in which it exists. But such an anomaly, if found any- to places of education have been made with a view to parwhere, should not be allowed to exist, because it is incon- ticular interests only, without a reference to all the bearsistent with the continued existence of the society in which ings of the question, and which, consequently, if tried by the it has established itself; and if such an Education does test above given, would be found to be mischievous. As to exist, and can maintain itself in a society, against the will the last question the answer more particularly is,-that of that society, such a society is not a sovereign and inde-individual competition must not be destroyed. It is possible pendent society, but is in a state of anarchy. Educa- to reconcile the two principles of state direction and contion then should be in harmony with and subordinate to trol and individual competition. The state may allow no the political system: it should be part of it; and whether person to teach without being examined and registered: the political system is called by the name good or bad, if such register will show if he has been trained under the that political system is to continue, Education must not be superintendence of the state or not. This fact being estaopposed to it, but must be a part of it. From this it follows blished, it may be left to individuals or associations of indithat the question, What is the best Education? involves the viduals to employ what teachers they please. In all the question, What is the best political system? and that ques- schools founded by the state, in all schools under the supertion again cannot be answered without considering what intendence of the state (to which latter class belong nearly all are the circumstances of the particular nation or society as charitable foundations, and all such foundations which are to which we inquire what is the best political system. Re- not under the superintendence of the state ought, consistcollecting however that the question of the best Education ently with the general principles already laid down, to be and of the best political system cannot be discussed apart, brought under that superintendence), it follows as a matter because, as we have shown, Education is a part of the sys- of course that none but teachers trained by the state should tem, still we can consider several important questions quite be appointed. The selection of the teachers, out of the as fully as if the former question were out of the way. whole authorized body, for any particular school of the One is, the political system being given, what ought the class just described, may be safely left to the local authoriEducation to be? ties who have the immediate superintendence of these schools.

And, how far is it the business of the state to direct, control, and encourage that Education?

If the principle that a state ought to exercise the superA man (under which term we include woman) has two intendence of the Education of its citizens as citizens be addistinct relations or classes of relations towards the state:mitted, it may be asked, how far and to what branches of one comprehends his duties as a citizen, wherein he is or knowledge does this extend? To this we reply that a preought to be wholly subordinate to the state; the other cise answer can only be given by the legislature of each comprehends all his functions as a producer and enjoyer of country, and the question cannot be answered without many wealth, wherein he has or ought to have all freedom that is years of labour and perhaps without many experiments. But not inconsistent with the proper discharge of his duties as a it follows from the principles already laid down that no citicitizen. It is barely necessary to state this proposition in zen ought to exercise any function of government, or be order to perceive that his Education as a citizen should be intrusted with the exercise of any power delegated by the directed by the state. To suppose any other directing power, state, without having received some (what, we cannot here any power for instance which may educate him in principles say) Education under the superintendence and direction of opposed to the polity of which he is to form a part, is to the state. suppose an inconsistency which, in discussing any question involving principles, we always intend to avoid.

His Education then as a citizen, it must be admitted, ought to be under the superintendence of the state; but how ought the state to exercise this superintendence?

It is not our purpose to attempt to answer this question, which involves the consideration of some of the most diffieult questions in legislation. It is our object here to present the questions which it belongs to the civilization of the present and future ages to solve; to show what is to be done, not how it is to be done.

But we may answer the question so far as this: the state having the superintendence of the citizen's Education, must have the superintendence of those who direct that Education; in other words, must direct those who are to carry its purposes into effect. The body of teachers therefore must be formed by, or, at least, must be under the superintendence of the state. Unless this fundamental truth is admitted and acted on, the state cannot effectually direct or superintend the Education of its citizens.

