CHAPTER X.
Britain: its maritime position, and limited extent of over-sea trade—The vessels of the Ancient Britons, and the larger kind used by the Veneti—Encouragement by law to construct superior vessels—Britain and its inhabitants little known—Cæsar’s reasons for invading Britain—First invasion, B.C. 55—Size of his transports—Second invasion, B.C. 54—Cæsar’s preference for small vessels—Violent storm, and great loss of ships—Final action on the banks of the Thames—Cæsar makes terms with the Britons, and re-embarks his legions—Advantages derived by the Britons from their intercourse with the Romans—Conquest of Britain, A.D. 43: its state of civilization—Speech of Caractacus—The course of commerce with Rome—Inland water traffic—Transit duties—Articles of commerce, and knowledge of manufactures and of the arts—Colchester and its mint—London—Agricola, A.D. 78-85—His fleet sails round Britain—The influence of the rule of Agricola on the Britons—Hadrian, A.D. 120—State of commerce in and after his reign—The Caledonian incursions—Piratical invasions of the Germans—Carausius seizes the fleet of Maximian, and declares himself Emperor of Britain—Welsh and Scots, A.D. 360—Saxons, A.D. 364—Their ships—State of the Britons when abandoned by the Romans.
Britain:
The successful career which has distinguished the Royal Navy of Great Britain in her contests for many centuries on the ocean, and the vast proportions to which her merchant shipping has extended during the present generation, render the details of her incipient attempts at navigation one of the most interesting portions of her domestic history. Nor is the task to obtain these a difficult one. The early annals of the ancient Britons, though very limited with regard to their shipping and maritime commerce, have been so often thoroughly investigated that little remains to be done beyond collecting the leading facts which antiquarian industry has preserved, and endeavouring to re-produce them in a manner as pleasing and instructive as possible.
its maritime position, and limited extent of over-sea trade.
The vessels of the ancient Britons, and the larger kind used by the Veneti.
Separated from the rest of Europe by a sea, which in winter is very boisterous, and in summer often disturbed by currents and uncertain winds; surrounded by a coast full of danger, and with the channels to its principal havens interspersed with treacherous sand-banks, the ancient Britons must have been an adventurous race to launch their frail barks, for even a limited voyage, on waters so often disturbed by storm and tempest. Their trade, moreover, during the early periods of their history, was very inconsiderable, notwithstanding the convenient situation of their island for carrying on an extensive commerce; and the greater number of their vessels were of the rudest description. Cæsar speaks of them as being, even in his time, of the slightest construction, with the keels and ribs framed of some light wood and covered with leather; and Lucan[406] says “they were constructed of osiers, twisted and interwoven with each other, and then covered with strong hides.” In such vessels as these the Britons worked their way along their iron-bound and tempest-tossed shores, and frequently made the passage to Ireland and the coasts of Gaul. From the fact, however, that they carried on a trade, though limited, in their own vessels with the Veneti on the coasts of Brittany, sometimes extending their voyages to the river Garonne, it is a fair inference that they possessed other vessels of a larger and stronger description, and that they had learnt something of ship-building from the Veneti, and, possibly, from the Phœnicians. But if it were true, as has been asserted by more than one author, that when the Britons undertook a voyage they abstained from food till it was completed, these voyages must have been very short, indeed, not longer than to Gaul or Ireland.
Encouragement by law to construct superior vessels.
As has been already noticed, some almost circular boats, made of wicker-work, are still in use in Wales, and may fairly be supposed to represent a similar class of boats of much earlier times. On the other hand, we know pretty well, from Cæsar’s description, the character of the larger and stronger vessels of the Veneti.[407] Thus from him we learn that they were built flatter than the Roman merchant ships, for convenience in navigating shallow waters, and that having erect stems and full bows, they were well adapted to resist the violence of the waves in a storm; while he further admits that, as they were constructed entirely of oak, they were not easily damaged by the sharp iron beaks of the Roman galleys. Such vessels could hardly have failed to attract the attention of the Britons, with whom the Veneti long maintained friendly and commercial intercourse, while it is very probable that, from them, the Britons learnt the art of constructing ships of war. But though it is likely that their intercourse with the Veneti may have had some advantages, it is, at the same time, probable that there was no marked improvement in the form and construction of the greater number of British merchant vessels till the Emperor Claudius bestowed by law various privileges upon those persons who built vessels of a superior class for trading purposes.[408] As these privileges, however, only applied to ships capable of carrying ten thousand Roman modii, or about three hundred and twelve quarters of wheat, it is further evident that the framer of the law was desirous of encouraging the building of a larger and better class of vessels than then existed. But though a vessel capable of carrying only about sixty tons weight is much less than the average size of the coasters of the present century, little or no increase had apparently been made in their dimensions even three hundred years afterwards; for the trade in corn alone between Britain and the ports of Gaul required for its conduct, in the reign of Julian, eight hundred vessels.
