bequests, and copyrights, constituting at the present day a national institution of which the English nation is justly proud, unrivalled, in the variety, extent, and usefulness of its treasures, by any similar institution in the world. It is situated in Great Russell street, Bloomsbury. This location is in a central part of London. From the rapid increase of the various collections, and the insecurity of the old building, a new and more commodious structure became necessary. Accordingly, in 1823, the present noble pile, designed by Sir Robert Smirke, was commenced, and completed by his younger brother, Mr. Sydney Smirke; and in 1845, Montague house was finally levelled with the ground, and the new portico was finished April 19, 1847. According to the report of the commissioners appointed in 1847-'48, to examine into its constitution and government, the buildings alone have cost, since the year 1823, nearly £700,000. The new reading room, just completed, has cost £150,000 in addition. The whole expenditure in the maintenance of the institution, and for purchases in the various collections since 1755, independent of the amount expended on the buildings since 1823, exceeds £1,500,000, or nearly $8,000,000. Beside this liberal outlay by the British government, there have been numerous magnificent bequests from individuals. The acquisitions from this source, for the 12 years preceding 1835, were estimated by the secretary to amount to not less than £400,000. The annual receipts of the institution, of late years, from parliamentary grants and the interest of private bequests, have been upward of £50,000. The receipts for the year 1847, as given by Mr. R. W. Pearson, in the minutes of evidence before the commissioners appointed to examine into the constitution and government of the museum, amounted to £53,999 13s. 6d., independent of special grants. Of this amount £21,041 10s. 3d., or upward of $100,000, was expended for salaries. The expenditures for the year ending March 31, 1857, were: £28,398 for salaries to officers; £2,806 for house expenses; £14,734 for purchases of books, &c.; £12,573 for bookbinding, &c.; £2,248 for printing catalogues, &c.; £2,000 for the purchase of London antiquities; £1,000 for Sardinian antiquities; £2,444 for ivory carvings; £17,485 for miscellaneous expenses; total, £83,688, showing an increase of £21,684 over the preceding year. The total expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1858, amounted to £85,992 2s. 9d.-The different departments of the museum are 7 in number, namely, manuscripts, printed books, antiquities, prints and drawings, mineralogy and geology, zoology, and botany; to which should be added the reading room. All of these departments are under separate keepers, to whom, and their assistant keepers and their assistants, attendants, and subordinate officers, the business of the mu seum is intrusted as regards the care and preservation of the collections, and the access of the public for the purposes of inspection and study.

The library occupies the ground floor of the present building, filling to repletion 25 spacious apartments and galleries, one of which measures 300 feet in length. In July, 1838, the volumes of printed books, being counted one by one as they stood upon the shelves, were found to be in round numbers 235,000. Counted in the same manner in December, 1849, they were found to amount to 435,000. In May, 1851, they amounted to 460,000, and in July, 1853, to 510,110. The library now consists of 575,000 printed volumes, and 40,000 volumes of manuscripts, exclusive of more than 20,000 original rolls, charters, and deeds. It has also a noble collection of pamphlets, more than 200,000 in number, illustrative of English and French history, and a progressive collection of newspapers, from the first appearance of these publications early in the 17th century. The manuscript collections are deposited in 4 rooms, situated at the southern extremity of the east wing, adjoining Great Russell street, forming what is termed the “manuscript department." These collections, which have been pronounced by competent judges to be the most numerous, and in some respects the finest in the world, are 11 in number, several of which once formed the private libraries of men eminent in rank, and of refined taste and culture. They are as follows: Sloane, acquired in 1753, containing 4,100 volumes; Cottonian, 900 volumes; Harleian, 7,639 volumes; Royal, 1,950 volumes; Lansdowne, in 1807, 1,245 volumes; Hargrave, in 1813, 499 volumes; Burney, in 1817, 524 volumes; King's, in 1823, 438 volumes; Egerton, in 1829, about 2,000 volumes; Arundel, in 1831, 550 volumes; additional, about 5,000 volumes. The progress of the printed collections will be best understood from the following brief chronological summary of the more important donations and purchases, made since the foundation of the library in 1753, which we compile from Sims's Hand-Book. 1759-A collection of Hebrew books, 180 volumes, presented by Solomon da Costa. 1762-A unique collection of tracts, published 1640-'60, consisting of about 30,000 articles, presented by George III. 1766-A collection, rich in biography, bequeathed by the Rev. Dr. Birch. 1768