Every branch of this inquiry into Education runs out into other branches almost innumerable, till we find that the solution of this important question involves the solution of the greater part of those questions which occupy or ought to occupy a legislative body. For this reason, as above stated, we cannot attempt to answer in its full extent, how the state must direct the Education of its citizens, because this question involves the consideration of how far the direction and control of the state should be a matter of positive law imperative on all, how far and with respect to what particular matters it should encourage and give facilities only, how far it should act by penalties or punishment, how far it should allow individuals or associations of individuals to teach or direct teaching according to their own will and judgment, or, to express the last question in other words, whether and to what extent the state should allow compe

tition in Education?

When the sovereign is one, it is clear how he will and ought to direct the Education of his people. His first object must be to maintain the stability of his own power. It is an absurdity to suppose any Education permitted in any state which shall be inconsistent with the existence of that state; and consequently in a monarchy, the first object is and must be the preservation of the monarchy. It is unnecessary to show that the attainment of this object is by no means inconsistent with good Education, and Education which is good when considered with reference to other objects than the conservation of the monarchy.

In a democracy [DEMOCRACY] the business of the state is also plain and easy. It is not plain how far and to what classes of subjects the superintendence of the state should extend, for that may be as difficult to determine in a democracy as in any other form of government; but it is plain to what objects the superintendence of the state in such a community should extend. Its objects should be to maintain in all its purity the principle of individual political equality, that the sovereign power is in all and every person, that the will of the majority is the rule which all must obey, and that the expression of opinion on all subjects, by speaking or writing, should be perfectly free. If any checks are wanting on the last head, they will always be supplied in a democracy by the positive morality of the society in a degree at least as great as is required, and certainly in a greater degree than in any other form of government.

What must the state do in a political system which is neither a monarchy nor a democracy; in a system where there are contending elements, and none has yet obtained the superiority? The answer is, it must do what it can, and that which it does, being the will of the stronger part for the time, must be considered right. But such a political system, though it may continue for a long time, is always moving (at least it is only safe when it is moving) in the direction impressed upon it by one or other of the contending powers which To these questions, and more especially to the last, the exist in the state. Still, so long as the struggle continues, answer is in general terms, that the general interest, consi- there can be no Education in the sense which we are consithe state must do. This answer may be said to determine vided object proposed to it in a monarchy and in a demonothing. It is true it determines no particular thing, but cracy. Such a political system then would appear to be it determines the principle by which all particular measures wanting in one of the chief elements of a political system, must be tested; and it would not be difficult to select in- which we have explained to be the bringing up of the stances even from our legislation, where enactments relating citizens in such a manner as to secure the stability of that

P. C., No. 566.

VOL. IX.-20

art, is by requiring the person who undertakes to exercise
it to have been trained or educated for the purpose.
Whether this should be done in all cases, or in some and
what cases, and to what extent, and how, are questions for
a legislature guided by a philosopher to answer.
In all countries called civilized this has been done to a
certain extent. The legislation of our own country offers
instances of great errors committed by legislating where no
legislation was wanted, or by legislating badly. Perhaps
instances may also be noted in all countries where evil has
arisen for want of legislation on the subject. We may
explain by example.

system under which they live. In such a system as we here | imagine, there being no unity in the object, there can be no unity of means with reference to any object; and such a system might be more properly called an aggregation of political societies, than one political society; what is implied by the word aggregation being the existence of something just strong enough to keep the whole together. Such a society, in spite of its incongruity, may be kept together by several things: one may be, that the positive morality of the whole society is favourable to order, as characterized by a love of wealth, and impressed with a profound conviction of the necessity of leaving free to every individual the pursuit of wealth and the enjoyment of it when it is acquired. Another may be, that in this same society, though there are contending elements, there may be a slow and steady progress, and a gradual change, tending in one direction only: such a gradual progress in such a system may be regarded as the only security against its destruction.