Britain and its inhabitants little known.
Although Britain had been for so many centuries more or less known to the Phœnicians, the Carthaginians, and the neighbouring continental tribes, it continued up to the time of the invasion of Julius Cæsar, B.C., to be a terra incognita to the rest of the ancient world; the preservation of such ignorance having been no doubt a matter of state policy with those who had some acquaintance with it, in order that the monopoly of their trade might not be interfered with by any interlopers. Hence, too, the stories sedulously spread of the barbarous character of its inhabitants, of the naked bodies painted with colours in imitation of beasts of prey, though Cæsar himself only says that “they stained themselves blue with woad, and wore their hair long, with moustachios.”
On the other hand, there is good reason for believing that the Britons of the south and south-eastern parts of England were by no means the barbarians some writers have asserted. It is certain that they were of the same race, and nearly connected with the Belgæ of the opposite continents, for Cæsar tells us that many names of cities in the two countries were the same; that their manners greatly resembled those of the Gauls;[409] that Divitiacus, a king of one of the Belgian tribes, was also the ruler of a wide district in England,[410] much as in later times our Edwards and Henries held large provinces of France; that Cingetorix, though ruler of the Treviri on the Moselle, was also a king in Kent;[411] and that the buildings of South Britain and Gaul bore a great similarity one to the other.[412] More than this, we know that the languages of the two countries, divided as they were from one another only by the narrowest part of the English Channel, must have been, as Tacitus[413] states, very similar—a fact partially supported by Cæsar’s mission to England of Comius, the chief of the Atrebates (Artois), that he might advocate the cause of the Romans in the British language.[414]
We know further that the southern portions of England were then thickly peopled, and that the Britons were in some respects so far in advance of their neighbours that the Gauls used to send their sons to England for the purpose of learning the sacred rites of the Druids, an order of priests, be it remembered, who made use of Greek letters for both their public and private transactions.[415] It is further clear, from Cæsar’s narrative, that there must have been no inconsiderable extent of land under cultivation, and therefore cleared, at least partially, of forests, probably for the most part among the Cantii, or men of Kent, whom he calls the “most polished;”[416] moreover, if Cassivelaunus had only one-tenth of the “four thousand war chariots” mentioned by Cæsar,[417] he must have required roads, and well-made roads, too, along which to manœuvre them; not forgetting also the fact, that the construction of such chariots implies considerable mechanical skill. Cæsar adds, that the Britons made use of iron which they obtained from their maritime districts, a statement confirmed by the existence, till within a recent period, of numerous furnaces in the Weald of Sussex, for the extraction of iron from the iron sand of that district.[418] The extremely barbarous Britons, to whom the popular stories refer, were no doubt those of the more northern and central districts—Celts, who had been driven back by the advancing tide of the Belgæ of Northern France.
Cæsar’s reasons for invading Britain.
The invasion by Cæsar was the result of various and mixed circumstances, among which we may well believe one inducement to have been the desire on his part of making his rule in Gaul pre-eminently famous by the subjugation, under Roman rule, of an island about which so many stories were current among his countrymen. Britain, described in Virgil[419] as “beyond the limits of the known world,” was supposed to be rich in gold and silver, with an ocean fertile in pearls;[420] indeed, Suetonius speaks of it as a popular belief, that it was in quest of pearls that Cæsar crossed the Channel. But a more probable reason for his proposed attempt is that alleged by Napoleon III., viz., his having found the natives of Britain invariably aiding his enemies in his Gallic wars, and especially in his conflict with the Veneti, during the summer of the year of his first invasion, B.C. 55.[421] Moreover, intestine divisions[422] had about that time broken out in England, and hence there was then a better chance of Roman success than there would have been had the islanders stood firmly together to resist the invader.
Having resolved then to make the attempt, Cæsar looked about him to procure information about the unknown island: but here he was completely foiled; for the Gauls stood too well by their friends and relations in Britain to volunteer the information they might easily have given the Roman commander. The Veneti, as might have been expected, did what they could to thwart him, while the Morini, dwelling around and to the east of Boulogne, are specially mentioned as friendly to the Britons.[423] Moreover, Cæsar himself remarks that no one but merchants ever visited Britain,[424] unless, indeed, they fled thither for their lives; Britain having been then, as now, the refuge for continental exiles of all classes. In spite, however, of these adverse circumstances, increased in some degree by the lateness of the season, Cæsar judged it best to make the attempt, hoping, probably, to strike an effective blow before the petty states in Britain had had time to weld themselves into a compact body, although, too, he had an almost certain prospect of an uprising in his rear of the only half-subdued Gauls as soon as his legions were fully employed in Britain. He therefore, as a last chance of procuring news about the island, despatched one of his lieutenants, C. Volusenus, in a “long ship” (i.e., light war-galley),[425] giving him orders, as soon as he had made the necessary inquiries, to return to him with all possible speed; a step which showed clearly what his intentions were, and led to an embassy from the Britons, offering terms of submission he, perhaps, disbelieved, at all events declined accepting.
