The conclusion which the present notice suggests is—
That the testimony of authors tells neither way.
That the presumptions in favour of the Latin which are raised by the cases of Gaul, Spain, Rhætia, and Dacia, are anything but conclusive.
That the inferences from the earliest as well as the latest data as to the condition of English Britain, the inferences from the Angle conquest, and the inferences from the present language of Wales, are decidedly against the Latin.
I may, perhaps, be allowed to conclude by a reference to a paper already alluded to, as having been laid before the present Society, by Mr. Wright. This is to the effect, that the Latin reigned paramount not only in England, but in Wales also, under the Roman dominion; the present Welsh being of recent introduction from Armorica.
That the population was heterogeneous is certain, the Roman Legionaries being, to a great extent, other than Roman. It is also certain that there was, within the island, at an early period, no inconsiderable amount of Teutonic blood. It is certain, too, that the name Briton had different applications at different times.
If so, the difference between Mr. Wright and myself, in respect to the homogeneousness or heterogeneousness of the Britannic population, is only a matter of degree.
In respect to the particular fact, as to whether the British or Latin language was the vernacular form of speech, we differ more decidedly. That the British was unwritten and uncultivated is true; so that the exclusive use of the Latin for inscriptions is only what we expect. The negative fact that no British name has been found inscribed, I by no means undervalue.
The preponderance, however, of a Non-British population, and the use of the Latin as the vernacular language, are doctrines, which the few undoubted facts of our early history impugn rather than verify.