Perhaps it is unnecessary for a state to require that a shoemaker, or a tailor, or a painter, or a sculptor, should be required to go through a certain course of training before he exercises his art. The best shoemaker and best tailor will be sure to find employment, and individual shoemakers and tailors have as ample means of giving instruction in their craft as can be desired. It may be true or not true, that the best painters and sculptors will meet with most employment: but is it unnecessary or is it necessary for a state to offer facilities and encouragement to those who design to educate themselves as painters and sculptors? Most civilized nations have decided this question by doing so, and there are many reasons in favour of such a policy. Ought the state to require the professor of law, of medicine, or of religious teaching, to undergo some kind of preliminary Education, and to obtain a certificate thereof? Nearly all civilized countries have required the lawyer and physician to go through some course of Education. There are strong reasons in some countries, our own for instance, both for and against such a requisition; but on the whole, the reasons seem to preponderate in favour of requiring such Education from him who designs to practise law, and still more from him who designs to practise the art of healing. Most civilized countries, perhaps all, except two (so far as we know), require all persons who profess the teaching of religion to have received some Education, to be ascertained by some evidence. But in both the nations excepted, any

If the history of the world has ever presented, or if it now presents, such a phænomenon as we have attempted to describe; further, if such a society contains the greatest known number of instances of enormous individual wealth opposed to the greatest amount of abject poverty; the highest intellectual cultivation and the greatest freedom of thought, side by side with the grossest ignorance and the darkest superstition; thousands in the enjoyment of wealth for which they never laboured, and tens of thousands depending for their daily bread upon the labour of their hands and the sensitive vibrations of the scale of commerce; political power in appearance widely diffused, in effect confined to the hands of a few; ignorance of the simplest elements of society in many of the rich and those who have power; ignorance not greater in those who are poor and have none-such a society, if it exists, is a society in which every reflecting man must at moments have misgivings as to its future condition and as to the happiness of those in whom he is most nearly interested. But if such a society contains a class, properly and truly denominated a middle class, a class neither enervated by excessive wealth and in-person, however ignorant, may preach on subjects which the dolence nor depressed by poverty; a class that is characterized by industry and activity unexampled; a class that considers labour as the true source of happiness, and free inquiry on all subjects as the best privilege of a free mansuch a society may exist and continue to be indefinitely in a state of progressive improvement. Such a society, with its monstrous anomalies and defects, offers to a statesman of enlarged mind and vigorous understanding the strongest motive, while it supplies him with all the means, to give to the political system an impulse that shall carry it beyond the region of unstable equilibrium and place it at once in a state of security.

In such a society the simple enunciation by one possessed of power, that Education is a part of the business of the state, would be considered as the forerunner of some measure which should lay the foundation of that unity without which the temporary prosperity of the nation can never become permanent and its real happiness can never

be secured.

The particular questions that the philosophic legislator has then to solve with respect to the education of the citizens, are-1. How are teachers to be taught, and what are they to be taught? 2. How is the body of teachers to be directed, superintended, rewarded, and punished? 3. What schools and what kinds of schools are to be established and encouraged for the Education of the people? 4. What are the teachers to teach in those schools? 5. Where

is the immediate government of such schools to be placed? 6. And where the ultimate and supreme direction and control of such schools? The word Schools is here used as comprehending all places of Education.

It remains to consider those other relations of a man to the state in which we view him as a producer of wealth for his own enjoyment. Here the general principle is, that the pursuit and enjoyment of wealth must be left as free as the public interest requires; and this amount of freedom will not depend in any great degree on the form of government. To this head, that of the production of wealth, belong all the divisions of labour by which a man, to use a homely but expressive phrase, gets his living, or what in other words are called the professions, trades, and arts of a country. The only way in which the state can with any advantage direct or control the exercise of any profession, trade, or

