It appears from these considerations that, until very recently, the new blood, infused into the old English stock, has been more Celtic than Teutonic. But, during the present century, Germans have settled-and not in small numbers-in London, in Liverpool, in Manchester, wherever money is to be made. The Irish immigrants, however, outnumber the Germans by more than ten to one.'

There are also in England, as in most other European countries, a few representatives of almost every nation. But, for our present purpose, we may disregard these minor elements, which have no permanent effect upon our race.

In 1841 there were according to the Census returns 419,256 natives of Ireland in Great Britain, while the whole of the foreigners and British subjects born abroad amounted together to no more than 44,780. In 1851 there were 733,866 natives of Ireland, and only 56,665 foreigners of all descriptions living in Great Britain.

65

CHAPTER II.

THE PHILOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.

General estimate of the value of Philological Evidence-English not a truly Teutonic language, but hybrid even in its grammatical forms-Evidence of certain elements in modern English-The names of the principal Geographical features-The Names of the minor Geographical features-Evidence of certain peculiarities of English Pronunciation-No real doubt what was the language of the ancient Britons: its resemblance to the language of ancient Gaul-Early prevalence of a High Celtic element in Gaul and Northern Italy-These facts are important because they tend to explain certain difficulties connected with ancient British skulls -Reasons for and against the identification of the words Cimmerii, Cimbri, and Cymry-Attempt to discover an ancient Cymric or High Celtic civilisation with which our modern English civilisation may be compared-Philology points in the direction of Greece -Comparison of words in the Greek and Cymric languages-Importance of this comparison as showing the civilisation of the ✓ ancient Britons-Greek and Cymric conform in type, when their type differs from that of other Aryan languages-Coincidence of the philological evidence with the evidence of tradition, and of some fragments of history-The Celtic and Germanic languages— Philological evidence of a Pre-Celtic element in Britain considered -Sense in which the term 'Cymry' is used in this essay.

V

ON popular philology is probably founded, to some extent, the popular prejudice that the English are of Teutonic origin. The English language is the lineal descendant of a Germanic language; therefore the English people are the lineal descendants of a Germanic people. Such is the very simple, and, at first sight, very satisfactory mode of reasoning, with which

F

our English ears, and our English books, are filled. It is commonly regarded as a self-evident proposition that language must be conclusive evidence of race. Philology is, by many authors, considered almost identical with Ethnology; and the evidence afforded by other sciences is thought worthy of no more than a passing remark. Such an exaggerated estimate of a favourite pursuit must necessarily lead to very erroneous conclusions, and ultimately impair the prestige of a science which really is of the highest value.

6

6

In a very recent and a very able philological work,* we are told that the British people, the inhabitants of Great Britain, are, we know, mainly of Teutonic blood, and they speak one of the Teutonic languages.' Professor Donaldson + laid down the following principles of research: Whenever we have to explain how a nation speaking a particular language came to be placed in a particular locality, we must content ourselves with the four following criteria: the philological investigation of the language; the prevailing ethnical, geographical, and personal names of the race; the historical traditions, if there are any; and the physical geography of the country.' And M. Thierry, though he gives a greater prominence to history, expresses very similar sentiments: Bien

*Words and Places, by the Rev. Isaac Taylor, p. 59.

In his Essay on English Ethnography (Cambridge Essays, 1856) p. 33.

Histoire des Gaulois, troisième éd., preface.

jeune encore, l'auteur avait formé le dessein hardi d'introduire l'unité dans ce chaos, au moyen d'une donnée ethnologique, en rapport avec la double science de l'histoire et des langues.'

And a host of other writers might be cited, who, if they have not distinctly enunciated the same principles, have tacitly assumed that they are correct, and have put them in practice as a matter of course. But if there is any one conclusion which may be drawn with certainty from history, it is that language cannot, of itself, tell us what are the proportions of the constituent elements in any nation. The ethnologist would act more wisely if he adopted the maxim of the diplomatist, and declared deception to be the first end of language. Not that either the diplomatist or the ethnologist could pursue his career without the aid of language; but each must be constantly on his guard against this dangerous ally.

He who trusts to language, and especially to written language, alone, as an index to race, must be prepared to maintain that the Gallic nation emigrated from the seven Hills of Rome, and that the Franks came with them; that the Romans extirpated the Celts and Iberians of Spain, and that the Goths and Moors spoke nearly the same language as the Romans; that the Negroes of the United States and Jamaica were exported from England when in their infancy; and that the people of Cornwall, who were Celtic a hundred years ago, have been completely metamorphosed without any assignable cause. So would

Philology, if left to herself, interpret phenomena, of which we know, from other sources of information, that the causes are totally different. The Ethiopian cannot change his skin, but he changes his tongue readily enough.

But some very useful principles may be extracted from this chaos of philological deceptions. One great law may be laid down even from these data. Whenever any given people speaks, wholly or in part, a language spoken by any other given people, there has been, at some time, a connection of some kind between those two peoples.

Thus much and no more will a careful induction allow us to assert. We cannot say that the language of the conquerors always prevails; for, if so, we should ourselves speak Norman-French, the French would speak German, and the Germans would speak Latin. We cannot say that the language of the conquered always prevails; for, if so, the French and English would probably speak dialects of a common Celtic language. We cannot say that the prevailing language is that of the race which survives in the greatest numbers; for, if so, there would be hardly a trace of Latin in France or Spain. We cannot say that change of language may not be simply the result of time, geographical contact, and the influence of a metropolis, because we have seen one instance of such a change in Cornwall. It is obvious then, that we cannot, by means of philology alone, solve the more delicate question of the exact pro