First invasion, B.C. 55.
Cæsar soon after collected about eighty vessels of burden, placed in them two legions, and, having made his final arrangements, started for England from Boulogne at midnight on August 26, B.C. 55, having on board a force of about eight thousand men. Eighteen other transports conveyed about eight hundred horses for the cavalry.[426] Beyond the number of the vessels, Cæsar has left us no information in regard to them, and no indication of their capacity beyond the incidental statement that two of the galleys, which on his return got adrift, carried altogether three hundred men.
The number of men constituting a legion varied very much during the different periods of Roman history, and, in Cæsar’s time, amounted to about five thousand two hundred and eighty men, all told; but as Cæsar obviously took with him as few troops as possible, intending his first descent upon England to be rather a visit of observation than a conquest, it is likely that the whole number of his force did not exceed what we have stated, making for each of the eighty galleys a complement of somewhere about one hundred men.
Size of his transports.
At present about three hundred passengers can be accommodated in a sailing vessel of one thousand tons register on a distant voyage; but, in coasting vessels, the number is very much greater.[427] It may therefore be assumed that the average size of the vessels in which Cæsar embarked his legions on this occasion was not more than one hundred tons register. The horse transports[428] may have been somewhat larger, as more than thirty-three horses, with their provender, water, and attendants, could not well be conveyed in a vessel of less register than one hundred tons, even on so short a voyage as from Boulogne to Romney[429] or Lymne, performed, as this voyage was, with a fair wind, in fifteen hours, or at the rate of about two miles an hour. The ships of burden or transports were all flat-bottomed, that they might float in shallow water, and be more expeditiously freighted.
Although the facts preserved with regard to the ships which Cæsar employed on his first invasion are of the most meagre description, they are sufficient to show that they drew comparatively little water, or the men could not have “jumped” out of them, and made good their footing on the beach with their standard and arms against the whole British force: most likely, they were rather good stout-decked or half-decked barges than the ordinary sea-going coasting vessel, which, if one hundred tons burden, would draw, when laden, from seven to eight feet of water. There is no record of the ports where these vessels were constructed; but some of them, Cæsar tells us, had been employed by him, earlier in the same year, in his war with the Veneti.
Second invasion, B.C. 54.
The vessels employed in Cæsar’s second invasion were somewhat similar in form to those in the first; but his army on this occasion consisted of five legions, with two thousand cavalry, for the transport of which he had about six hundred boats; there were also twenty-eight war-galleys.[430] If we appropriate one hundred vessels for the transport of the two thousand horses, and from seventy to one hundred for the transport of stores and munitions of war, and, if the number conveyed was about twenty-seven thousand men, the rate would be forty-five men to each vessel, so that the vessels on the second and more important expedition were, on an average, only about one-half the size of those which had been engaged on the first, and, like those, consisted, probably, in great measure of undecked and flat-bottomed boats or barges.
Cæsar’s preference for small vessels.
One of the reasons Cæsar assigns for the preference he gave in his second expedition to small vessels was, that he had learned by his experience of the frequent changes of the tide in the Channel that the waves were not so violent as he had expected, and, therefore,[431] that smaller boats were sufficient for his purpose; but this does not seem to be a very satisfactory view. It is true that when wind and tide are together the violence of the waves is modified materially; but when they are opposed, their violence is greatly increased. We should rather suppose that, in preferring open row boats to sailing vessels for his second expedition, Cæsar had more especially in his mind the facility with which they could be beached. One effect of Cæsar’s selection of this large flotilla became, however, at once manifest in the terror it caused to the Britons, who, instead of resisting his landing, fled precipitately in all directions at the sight of so numerous a squadron, and retired into the interior. The debarkation of the troops on the second invasion was therefore effected without obstruction; and the vessels, after having discharged their freights, were anchored in Dungeness Bay. Finding that the British forces had retreated in the direction of Canterbury, then, as now, the capital of Kent, Cæsar determined on a rapid advance, most probably crossing the river Stour at Wye, about twelve miles from Lymne, near to which, as before, he had disembarked. Challock Wood, a considerable military post in the wars between the kings of Kent and Sussex, is, with reasonable probability, believed to have been the scene of the first encounter between the British and Roman forces. In this battle, though on the whole successful, it is clear that Cæsar had not much to plume himself upon; moreover, it was followed by a great disaster, in a gale which wrecked forty, and more or less disabled the whole of the vessels in which he had crossed the Channel. But the Roman general was not dismayed; having collected those least injured, he hauled them up on the shore, threw a rampart around them to preserve them from the attacks of the Britons, and leaving Labienus to collect fresh ships in Gaul, at once placed himself at the head of his legions.[432]
Violent storm and great loss of ships.
