“I am deficient in antiquarian lore:  this I have already confessed; but perhaps I want also the creative fancy and devoted faith of the genuine antiquary.  I cannot, for example, persuade myself, that a MS. written in a clear, uniform, small character of the Roman form, could have been written in remote times, when there is reason to think that MSS. were written in uncial characters only, without stops, and with few or no divisions into words, sentences, or paragraphs.  The palimpsest MS. examined by Dr. Barrett is in uncial characters, and is referred by him to the 6th or 7th century. Cic. de Republica, published by Angelo Mai, is assigned to much the same period.  Small letters, and the distinctions above mentioned, were the invention of later times.  I cannot therefore persuade myself that this MS. is of so early an age as some would ascribe to it, though I will not take it upon me to assign the precise time in which, it was written.  The characters are decidedly and distinctly those now called the Roman:  they have not many abbreviations, as far as I could judge, and they are written with much clearness and regularity.  They are not the literae cursivae, or those used in writing for the sake of facility and connection:  they seem rather formed more in imitation, of printed letters.  SECUNDUM—­This imperfect attempt to present one of the words, will explain my meaning.  But I had better not weary you any more with my crude notions.  I shall be very glad to hear your opinion, or that of Sir William Betham, to whom I should bow with all the respect due to talent and worth.  I must avow my distrust of Irish antiquities; yet, allow me to add, that there is no man more willing to be converted from my heresy, if you would call it so, than

“My dear Carleton,

“Your friend and servant,

“A.  O’BEIRNE.”

“Stradbrook House, October, 1832.

“Dear Sir,—­I have read Dr. O’Beirne’s important letter on the Dona:  the account he has collected of its recent history is full of interest, and for the most part, I have no doubt correct.  His speculations respecting its antiquity I cannot give my adhesion to, not feeling a doubt myself on the subject.  When I have time to investigate it more fully, I am satisfied that this box, like the others, of which accounts have already been published, will be found mentioned in the Irish Annals.  The inscriptions, however, fully identify the MS. and the box, and show that antiquaries, from the execution of the workmanship and figures on these interesting reliques, often underrate their antiquity—­a fault which the world are little inclined to give them credit for, and which they fall into from an anxiety to err on what they consider the side which is least likely to produce the smile of contempt or the sneer of incredulity, forgetting that it is the sole business of an antiquarian and historian to speak the truth, disregarding even contempt for so doing.