A fine collection of Bibles, bequeathed by Arthur Onslow. 1786-A very fine collection of classical authors, 900 volumes, bequeathed by Mr. Tyrwhitt. 1799-A splendid collection of rare editions of the classics and of Italian authors, 4,500 volumes, bequeathed by the Rev. Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode. 1815-Dr. Burney's collection of books on music; purchased. 1815-A collection of books belonging to Baron de Moll, 20,000 volumes; purchased at Munich. 1818-Dr. Burney's library of printed books, valued at 9,000 guineas; purchased by a special parliamentary grant. 1820-A splendid library, rich in scientific journals and books on natural history, 16,000 volumes, bequeathed by Sir Joseph Banks. 1823-The magnificent library formed by George III., at a cost of £130,000,

amounting to about 80,000 volumes, presented by George IV. 1847-A collection of the Chinese books of Robert Morrison, in 11,500 volumes, presented by the secretary of state for the foreign department. 1847-The library of the right honorable Thomas Grenville, 20,240 volumes, collected at a cost of upward of £54,000; bequeathed in 1846, and removed to the museum in 1847. 1848-A collection of Hebrew works formed by H. J. Michael, of Hamburg, 4,420 volumes; purchased. Among many rare treasures of the Grenville library may be mentioned the Mentz Latin Bible, commonly called the Mazarin Bible, by Gutenberg, in 2 vols., on vellum; the unique copy, on vellum, of the 1st edition of Livy, by Sweynheim and Pannartz, 1469 (purchased at Mr. Edwards's sale in 1815, for 860 guineas); the 1st edition of Ovid, by Azzaguidi; a copy of the Aldine Virgil of 1505; a first Shakespeare, one of the finest known, 1623; and a beautiful series of early editions of the Orlando Furioso. The number of volumes added to the library for the years 1843-253, according to the parliamentary returns, was 206,702, being an average of 18,791 volumes per year. The collection of antiquities consists of the Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities, the former including the trophies of the Egyptian expedition of 1801; the Elgin marbles, purchased for £35,000; the Phigalian marbles, purchased for £19,000; the Towneley marbles, purchased for £28,200; Sir William Hamilton's Greek and Etruscan vases; Mr. Richard Payne Knight's collection of coins and medals, and many other works of ancient and modern art. Garrick (whose collection of old English plays is in the library) bequeathed to the museum a statue of Shakespeare which was executed for him by Roubiliac. The world-wide celebrity of the museum is not a little due to the remarkable array of works of art. They have contributed powerfully in facilitating and stimulating the study of the great models of antiquity, especially the Elgin marbles, which are the most perfect specimens of the art of Phidias. The most recent contributions to the department of antiquities are the celebrated Nimroud marbles, collected from the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, by Mr. Layard, and the Budrum marbles, which reached England in 1857.-The government of the inuseum is vested in a board of trustees, 48 in number, of whom 1 is named directly by the crown, 23 are official, 9 are named by the representatives or executors of parties who have been donors to the institution, and 15 are elected. The principal librarian is Mr. Antonio Panizzi, who has recently been appointed to this responsible place, having been for many years the keeper of the department of printed books. The new reading room, which was menced (Mr. Sydney Smirke being architect) in 1854, and opened to the public on the 18th of May, 1857, is a circular building in the inner quadrangle of the museum, occupying an area of 48,000 square feet. It is constructed principally of iron, the whole cost, in

