The genuine history of the Britons asserted against Mr. Macpherson ...

193
THE GENUINE HISTORY OF
*' to Ireland ? Why, in the name of wonder^
*^ was a bulwark of turf and ftone a better
*-' fecurity againfl the Irlfli Scots than againfl
^* the Saxons of Friezeland or Holland, as both
^' were tranfmarine nations with refpe£l to the
5' Province ? Why did the Irifh, with a peculiar
" abfurdjty, land always on the wrong fide of
^' the Roman Walls, which they muft have fcaled
*' or deftroyed before they could penetrate into
*' the Province ? It is impoflible to believe that
:*' all their expeditions could have been fo ill
" concerted ; and this conflderation alone is fuf-
^' ficient to demonftrate, that the Scots, whom,
*' the Roman writers fo ofterj mention, were inha-
** bitants of Caledonjia. Walls were condrufled
** and legions employed to defend the Province
*' from their incurfions, but fleets were never
" fitted out to intercept or deflroy them at
f*fea\'*
The auth,or has here confounded himfelf, by
not attending to the very plain difl:in£lion be-
twixt the Scots that came direftly from Ireland
to invade the Province, and the Scots that were
previoufly fe|;tled in Caledopia. The bulwarks
of rurf and fl(me were never raifed againfl the
former, any more than agaiqfl the Saxons. An4
the Irifh expeditions were not fo ill concerted, as
Mr. Macpherfon fuppofes them on the common
^ So Sir George IMackenzie argues, more confinedly, in