cted. The Romans were obliged to
make the Britons war-like, or there would have been no merit in
conquering them: they must also sound forth their ignorance, or there
would have been none in improving them. If the Britons were that
wretched people they are represented by the Romans, they could not be
worth conquering: no man subdues a people to improve them, but to profit
by them. Though the Romans at that time were in their meridian of
splendor, they pursued Britain a whole century before they reduced it;
which indicates that they considered it as a valuable prize. Though the
Britons were not masters of science, like the Romans; though the fine
arts did not flourish here, as in Rome, because never planted; yet by
many testimonies it is evident they were masters of plain life; that
many of the simple arts were practiced in that day, as well as in this;
that assemblages of people composed cities, the same as now, but in an
inferior degree; and that the country was populous is plain from the
immense army Boadicia brought into the field, except the Romans
increased that army that their merit might be greater in defeating it.
Nay, I believe we may with propriety carry them beyond plain life, and
charge them with a degree of elegance: the Romans themselves allow the
Britons were complete masters of the chariot; that when the scythe was
fixed at each end of the axle-tree, they drove with great dexterity into
the midst of the enemy, broke their ranks, and mowed them down. The
chariot, therefore, could not be made altogether for war, but, when the
scythes were removed, it still remained an emblem of pride, became
useful in peace, was a badge of high-life, and continues so with their
descendants to this day.

We know the instruments of war used by the Britons were a sword, spear,
shield and scythe. If they were not the manufacturers, how came they by
these instruments? We cannot allow either they or the chariots were
imported, because that will give them a much greater consequence: they
must also have been well acquainted with the tools used in husbandry,
for they were masters of the field in a double sense. Bad also as their
houses were, a chest of carpentry tools would be necessary to complete
them. We cannot doubt, therefore, from these evidences, and others which
might be adduced, that the Britons understood the manufactory of iron.
Perhaps history cannot produce an instance of any place in an improving
country, like England