The British force having, however, gathered strength in the interval, now assumed a more threatening aspect; as Cassivelaunus, king of Hertfordshire and Middlesex, having triumphed in the wars in which he had been engaged at the time of Cæsar’s first invasion, now claimed dominion over the whole of the south-east of England, and was, therefore, able to oppose the new assault on Britain with a vast army, aided, it is said, with no less than four thousand chariots.[433]
Final action on the banks of the Thames.
But though some of the encounters were at first of doubtful success, the steady discipline of the Romans forced back the hosts of Cassivelaunus, and Cæsar apparently followed his retreating forces, first, in a north-westerly, and then in a direction due north, till they arrived at the banks of the Thames, a little to the west of Walton bridge. Here Cassivelaunus resolved to resist the further progress of Cæsar,[434] but was defeated in a well contested action, which rendered any further struggle against the Romans in that part, at least, of England, hopeless.
Cæsar makes terms with the Britons, and re-embarks his legions.
The legions of Cæsar had suffered so severely in this campaign, that he was equally glad with the native princes to enter into negotiations for peace; and, on the conclusion of these, he withdrew his army to Gaul, in little more than two months after his disembarkation at Lymne. As his homeward journey across the Channel lasted but eight hours, he must have had the wind in his favour.
Advantages derived by the Britons from their intercourse with the Romans.
When the magnitude of the preparations which Cæsar made for his second expedition are considered, it can hardly be doubted that his intentions were to subjugate the whole of Britain. Tacitus, however, in his life of Agricola, confesses that Cæsar, in his two campaigns, only made the discovery of Britain; that, though victorious, he was unable to maintain his position;[435][436] that, on leaving the island, not a single Roman was left behind him; and that, for nearly a hundred years afterwards, the Britons were as free as ever, and paid no tribute to the imperial city.[437] Yet the Romans and ancient Britons were alike gainers by their mutual intercourse; for, from this period, their commercial intercourse rapidly increased. The corn and cattle of the Britons rose to a value hitherto unknown, while iron, and pearls of an inferior description, were eagerly sought after by the Romans. A new and vast field was opened up for their tin, lead, wool, and skins. Their slaves,[438] and dogs, of a remarkable breed, were in great demand; and were readily exchanged for the cut ivory, bridles, gold chains, cups of amber, drinking glasses, and trinkets of various kinds which the Romans exported. A considerable trade also arose between the two countries in lime, marl, and chalk, and in the manufacture of baskets, graceful in design, and curious in workmanship, for which the Britons were famous.
Conquest of Britain, A.D. 43.
Its state of civilization.
Beyond these facts, however, nothing is known of what passed in Britain between the time when Julius Cæsar left it, and the period when it first became a Roman province under Claudius. When, however, the armies of Claudius landed upon its soil, the Britons had advanced far beyond the painted savages who first exchanged their tin for the trinkets of Phœnicia; and although, in the remote portions of the island, there were still to be found many barbarous tribes, the inhabitants of the coast and of the commercial cities were then scarcely less civilized than they were a thousand years afterwards at the period of the Norman Conquest. London, or Londinium, is described by Tacitus as a place then of considerable trade, though not dignified with the name of a colony, and as the chief residence of the merchants. Clausentum[439] (old Southampton), and Rutupi (Richborough) were commercial ports of some importance, and were occupied by traders who dealt largely with those of Gaul, and extended their business even to Rome itself.
Traders from the neighbouring coasts, but more especially from that section of the Germans known by the name of Belgæ,[440] who centuries before had settled on the opposite coast between the Rhine and the Seine, were, in many cases, the intermediate dealers between the Britons and the continental tribes. The whole country was then, as had no doubt been the case for some time previous to the invasion, divided into several small states presided over by chiefs, who are dignified by historians with the title of king. Ptolemy, in his geography,[441] mentions various towns in different parts of Britain of sufficient importance in his time to be recorded, all tending to show that a state of civilization then prevailed throughout the island, and that barbarism and savage life were the exception rather than the rule.
Amongst the towns noticed by Ptolemy may be mentioned Isca Damnoniorum (Exeter); Durnium (Dorchester); Venta Belgarum (Winchester), which was a place of great fame in his time; Aquæ-solis (Bath), so called from its hot waters; Ischalis, now Ilchester, and Guildford in Surrey (Noviomagus). Numerous towns and seaports are also noticed by him, as, for instance, in Kent, Rochester, Dover, and Lymne; and in the west and north-west of England, Gleva (Gloucester); Deva (Chester); and near it Uriconium (Wroxeter), the curious remains of which have been quite recently explored;[442] Carlisle and Mona (Anglesey), the great seat of the Druidical worship. In the interior of the country we may record, as among the most famous of the Roman stations or colonies, Eboracum (York); Lindum (Lincoln); Camalodunum (Colchester); Corinium, (Cirencester); and Dorovernia (Canterbury); at or near all of which places extensive Roman remains may still be seen.