mass of the community believe or affect to believe to be of
greater importance both for their present and future welfare
than any other subjects. Professing to maintain, as we hope
they always will do, the principle of religious freedom, these
two nations have fallen into the greatest inconsistencies.
They have checked the free expression of individual
opinion by word of mouth, and fettered it in the written
form, in the one country by the severe penalties of positive
law and the no less severe penalties of positive morality
and in the other by the penalties of positive morality carried
to an excess which is destructive to the interests of the
society itself. (See Attorney-General v. Pearson, 3 Meri-
vale, 353.) But both nations allow any person, if he
professes to be a teacher of religion, however ignorant he
may be, to become the weekly, the daily instructor of thou-
sands, including children, who derive and have derived no
instruction of any kind except from this source. Such a
teaching or preaching, if it only assumes the name and
form of religious teaching, is permitted to inculcate prin-
ciples which may be subversive of the political system; and
it may and often does inculcate principles the tendency of
which is to undermine the foundations of all social order;
for it should never be forgotten that all religious teaching
must include moral teaching, though moral teaching is
quite distinct from religious teaching. And though it must
be admitted that no teacher of religion recommends a bad
thing as bad, he may recommend a bad thing as good,
solely because he knows no better. We have endeavoured
to point out an anomaly which exists in certain political
institutions, and which can only be allowed to exist so
long as it protects itself under a specious and an honoured
but misunderstood name.
For though it be admitted that
such anomaly exist, it may be said that it cannot be
remedied without interfering with the important principle
of religious freedom. But what is religious or any other
freedom? Is it the individual power of doing or saying
what a man likes? Certainly not. It means no more
than a freedom not inconsistent with the public welfare.
Still it may be urged that this is precisely the kind of free-
dom with which no state, where the principle of religious
freedom is admitted, can safely interfere. But this is only
bringing us round again to the question, What is religious
freedom? To say that it cannot be interfered with is to

*

assume an answer to the question. Does what is called sooner and more effectually reach, the hovels and the garreligious freedom, as the same is now understood, admitting rets of the poor, where thousands of children are now it to produce much good, produce also any evil? If it brought up under such circumstances, that to be unhealthy, does, can the evil be remedied? Is the free practice of any vicious, criminal, and unhappy, are the only results which, art or profession, medicine or law, for instance, or the art of as a general rule, can follow from the given conditions of their instructing children in general knowledge, or perfect free-existence. When the unhappy wretch, who cannot be other dom in teaching and expounding religious doctrines, incon- than what he is, has at last transgressed the limits of the sistent with the condition of qualification? How the positive morality of society, and got within the verge of the qualification is to be ascertained, and what it is to be, is penalties of the law, his crimes are blazoned forth by the question; and it is a question which may be answered. thousands, the respectable part of society are shocked at In all that we have said on Education as a subject of the disclosures, and are only relieved from their pain when legislation, it is assumed either that the state can enforce, the criminal is hid in a prison, or his life is taken by the exif necessary, that which it enacts; or that the enactments ecutioner. But the example is soon forgotten, and misery of the state will be only the expression of the public will; and vice fester in the very heart of society unheeded, till or that they will be founded on reasons so clear and con- some new warning again startles it from its lethargy. vincing as to receive, when promulgated, the assent and It may appear almost superfluous to state that the true support of a majority large enough to secure their being interest of the sovereign power, considered in all its bearcarried into effect. If some one of these conditions cannot ings, must coincide with the interest of the governed; the be fulfilled, the legislation is premature, and will probably difference in forms of government or in the distribution of the be injurious. sovereign power being mainly to be considered a difference in the instruments or means by which an end is to be obtained. Nor is this difference an unimportant one. Where the sovereign power is in all those who as individuals are subject to it, the coincidence of power and of interest is complete; and the nearer any form of government approaches to this distribution of power, the more obvious and the stronger is the principle laid down. The principle may express a common-place truth; but the consequences that flow from it are numerous and important. When it is clear that the state will promote the general good by its regulations, its business is to make regulations. If regulations will not promote the general good, that is a reason for not making them. Now to protect a man in the enjoyment of his property, and to preserve him from the aggressions of others, is a main part of the business of governing. For this purpose restraints and punishments are necessary; immediately, to protect the injured, and give compensation, when it can be given; remotely, to prevent others from being injured, and, so far as it can be done, to reform the offender. But the punishment of any offender, in its extremest shape, can do little more than prevent the same person from offending again. Those who are deterred from crime by his example can at any rate only be those to whom the example is known, and they are a small portion even of the actual society. Generally, then, those who do not offend against the laws, do not offend, either because they have been sufliciently educated to avoid such offence, or because the opportunity and temptation have not been presented to them, or because they know that punishment may follow the crime. But a large class of offenders have not been sufficiently educated to enable them to avoid the commission of crime; a very large number are brought up amidst the opportunities, the temptations, and the example of crime, to oppose all which the single fact of knowing that the crime may be punished (and even that amount of knowledge is not always possessed by the criminal) is all the means of resistance that such persons are armed with. In societies which boast of their wealth, their civilization, and their high intellectual cultivation, such is the feeble barrier opposed by those who have the government of a people between thousands of their fellow-citizens and the commission of crimes the penalties of which are always severe and often cruel.