com

cluding fittings and contingent expenses, being £150,000. It has ample accommodations for 300 readers, each person having allotted to him a space 4 feet 3 inches long, with table, shelves, &c. There are 35 reading tables, and 2 are set apart for the exclusive use of ladies. In the centre is a raised platform or enclo sure for the superintendent, around which in 2 concentric circles are the catalogue tables. The catalogue, which is in manuscript, is being drawn up on a uniform plan, from all the various catalogues, printed or manuscript, whieh now exist. It now (June, 1858) extends to the letter I, comprising 623 folio volumes. When completed, it will probably reach to 1,500 or 2,000 volumes. The direction of this herculean work is intrusted to the keeper of the department of printed books, Mr. J. W. Jones, successor to Mr. Panizzi. Under the galleries are book presses filled with a large library of reference for the use of readers, comprising most of the standard works on the various branches of learning, and an extensive collection of dictionaries of all languages, biographical works, encyclopædias, parliamentary histories, topographical works, &c., &c. These books, which are about 20,000 in number, can be consulted at pleasure without the usual formalities of the ticket system. Access to the reading room may be obtained by written application to the librarian. Tickets are issued for 6 months, and at the expiration of this term. fresh application is to be made for a renewal. No person can be admitted without a ticket, and the tickets are not transferable. All the builddings of the museum are closed between the 1st and 7th of January, the 1st and 7th of May, and the 1st and 7th of September; also on Sundays, fast days, and holidays. The whole establishment is open to public view on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, from 9 till 4 during November, December, January, and February; from 10 till 5 during March, April, September, and October; and from 10 till 6 during May, June, July, and August. The reading room is open daily, with the above exceptions, 7 hours in the winter, 8 hours in the spring and autumn, and 9 hours in the summer. Artists are admitted to study in the galleries of sculpture between 9 a. m. and 4 p. m., every week day, except Saturday. The print room is also closed on Saturdays. In 1856 there were 361,714 visitors to the general collections; 53,422 visitors to the reading room; 2,918 visits of students to the galleries of sculpture; 3,096 visitors to the print room; 2,299 visitors to the coin and medal room. Total visits 423,449, showing an increase of 27,885 visitors over the preceding year.

BRITO, BERNARDO DE, a Portuguese historian, born at Almeida, Aug. 20, 1569, died there Feb. 27, 1617, was a Cistercian friar, the historiographer of that religious order and of the kingdom of Portugal, and published among other writings a work on the Lusitanian monarchy, which he completed down to the conquest of the Arabs.

BRITO, FELIPPE DE, a Portuguese traveller,

born at Lisbon about 1550, died in 1613. He visited the East Indies at an early age, and established himself at Pegu, where he soon became wealthy by trading in salt and charcoal. In 1601, by order of the king of Aracan, Brito erected a fort before Syriam, which soon became the business centre of the town of Pegu. This, however, aroused the jealousy of the king of Aracan, who declared war against Brito. Several battles took place, in which the king was defeated, and a treaty of peace was at length declared, which the son of Brito was sent to ratify. Young Brito was treacherously murdered, and war recommenced with increased fury, and lasted until 1607. Brito received the title of king, and married a natural daughter of the viceroy of India. Having become firmly established in power, he rebuilt the fort of Syriam, which had been destroyed, and also founded the town of Dela, which became a considerable commercial place. The king of Burmah, fearing so powerful a rival, sent against him an army of nearly 200,000 men. After a severe action Brito was forced to succumb, March 30, 1613, and submitting himself to the king of Burmah, was impaled and lived a day suffering the most fearful torments. A book which he wrote on his experiences in the East has never been printed, but exists in the royal library of Spain.

BRITO FREIRE, FRANCISCO DE, a Portuguese historian, died at Lisbon, Nov. 8, 1692, officiated as admiral of the Portuguese fleet in Brazil, and contributed to the expulsion of the Dutch. He left a valuable work on the history of the war (Lisbon, 1675).

BRITON, an inhabitant of the island of Britannia. Concerning the origin of the population of the British isles which approaches the nearest to being indigenous, as being in possession of the soil at the time of its first discovery, there has been much doubt, and there is still some dispute. That the inhabitants of Britain, and of the British isles generally, were of that kindred stock of nations to which modern ethnologists have given the name of Indo-Germanic, is not to be questioned; but it is more doubtful to what tribe or tribes-if there were more than one-they are to be assigned. Cæsar testifies that, on his arrival, England was occupied by 2 distinct races; that in the interior having occupied the island from time beyond the memory of man; that of the coasts being identical with what he calls the Belgians of Gaul, and being in some measure a transitory population, common to both sides of the channel. They were also, according to his account, nearly homogeneous with the Gauls, and of the same religion or superstition with them, the most sanguinary druidism, unconnected with idolatry; and although in many respects far more barbarous, they had general community of customs and interests, and were accused of furnishing succors to the Gallic tribes, which were in hostility with Rome. Cæsar again distinguished the inhabitants of