The principality of Wales, formerly comprehending the whole country beyond the Severn, was supposed by Tacitus[443] to have been originally peopled by emigrants from Spain, and here too may be still traced the vestiges of several Roman camps, as at Usk and Caerleon. At Stonehenge and Abury, in Wiltshire, are still more ancient remains, monuments of great interest, both for the size and the elegant disposition of the stones of which they are formed; and which, at the same time, denote considerable progress in the mechanical arts at a period antecedent, perhaps, by centuries to the invasion of Cæsar.[444] Wherever we go, we find that the Britons at the commencement of the Christian era occupied a position, which, if far short of the high state of civilization the Romans had reached, was greatly superior to that of most of the northern nations of Europe, or to that of the Goths and Vandals, when, three centuries afterwards, they overran the empire and became masters of the imperial city.[445]
Speech of Caractacus.
Indeed, the famous speech of Caractacus, when taken captive to Rome, shows a nobility of character, nay, we may add, an amount of civilization that would not have been anticipated. “If I had made,” said the noble Briton, “that prudent use of prosperity which my rank and fortune enabled me to do, I might have come hither as your friend rather than as your prisoner; nor would you have disdained the alliance of a king descended from illustrious ancestors, and ruling over many nations. My present condition, degrading as it is to me, reflects glory on you. I once had horses, men, arms, and money; what wonder is it if I was reluctant to part with them! Your object is to obtain universal empire, and we must all be slaves! If I had submitted to you without a blow, neither my own fortune nor your glory would have been conspicuous, and all remembrances of me would have vanished when I had received my punishment; but spare me my life, and I shall be a lasting monument of your clemency.”
The course of commerce with Rome.
When the course of events is considered, it is not surprising that the ancient Britons should have made less opposition to Claudius than they had done ninety-seven years before to Julius Cæsar. They had learned in the interval the advantages to be derived by intercourse with a much more wealthy and more polished people than themselves. They saw that not only the enlightenment of the mind accompanies civilization in its progress, but that, as civilization increases, it creates wants which require to be supplied, and luxuries which crave to be satisfied.
The routes taken by merchants and travellers continued for many centuries much as they had been in the earliest times. Claudius, however, when he left Rome for the seat of war in Britain, set sail from the port of Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber, went by sea to Massalia (Marseilles), and afterwards journeying, partly by land and partly by the rivers till he reached the coast of Gaul on the English Channel,[446] crossed over to Britain, and there joined “the forces which awaited him near the Thames.” “There were then four ports,” remarks Strabo,[447] “at which voyagers generally crossed from the mainland to the island, at the mouths respectively of the river Rhône, the Seine, the Loire, and the Garonne; but the travellers who crossed from the country about the Rhine did not set sail from the mouth of that river, preferring to pass through the Morini and to embark at its port of Boulogne.”
Inland water traffic.
The ordinary traffic of those times was conveyed either on the backs of mules or horses, across Gaul, as was the case with tin, or by the rivers of that country: indeed, for a long period the merchant vessels of Britain were not of a construction to brave the heavy gales and stormy seas of the rude Atlantic, while Gaul was a country peculiarly favoured in the conveniences it afforded for such an inland water transit. Everywhere intersected by navigable rivers running in very opposite directions, goods could be carried between the Mediterranean and the English Channel, or the shores of the Atlantic, with little assistance of land carriage. From Narbo, an ancient commercial port of first-class importance already noticed, goods were carried a few miles overland and re-shipped on the Garonne, which carried them to Burdigala (Bordeaux). In the same way the Loire, the Seine, and the Rhine afforded navigable facilities into the very heart of the country, while all of them were easily connected with the Rhône or its great navigable branches, thus completing the inland water-carriage between the Mediterranean and the western and northern shores of Gaul.
Transit duties.
British goods destined for Rome, or for any port of the Mediterranean, were chiefly conveyed by either of these inland routes, or across country by the few highways or beaten tracks then in use.[448] In the centre of this inland conveyance, at the junction of the Rhône with the Saône (Arar), and within an easy distance of the other navigable rivers flowing in the opposite direction, stood the great inland emporium of Lyons (Lugdunum), a city then of much commercial importance and second only to Narbo. This inland navigation, while of material advantage to the inhabitants of the districts traversed, was, even before the Roman conquest, a source of considerable emolument to the proprietors of the lands adjacent to the rivers, as they were thus able to levy a toll or transit duty on the boats passing through their territories. These duties, we may presume from Strabo, were transferred to the Roman coffers soon after Gaul became a Roman province, as he distinctly asserts that (in his day at least) the duties on the imports and exports of Britain constituted the only species of revenue derived from Gaul by the Romans.[449] It is, moreover, not likely that the government of Rome would permit its subjects to levy dues for their own individual benefit.
Articles of commerce, and knowledge of manufactures and of the arts.