The extent of that department of Education with which the legislature should not interfere can only be fixed with precision by ascertaining the extent of its proper, that is, its useful interference. We may state, however, in general terms, that the early and domestic Education of the young of both sexes is in nearly all, perhaps all, modern political systems, placed beyond the reach of direct legislative control by the constitution of modern society. But inasmuch as one of the great functions of government is the instruction, direction, and superintendence of the teaching body, even the domestic Education is not beyond its influence, but will be subjected to it in precisely the same degree as the state shall succeed in forming a body of good teachers. For the importance and value of Education (in some sense or other: it matters not here in what sense) are universally admitted. The objects of Education, it is true, are often misunderstood by parents and those who have the charge of youth, and the means are as often ill-calculated for the end proposed. But this is only a consequence of ignorance, not an indication that Education is undervalued. When better objects and better means are proposed, whether by individual example or by associations of individuals called societies, or by the state, such objects and means will be readily embraced by all who can comprehend them. It being assumed that the objects and means thus presented are desirable in themselves, there can be no obstacle to the reception of them, so far as the state allows the reception to be voluntary, except the ignorance and prejudices (which are, in fact, only ignorance under another name) of those to whom they are proposed. But till this obstacle which ignorance presents is overcome, nothing can be effected in the way of improvement; and it being admitted, that as to the department of education under consideration, direct legislation is not the proper means, some other means must be adopted. Individuals and societies often effect their benevolent objects by example and by the authority of their name and character. The state may do the same. The influence of authority and example is in all countries most efficient when the sovereign power calls them in to its aid. Individuals may do much; societies have done more; but Society (the whole, in its collective power) is the body from which all improvements must come that are calculated to operate on the mass. From these considerations we conclude that if any state seriously and anxiously apply itself to the business of forming a body of teachers, it is impossible to foresee how far the beneficial influence of such a body, well organized, may extend. It may penetrate into the house of the wealthy, where the child who is born to the possession of wealth is not thereby secured in the enjoyment of it, or against any one calamity of human life. His wealth may be wasted by improvidence; his health may be enfeebled by indolence and debauchery; his understanding may be cramped and corrupted by vicious Education and bad example; and he may become an object of detestation and contempt, though born to the command of wealth sufficient to purchase all that society has to offer. This influence may also reach, and perhaps

In discussing a subject of this kind in a limited space, it is not possible to anticipate objections that may be fairly urged, or to state and answer tible For example, it may be said, if a man ought not to preach without some jects without some evidence of qualification? The answer is not difficult; evidence of qualification, why should a man print a book on religious sub

but we have not space to answer either this or numerous othe objections that may be made.

