Again—there was a time when Monmouthshire, with (no doubt) some portion of the adjoining counties, was in the same category in respect to its non-Angle character with Wales. What was it in respect to language? Not Roman but British.
Again—mutatis mutandis. Devonshire was to Cornwall as Monmouth to Wales. Was it Roman? No—but, on the contrary, British.
Now say, for the sake of argument, that Cornwall, Wales, and Cumberland were never Roman at all, and consequently, that they prove nothing in the question as to the introduction of the Latin language. But can we say, for even the sake of argument, that Devon and Monmouth were never Roman? Was not, on the contrary, Devon at least, exceedingly Roman, as is shewn by the importance of Isca Danmoniorum, or Exeter.
Or, say that the present population of Wales is no representative of the ancient occupants of that part of Britain, but, on the contrary, descended from certain immigrants from the more eastern and less mountainous parts of England. I do not hold this doctrine. Admitting it, however, for the sake of argument—whence came the present Welsh, if it came not from a part of England where British, rather than Latin, was spoken? There must have been British somewhere; and probably British to the exclusion of Latin.
The story of St. Guthlac of Croyland is well-known. It runs to the effect that being disturbed, one night, by a horrid howling, he was seriously alarmed, thinking that the howlers might be Britons. Upon looking-out, however, he discovered that they were only devils—whereby he was comforted, the Briton being the worse of the two. Now the later we make this apocryphal story, the more it tells in favor of there having been Britons in Lincolnshire, long after the Angle conquest. Yet Lincolnshire (except so far as it was Dane,) must have been one of the most Angle portions of England. In France, Spain, Portugal, the Grisons, Wallachia or Moldavia, such devils as those of St. Guthlac would have been Romans.
As the argument, then, stands at present, we have traces of the British as opposed to the Angle, but no traces of the Latin in similar opposition.
Let us now look at the analogies, viz: Spain, (including Portugal,) France, Switzerland and the Danubian Principalities; in all of which we have had an aboriginal population and a Roman conquest, in all of which, too, we have had a third conquest subsequent to that by Rome—even as in Britain we have had the triple series of (A) native Britains, (B) Roman conquerors, (C) Angles.
What do we find? In all but Switzerland, remains of the original tongue; in all, without exception, remains of the language of the population that conquered the Romans; in all, without exception, something Roman.
In Britain we find nothing Roman; but, on the contrary, only the original tongue and the language of the third population.
I submit that this is strong primâ facie evidence in favour of the Latin having never been the general language of Britain. If it were so, the area of the Angle conquest must have exactly coincided with the area of the Latin language. Is this probable? I admit that it is anything but highly improbable. The same practicable character of the English parts of Britain (as opposed to the Welsh, Cornish, and Cumbrian) which made the conquest of a certain portion of the Island easy to the Romans as against the Britons, may have made it easy for the Angles as against the Romans; and vice versa, the impracticable character of Wales, Cornwall, and Cumberland, that protected the Britons against their first invaders, may have done the same for them against the second. If so, the two areas of foreign conquest would coincide. I by no means undervalue this argument.