“The commercial and friendly intercourse,” remarks Macpherson in his Annals of Commerce,[450] “between the Britons and Gauls, which had subsisted before the invasion of Julius Cæsar, still continued, and was probably increased in consequence of the greater assortment of goods now in the hands of the Romanized Gallic merchants.” Tin, which was still the chief article of British commerce, after being cast into cubic masses, remained, and long continued, the general staple of the British trade. “But besides it,” continues the same author, “there was then exported to Gaul, either for sale in that country, or for further transit, lead, corn, cattle, hides, under the description of which, perhaps, wool is included; gold, silver, iron, ornaments for bridles, and various toys made of a substance which the Romans called ivory, but more probably the bone of some large fish; ornamental chains, vessels made of amber and of glass, with some other trifling articles; also precious stones and pearls; slaves, who were captives taken in the wars carried on by the tribes against each other; dogs of various species, all excellent in their kinds, which were highly valued by the Roman connoisseurs in hunting, and by the Gauls, who used them not only against wild animals in the chase, but also against their enemies in the field of battle; and bears for the sanguinary sport of the Roman circus, though probably not so early as the age of Augustus.”
Brass, brazen vessels, salt, and earthenware, were then, with the lighter articles and trinkets previously named, the chief articles of import from Gaul into Britain. Though chiefly occupied in pastoral and agricultural pursuits, the ancient Britons, from the character of their exports, evidently understood, not merely the arts of extracting tin and lead and even gold silver and iron from their mines, but were skilled in the manufacture of objects in glass and amber, and also in some works purely ornamental, as well as in the conversion of iron to many useful purposes. Skins were no doubt still used as articles of dress by many of the less civilized inhabitants who resided in the remote parts of the island; but those Britons who occupied the frequented parts of the coast, or the chief towns, were, from the observations of Cæsar, clothed in better and more comfortable garments, very likely in woollen cloths. As manufactures in wool were among the earliest arts which first brought England into notice as a great commercial nation many centuries afterwards, it is reasonable to suppose that woollen fabrics may, even in early times, have been part of the staple of the country.
Colchester, and its mint.
Colchester, the principal city of eastern Britain, was made by Claudius,[451] at the commencement of the Christian era, as appears from his coins, a Roman colony. Here Cunobeline, king of the countries lying between the Thames and the Nen, established a mint, of which as many as sixty varieties have been engraved by Mr. Evans.[452] No descriptive account of this ancient town has been preserved, but it is reasonable to suppose that, as the capital in which the king resided, it was better built than the “fenced collection of huts” Cæsar describes.
London.
A.D. 61.
Some doubts have been expressed as to the very early antiquity of London; and, on the whole, it is most likely that it was not till Claudius had appointed Plautius to the supreme command of the island, that the Romans directed their attention to London,[453] and established it as the chief commercial centre for the arts and manufactures of Kent and of the valley of the Thames, over which river, if the testimony of Dio can be relied on, the Britons had already constructed a bridge somewhere near the site of the lowest of the existing structures. Ten years afterwards, in the reign of Nero, we hear of the now famous city, the greatest and wealthiest the world has ever seen, having become the residence of a great number of such dealers as the Romans dignified with the title of merchants, and between whom and the small traders of Rome, Cicero drew, as we have already noticed, so marked and so supercilious a distinction.
Agricola, A.D. 78-85.
It is not the province of this work to follow in detail the course of Roman conquest. It is sufficient to state that the Romans only gained their footing in Britain by slow degrees, and that the legions which had conquered other countries almost as soon as they marched into them, had to encounter many a sturdy foe, and to achieve many a hard-earned victory, ere they obtained full control over a people, who, though fully alive to the advantages of a commercial intercourse with Rome, cherished a love of independence unsurpassed by any other nation of antiquity. Indeed, it was not until the governorship of Agricola that Britain could in any sense be called a Roman province; and that Agricola succeeded where other generals, such as Plautius and Ostorius Scapula, had failed, is mainly attributable to the care and gentleness of his administration, and to his obvious desire to make the chains he had forged for the British as agreeable as possible to them. Agricola was the first Roman general who had penetrated into Scotland; he was also the first to sail round the whole country, an undertaking then of no ordinary danger, especially at the advanced season of the year when it was performed. It is a striking remark of Tacitus that the harbours of Ireland, which one or two centuries before had been visited by the Gauls, and perhaps at a still earlier period by the Carthaginians, were then better known to continental merchants by means of their commerce than to those of Britain.
His fleet sails round Britain.
The influence of the rule of Agricola on the Britons.