a

the interior of Gaul from the maritime tribes, inhabiting the northern districts of France, along the southern shores of the channel, from the estuaries of the Rhine and Scheldt to the Isle of Ouessant. The latter of these he calls Belgians, and the former Celts. The Gauls of the north of Italy, Cisalpine Gaul, were, according to every testimony, of the same race with those of central and southern Gaul, and a distinct connection can be traced between their language, as shown in the names of their tribes and towns, and that of the Gallic Celts. We now come to another consideration, which appears in some degree contradictory, or, at least, involves a confusion of names, which does not, however, in reality amount to a matter so worthy of consideration as it has been represented. Diodorus also states that the inhabitants of Gaul proper, or France, consisted of 2 great divisions of people, whom the Romans included under one name of Gauls, viz., the Celtic tribes of northern Italy, of central and southern Gaul, and of Spain, and the more remote tribes, who dwelt along the shores of the ocean, and as far eastward as Scythia. These he calls the true Gauls; while, at the same time, he asserts that to these tribes belong the Cimbri, whom some authors have identified with the Cimmerii of the Tauric Chersonese, or Crimea, whence they imagine them to have moved northwestward, above the confines of civilized Europe, except where they came in contact with the Greeks and Romans on the extreme north of their dominions, to the Cimbric Chersonese, or Jutland, whence they again descended southwestward, along the shores of the North sea and the channel, where they are still found. So far, all this is plain sailing. Diodorus, whom Niebuhr supposes to have learned his distinctions of Posidonius, corroborates Cæsar as to the existence of 2 races, whom he calls "Gauls and Celts," while the Roman calls them "Belgians and Celts, whom we term Gauls"-thereby exactly transposing the name of Gaul. Again, Diodorus asserts that the tribes, whom he calls Gauls, and Cæsar Belgians, were Cimbri. Caesar states that the maritime Britons were identical with the Belgians, or Cimbri, whom Diodorus calls Gauls

that is, Gael-while the Britons of the interior were identical with the Celtic tribes of central Gallia, whom he calls Gael. But we find, in fact, that the maritime tribes of the isle of Britain, now confined to the principality of Wales, who still call themselves Kymry--Cimbriand still retain a distinctive language, were entirely distinct and different from the tribes of the interior, of Celtic origin-the Highlanders namely, and the Irish, who still call themselves Gael. From all this, we come to the conclusion that in this confusion of names, Cæsar is borne out by the fact, that the races which he designates as Celts or Gael, continue to style themselves so to the present day, while those whom he distinguishes from the Gael, and to whom Diodorus assigns a distinct origin, eschew.

the name of Gaël, use a different, although cognate language, and have been at war with them from time immemorial, under the name of Kymry. Add to this, that the French of the shores of the channel, especially of Normandy and Brittany, are still a distinct race from the central French; that they are nearly homogeneous with the Cimbric Britons of Wales; that their language is still cognate, and the names of their maritime towns, as well as their antiquities and monolithic ruins, nearly identical. It may be affirmed, and with some truth, that a part of this connection and similarity is assignable to the immigration of the Cimbric tribes into France, on the Saxon irruption and conquest of all Cimbric Britain. But this is only to travel in a circle; since the cause of that immigration of the Cimbric tribes into France, rather than into Ireland, when driven out by Saxon cruelty, is that the population of that portion of France to which they fled was friendly, was kindred, was Cimbric, while that of Ireland was Gael and hostile. It is worthy of remark, that, when William the Bastard conquered Saxon England, by the aid of Breton and Norman knights, the latter immediately intermarried and amalgamated with the Welsh, centuries before they manifested the slightest inclination to mix with the Saxons; and that even when at deadly issue of war with them, while they might regard them as a savage and hostile race, they never regarded them, as they did the Saxons and the Gael, or Erse, as an inferior and degraded race. It is evident, therefore, that, in the earliest known times, there were in Britannia 2 races, the Cimbric and the Gaelic Celts, both cognate, though entirely distinct tribes, or divisions, of the Celtic branch of the Indo-Germanic nation.Tradition seems to have assigned priority of tenure to the Gael, and successful invasion to the Britons, or Cimbri; and tradition is sustained by the relative local situation of the races at the time of their first discovery, and by the juxtaposition of the French and English Cimbri, along the opposite sea-shores of the channel, dislodging and disconnecting the Gaelic tribes of the two countries, between whom they permanently interposed themselves. It is another, and wholly different question, which of these races it was-if either, and not one entirely distinct-that captured Delphi and burned Rome under Brennus, some 600 years, more or less, before the Christian era. This, however, does not in any way concern the question of the origin or connection of the races which occupied Gaul and Britain, 4 or 5 centuries later, in the days of authentic history. It may be well here to state that no distinction whatever is to be founded on the ascription of various tribes to the nomenclature of Celts or Gauls, which, widely as they now appear to differ in sound and in orthography, were originally identical. They are both Greek words; and, in their first forms, were Keletai and Galatai, whence Keltai and Galtai.-Kelts and Galts,

