The knowledge possessed by the general public of the conquest, of Gaul by Julius Cæsar rests mainly on the famous Commentaries, the eternal monument to the genius and literary ability of their author. That the writer of the campaigns which had for their object the subjugation of a great country, inhabited by tribes warlike and loving freedom, should have been likewise the planner and executor of those campaigns, and that his story should be practically the only story, are circumstances which, whilst allowing posterity to see the hero as he wished posterity to see him, have tended to obscure the merits, sometimes even to darken unjustly the characters, of the patriots who struggled, often with temporary success, against him. Not only has the greater glory of the conqueror effaced the achievements, in some cases almost equally illustrious, of the conquered, but the heroism of their aims, their noble patriotic rage, have either been passed over in silence or cruelly travestied. They have been made to speak as the conqueror wished them to speak, to think as the conqueror desired them to think, even sometimes to act as he would have had them act. The glory of Caius Julius, the gratification of his ambition, were the aims of the joint conqueror and historian. Before those aims every other consideration had to give way, even consideration of the character and virtues of those patriotic chiefs who were most nearly thwarting him.

The subject for your consideration in the present paper is one which has recently attracted attention, and which is of necessity destined to arouse controversy. I do not desire to weary you with dry details which must be carefully investigated and verified, or to make any reply to adverse criticisms, which as yet have served to show that the most careful demonstration of every point in a new thesis is required by modern scholarship. There are three separate questions to be considered, each of which might demand a volume by itself, and each of which might be independently considered. First, who were the Hittites? What do we know about them, and what bearing has such knowledge on general questions of history and ethnology? Secondly, what are the hieroglyphic texts of Northern Syria and Asia Minor? Is there any reason to suppose that all or any of them are the work of Hittites? and how are they to be deciphered? Third, what bearing have the two preceding studies on the Old Testament historical notices of the Hittites? Do they serve to support the general historical accuracy of the Hebrew Scriptures, or the reverse? I propose to confine my remarks in this paper chiefly to the first of these questions. The second has less bearing on history, and requires a great amount of study yet to lead to a solution.

It has often been held that the teaching of history should form no part of the curriculum of school education. Children; it is said, should be encouraged to read history for themselves, but they should not be taught it. Language, whether ancient or modern, is the basis of literary, as mathematics is the basis of scientific education. History belongs to neither of these categories, and if taught at all, even at a later age, should form no part of the definite instruction given to the young. I do not intend to argue this question. I will only say, in the first place, that history, ancient and modern, is taught in a large number of schools, and that certificates for proficiency in the study are granted by the Oxford and Cambridge Joint Board. It must have been obvious to anyone who has awarded these certificates that those schools did best in the examination in which history was best taught. It was easy to distinguish the schools in which history received a fair amount of attentioń, and the distinctions granted were due quite as much to the exertions of the teachers as to those of the pupils. Again, history now forms part of the regular academical curriculum both at Oxford and Cambridge. A degree in History is highly regarded, and scholarships and fellowships are awarded for proficiency in the study. Yet it is difficult to maintain a high standard of historical instruction at the University if students come entirely untrained in it from the schools.

No diplomatic story is better known than that of Hugh Elliot stealing the despatches of Arthur Lee at Berlin. The most graphic account is to be found in Carlyle's ‘Frederick,’ vol. vi. page 557. He describes how the American war is raging and blundering along. The devoted colonists have their Franklins, Lees, busy in European courts. ‘Help us in our noble struggle, ye European courts; now is your chance on tyrannous England.’ He says that the British cabinet had got it into their sagacious heads that the bad neighbour at Berlin was in effect the arch-enemy, and probably the mainspring of the whole matter, and that it would be in the highest degree interesting to see clearly what Lee and he had on hand. Order is therefore given to Elliot, ‘Do it at any price;’ and finally, as mere price will not answer, do it by any method—steal Lee's despatch box for us. Carlyle says further that Elliot had no appetite for the job, but that orders were peremptory. ‘Lee is a rebel, quasi outlaw, and you must.’ Elliot thereupon hired or made his servant hire the chief housebreaker or pickpocket in the city. He is told that Lee lodges in such and such an hostelry; bring us his red box for thirty hours; it shall be well worth your while.