If the general considerations which we have urged are of any weight, there is no branch of legislation which comprehends so many important questions as are comprehended in the word Education, even when taken in its ordinary acceptation; but when viewed in all its bearings, it is of all questions most peculiarly that which it concerns the present age and the present state of society to determine. That Education was an integral, an essential part of legislation, was clearly seen by the Greeks, to whom belongs the merit of having approached, and often having solved, nearly all the important questions that affect the constitution of society. It was their good fortune to contemplate many truths from a nearer point of view and in a clearer light than we can do now. The relations of modern society are so numerous and complicated, that the mind is bewildered amidst the multiplicity and variety of facts, the claims of opposing interests, and the number and magnitude of the objects which are presented for its consideration. It is only influences, and steadily looking to the general welfare as by keeping ourselves as free as possible from mere party the end to be attained by and the true test of all political

202

institutions, that we can hope to discover and apply the principles which shall secure, so far as such a thing can be secured, the universal happiness of a nation.

1ers.

allowed to have been married, but whose name is unknown he had two sons and six daughters; and by another wife, Edgiva, he had two sons, Edmund and Edred, both of whom were afterwards kings of England, and two daughEDWARD II., king of the Anglo-Saxons, surnamed the Martyr, was the eldest son of Edgar the Peaceable, by his first wife, Elfleda. On the death of Edgar, in 975, the accession of Edward was opposed by a faction headed by his father's widow, Elfrida, who on the pretence that the elder brother was excluded by the circumstance of having been born before his father had been crowned, maintained that the right to the vacant throne lay with her own son Ethelred. To create for herself the appearance of a national party she and her associates proclaimed themselves the patrons of the cause of the married clergy in opposition to Dunstan and the monks; but after a short period of confusion, the latter prevailed in the Witenagemote, and Edward was formally accepted as king by that assembly. Elfrida however seems still to have continued her intrigues; and her unscrupulous ambition at last led her to the perpetration of a deed, which has covered her name with infamy. This was the murder of her step-son by a hired assassin, as he stopped one day while hunting at her residence, Corfe Castle, in Dorsetshire; he was stabbed in the back as he sat on his horse at the gate of the castle drinking a cup of mead. The 18th of March, 978, is the date assigned to the murder of King Edward, who was only in his seventeenth year when he was thus cut off. He was never married, and leaving no children, was succeeded by his half-brother, Ethelred, the only individual then remaining whose birth gave him any pretensions to the throne.

It was in the reign of Edward that the national council was held at Calne which is so famous for the catastrophe of the floor giving way, with the exception of the part on which Dunstan and his friends stood. [DUNSTAN.]

That the legislator should especially occupy himself with the education of youth, no one can dispute; for when this is not done in states, it is a cause of damage to the polity (form of government). For a state must be administered with reference to its polity; and that which is the peculiar characteristic of each polity is that which preserves and originally constitutes it; as, for instance, the democratical principle in a democracy, and the oligarchal in an oligarchy; and that which is the best principle always constitutes the best polity. Further, in every occupation and art a person must receive previous instruction and discipline, in order to the exercising of the occupation or art; consequently also to the enabling him to the exercise of virtue. Now, since the end of every state is one, it is evident that the education must be one, and of necessity the same for all, and that the superintendence of the education must be with the public and not with individuals, as it now is, when each individual superintends his own children singly, and teaches them what he chooses. But when things are matter of public concern, the discipline pertaining to them must also be matter of public concern; and we must not consider any citizen as belonging to himself, but all as belonging to the state; for each is a part of the state, and the superintendence of cach part has naturally a reference to the superintendence of the whole. In the matter of education, as well as in other matters, the Lacedæmonians deserve praise; for they take the greatest pains about the education of their children, and that, too, as a public concern. That then a state ought to legislate on education and make it a public concern, is clear; but what education is, and how education must be conducted, is a subject for consideration.' (Aristotle, Politik, book viii.) EDWARD I., surnamed the Elder, king of the West Saxons, and with some pretensions to be regarded as king of all England, was the eldest son of Alfred the Great, by his queen Alswitha, the daughter of Earl Ethelred. On the death of his father, 26th October, 901, Edward was recognized by the Witenagemote as his successor; but the throne was contested by his cousin Ethelwald, who was the son of one of the three elder brothers and predecessors of Alfred, but whether of Ethelbald, Ethelbert, or Ethelred, is uncertain. The cause of Ethelwald received from the first the support of the Danes of the north, and by their assistance in 904 he compelled the submission of the people of Essex, and in the following year that of the East Anglians. The contest however was at length terminated, in 906 or 907, by the death of Ethelwald, in a battle fought between his forces and those of Edward. The people of East Anglia returned on this under submission to the king of Wessex, and the Northumbrian Danes concluded a peace with him: but three or four years afterwards we find the Danes breaking this pacification; nor do they appear to have been quieted, or the people of Essex finally brought back to their obedience, till the year 920 or 921. Mercia in the mean time had continued to be governed as a separate state, though subject to the supremacy of Wessex, first by the ealdorman Ethered or Ethelred, to whom it had been entrusted by Alfred, and, after his death in 912, by his widow Ethelfleda, the sister of Edward. The Lady Ethelfleda survived till 920, conducting the affairs of her government with distinguished ability, and all along acting in concert with her brother in his efforts against the Danes and his other enemies. On her death, Edward took the government of Mercia into his own hands. After this, if we may believe the old historians, not only did all the Danes, including even those of Northumbria, make full submission to Edward, but their example was followed by the Welsh and the people of Strathclyde, and the king of the Scots and all his subjects also chose the English monarch as their lord. The military successes however, which must have been achieved to compel the submission of all these neighbouring powers, if such submission actually took place, are not recorded.

