wore round bonnets on their heads. This remarkable dress of our British ancestors, seems to have been equally the attire of the men and women among the nobles of Britain."*

It is difficult to form a just estimate of the moral qualities and familiar manners of a people so remote, from the pages of those who have noticed them but briefly; who visited them as enemies or conquerors; and who pertinaciously affected to consider them, whether of Celtic or Belgic origin, as mere barbarians. They are described by the Greek and Roman writers, as being proud and vain-glorious; rash in resolve, and prone to passionate bursts of anger. In alleviation of such censure, it may be remarked that their pride was blended with patriotism, and that their warmth of temper was sustained and rendered respectable by an ardent courage, ever ready for action, in support of their princes, and in defence of their country.

The most important circumstance connected with the œconomy of civil life, is a due regulation of the commerce between the sexes. Many writers have presented rather minute descriptions of the marriage ceremonials of the Britons, and of the engagements entered into by the parties concerned. But their accounts rest entirely on a presumed analogy of manners between the ancient Germans and the Britons; on the poems of Ossian; and on the laws of Howel Dha. It is obvious, that conjecture is here allowed too large a scope for the purposes of legitimate history. Julius Cæsar affords the first acceptable authority on the subject, and he writes to the following effect: "Ten or twelve persons, who are commonly near relations, as fathers, sons, and brothers, all have their wives in common. But the children are presumed to belong to the man to whom the mother was mar

ried."

a

The dress of the British Princess, Boadicia, is described by Dio, as tunick of various colours, long and plaited, over which she had a large and thick mantle. This was her common dress, which she wore at all times.". Many articles of personal ornament amongst the Britons are noticed in future pages, under the subject of Barrows, Cairns, and Funeral Reliques.

ried."* This assertion is corroborated by the testimony of Dio, and other ancient writers,

A statement so unfavourable to the morals of our ancestors, has naturally been treated with scepticism by many authors. Dr. Henry, one of the most respectable of those who hesitate in receiving as correct the accounts transmitted by the ancients, observes “that it is very probable Cæsar, Dio, and others, were deceived by appearances, and were led to entertain this opinion of the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes among the Britons, by noticing the promiscuous manner in which they lived, and particularly in which they slept. The houses of the Britons were not, like ours at present, or those of the Romans in those times, divided into several distinct apartments; but consisted of one large circular room, or hall, with a fire in the middle, around which the whole family and visitants, men, women, and children, slept on the floor, in one continued bed of straw or rushes. This excited unfavourable suspicions in the minds of strangers, accustomed to a more decent manner of living; but these suspicions were probably without foundation. For the ancient Germans, who were in many respects extremely like the ancient Britons, and lived in the same crowded and promiscuous manner, were remarkable for their chastity and conjugal fidelity.”+

An argument in favour of the connubial good morals of the Britons, has, likewise, been drawn from the poems of Ossian; but the examiner will, perhaps, look with more consideration on the instance of Queen Cartismandua, who incurred the universal indignation of the Brigantes, for her inconstancy to her husband, and preference of her armour-bearer. But, still, these arguments are far from conclusive, when opposed by the positive assertion of so judicious an investigator as Cæsar. In regard to Cartismandua, it may be readily supposed that an unusual re

serve

* Cæsar, de Bel. Gal. 1. 5. c. 14.

+ Henry's Hist. of England. Vol. II. p. 304-305. + Vide Tacit. Hist. 1. 3. c. 45.

serve was expected in the person of a queen, and that the popular indignation was heightened by the alien meanness of her companion in guilt. Although it has been found impossible to exonerate entirely the character of the Britons from this degrading imputation, we may easily imagine that a custom so offensive to the simplicity of nature, was not held in universal practice. Genuine delicacy would, perforce, find its way to some bosoms; admiration and esteem would individuate affection, even amongst the half-civilized; and paternal love, one of the deepest and noblest feelings of the human breast, would prohibit the indulgence of an intercourse so grossly promiscuous, amongst the more respectable classes of society.

Thus, even if the Druidical laws sanctioned a disgusting licentiousness of manners, we may suppose that only families of little consideration and repute took full advantage of the freedom allowed. It will be remembered that the laws of the Koran permit a mussulman to have a plurality of wives, and as many concubines as his fortune will maintain; but only a comparative few, branded with ill-fame for libertinism, seek gratification from the indulgence.

