ceivable. Thus the Russians got their word for 40, sorok, from the Greek (тeσ)σαpáкovтa. But in the first numbers it is certainly un(τεσσαράκοντα. likely. The following table will show that the numbers from 1 to 7 correspond in Magyar, Vogul and Finnic, and differ in the Altaic group of the Turk race.*

The Magyar tíz, 10, differs from the Vogul lau, but then lau also differs from the Finnish kymmen. The numbers 8 and 9 are expressed in all three languages † as 10—2, 10—1 (just as 18 and 19 are expressed in Latin and Greek); and this points to a period when the Ugro-Finnic race counted by sevens. Hunfalvy supposes that there were two periods in the early history of the Hungarians; the first in which the Finns and Ugrians lived all together and counted on a septenary system; the second in which the Hungarians had separated, and lived far away from the Finns, but in the neighbourhood of the Voguls and Ostjaks. However this may be, it is very hard to get over the elementary arithmetic. It would be unprofitable here to go into the comparisons of other words, both nouns and verbs, which have been proposed by Budenz on the one hand and Vámbéry on the other. There are many names for which a plausible kinsword can be found in Turkish; but then an equally plausible kinsword can also be found in Vogul or Ostjak. And there are other cases where Hungarian has two words for the same thing, of which one is clearly Ugrian and the other clearly Turkish. Thus atya ‘father' is Turkisk ata, but then is is the same as Vogul jis; anya 'mother' is Turkish ana, but em is Finnic emä. It is instructive to com

* See Vámbéry, p. 468.

† Certainly in Vogul and Finnic; probably in Magyar.

pare the list of prepositions given by Hunfalvy with that given by Vámbéry; the one cancels the other.

So far then it seems to me that the hypothesis of the Ugrian origin of the Hungarians holds the field. The Hungarians are Ogres and not Turks. But I cannot agree with Hunfalvy in his view that the influence which their Turkish neighbours exerted on both the language and the character of the Magyars began in the Atelkuzu period.† On the contrary, it must have begun very early indeed, even before the Lebedia period. It also deserves remark that there are evidences of Persian influence on Magyar civilisation, which Vámbéry has done well to emphasize; and this may go to explain the statement of Ibn Dasta that the Magyars were fireworshippers.

This paper may be fitly concluded by a reference to the death of Hunfalvy Pál-to write his name in Magyar fashion—which took place a few months ago. The Hungarians have lost in him one of their soundest scholars and most careful workers. He was not always sure of his Greek accents-the Magyars never are— and, strange to say, he thought that the 'Ayapmvol of the Greek chroniclers meant the Avars. He made mistakes of this kind; but he did much to raise the level of Hungarian scholarship near that of other European countries, and his writings will for many years to come be indispensable to every student of early Hungarian history. J. B. BURY.

ART. II. THE PORTEOUS RIOT.

(From Original MSS. in the Record Office.)

HE best accounts of the Porteous Riot, which, though not

Tan important event in Scottish History, was one of the

strangest incidents which took place in Scotland during last

* Die Ungern, p. 33, and A magyarok eredete, p. 471.

+ I quite agree with Vámbéry's criticisms (p. 142) on Hunfalvy's Kabar hypothesis.

century, are those given by Sir Walter Scott in the Heart of Midlothian and in the Tales of a Grandfather. In addition to the ordinary sources of information, and those oral traditions which he had heard in his youth, Scott was in possession of a manuscript, Memorial concerning the Murder of Captain Porteous,' which is printed in the Notes to the Heart of Midlothian. The original of this interesting document, which consists of an account of the attempts made by the Crown Council in Scotland to discover the murderers of Porteous, is preserved in the Public Record Office, along with a number of other papers relating to this mysterious affair. The most important of these papers are, in addition to the Memorial of which Scott had a copy, a ‘Narrative' of the Riot, drawn up, apparently, by an Edinburgh magistrate, and differing somewhat from Sir Walter Scott's account; the petition of Porteous, praying for a reprieve, to which his signature, written in a clear, though rather shaky, hand, is appended; a petition in his favour signed by a number of peers and gentlemen of position; and, most valuable of all, a collection of letters by the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, the Duke of Newcastle, the Earl of Ilay, General Moyle, who was in command of a regiment in Edinburgh at the time of the Riot, General Wade, and others. From the documents some additional facts may be learned regarding that extraordinary outrage, which so highly irritated the Government of the day, and the authors of which were never discovered in spite of the strenuous and long continued exertions which were made for the purpose of bringing them to justice.

