Al' THE CONQUEST. W 



campaigns, yet it was known to be populous; 

 and so powerful had the Gauls been considered, 

 by the Romans themselves, a short time before, 

 that they had made a special provision against a 

 Gaulish invasion. But it took forty-one years 

 to conquer Britain ! And if we admit Tacitus 

 to be a good authority on the point, we must 

 acknowledge that, even then, the success of the 

 Romans was attributable principally to the disu- 

 nited state of the Britons He says, in his life 

 of Agricola, * The Britons were formerly subject 

 to kings, they are now swayed by several chiefs, 

 and rent into factions and parties, according to 

 the humours and passions of those their leaders. 

 Nor against nations thus powerful does ought so 

 much avail us, as that they consult not in a 

 body for the security of the whole. It is rare 

 that two or three communities assemble and 

 unite to repulse any public danger threatening to 

 all. So that while only a single community 

 fought Bi a time, they were every one vanquished.* 

 See Gordon's Tacitus, page 81 . 



Here Tfeuiitus plainly attributes the success of 

 the Romans, not to any deficiency of numbers, 

 or strength, on the part of the Britons, but to 

 their want of union. He speaks of them as 

 ' powerful nations* made weak by disunion. 

 We should recollect too, that the writer who 



n2 



