st deeply concerned
in the decision. We shall not enter into any detail on so uninteresting
a subject, but shall propose our opinion in a few words. It appears more
than probable, from the similitude of language and manners, that Britain
either was originally peopled, or was subdued, by the migration of
inhabitants from Gaul, and Ireland from Britain: the position of the
several countries is an additional reason that favors this conclusion.
It appears also probable, that the migrations of that colony of Gauls
or Celts, who peopled or subdued Ireland, was originally made from the
north-west parts of Britain; and this conjecture (if it do not merit
a higher name) is founded both on the Irish language which is a very
different dialect from the Welsh, and from the language anciently
spoken in South Britain, and on the vicinity of Lancashire, Cumberland,
Galloway, and Argyleshire, to that island. These events, as they passed
along before the age of history and records, must be known by reasoning
alone, which, in this case, seems to be pretty satisfactory. Caesar and
Tacitus, not to mention a multitude of other Greek and Roman authors,
were guided by like inferences. But, besides these primitive facts, which
lie in a very remote antiquity, it is a matter of positive and undoubted
testimony, that the Roman province of Britain, during the time of the
lower empire, was much infested by bands of robbers or pirates, whom
the provincial Britons called Scots or Scuits; a name which was probably
used as a term of reproach, and which these bandits themselves did not
acknowledge or assume. We may infer, from two passages in Claudian,
and from one in Orosius, and another in Isidore, that the chief seat
of these Scots was in Ireland. That some part ot the Irish freebooters
migrated back to the north-west parts of Britain, whence their ancestors
had probably been derived in a more remote age, is positively asserted
by Bede, and implied in Gildas. I grant, that neither Bede nor Gildas
are Caesars or Tacituses; but such as they are, they remain the sole
testimony on the subject, and therefore must be relied on for want of
better: happily, the frivolousness of the question corresponds to the
weakness of the authorities. Not to mention, that, if any part of the
traditional history of a barbarous people can be relied on, it is the
genealogy of nations, and even sometimes that of families. It is in vain
to argue against these facts, from the supp