The facts which led to the Porteous Riot may be shortly stated. Two criminals, Wilson and Robertson by name, who had been sentenced to death for robbery, were, on the Sunday before the day fixed for their execution, taken to hear service; and Robertson, by the help of his fellow-prisoner, succeeded in making his escape from the Church. The building was crowded; but no attempt was made by any of the congregation to stop the fugitive. Not a person,' Provost Wilson of Edinburgh writes to Mr. Lindsay, member for the city, 'put out their hand to stop Robertson. On the contrary, everybody made way for him.'

This refusal to support the officers of the law did not merely arise from unwillingness to interfere with a man who was flying for his life, but was also occasioned by the fact that the robbery of which he had been convicted, was the robbery of a collector of customs, an offence which, at that time, was regarded in Scotland as venial, if not actually praiseworthy. The feeling which had prompted the onlookers to connive at the escape of Robertson rendered Wilson an object of sympathy; and the authorities feared that an attempt would be made to rescue him from the hands of the hangman. To prevent this, the scaffold was surrounded by an armed band of the cityguard, under the command of Captain John Porteous. What took place is well known. A rescue was not attempted; but after the execution the mob became excited, and stones were thrown at Porteous and his men, who retaliated by firing on the people. Several persons were killed, and many were wounded. Among those slain on the spot, or who soon after died of their wounds, were shopkeepers, domestic servants, both men and women, and respectable working men, who were present merely as peaceable spectators of the execution. The conduct of Porteous was bitterly resented; and the anger of the citizens increased, as day by day they heard of persons dying from the wounds which they had received. The execution of Wilson took place on the 14th of April 1736; and on the 19th of July Porteous was arraigned, on a charge of murder, before the High Court of Justiciary, the supreme criminal tribunal in Scotland. The charge against him was twofold; first, causing the men under his command to fire upon the crowd, and secondly, firing with his own hand and killing one of the crowd, a man named Charles Husband. His defence was that he had neither ordered his men to fire, nor fired himself, but had merely threatened the people when they became unruly. Twenty-eight witnesses were examined for the prosecution, merchants of the city, professional men, servants, and young men of fashion, who had witnessed the scene from the windows of the lofty tenements of the Grassmarket, at that time an aristocratic quarter of Edinburgh. The effect of this evidence was to prove that Porteous had urged

his men to fire. Fire, and be damned to you,' were the words which several witnesses swore they had heard him use. There was also strong evidence to the effect that he had snatched a firelock from one of the guard and discharged it at Husband. The testimony of the witnesses for the defence, sixteen in number, was mainly that they had not heard any orders to fire, and had not seen Porteous himself discharge a musket. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty, and Porteous was sentenced to be hanged on Wednesday, the 8th of September.

The sentence was heard with immense satisfaction in Edinburgh, for the citizens regarded Porteous simply as a brutal murderer. But he was advised to appeal to Queen Caroline, who, owing to the King's absence on the Continent, represented the Crown at this time. The petition which Porteous addressed to Her Majesty might have been disregarded, but it was backed up by another and more influential application for mercy. It is perhaps unnecessary to mention that, in 1736, Walpole was struggling against that powerful combination which, a few years later, succeeded in driving him from office; but the events which led to the respite of Porteous, as disclosed in the official papers in the Record Office, can hardly be understood without some explanation of the position of the Ministry in Scotland. The chief adviser of Walpole regarding Scottish affairs was Archibald Campbell, Earl of Ilay and brother of John, Duke of Argyle and Greenwich. Andrew Fletcher of Milton, the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, an acute lawyer and an able politician, acted as the confidential correspondent of Lord Ilay. The Lord Advocate was Duncan Forbes of Culloden, and the Solicitor General was Charles Erskine of Tinwald. These four politicians practically controlled the administration of Scotland. But they had to contend against a vigorous opposition, especially from the Scottish peers, which had been growing in strength ever since the General Election of 1734. In that year, at the election of the sixteen representative peers, a riot had been expected, and a regiment of soldiers was drawn up in the courtyard of Holyrood Palace, to the great indignation of the opposition candidates, who protested that an attempt was being made to