to a

paper to-night on a particularly interesting subject. There are a few remarks that naturally occur thoughtul student of history, which, will occur to all of us, though, perhaps, from slightly different points of view. There is one observation which I should like to make which I think admits of no dissent; that is, regarding the most interesting style and form of the paper. It is a great thing in the present day when works embodying research are written in a manner which can be easily understood and made interesting to the general readers of history. Such a paper as this is not only pleasant to listen to as a piece of delightful prose, but also it is the more easily understood.

Coming now to the historical value of the paper, it seems to me that the author advances several new and certainly valuable historical suggestions. I do not quite see my way to agreeing with his preliminary remarks on what we may call the bibliography of the subject; I may, perhaps, be a little prejudiced in that respect, as a Sassenach student of history. I have the pleasure of the personal acquaintance of the Saxon writers, whom he has criticised rather severely; I certainly can vouch for their good intentions and strict impartiality, and I should like to suggest that, perhaps, when the author of the paper has carried out his most attractive promise of working out certain lines of research, he will find himself more in agreement with these writers. Mr. Wylie was mentioned. I think that Mr. Wylie may be looked on as the typical Saxon historian of the Welsh history of the period. The writer in the Dictionary of National Biography referred to is, of course, Professor Tout. He and Mr. Wylie confirm one another, but I have heard no word of a writer who came before them both. I remember some twelve or thirteen years ago being consulted about a paper which

was offered by Mr. Solly Flood, Q.C. (who was at one time Attorney-General of Gibraltar, and who subsequently devoted five or six years of his life to serious researches at the Record Office, and elsewhere), to illustrate the history of the life of Henry of Monmouth, i.e. Henry V, as Prince of Wales, and chiefly during the campaign against Owen Glyndwr. I had many opportunities of seeing his work, and it is interesting to note that this work was the precursor of the works of Mr. Wylie and Professor Tout, so that these three authorities go together, and I quite admit that they took a Saxon view, especially in upholding the necessity of what we may call the ancien régime of the Lord's Marchers, and in a sort of idolatry of Prince Henry. He was a young prince who could do nothing wrong; he was painted by them as an angel, and, I am afraid, they represent Owen Glyndwr in rather the opposite character. But, though that is, perhaps, a national prejudice to be regretted, the work which these writers have done cannot be belittled. If we want to put them right, we must go behind them, we must show where they were wrong, and work up from Welsh sources which exist, as the author of this paper has justly said, a better account of the subject than has yet been given to

us.

Adam of Usk, who has been largely referred to, edited by Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, is one of the best authorities, and, though the author is violently Saxon, the editor is judiciously impartial. I have heard no word either of Sir James Ramsay's work, which I think might have been mentioned, a work which aims at being perfectly impartial.

I think, perhaps, all these authorities may be regarded as representing the Saxon view, as against Pennant, who is by far the most eminent of the exponents of the Welsh view. But it seems to me that the writer of this paper

E

has scarcely made out a case in saying that there are no additions to Pennant worth having in the present day. I think that Pennant has been entirely re-written by modern research, and if that research has been carried out in, I admit, rather a partial and Saxon spirit, it seems to me that the natural conclusion is that Welsh writers of the present day have neglected a good opportunity of giving a modern Welsh view based on research. The incidents of the massacres need not be dwelt upon; I incline strongly to the opinion that in this instance one side was as bad as the other. If you were to read the letters that have been printed by Mr. Solly Flood from Prince Henry, avowing, with his own pen, detestable severities which were exercised by the British army upon the helpless people, you would feel that the conquerors had as much to answer for as the subject population.

A good deal has been said by our author as to the strategy employed by Owen Glyndwr. I think this is a very excellent point, and that very scanty justice has been done to the Welsh leader in respect of his strategy. I think that he was distinctly in advance of his time. Also, our author has reminded us that the art of war was then in its infancy, which is, in itself, a very good point to make. Owen Glyndwr's strategy was a long way ahead of that of the royal commanders; his mysterious disappearances alone are excellent illustrations of the sort of guerilla warfare which he waged so successfully. We must not forget that the Welsh at that time were fighting men from their youth upward; they had been trained for two centuries, at least, as mercenaries in many battlefields of Europe, more particularly employed by the English kings from Henry II's time onwards. We meet with these Welsh mercenaries in the English army, and also in the English household, as men-at-arms and captains, the

nucleus of a standing army which always followed the king. So that there seems to have been a kind of military training, which must have proved very valuable indeed when a leader like Owen Glyndwr came forward. He had ready-made captains and sergeants at his call. Very much the same advantage was enjoyed by the Swiss patriots in their conflicts with the Austrian invaders. The Swiss had been the mercenaries of the continent, had learned the art of war, and had transmitted it from father to son, and they were a nation of soldiers in the same way that the Welsh were to a large extent; and so they were able to beat the Austrians, just as the Welsh on several occasions were able to withstand the armies of Henry II and Henry IV. These are very much matters of opinion, and not of great importance. I frankly told you that I feel at the present moment that the Saxon authorities have the best of the matter from a purely historical point of view. As to the question of the massacres then, we need say nothing, because it only amounts to mutual abuse, and as to the strategy I believe that Owen Glyndwr would have received higher praise from a purely military historian.

But our author has not written this paper without a serious historical thought, and this thought seems to me to be a very profound and valuable one, on the subject of the causes of the deep-seated opposition to the English and consequent national support of Owen Glyndwr. It is not enough to say that the Welsh had been for several centuries rebels and outlaws, men who would follow any leader in opposition to the English king and the Norman barons. It is not enough to say that at the beginning of the fifteenth century the native Welsh were as lawless and unsettled as they were of old. I insist on this, because the fifteenth century is admittedly the beginning of a new

era, when the middle ages had practically come to an end; when people did not merely fight for the love of fighting; when there were more serious interests at stake; when commerce had a large voice in the affairs of everyday life, and agriculture was pursued as a serious science. I felt very strongly, as I heard the suggestions of our author, that he has hit upon the right explanation. It seems to me that the Black Death and the consequent agrarian changes are responsible for these national aspirations in South Wales at least. And South Wales is really the only part of the country which was affected in that way. Our author has been careful to distinguish between the pastoral country of North and Mid Wales and the agricultural districts of South Wales. Of course it could only have been South Wales that was affected by the Black Death working agrarian changes. The wealth of the country, in North Wales and Mid Wales, and to a large extent in South Wales, must at all times have been chiefly in cattle. That would apply more or less, not only to the whole of Wales and the marches, but also to Scotland and the marches of Scotland, and to Ireland, down to the present day. When we read of the wars between the Welsh and Henry II, we find the war indemnity imposed upon the conquered is in the shape of cattle. 10,000 head of cattle were claimed by Henry II. So in these wars and rebellions of Owen against Henry IV, the chief wealth of the country, to judge from the captures made, was in cattle. But there is no doubt that the South of Wales had also considerable agricultural interests, and that there, as in England, the agrarian movement which followed the Black Death must have stirred the pulses of the people as no other cause whatever could have done. The proverb about touching an Englishman's pocket applies also to a Welshman; and the