Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1.djvu/26

 Britons to the highest pitch. In the absence of Suetonius, the colonists demanded succour of the procurator, who sent them only 200 men, and those badly armed; and with this feeble reinforcement, the garrison shut themselves up in the temple.

With the cunning which seems peculiar to all semi-barbarous nations, the Britons continued to reassure their enemy of their pacific intentions. The consequence was that instead of raising a rampart and digging a ditch round the building, which they might easily have done, the Romans remained in a state of fancied security, neglecting even to send away their women and children, and such as from age and sickness were unable to bear arms.

Suddenly the mask was thrown off. The insurgents, who had gained sufficient time to collect their forces and mature their plans, fell upon the colony, destroying everything before



them, and sparing neither sex nor age. After a siege of several days, the temple was taken by assault, and the garrison put to the sword.

Emboldened by their success, the victors marched to meet Petillius Céréalis who, at the head of the ninth legion, was hastening to the assistance of his countrymen. After a bloody battle, in which the Britons massacred all his infantry, the Roman lieutenant was compelled to seek refuge with his cavalry in the camp.

Terrified at the disaster which his avarice and cruelty had caused, the procurator, Cato Decianus, fled to Gaul, followed by the maledictions of the inhabitants of the province on which he had brought so many evils.

Whilst engaged in the subjugation of the natives of Wales, Suetonius Paulinus received intelligence of the revolt of the Britons against the colonies of the eastern parts of the island. Immediately he sat out on his march for London (Tacitus, "An.," lib. xiv.) This is the first mention which we have in history of this city by the title of Londinum—a city destined, in after years, to become the chief centre of political power and commercial enterprise in Europe; to rival, if not to eclipse, the most famous cities of antiquity in splendour and in influence. Whether London owes its origin to the Romans or the Britons, has long been a disputed, and still remains an unsettled, question. Geffrey of Monmouth, a Welsh historian, gives an account of its foundation, and the origin of its name, which, though treated as a mere superstition by Maitland, is alike interesting and ingenious. He tells us that Brutus formed the design of building a city in Britain, and with this object had a careful survey of the kingdom made, and at last fixed on a spot of ground on the banks of the Thames as the most suitable for his purpose. There he erected a city which was long known by the dignified title of New Troy. That name became subsequently corrupted into Trinovant, and in later days, when Lud, the brother of Cassivellaun, obtained the government, he strongly walled and fortified the city, and changed its name to Caer Lud, or Lud's Town. The subsequent change to London was of course easy. Maitland, however, rejects this story as absurd, and denies the existence of such a city in the days of Cæsar. In justification of this view he very fairly urges the fact that Cæsar makes no mention of any such city, although he is most minute and accurate in his enumeration of the places of importance, camps, fortifications, and towns in Gaul. Moreover, on the banks of the Thames Cæsar's troops had one of their most desperate encounters, forcing the passage of that river, and putting to the route the troops of Cassivellaun. Now, had London been in existence at this time, the defeated forces of Cassivellaun would have retreated thither, or at all events have made the attempt. In either case we should expect some mention of the fact by