suffered considerable injury, happened in 1731, four years before the promise was publicly given of depositing the original MS. in that library.

These circumstances considered, it is probable, that the same reasons which induced the editor, or editors, to omit certain passages in both volumes of the work, finally determined them, although pointedly expostulated with on the subject, to relinquish their purpose of placing the original MS. in an accessible library. It deserves notice, that in page 8 of the second letter addressed by Mr. Beach to Thomas Burnet, esquire, the writer asserts, that he had in his own possession an authentic and complete collection of the castrations. See Nichols's Literary Anecdotes, vol. i. p. 285. It is added by Beach, as we have been informed by a gentleman who inspected his two printed letters to the younger Burnet, as well as Sinclair's Remarks on the first letter, that these passages were also in the hands of several persons of distinction. After all, we are induced by our recollection of the restored passages to think, that although they were unjustifiably omitted, because against the author's express injunctions in his last will, yet that it was not done by the editors through party considerations,

but from a desire of abating the displeasure certain to be conceived against their father, by the friends or relations of those who suffered by the severity of his censure. The editors appear to have consulted their own feelings, in the omission of several traits in the character given by him of his uncle Warriston.

But it must not be omitted, that previously to the first publication of this work in 1724, some extracts from the former part of it, confessed to have been surreptitiously obtained during the author's life, were actually printed; none of which appear either in the edited work, or amongst the suppressed, but now restored passages of the first volume. In a tract found in the British Museum by a gentleman, who has done much for the literary history of this country, Dr. Philip Bliss, fellow of St. John's college, Oxford, four passages are brought forward by the author of it, purporting to be extracts from Burnet's history. The title of the pamphlet is, A specimen of the bishop of Sarum's Posthumous History of the Affairs of the Church and State of Great Britain during his life. By Robert Elliot, M. A. 3d. ed. London. 8vo. without date. The bookseller in his preface says that he received the contents, consisting of extracts from Burnet's history, and copious re

marks upon them, from Mr. Elliot, a deprived episcopal clergyman of Scotland. The extracts are asserted to have been privately made by Elliot, whilst employed together with others in transcribing a manuscript of the work lent by the author to lord W. P. (perhaps lord William Paulett). In support of the credibility of the account, it may be observed, that lord Dartmouth, in a note at page 6. vol. i. mentions an offer made to himself by the author, of inspecting his history; a favour, his lordship adds, which the bishop had conferred on several others. Of these four extracts, the first is a relation of the murder of archbishop Sharp, and agrees in substance with that in the edited copy, but much altered in point of expression. The three others contain very severe and acrimonious reflections on the English clergy.

It is observable, that in the preface by Dr. Hickes to Three Treatises republished by him in 1709, some years before the death of bishop Burnet, there appears a part of the fourth and last of these extracts given in the very words produced by Elliot; and that Hickes says, he had seen a short specimen of the bishop's anecdot, perhaps communicated to him by this clergyman.

Dr. Bliss is of opinion, in case the extracts

are authentic, that they were taken from a copy of Burnet's work in its first state, and before he altered, revised, and softened it. That they are genuine, many internal marks of authenticity lead us to suppose ; besides the circumstance, that, when Elliot, after finishing his extracts, proceeds to set down what he recollects of the substance of nine or ten other passages of the work, all that he produces has a perfect agreement with what was afterwards published as the bishop's. It is proper to remark in this place, that no additional charge of suppression or alteration can fairly be brought against the editors of Burnet's history in consequence of the discovery of these extracts by Elliot, which were made during the author's life, whilst he had the power of altering and revising his own work. On the other hand, to the possible suggestion, that the passages restored by us to the text had been in a similar way expunged or altered by the author himself, may be opposed the express testimony, that many things in the copy from which his work was printed, were omitted by the editors in both the volumes.

Before this account of the suppressed passages is entirely concluded, we shall take notice, that amongst those which are restored,

there is one, in vol. i. p. 517, containing a severe attack on the character of king Charles I. chiefly founded on that prince's letters to the first duke of Hamilton, and on bishop Burnet's acquaintance with the Hamilton papers, the basis of his Memoirs of the two dukes of that family. In favour of the king it ought first to be stated, that the series of letters addressed to him by the marquis, afterwards duke of Hamilton, appears to have formed no part of that collection of papers, Burnet having in his Memoirs inserted few or none of them. Again, that this nobleman so conducted himself in those unhappy times, that he was always suspected by the royalists of treachery and treason against his benefactor and sovereign; and was even charged upon oath "with raising the vilest reports to "the dishonour of the king and queen, and "their whole court, as if it was a sink of iniquity." See, besides the histories of the times, a tract entitled Digitus Dei, p. 6. and the Practices of the Hamiltons. From this source apparently originated a report unfavourable to the character of the queen, whether true or untrue, which is mentioned in a note by the earl of Dartmouth, vol. i. p. 63. Neither is any additional credit reflected on the Hamilton papers themselves, in case they

66