K

which modern mispronunciation of the hard Greek and Latin chas changed into Celts and Gaels, or, as we now write it, Gauls. The original form still survives in that part of Asia Minor which was settled, at a very early date, by these people, and which we still call Galatia.Of the Cimbric race, unmixed, remains the pure Welsh population; of the Celtic race, unmixed, the Gael of the highlands of Scotland, and the Erse Gael of Ireland. Of the Cimbric race, intermixed, more or less, with Saxon, Danish, and Norman blood, is composed the present English race, wherever it now exists, which it has become the fashion to style Anglo-Saxon, though it is probable that the present race has fewer characteristics of the Saxon than of any one of the other constituent races. In the English of England, of Hindostan, Australia, and the British provinces, there is, it may be said, no intermixture whatever-or the least imaginable of Erse or Gaelic blood. More than elsewhere such exists in the North American colonies of Great Britain. The English race, in America, exists in the New England states, nearly unmixed, and particularly clear of any Celtic cross. In the middle states it is greatly intermixed with Erse and Teutonic, and, more or less, with French and Holland blood. In the south-west, with French and Spanish strains.— When discovered by Cæsar, the Britons were hardly to be called a barbarous people, being scarcely removed from the condition of primitive savages. They generally went, both sexes, wholly naked, though some of them-whether separate tribes, or superior individuals, it is not stated-wore garments of dressed leather. They tattooed their flesh, and stained themselves blue with woad-practices indicating a very low scale of humanity. They were polygamous; but the polygamy, like that of the Todahs of Hindostan, was the converse of that of the Mohammedans and Mormons, every woman having nine, ten, or more husbands, the children of whom were brought up in common, the first husband, in point of date, having some preferences in position. They wore no armor, except bucklers, but understood the working of iron, brass, and tin. They had horses, which they both rode and drove, harnessed to scythed cars, in battle. They had cattle in abundance, of which they used both the flesh and milk, though they knew not the use of cheese. It is doubtful whether they had any agriculture; some speaking of their raising grain and drinking wine made of barley-ale-and others mentioning no such habits. Probably they write of different times; and, when first discovered by the Romans, the Britons did not till the soil, but speedily learned to do so.-It is determined by the best ethnological authorities that there is no mixture whatever of Basque, Spanish, Celtiberian, or Semitic-Phoenician blood in any of the tribes, whether Cimbric or Erse, of Britain; and all history utterly contradicts and confounds the legends of any one of the British islands having any other source of Christianity

than through their Roman conquerors. Such as they had, was mostly compulsory; and on the withdrawal of the legions, a large proportion of the inhabitants of both the islands, Great Britain and Ireland, relapsed into druidism, which had never been extinguished in the latter island, owing to the small progress made by Roman civilization on its shores.

