Ir is much to be regretted, that the learned and judicious author of " An Enquiry into Vulgar Errors" omitted to notice that propensity to blunder, which * The young scholar is requested not to translate Jam-already. + Sir Thomas Browne, fl. 1660. is commonly supposed to be characteristic of the irish nation. An essay on the nature and origin of irish bulls would, perhaps, have been almost as well worthy the attention of the public as some of the questions, which this celebrated antiquarian, and natural philosopher, has discussed; such as, Whether storks can live only in republics? Whether peacocks are ashamed when they look at their ugly legs? Why we are taught, from our childhood, to break an egg-shell after we have eaten the egg? Why candles burn blue before the apparition of a spirit, or how their wicks foretel the approach of strangers? We have the more reason to lament sir Thomas Browne's omitting to treat of irish bulls, because, in speaking of one of the english popular notions with respect to Ireland, he evinces that admirable degree of philosophical scepticism which is necessary in judging a national cause with impartiality. Most men," says he, " affirm, and few here will believe the contrary, that there be no spiders in Ireland; but we have seen some in that country; and, though but few, some cobwebs we bet hold in irish wood* in England. Thus the crocodile from an egg growing up to an exceeding magnitude, common conceit, and divers writers deliver, it hath no period of increase, but groweth as long as it liveth; and thus, in brief, in most apprehensions the conceits of men extend the considerations of things, and dilate their notions beyond the propriety of their natures." The received opinion, that there exists amongst the natives of Ireland an innate * The person who shows Westminster Hall assures the public, at this day, that there are no cobwebs in the oak there, because it is irish. B and irresistible propensity to blunder, cannot, however, be one of those notions which have been dilated by common conceit, because we have argument and evidence sufficient to establish our belief. English readers may smile at this grave preparation to prove what nobody doubts but these apparent truisms are always suspicious in the eyes of accurate philosophers. In the first place it must be ob served, that nobody is a word of very uncertain signification, varying according to time, place, and circumstance. Nobody in a physical and nobody in a fashionable sense, nobody in a moral and nobody in a political view, are obviously as different as possible; nobody at court may be somebody in the country; nobody in England may be somebody in Ireland. In short, nobody in argument usually implies, nobody of my nation, acquaintance, party, or way of thinking: hence the extreme difficulty of ascertaining what is |