I am about to offer to the society a contribution which differs in kind from most of the papers which are read before us, and which may, I am afraid, be regarded as inferior in interest to many of them. I am conscious that I can only here touch the fringe of a very large subject, and my object is rather to put forward a claim for its further consideration than to pretend to make any adequate attempt to deal with it exhaustively now. Indeed, neither my own ability nor the patience of the audience would be equal to such an undertaking as that.

‘The Story of Prince Henry of Monmouth and Chief Justice Gascoign,’ read at a meeting of the Royal Historical Society in November 1885, contained a brief, but only a brief sketch of the military career of that illustrious prince during the war in Wales. But though for the purpose which the writer had in view it was necessary to trace the prince's movements and his actions as described in contemporaneous official documents, want of space precluded the possibility of a transcript of any part of the correspondence, memoranda, or records therein referred to. It is proposed now to partially supply that omission by means of a translation of all the few letters and despatches of the prince himself during the war which are extant. They are all in the French language. It may be reasonably expected that the letters and despatches of anyone giving an account of great deeds in which he himself was a partaker would be found full of deep interest, and a sense of disappointment cannot fail to be felt on learning that those of Henry of Monmouth, Prince of Wales, are only six in number. It is only to the marvellous industry and research of Sir Robert Cotton, two hundred years after they were written, that we owe the discovery and preservation of any of them, and to the labours of the Record Commission perfected by Sir Harris Nicolas that we owe a print of these, and a vast number of other most valuable documents during the period commencing 10 Richard II., A.D. 1386, and ending with few exceptions 38 Henry VI., A.D. 14.61, published in 1834, and which will be quoted for the sake of brevity by the title of ‘Acts of Council.’

There are few branches of historical study more interesting than the investigation of the great events in international policy, and their causes—the motives which induced statesmen and sovereigns, and the nations they ruled and guided, to make war and peace and alliance. And few branches of historical study have been, till of late, so much neglected by English workers.

There are few branches of knowledge that have within the past few years so varied in their character as that of Numismatics. At one time merely the amusement and pursuit of the leisured wealthy or the study of the very learned, it has within the present generation become a study of importance, interest, and value to those who have but comparatively little leisure and recreation, to those engaged in other branches of study, and a source of historical knowledge hitherto little suspected. To this work the existence of the Numismatic Society of London has given no small aid, and in fact has been largely instrumental in both encouraging and carrying on the study of coins and the research for their historical evidence amongst those who are beginning to understand the high value of such research.

I. The current fashion which despises ‘drum and trumpet’ histories has affected the ordinary estimate of certain historical personages: the man who was merely a great commander, who did not obviously devote himself to constitutional changes and the amelioration of the lot of the people, secures but faint praise from a democratic age. This is noticeably true of current language in regard to Edward III.; his reign is dismissed as ‘brilliant,’ and his achievements condemned as ‘barren,’ and these depreciatory judgments are confirmed by other circumstances. There was something hollow and unreal in the chivalry of his Court; it was self-conscious and theatrical; while it is difficult to believe that the claim to the French Crown, which was put forward at the beginning of the Hundred Years' War, was altogether serious; it rested on such special pleading and was pressed so fitfully. It is obvious, too, that at the end of the reign the country was much exhausted by the long struggles in which the King had engaged, and it is easy to accuse him of pursuing his own personal ambitions lightly and recklessly.

Cornelius van Quaarlberg was sent out to succeed Van Riebeck as Governor, but he remained less than two years. The Chamber of Seventeen in Holland ordered him to Batavia ‘in consequence of his want of judgment in having quitted his post in the fort to welcome a French admiral who called in Table Bay,’ and to whom he gave a supply of provisions; orders were issued by the Chamber that ‘water should be given to all Europeans, but as little refreshment as possible.’

‘With a modern reader, the assassination of the four leaders, in their houses, and at the banquet, raises a sentiment of repugnance which withdraws his attention from the other features of this memorable deed.’

Grote, in the passage just quoted, is referring to the assassination which freed Thebes from the Spartan yoke.

1. By Archaian White Races I mean White Races non-Semitic and non-Aryan; and by White Races I mean Races with either long or short heads (dolichocephalic, or bracbycephalic), high noses, unprojecting jaws (orthognathic, not prognathic), long hair and beards, and light-coloured skins.

The Royal Historical Society begs leave to offer to your Majesty its sincere congratulations on the occasion of your Majesty's Jubilee. To none of your Majesty's subjects can such an occasion appeal with more force and truth than to those who, like ourselves, are engaged in the study of the past.