man history of Britain, from which he deduces, as an historical fact, that there was not a High"lander in Scotland of the present race, at the be 66 66 ginning of the era assigned to Fingal. The proofs which he produces for this formidable "fact are, that some Irish historians fix the arri"val of the Scots in this island, at fifty years "later than the era assigned to Fingal, and that "this account is supported by a number of concurring testimonies, among which are parti 66 66 cularly pointed out, the indisputable opinions "of Whitaker and Pinkerton! whether the im"maculate truth of the Irish (fabulous) historians, and the unimpeachable accuracy of Messrs. "Whitaker and Pinkerton, might not admit of some question, we shall leave it to our readers "to decide:-but in the present instance they 66 may all be granted to have spoken the truth, "it may be allowed, that not a single Scot existed "in Great Britain in the time of Fingal; and "yet we shall state a few considerations which "induce us to believe, that the very same race "who now possess the country to the north of "the Grampians, were its possessors far beyond any date assigned even by fabulous records. "That the Gael or Caledonians are the same race "who inhabited the Highlands of Scotland from "time immemorial, and that they are a race entirely 66 "entirely distinct from the Scots, appears from "the following considerations:-1. The Gael "and Scots differ from each other in language, "manners, customs, superstitions, prejudices, " and tradition... 2. Among the Scots, their "country is universally known by the name of "Scotland; they have no other name for their "own race than the Scots; Scot is a very gene"ral proper name, and is often incorporated "with the name of places. 3. Among the Gael "on the other hand, the term Scots is utterly "unknown; they never call themselves by this t name, they never call their country Scotland, "Scot is never used as a proper name among the pure Highlanders; nor does the appellation "of a single town, valley, or river, shew that it "was known to their language. But had they originally been a branch of the same race with "the Scots, it is impossible that this should "have happened; it is impossible, that while a "tribe continued to inhabit the same country, "one half of it should have lost every vestige of "their original name, while the other retained it "in so many forms; and that it should have "been lost among that half which had least in tercourse with strangers, and which was pro"verbially tenacious of ancient usages and ap"pellations. Buchanan, believing the Scots and "Gael "Gael to be the same race, expresses his sur"prise at this strange circumstance, that one "half of the nation should have completely 66 forgotten its own name. 4. The Highlanders universally call themselves the Gael, their "own particular province Gaeldoch: the king"dom of Scotland at large they know only by "the name of Albin, or rather Albain, (Albion) " and its inhabitants, by that of Albainich: the "term of Albain is employed as a proper name, "and it is often incorporated with the name of 66 places, as Breadalbin, &c. 5. On the other "hand, the word Albion, or Albain, is utterly "unknown among the common people of the Scots, who have not learnt it from books, or "from their southern neighbours. 6. The na"tural inference from these circumstances is, "that the Gael and Scots are a distinct race; "that the Gael are the same race who possessed "Caledonia in the time of the Romans, and "Albion in the time of the Greeks; and that "the Scots are a race who arrived (from Ireland perhaps) at a later period, and gave their own "name to the country they occupied. To in"quire who the Scots were, or when they arrived, is not necessary to our argument. It is "probable they came about the era commonly assigned; as they occupied the counties which 66 કેંદ ❝ lay "lay nearest England. Their name was natu"rally given by foreigners to the whole nor "thern part of the kingdom. These observa❝tions, drawn from circumstances of which every "one may ascertain the truth, will probably "appear as convincing to the reader, as the "unsupported conjectures of a few fabulous "historians," We cannot agree with this anonymous writer, that the Scots were a different race from the Gaels. Neither he nor any other can give a more rational account from whence these people came, than that already mentioned ;* viz. that they were descendants of those who, at various times, emigrated to Ireland, and by reason of their restless wandering disposition, acquired the name of Scots. Driven from Ireland some years after the death of Fingal, and joining their countrymen, they subdued the Picts. As the appellation of Scot was a term of reproach, we cannot suppose the Highlanders would ever adopt it; and it was even long before the Lowlanders would submit to a name * Vide page 31, name given by foreigners to the whole kingdom. But let us proceed. 66 "The other detections from the Roman his"tory contain such a tissue of gratuitous sup "positions and misrepretations, as we have rarely seen introduced into any controversy. Finga! " is supposed to have fought with Caracalla, ir "the year 208; and because some Irish histo"rians fix the date of another battle, in which "he was engaged, to near a century afterwards, "this is to be looked on as an absurdity, which "forms an undeniable detection of Ossian. Had "these very accurate historians, (the redoubtable supporters of a millenium of fabulous kings) "placed the two battles five centuries asunder, 66 we should consider it much the same in regard "to the decision of the question The em"ployment of the name Caracalla, in the poems "of Ossian, is another detection of the same "class. The absurdity, says Mr. L. was re"marked by Gibbon, that the Highland bard should "describe the son of Severus by a nick-name, in"vented four years afterwards, (after the battle in 208) scarcely used by the Romans themselves, till แ after the death of that emperor, and seldom employed by the most ancient historians. Now with "all due deference to Mr. Gibbon, be it re 66 marked, |