational summary of results when the series is complete will be of more general interest and much greater importance.

A study of the books which have been issued suggests a warning with regard to method of treatment. Mr Goodall's introduction is a model of what an introduction to such a work should be; for a reader of a book on place-names does not want merely a bald list of names and their etymology, but also a statement showing their general distribution and giving such general conclusions as the author has been led to form concerning them. Such introductions, together with the addition of archæological matter of the kind which Mr Duignan has inserted in his books, will take away from works on place-names that excessive dryness which creates an unsatisfied thirst for further knowledge. The subject after all is essentially a popular one, in the sense that it appeals to the interest of many people; and it is very desirable that it should continue to be so. But a series of visions of dry bones is only too suggestive of its death.

G. B. GRUNDY.

Art. 5. THE FINAL SETTLEMENT IN THE BALKANS.

'WE shall not pause or falter until we have secured for the smaller states of Europe their Charter of Independence, and for Europe itself and for the world at large their final emancipation from the reign of force.'

These memorable words were addressed urbi et orbi by the head of the British Government on Nov. 9, 1915, when the war had already lasted more than a year and three months. Other British statesmen have been equally emphatic in their declarations both in the earlier and later periods of the war. Especially noteworthy in regard to the Balkan Peninsula are the words spoken on Sept. 28, 1915, by the then Foreign Minister in the House of Commons.

'Our policy,' said Sir Edward Grey, 'has been to secure agreement between the Balkan States which would ensure to each of them not only independence but a brilliant future based as a general principle on the territorial and political union of kindred nationalities. To secure this agreement we have recognised that the legitimate aspirations of all the Balkan States must find satisfaction. The policy of the

Allies is to further the national aspirations of the Balkan States without sacrificing the independence of any of them.'

It is unnecessary to add to these quotations. The words which appear at the beginning of this article were spoken a few weeks after the rupture with Bulgaria, and show that the noble programme with which we undertook the war has not been modified, as indeed it could not be, by that unfortunate event. Whatever may have been the attitude of the Kings and Governments of Bulgaria, Greece and the other Balkan States in the course of the war, we are absolutely pledged to maintain the independence of all these states at its close and to ensure to each and all a just settlement based on the territorial and political union of kindred nationalities.' In other words, we are solemnly bound to carry out a complete readjustment of frontiers which will assign to each of these states the regions which rightly belong to them, in accordance with the sacred principle which we inscribed on our banner when drawing the sword.

Such is our duty if we win the war. We need not speculate on what will happen in the Balkans if we lose it. We must save the Balkan States from the dangers which await them under German domination, and assure to each of them a prosperous development within their respective racial limits. This is not a Utopian or altruistic policy. Our honour is engaged by our formal declarations; and, apart from this, it is our interest as well as our duty to remedy a state of affairs which has set Europe in flames, and to establish in the Balkans, the gateway of the East, a firm and enduring peace, the only sure guarantee for our own tranquillity in the future. This can only be attained by satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the Balkan nationalities. The settlement must be just, and free from any taint of vindictiveness; it must be imposed from above and maintained under penalties, perhaps even manu militari, for a certain time, until the military and chauvinistic elements have been brought to reason, which have so often stifled the voice of good sense and overborne the wishes of the majority in these states. With a just delimitation of frontiers the irredentist agitations in the various countries will cease to exist; and with their disappearance the chauvinists and militarists will lose much of the leverage with which they have hitherto worked on the various courts, governments and populations.

The animosities of the Balkan States, which Mr Asquith described in the House of Commons (Nov. 2, 1915) as an unhappy and still unliquidated legacy of two Balkan wars and especially of the Treaty of Bucarest,' must have time to subside under the working of a new and equitable arrangement. The doctrine of 'equilibrium,' the hypocritical theory advanced in 1913 in order to cover a series of lawless annexations, must be completely set aside. The populations of the Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian kingdoms were almost equalised under the treaty, but the disparity already existing between Rumania and each of these states was increased, not diminished. With the incorporation of Transylvania, the Banat and Bukovina in Rumania, the disproportion would be farther increased, even if the other states should attain their rightful limits; that, of course, is no reason why the annexation of these