BRITTANY, or BRETAGNE, an ancient province of France, consisting of the large triangular peninsula which, projecting into the Atlantic, forms the western extremity of that country. Washed on 3 sides, N., W., and S., by the sea, it joined on the E. the provinces of Normandy, Maine, Anjou, and Poitou. Its coast line, indented by numerous bays and harbors, was about 500 miles in length, extending from the bay of Cancale, on the confines of Normandy, to that of Bourgneuf, some 20 miles S. from the mouth of the Loire. Its greatest length from S. E. to N. W. was 185 miles; its greatest breadth 105 miles; its area, 13,085 sq. m. It is now distributed among the departments of Loire-Inférieure, Ille-et-Vilaine, Finistère, Morbihan, and Côtes-du-Nord. The progress of civilization, although penetrating more slowly here than anywhere else in France, has somewhat allayed the wild originality which once characterized this land and its inhabitants; but both still possess a special interest for travellers and archæologists. The broken hills by which the interior of the country is intersected, its narrow valleys, its partly unnavigable streams, its vast and thinly populated heaths, its old castles standing on solitary hillocks with their dismantled walls and dilapidated towers, its extensive forests, which, having been once the resort of the druids, seem yet to preserve something of their mysterious horrors, its sandy shores or rugged reefs on which a dark sea breaks its heavy waves, the strange garb of its herdsmen, their harsh Celtic language, all particularities combine to stamp the region with a strange and striking character. Brittany was for centuries independent of the empire to which it now belongs. Previously known as Armorica, it was indebted for its new name to colonies from Great Britain, which settled at various periods on its territory. These emigrations can be traced as far back as the 3d century; but it is probable that the definitive change of appellation took place only about the middle of the 5th century, when numbers of British families left the island on account of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. In this hospitable land, being somewhat out of the reach of the declining power of Rome, the colonists found no great difficulty in vindicating their independence. One of their native kings, called Audren, is said to have sent troops to aid Aëtius in resisting Attila. A little later, the country being divided between several princes, the powerful Clovis brought some of them to submission. Under Charlemagne, the paramount power of the Frankish king over Brittany increased; but its princes, availing themselves of the weakness of his suc

cessors, reconquered their independence, so that the principal of them was acknowledged as a king by Charles the Bald. There prevailed among them something of a feudal organization, the counts of Rennes, Nantes, and Cornouailles being the most powerful, and one of them being generally accredited as the chief of the confederation. Such was probably the state of things which prevailed until the end of the 12th century, when Conan IV. succeeded in bringing all parts of the country under his own control, calling it the county of Brittany. His daughter, Constance, who was his only heiress, married Geoffrey, 3d son of Henry II. of England, to whom she brought the title and power of count. On his death, his son Arthur inherited both, but was soon assassinated by John Lackland, his uncle, when Philip Augustus tried to seize upon Brittany, as he had done Normandy; but the Bretons resisted, and declared for Alix, a daughter of Constance, by her 3d husband, Guy of Thouars. This Alix married Pierre de Dreux, called Mauclerc, who acted as duke of Brittany until their eldest son became of age. This prince, John I., surnamed Rufus, born in 1217, became the head of the ducal family, who reigned until the beginning of the 16th century. On the death of John III., in 1341, his niece, Jeanne of Penthièvre, who had married Charles of Blois, and his brother John of Montfort, contended for the possession of the duchy. This civil war, which lasted no less than 24 years, and was mixed with the struggle between the French and the English, is one of the brightest episodes in the annals of Brittany, the principal champion on the side of Charles of Blois being the illustrious Du Guesclin, while Chandos figured conspicuously among the supporters of John of Montfort. The former of the competitors having been finally killed at Auray, in 1364, the ducal crown was secured to the latter's son, who reigned under the name of John V. Several princes succeeded, among whom Arthur of Richemont was grand constable of France, under Charles VII. The last of them, Francis II., who reigned from 1458 to 1488, left a daughter Anne, who, as heiress of the duchy of Brittany, was courted by the most powerful princes of her time. She was married by proxy to Maximilian of Austria, then king of the Romans, but the cunning Anne of Beaujeu, who was governing France under the name of her brother, Charles VIII., prevented the alliance from being consummated; she went to Brittany with an army, and forced the duchess to marry at once the young king of France, so that Brittany was, for the first time, united to the kingdom, preserving, however, its separate title and existence. On the death of Charles VIII., Louis XII. hastened to divorce his first wife, and to marry his predecessor's widow, thus securing the union between France and Brittany. But it was only in 1531, during the reign of Francis I., that the latter was declared to be an integral part of the French kingdom. Although losing its independ ence. it nevertheless persevered in maintain