England in the reign of Charles II. is extremely probable, considering that, according to his own account, he was an active opponent and open censurer of the bishops in Scotland, and a great meddler in English politics. Besides this, he professed to regard episcopacy itself as no necessary, although a preferable form of church government; and, however averse from republicanism, seems to have approved of the settlement made by the Scottish covenanters in 1641 as the best system of civil polity for Scotland. See vol. v. p. 168. The author also, during the reigns of William and Anne, was on very ill terms with the majority of the English clergy, whom he often accuses of inactivity, faction, and ambition. It may be urged on the other hand, in favour of his impartiality, that he does by no means spare the characters of those of his own side in politics; so little indeed, that for the credit of human nature we would hope, that he knew less of men and of business than he himself supposed.

But whether his censures were just or unjust, Burnet himself, as it must be acknowledged even by his enemies, was an active and meritorious bishop, and, to the extent of his opportunities, a rewarder of merit in others. He was orthodox in points of faith,

possessed superior talents, as well as very considerable learning; was an instructive and entertaining writer, in a style negligent indeed and inelegant, but perspicuous; a generous, open-hearted, and, in his actions, good natured man; and although busy and intrusive, at least as honest as most partisans. It is true, that his conduct to the duke of Lauderdale after the breach between them was, even in his own apprehension of it, objectionable. It lost him the favour of the royal brothers, Charles and James; who had before this time paid particular attention to him. His spleen and resentment against both these princes is apparent in every part of this history; except that his final portrait of the latter is less darkly shaded, than the harsh and hideous one which he has drawn of the former. It may be here observed, in contradiction to the report of Burnet and other writers, respecting the early reconciliation of Charles to the church of Rome, that this event, as it appears from authentic accounts of the king's last moments, did not take place till a short time before his death.

II. Thus much concerning the notes on this work; and the accusation of wilful and deliberate falsehood brought against its author by lord Dartmouth and others. We

proceed to give an account of the passages omitted in the first folio volume by the original editors, and now restored to their proper places.

It is known to the readers of English history, that the editors of this posthumous work, on the publication of the first volume in 1724, promised to deposit the copy, from which it was printed, in some public library ; and they are apprised, that in the beginning of the second volume, printed in 1735, there appears the following declaration with the signature of the bishop's youngest son, who was afterwards sir Thomas Burnet, and a judge. "The original manuscript of both vo"lumes of this history will be deposited in "the Cotton library by T. Burnett." The advertisement in the former volume, which was the only one prefixed by the editors to the work, is conceived in these terms. "The "editors of the following history intend, for "the satisfaction of the public, to deposite "the copy from which it is printed (corrected "and interlined in many places with the "author's own hand) in some public library, as soon as the second volume shall be pub"lished."

66

Suspicions had very early arisen, nay, positive testimony had been adduced, that many

passages of the original work were omitted by the editors in both the volumes; (see note in vol. iv. p. 552.) when at length, in the year 1795, the same person, who, according to our preceding statement, inserted the major part of Swift's, and a few of speaker Onslow's notes, in the twenty-seventh volume of the European Magazine, communicated together with them twelve passages of the text of Burnet, which, amongst numerous others, had been omitted by the editors of the first volume. They were, in all probability, published by him from either the Onslow or Hardwicke copy of Burnet, as he mentions the Hardwicke notes also, although he has extracted none of them. It has been already stated, that the Hardwicke copy is missing, and in this copy the Onslow notes had been transcribed. Now apart from actual testimony, that the omissions were not confined to the first volume, it appeared extremely probable to us, that in proportion as the history drew nearer to their own times, the caution which dictated these omissions to the editors would acquire additional motives, and that as many, if not more, instances of suppression would be found to occur in the second volume.

We had therefore recourse to that noble re

b

pository of literature and science, the British Museum, of which the Cotton library, as it is well known, is a constituent part. Henry Ellis, esquire, one of the librarians of that institution, very obligingly complied with our request to make the requisite search for this MS. and he subsequently reported, that, after the most accurate examination, it did not appear that it had ever been deposited in the library. He added, that "several collections "of folio papers, written in various hands, " and at different times, contained an imper"fect copy of bishop Burnet's History of his "Own Times, with many variations from the printed editions. That some memorandums on a single sheet at the beginning of this book, dated July 1699, are probably in "the bishop's hand, as are also many cor"rections in the history. Finally, that Dr. "Gifford has written several useful remarks "in the volume; among which is one, that "❝from many particulars it appears, that the printed editions are not taken from these "loose papers: yet that though there is "great variety of expression, the substance "is generally the same."" This is the ac

66

66

66

count with which we were favoured by Mr. Ellis. It should be further observed, that the well known fire, by which the Cotton library