June 21. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



491 



Moryson, and several others, notice the absence of 

 serpents in Ireland. 



A Belfast correspondent to the Dnhlin Penny 

 Journal, June, 1834, mentions some cases of intro- 

 ducing 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 

 gamhoUing 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 Irisli word for serpent is iiathair ; 

 Welsh, gnadr ; German, natter ; Anglo-Saxon, 

 nadre; Latin, natrix; English, adder. The epithet 

 nimhe, poison, is often added, and a compound 

 ■word made, nathair-neinfihe. 



Feist, a word I have before alluded to, is ana- 

 logous with the Latin best-ia, and means a worm, a 

 beast, as well as a serpent. Eieionnach. 



CANONS AND AETICLES QF 1571. 



Dearest Sir, 



Yours of tlie 4th I showed to Mr. Baker, who 

 desires me to tell you, that the Canons of 1571, 

 with tlie subscriptions, are (as the Articles) in 

 paper bound up in the same volume of tlie Syno- 

 dalia, and stand there next to the "Articles of 

 1571" subscribed by the Archbishop and ten 

 Bishops. 



I agree with you that the IMS. of 1562 was 

 designed to be subscribed without alterations ; 

 but your reasons do not satisfy me that the al- 

 terations were posterior to tlie subscri[)tion, 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 tlie care that was taken 

 to alter the account of the number of lines and 

 Articles of the several pages conformaljly to the 

 alterations maile by the lines of minium was 

 wholly unnecessary, and to no j)ur[)ose, 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 suf- 

 ficient 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 Puhlick Record, and that it was 

 not I think the want of such a memorandum as 

 you speak of, as well as tlie 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 Kenald 

 Wolfe's edition of 15G3 referred to by your ad- 

 versary) refers to this MS., and the subscriptions 

 to it of both houses. 



Mr. Baker nor I had Gibson's Synod. Avglicana; 

 but this morning I got a sight of it from the book- 

 sellers, 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 fivours an opinion tliat I 

 have had, that the subscriptions were left in the 

 keejiing of the President of the Convocation, the 

 Archbishop or Bishop of London ; but that a 

 Puhlick Record (ditferent from that with the 

 subscriptions, and loft with the President) was 

 engrossed in parchment, and preserved in its 

 proper place, the Kegistry 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. Bot'i 

 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 be- 

 tween the nineteenth and the twentieth Article, 

 and partly in the margin ; or in the margin there 

 might be i-oom enough for the whole clause. 



Rogers' first edition was 1579, under this title : 

 "The English Creed, wlierein is contained in tables 

 an Exposition on the Articles, which every one is 

 to subscribe unto. Where the Article is exjioumled 

 by Scriptures and Confessions of all the Reformed 

 Churches and Heresies displayed, bv 'J'honias 

 Rogers. Printed for Andrew Mansell, 1579, in fbl." 

 This title I transcribe from Andrew IManseU's 

 printed Catalogue o('Books,))ublished 1595. I men- 

 tioned to you another edition in 1585, the first part, 

 aiul 1587, the second part, wilhanew title and pretty 

 great additions; and I think I told you tiie second 

 part began with the twentieth Article. It may 

 seena from thence that his first edition in 1579 

 was not upon all the Articles; but I believe it was, 