Some of the laws of Edward the Elder are preserved; but they do not demand any particular notice. He died in 925, and was succeeded by his eldest son Athelstane, born to him by a shepherd's daughter named Egwina, who is stated by some of the old writers to have been his wife, by others only his mistress. He had also another son and a daughter by Egwina. By another lady, to whom he is

EDWARD III., king of the Anglo-Saxons, surnamed the Confessor, was the eldest of the two sons of Ethelred II. by his second wife Emma, the daughter of Richard I., duke of Normandy. He was born at Islip, in Oxfordshire, probably in the year 1004. In the close of 1013, when the successes of Sweyn, the Dane, drove Ethelred from his throne, and compelled him to retire to the Isle of Wight, he sent over his wife, with Edward and his younger brother Alfred, to Normandy, to the care of their uncle Duke Richard II. Hither Ethelred himself, being assured of a favourable reception, followed his family, about the middle of January, 1014. When, on the death of Sweyn, within three weeks after, Ethelred was recalled by the Witenagemote, he sent back his son Edward along with the plenipotentiaries, whom he despatched previously to setting out himself to complete the arrangements for his restoration. On the death of Ethelred in 1016, Emma and her two sons returned to Normandy. When Canute the Dane obtained the throne in the latter part of the same year by the death of Edmund Ironside, it is affirmed that Duke Richard either fitted out a naval force or threatened to do so, with a view of supporting the claims of his nephew Edward; but this intention, if it ever was entertained, was effectually diverted before it led to any thing by the proposals which now proceeded from Canute for the hand of the widowed Emma. Canute and Emma were married in July, 1017. From this time till the death of Canute in 1035, Edward appears to have remained quiet in Normandy. He is said to have spent his time chiefly in the performance of the offices of religion and in hunting, which continued to be his favourite occupations to the end of his days. Canute's death, and the disputes for the succession between his sons Harold and Hardicanute, Edward was induced to make a momentary demonstration in asser tion of his pretensions: he crossed the channel with a fleet of forty ships, and landed at Southampton; but finding that instead of being supported, he would be vigorously opposed by his mother, who was exerting all her efforts for her son Hardicanute, he gave up the attempt, and returned to Normandy after merely plundering a few villages. In 1037 his younger brother Alfred was tempted by an invitation purporting to come from Emma to proceed to England at the head of another expedition, which terminated in his destruction, brought about apparently by treachery, though there does not seem to be any sufficient ground for the horrid suspicion, which some writers have been disposed to entertain, that the contriver of the plot

On