Altogether the rule of Agricola proved as remarkable as it was certainly at variance with the usual habits and practices of Roman proconsuls. When once he had laid down the sword, he encouraged a taste among the Britons for the pleasures of civilized life; first exhorting, then assisting them to build temples and places of public resort, and commending and rewarding those who were assiduous and forward in such pursuits: in this way he hoped to subdue their restless spirit, and to give scope to their excitement in other pursuits than those of war. He also took care to have the sons of their chiefs instructed in the liberal sciences, inducing many of them to study the Roman language, which they had previously despised, to copy the manners and customs of Rome, and even to adopt the costume of its citizens. Nor were his efforts confined to the improvement and amelioration of their social position. He had learned, from the conduct of those who had preceded him in the government of Britain, how little arms avail to settle a province, if victory is followed by grievances and oppressions; he therefore displayed his superior wisdom by removing every just cause for complaint. Beginning with himself, and with those around him, he regulated his own household, so that in its conduct it might be an example for others to follow; his domestics, according to Tacitus,[454] were not allowed to transact any business concerning the public; and, in promoting or rewarding the soldiers, he was induced to do so by no personal interest or partiality, nor by the recommendations of centurions, but by his own opinion and knowledge of them. By such means as these Agricola, by degrees, reconciled the Britons to the government of Rome; and, though their love of independence was never actually subdued, they were content to live, if unopposed, in peace, and in friendly intercourse with the invaders of their soil. Caledonia alone kept up an angry hostility to the yoke of Rome, and seized, on the departure of Agricola, the castles and forts he had raised in various parts of Scotland.
Hadrian, A.D. 120.
State of commerce in and after his reign.
During the thirty-five years which elapsed after the recall of Agricola, until the reign of the Emperor Hadrian, the Roman historians, from whom alone we derive our information, hardly deign to notice the island; while, as is well known, no native records, or even what might perhaps have been a copy of a native record, have come down to us: indeed, it may be seriously doubted whether letters were at all generally known beyond the schools of the Druids. There is, however, every reason to suppose that the Britons pursued with persevering industry those commercial occupations we have already named; that the advice and example of Agricola had not been given in vain, or neglected on his departure; and, that, long ere that time, trade and commerce must have taken deep root in the island, as the city of London had even then given tokens of its aptitude to become the mercantile capital of the world.[455] The pearl fisheries, abandoned afterwards from the inherent defects of British pearls, were developed to an extent hitherto unknown; and a trade was opened out in oysters, which were actually conveyed, probably by one of the overland routes, to Rome, to satisfy the cravings of the epicures of the imperial city. Indeed, they were in such demand as to form a subject for the poet’s satire.
“Could at one bite the oyster’s taste decide,
And say if at Circæan rocks, or in
The Lucrine lake, or on the coasts of Richborough,
In Britain, they were bred.”[456]
Another extensive trade, the manufacture of baskets, is casually mentioned, in the same strain of wit, by another Roman poet in the following lines:—
“Work of barbaric art, a basket, I
From painted Britain came, but the Roman city
Now call the painted Britons’ art their own.”[457]
The Caledonian incursions.
We also learn, incidentally,[458] that the people of the northern part of Scotland, although the shores swarmed with fish, did not eat them, but subsisted entirely by hunting and on the fruits of the earth.
Not satisfied with the possession of the forts Agricola had erected for the protection of the Britons against the Caledonians, the Emperor Hadrian, who visited the island in person, finding that they had extended their warlike and predatory excursions to the south of the Tyne, was compelled to drive them back to their mountain fastnesses by the superior force of fresh legions. Alarmed, however, by their daring and intrepidity, or not considering it worth while to follow them north of that river, he caused the wall to be built which still bears his name, from the Eden in Cumberland to the Tyne in Northumberland, to restrain them from again making incursions into the Roman province. Hadrian’s rampart, however, was soon breached, for seventy miles of wall required more soldiers to protect it than the Romans could spare, and though subsequent walls were built at different times, all of these proved equally ineffective in repressing the advances of the Picts: till, at length, Severus was compelled to purchase a peace by money which his arms had failed to secure.[459]
Piratical invasions of the Germans.
Carausius seizes the fleet of Maximian, and declares himself Emperor of Britain.
But Rome had innumerable difficulties to contend against in the government of Britain beyond the inroads of the Caledonians, who had ever spurned and resisted her rule. The Franks and other German nations had for some time invaded the coasts adjacent to them with piratical incursions, and had reaped a rich harvest from the plunder of the sea-coast towns and of the vessels of the traders employed between Britain and Gaul. In order to repress these sea-robbers, the Emperor Maximian built a fleet of ships, the command of which he gave to Carausius, an officer of great experience in naval and military affairs, to whose history we have already alluded. Though a traitor to the government he professed to serve, and possessing himself no claims to the allegiance of the Britons, there is no doubt that the island prospered under his brief rule, and for the first time was able to claim the proud title of mistress of the northern seas, a title, however, she soon lost, and only regained after tremendous struggles, twelve centuries afterwards. Britain, during the seven years’ reign of Carausius, seems to have possessed more wealth and prosperity than during any similar period of Roman rule, while the flourishing state of the arts at that period of her history is shown by the number and elegance of his coins, three hundred varieties of which, in gold, silver, or copper, are now preserved in different numismatic collections.
