and several others, notice the absence of serpents in Ireland.

A Belfast correspondent to the Dublin Penny Journal, June, 1834, mentions some cases of introducing reptiles into Ireland:

"About 1797, a gentleman is said to have imported from England into Wexford, a number of vipers:"

they died immediately after. He continues:—

"We are sorry to record that the virtues of the good old times have passed away, as snakes are at this moment (June, 1834) free denizens of the County of Down, and gambolling in its shrubberies and plantings."

The particulars are as follows:

"In the summer of 1831, a gentleman, by way of experiment to ascertain whether snakes would survive in Ireland, brought from Scotland a few pair of what are usually called the common snake (Coluber natrix). These he put into a plantation at Milecross, near Newtownards, where they soon from their number gave evidence of becoming as fruitful as if they had been placed in South Carolina."

I have not heard how long the snakes continued at Milecross, but I believe they are not there now. The Marquis of W——d, I have heard, in a similar freak, endeavoured, but unsuccessfully, to propagate snakes on his property.

The usual Irish word for serpent is nathair; Welsh, gnadr; German, natter; Anglo-Saxon, nædre; Latin, natrix; English, adder. The epithet nimhe, poison, is often added, and a compound word made, nathair-neimhe.

Peist, a word I have before alluded to, is analogous with the Latin best-ia, and means a worm, a beast, as well as a serpent.

EIRIONNACH.

CANONS AND ARTICLES OF 1571.

Dearest Sir,

Yours of the 4th I showed to Mr. Baker, who desires me to tell you, that the Canons of 1571, with the subscriptions, are (as the Articles) in paper bound up in the same volume of the Synodalia, and stand there next to the "Articles of 1571" subscribed by the Archbishop and ten Bishops.

I agree with you that the MS. of 1562 was designed to be subscribed without alterations; but your reasons do not satisfy me that the alterations were posterior to the subscription, for notwithstanding the alterations it appeared very plain to the subscribers what they subscribed to, and there needed no memorandum to them that the lines of minium were designed to exclude all that was scored; and the care that was taken to alter the account of the number of lines and Articles of the several pages conformably to the alterations made by the lines of minium was wholly unnecessary, and to no purpose, except the subscriptions were to follow, in the middle of which the subscribers own the exact number of Articles and lines in every page, and therefore this care was necessary that their subscription might be true; but supposing they subscribed before the alterations, the lines of minium were sufficient to show what alterations were to be made in the new copy of the Articles, and not the least occasion for adjusting the number of Articles and lines at the end to the foregoing pages. But both these are but conjectures on your and my part, and the main point does not depend upon them, which is in my opinion, whether this MS. could be designed for the Publick Record, and that it was not I think the want of such a memorandum as you speak of, as well as the Archbishop leaving it to C. C. C. as his own property, is a sufficient evidence: though I must confess I am apt to think the postscript in the Publick Record (which I take to be printed from the record in Renald Wolfe's edition of 1563 referred to by your adversary) refers to this MS., and the subscriptions to it of both houses.

Mr. Baker nor I had Gibson's Synod. Anglicana; but this morning I got a sight of it from the booksellers, and have sent it to Mr. Baker, who I hope will make a better use of it than I am able to do; the passage you refer to favours an opinion that I have had, that the subscriptions were left in the keeping of the President of the Convocation, the Archbishop or Bishop of London; but that a Publick Record (different from that with the subscriptions, and left with the President) was engrossed in parchment, and preserved in its proper place, the Registry of the Convocation; and thus that which Archbishop Laud found at Lambeth might be left there.

I cannot tell exactly the number of blank pages (whether three or more) between the subscription of the Bishops and of the Lower House in 1562. Both Mr. Baker and I omitted to take so much notice of it; but we both remember that there might be room in the MS. for the clause in the beginning of the twentieth Article, partly in the space between the nineteenth and the twentieth Article, and partly in the margin; or in the margin there might be room enough for the whole clause.

Rogers' first edition was 1579, under this title: "The English Creed, wherein is contained in tables an Exposition on the Articles, which every one is to subscribe unto. Where the Article is expounded by Scriptures and Confessions of all the Reformed Churches and Heresies displayed, by Thomas Rogers. Printed for Andrew Mansell, 1579, in fol." This title I transcribe from Andrew Mansell's printed Catalogue of Books, published 1595. I mentioned to you another edition in 1585, the first part, and 1587, the second part, with a new title and pretty great additions; and I think I told you the second part began with the twentieth Article. It may seem from thence that his first edition in 1579 was not upon all the Articles; but I believe it was, and that the other edition came not out both parts together, because of the additions. I am sorry you find it not among Mr. Anstey's books, nor can I find it here. With my humble service to your good lady, I am, dearest sir, your most affectionate humble servant,

THO. BROWNE.

The letter, of which the above is a transcript, may be interesting to some of your readers; I therefore send it you for publication; the name of the person to whom it was addressed, and the date, have been torn off.

ϖ.

[Thomas Browne, the writer of the foregoing letter, was a fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge; but subsequently, with his friend Mr. Baker, became a Nonjuror. The letter appears to have been written to the Rev. Hilkiah Bedford, a Nonjuring clergyman, who was at this time preparing his masterly reply to Anthony Collins' work, Priestcraft in Perfection, which was published in 1709. Mr. Bedford's work was published anonymously, and is entitled, A Vindication of the Church of England from the Aspersions of a late Libel entituled "Priestcraft in Perfection," &c. By a Priest of the Church of England: London, 1710. The preface has been attributed to Dr. Joseph Trapp. Mr. Bedford has availed himself of the information conveyed to him in the letter given above, especially in pages 32. 35. 42. 78. 84. At page 101. he says, "I shall set down what farther account concerning this ancient MS. I have received in several letters from two persons of great learning and integrity at Cambridge, who have consulted these MSS. of Corpus Christi formerly, and been so obliging to examine them again now for my satisfaction, with all the care and exactness due to a matter of such moment." The minium mentioned by the writer of the letter is the red lead pencil commonly used by Archbishop Parker, for noting particular passages in the documents he perused.]

ON TWO PASSAGES IN DRYDEN.

I have met with a notion in Dryden's Poems,