of common subordination are wholly cut asunder. The word nation excludes, the word people includes foreign residents." This is very true etymologically; but it does not meet the linguistic needs either of statesmen or the general public. Etymologically speaking, there is no British nation (except in Wales), but a British people made up of the English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish nations. But by what code does Great Britain regulate her foreign intercourse, international law or "interpopular law? Is the British flag the national or the popular standard, and "God Save the King" the national or the popular hymn? Of necessity, therefore, we find the London Times, for instance, speaking continually of the British nation. And Vattel, using 'nation' as synonymous with 'state,' says: "Nations, or States, are political bodies, societies of men united together to attain mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength." Walker ("American Law," pp. 717, 718) says: "By a nation, in the sense in which I am now using the term, I understand a society of people so organized as to govern themselves independently of foreign powers. *** Thus the American colonies before the Revolution, were only parts of the British nation. And in like manner, the States of the Union are not nations, because they have parted with many of the attributes of independent self-government, but only parts of that one and entire nation, known and recognised by other nations as the United States," &c. Webster's definition of nation is, "A body of people inhabiting the same country, or united under the same sovereign or government;" and in this sense the word is now used by the best writers and speakers in all languages, as well as by people generally. But what then becomes of the nationality which distinguishes the English, the Scotch, and the Irish from each other? What becomes of the nationality of manners, customs, and music? I think that it will be found that the definitions given by Crabbe and Mr. Taylor, must be, nay, to all intents and purposes are, directly reversed; and that we speak of the English people, the Welsh people, the Scotch people, and the Irish people, as forming the British nation; and that Scotch and Irish national airs, for instance, have become Scotch and Irish popular airs, as having originated and been preserved among the Scotch and Irish people. So, although the Jewish nation and Jewish nationality are utterly destroyed, the Jews are, and ever will be, as they, from the days of Moses and Aaron, ever have been, "a peculiar people."

We have, then, no national music, as we have no national literature. But to a national hymn, a national music is not essential; for the British (it never was the English) national hymn is the finest in existence, and that was produced in England, which is as barren of melody as America. The germ of the air is not of English growth; but the thing as a whole is of English fabrication. The music, in the present form of its melody and harmony, is in certain points superior, even to Haydn's noble air, written for the Austrian national hymn, which a true-born Briton, comparing the two, has naively said, "wants the manly, majestic, full-hearted boldness of the strains in which we are accustomed to express, not more our respect for our monarch than our own national pride." The words, indeed, are poor enough. Lyrically, they are naught; but they express in strong, blunt language, the British national feeling; they denounce the king's enemies roundly, and rate them in good set terms; and they

do this in the form of prayer to God. They have thus become, by mingled fitness and association, the most absolute expression of John Bull-ism, and so are sung with equal gusto by your true Briton before a big battle, and after a big dinner.

But this fine national air, and its well-suited words, were they written for a coronation, or a victory, or in a general way to express not more our respect for our monarch than our own national pride?" By whom were they written, and when, and on what inspiration? These points were long mooted, but they have been pretty nearly settled; and before we are done with the subject, we trust that there will be no doubt left upon the question: for the history of this hymn is so curious and instructive that it is worth our attention.

"God Save the King," then, which has become the recognised British national hymn, the concentrated expression of loyalty to King, Lords, and Commons, is, words and music, a rebel composition, written in honor of a pretender to the British throne; and the "enemies" that it so denounces are the reigning House of Hanover, and its supporters. It has been attributed to Dr. John Bull, a musician who lived in England in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I.; but this could have been done only by persons entirely unacquainted with Bull's compositions, which are formal, dry, and dreary to the last degree, besides being "impossible" enough to please Dr. Johnson.*

* The story told of him by Wood, in his Fasti Oxonienses, and which is repeated even at this day, that he made himself known to a mugi

It was even said, upon the authority of a Dr. Cook, who had inspected the Archives of the Academy of Ancient Music upon this subject, to have been "written by a Dr. Rogers, in the time of Henry VIII., prior to the Reformation."* But the truth is, that it has not yet been known a hundred and twenty-five years, or recognised as a British national hymn for seventy-five years. As late as 1796, a correspondent of the Gentleman's Magazine expresses a "wish" that "the song of God save the king, may long cheer the heart of many a loyal subject." The air is originally French, and is still sung by the vinedressers in the south of France. This air, Henry Carey, a musician who lived in the reign of William and Mary, Anne, and the first Georges, adopted and re-wrote, writing also, and perhaps partly adopting, the verses which are now sung to it, with the exception of two very important words.

"God Save the King," was first published in the Gentleman's Magazine for October, 1745, where it appears, with the music, among the miscellaneous collection of rhyming odds and ends, at the end of the number, merely as "A Song, for two voices. As sung at both Playhouses." The melody of the first strain, and the last bar, is different from, and much inferior

cian at St. Omer's, by taking a piece of music in forty parts, and adding forty other parts to it, is even more absurd than the attributing "God save the King" to him. The fact is, as any person who can read a musical score, knows, physically impossible. The musical scale does not admit even the first forty parts.

* See the Gentleman's Magazine, 1796. p. 993.

to, the present reading.* The harmony is Dr. Arne's, he having arranged the song, and brought it into public notice at one of the theatres; and hence its publication by Cave in his magazine. Testimony has been produced to show that Henry Carey avowed the authorship of the song once in private. His son, George Savile Carey, set up the same claim for his father, and actually applied to George III. for a pecuniary "gratification" on that account. John Christopher Smith, Handel's well known amanuensis, also asserted that Carey was the composer. In the Gen

* The change is said to have been made by Dr. Pepusch.
"A New Song for two voices. As sung at both Playhouses."

God save great George our King, Long live our noble King,

God save the King. Send him victorious, Happy and

glorious, Long to reign o - ver us, God save the King.

Thus the music of this song is given in the Gentleman's Magazine, The musical reader will notice how important the changes are, and how great the improvements which have been made both in its melody and harmony since that time.