But though Britain may have flourished in material prosperity under Carausius, no Roman emperor could have allowed his rebellious acts to remain unchastised, and hence, after a long preparation, Constantius was sent to England with a powerful force, and in a short space of time restored the imperial sway; not the less easily, perhaps, that Carausius had in the meanwhile been murdered by his lieutenant Allectus. No mention is made of the number of ships or troops constituting the expedition of Constantius, but it must have been on an extensive scale, as it captured in its first attempt the port of Boulogne, with part of the British fleet.[460]
Welsh and Scots, A.D. 360.
Saxons, A.D. 364.
Their ships.
Nor do historians afford much information with regard to the affairs of Britain from the death of Constantius, father of Constantine the Great, until more than fifty years afterwards, when its Roman subjects were seriously harassed by the Welsh on the west, and the Caledonians on the north, who ravaged the frontiers and spread terror throughout the now civilized provinces of Britannia Romana. Nor was this all: while harassed by the descendants of the Celts, the Germanic Saxons invaded England on the east and south, startling the Romans and their subjects by the daring intrepidity with which they skimmed over the roughest seas in “boats of leather,” and, without respect of persons or property, plundered and carried off everything worthy of removal. Besides these frail craft the Saxons, however, possessed more than one description of vessel altogether superior to their leather-covered boats, called by the old historians in Latin, Kiulæ; in Saxon, Ceol, or Ciol; and in English, Keels.[461] Some writers also maintain that they had strong open boats adapted to warfare at sea.
That these German rovers possessed larger vessels than even their war-galleys is ascertained by the fact that, within seventy or eighty years after they first gained a secure footing in Britain, they received a reinforcement of “five thousand men, in seventeen ships,”[462] or at the rate of about three hundred men to a ship, besides provisions, stores, and munitions of war. But of their form, size, or equipment no accounts have been preserved, and it can, therefore, tend to no useful purpose to attempt, as Mr. Strutt has done, the reproduction of the supposed types of the vessels of Canute, as all such drawings are only the creations of fancy.
It may be reasonable, however, to infer that the better class of Saxon vessels were copies of the Roman or British galleys, used by Carausius or Constantius, possibly with some addition, such as higher bulwarks, fitting them the better to resist the stormy and pitching sea of the German Ocean. However slow the progress of improvement may have been among a body of merchants and shipowners, whose property was perpetually exposed to depredation and destruction, there can be no doubt that the princes of those days in Britain and throughout northern Europe availed themselves of all the resources of the time to display their maritime consequence and power to the best advantage. It can, indeed, be hardly questioned that the long and comparatively peaceful intercourse between the seamen of the north and the south must have familiarized the Vikings with such improvements in the construction of shipping as had been worked out by the nations bordering on the Mediterranean; and though, for short and hasty expeditions, the Northmen or the Saxons may have been willing to trust themselves to small or ill-constructed open boats, there is no reason to suppose this would be the case, either when they had heavy and bulky merchandise, or their best and bravest warriors, to convey in safety on long and perilous voyages.
On the invasion of the Celts and of the Teutonic tribes, the inhabitants of Britain were unable to make an adequate defence. Unlike their hardy forefathers, who had needed no aid but their own good right hands, they had become accustomed to look for protection to their Roman masters, and to delegate to others what they ought to have achieved themselves. Nor were the northern tribes their only foes. Besides their new invaders, they had to contend with gangs of Roman soldiers, who, cheated of their pay by their officers, infested the highways as robbers, and extorted provisions from the natives.[463]
State of the Britons when abandoned by the Romans.
It might have been supposed that the Britons, improved in learning, in agriculture, in manufactures, and in the arts and sciences by four centuries of Roman instruction, would have become a great and flourishing people. They had, indeed, natural advantages superior to all their rivals, in the possession of some of the finest harbours in the world, of minerals, and of a soil as fruitful, if not more so than that of any of the countries around them. But while Rome had raised the Britons in the social scale, and imparted to them knowledge of the highest value for the development of their vast natural resources, she had, especially towards the close of her career, greatly weakened them, by the heavy drafts of their best sons for employment in local wars, or to be posted far away as garrisons in distant provinces. It is, therefore, probable that Rome left our forefathers comparatively poorer and, assuredly, in a weaker condition than they were when she usurped the government of their island.
Of the origin of the Saxons, whose aid the Britons are said to have sought after the departure of the Romans, nothing is distinctly known, except that they had, for some time previously, made themselves masters of the territory lying between the Elbe and the Rhine, pushing forwards their conquests or occupation of the country as far as the coasts of Zealand, part of the present kingdom of Holland. Their occupation of England was probably exceedingly gradual, the south and east having been early peopled with these strangers, so that the so-called Saxon conquest was really, therefore, rather the slow result of their increasing numbers than of such a development of military or naval genius as is seen in the later inroads of the Danes or of William the Norman.