7

The art in which the Britons chiefly excelled, was that of war. The division of their country into numerous small principalities, produced continual struggles, which rendered a skill in the science of defence and attack, not only desirable but of vital necessity. They were, accordingly, trained to the practice of arms from the first dawn of adolescence; and the priests, who held so potent a tyranny over their feelings and understanding, encouraged them to believe that the fearless warrior was the character most acceptable to the gods. As the Britons were chiefly viewed when in a warlike attitude by the illustrious author, whose commentary forms the ground-work of the history of their manners; and as the enquiries of subsequent Roman writers. were principally (from the complexion of the times) directed to the military circumstances of the island; we are enabled to present a more full and satisfactory picture of the Briton, when

armed

armed for battle, than when engaged in civil, and more valuable avocations.

Although there is reason to believe that the population of ancient Britain was far from being extensive, yet, as society, independent of the priesthood, was confined to two ranks, the chieftain and his retainer; and as only few were employed in useful arts and manufactures; the armies poured forth on a public emergency, were unexpectedly strong in numbers; for nearly all who were capable of bearing arms were liable, and were ready, to appear with them in the field. It is evident that the army of the ancient Britons was not divided into distinct legions, but that each particular clan fought round the person, and under the direction of, its immediate chieftain. These chiefs obeyed the commands of the king of their petty state; and, on great occasions, the assembled kings employed their forces according to the will of the Pendragon, or head of the confederacy.

The troops consisted of infantry, cavalry, and warriors who fought from chariots.

The infantry, as is usual with the military of most nations, formed the chief strength of the army. They possessed no defensive armour, except small, and generally round, shields. Their offensive weapons were swords of copper, or brass, long, broad, and without points, which were attached to the right side, and suspended from a belt or chain, thrown over the left shoulder. Round the body was a girdle, sustaining a short dirk or dagger, also of copper, or brass. Some bore à spear, armed at the point with copper, which was used occasionally as a missile weapon; and others were armed with bows and arrows. * In the use of these latter weapons the Belga appear to have been peculiarly expert, as Cæsar dwells with emphasis on the annoyance which

his

* To this list of weapons used by the ancient British infantry, may be added the battle-axe, if indeed those instruments so frequently found in different parts of the island, and termed Celts by antiquaries, were intended for purposes of hostility.

his troops experienced from the darts of those who opposed his invasion. At the butt-end of the spear was often placed a ball of brass, charged with stones, or pieces of metal, and intended to startle horses with its noise. The whole of the troops threw aside their garments, and disclosed full to the enemy their painted bodies, before they entered on action.

The cavalry were mounted on horses of a diminutive breed, but swift in motion, and equally spirited and hardy. If figures exhibited on British coins may be received as conclusive evidence, the riders were not provided with saddles of any description. They were armed with shields; swords resembling those of the infantry; and long spears.

The war-chariots formed the most remarkable feature in the military arrangement of the Britous, and were found, even by the firmest phalanx of the Romans, to be vehicles of tremendous operation. These were of two kinds, both having two wheels and being drawn by two horses. The chariots of the most destructive character were armed with sharp blades, or scythes, and hooks; and were driven furiously upon the ranks of an enemy, destroying or maiming all who unsuccessfully endeavoured to interrupt their progress.

The war-chariots of the second class contained the chieftains,

and

• The use of military chariots among the Britons appears to have been derived from the Gauls; but the custom was almost entirely laid aside on the continent, previous to Cæsar's invasion of Britain. Mr. Polwhele, however, (Hist. of Devon. p. 174-176.) is of opinion that the practice was introduced to the Gauls by the Britons. Conjecture, rather than proof, is chiefly adduced by those who argue either on the side of Mr. Polwhele, or with the opposite party. In regard to the construction and character of these chariots, it may be remarked that Mr. King (Munimenta Antiq. Vol. I. Chap. 1.) endeavours to degrade them to a level with the little, low, cart, or truck, still used in many parts of Wales. If it be allowed that he is, in some respects, supported by probability, as to the cars used by the ancient Britons for purposes of traffic, we cannot suppose that the war-cars, which alarmed the Roman veterans, were such contemptible carriages.