campaigns were comlueteil ou "English" soil 

 that they werp "English" free states he made 

 tributary, that it « as an " English " civilization 

 he found upon our shores, that it was the " Eng- 

 lish people he encountered. Let me make my 

 meaning quite clear. The fact on which I desire 

 to insist IS that long before the days of Ca;sar 

 bouth-Eastern England was already " Enu-lish " 

 peopled by oiu- own forefathers— not " Kelts'," not 

 the British forefathers of the Welsh, but EngUsh, 

 ba-xons, Anglo-Sa.xons, the real ancestors of the 

 ii-nglish people, by whatever name they may have 

 been known at the time. It would be impossible 

 in a single evening to lay before vou all the argu- 

 ments in favour of this view, but I hope at least 

 to indicate enough of them to commend it to your 

 consideration, perhaps even to yoiu- acceptance 

 J-irst let us see wluit Ca<sar himself has to sav 

 about the peoples he foimd on our shores. 

 •Ihe inland part of the island," he savs "is 

 inhabited by those who caU themselves its 

 immemorial aborigines. The maritime part by 

 those who passed over from Belgium for the sake 

 of plunder and conquest in war. Abnost all of 

 these are called by the same name as the states 

 trom which they derived their origin, and from 

 whence they migi-ated thither. When they had 

 r^f*} *''1,'''°<i they remained there, and be^an 

 to tiU the fields. There is an infinite multitud,. 

 of men and their buildings, which are almost 

 exactly hke those of the CfaiUs, are e.\ceedin<^lv 

 numerous. There is a great quantity of cattle. 

 Ot all the inhabitants by far the most civilized 

 are those of Kent, which is an entirely maritime 

 mstnct i nor do their customs greatly "differ from 

 the Gaulish. I need not multiply quotations 

 howevei%in order to prove that the tribes with 

 whjch Cffisar came into closest contact were 

 Belgic. So much, I believe, is admitted even bv 

 standard historians. The real crux is ■ " Who 

 were the Belga; ? " Here again let us see what 

 i-Ksar lias to say, remembering, however, that in 

 this case he is speaking not of the Belga in 

 Britain, hut of the Belga; in Belgic Gaul. When 

 Cffisar enquired of the ambassadors sent by him 

 to the State of Eheinis as to the origin and fi<rht- 

 mg strength of the Belga-.the answer he recefved 

 was That the greater part of the Belga; derived 

 their origin from the Germans, that in the days 

 of yore they had been led across the Rhine and 

 there settled on account of the fruitfulness of the 



■°l V-^ 'i^t'"^'^ ^'"^ '^"'"'° o"t the Gauls who 

 inhabited those territories, and that when the 

 whole of Gaul was harried by incursions in days 

 mthin the memory of our fathers they were the 

 only people who wer • able to prevent the 

 ieutones and Kimbri from trespassing across their 

 borders. It w.as on this account, they further 

 told him, and in remembrance of deeds so signal 

 that the Belga arrogated to themselves so high an 

 Ruthonty and gave themselves such airs in 

 military mattei-s." This is the eariiest and most 

 authentic accoimt of the Belga;. It leaves a good 

 deal to be desired in the way of scientific com- 

 pleteness, but at least it distinctly emphasizes 

 two points. In the days of Csesar the Belga! had 

 long ceased to be Germans, and they were not 

 wid never had been, Kelts. An unfortunate pre- 



conceived idea seems to have haunted the minds 

 of historians and ethnologists, that if the Belo-aj 

 were not Kelts, they must have been GermaSs 

 and if they were not Germans they must 

 have been Kelts. I fail to see the 

 necessity of invoking a theoretical authority in 

 opposition to the plain statement of Ca;sar and I 

 hold with him that the "Belga;" were the 

 "Belga;" and no other people. It simplifies 

 matters. But now let me caU yoiu- attention to a 

 fact which seems to have escaped notice. The 

 "Ancient Britons" whom Cajsar encountered on 

 our south-eastern coast were, according to accepted 

 doctrines, the progenitoi-s of the Welsh people of 

 to-day. The Welsh are Kelts of the Kelts, Kelts 

 of the second imimgration indeed, but Kelts pur 

 saiiy, typiral, unadulterated Kelts. And now it 

 may be ask.'d.hoiv came these genmne Kelts to bo 

 the deseentUnts of the Belgic people with whom 

 C£Bsar had to deal ." " Kent and the whole mari- 

 time district," he says. " was occupied by Belgic 

 States. The Belga;, he further tells us, "wire 

 not Kelts," yet our standard historians, one and 

 all assure us that the Keltic Welsh are the 

 kneal descendants of these non-Keltic peoples 

 How is this contradiction to be reconciled •■' 

 Ihe best answer I can give to the question 

 IS that it cannot be reconciled at all. Let 

 us next examine the question for a moment 



:l°? A'"' ^^'": '""^- ^*' ^ "" "g'^t >° my contention 

 that the Belgic Britons of Ca;sar's day were the 

 fathers of the English, it necessarily follows that 

 Kent became the cradle of the Anglo-Saxon race 

 at least seven centuries earlier than the period 

 generaUy assigned to the Saxon Invasion of 

 Britain. At first sight it might seem that the 

 very word " Anglo-Saxon " is sufficient to refute 

 any proposition of the kind. I venture to claim 

 the word, however, as an actual corroboration of 

 Its truth. For what is the original meanino- of 

 the word " Saxon " ? After the learned disquisi- 

 tions of many ages on the point, the German 

 Sachseu, the Celtic " Sessanach," the English 

 Saxon ' .an seem to point to the word having 

 originally meant, neither more nor less than 

 " Settler." The other half of the word " A.n.Tlo " 

 raises a question far too complicated for long dis- 

 cussion here. The simplest and liEliest 

 derivation seems the one suggested by a not very 

 advanced student^ of philology, the Venerable 

 Bede The word " Cant," the earliest form in 

 w-hich we make acqiuiintance with Kent, in more 

 than one language means a " corner " or " ano-le " 

 and off the north coast of our coimty to this°da'v 

 IS marked in oiu- charts a point called "The Cant " 

 at which vessels bound do«Ti Channel from the 

 Tliames begin to " cant " or turn at an angle more 

 towards the South. Caisar himself speaks of Kent 

 as an " angidus " or corner of Britain. Now the 

 word " angle " as applied to any people in Britain 

 does not occur till after the Eoman occupation of 

 the island, and during that period apparently the 

 early settlers adopted the Latin word " Angiilus " 

 into their o«-n language. " Angul " in Sa.xon 

 means a hook, and to fish with an angle 

 stiU retains the word in this secondly 

 ^nse. -VVhen, therefore, we find a Saxon 

 King styhng himself in his charters "Ano-iU- 



