and of 'persons of honour and worth.' There were both deletions and additions, and, in its final form, the book passed over in silence much that would have been incompatible with its purpose. That purpose was to eulogise Charles I. and, as far as possible, Hamilton.1

'At my coming to Court' (in 1673), says Burnet, Duke Lauderdale took me into his closet, and asked me the state of Scotland.' Now, when Burnet was examined before the Commons in 1675, he identified the day of this interview as the first Saturday of September. Obviously, Lauderdale was anxious to hear about the condition of Scotland, and therefore Burnet would be summoned to his presence shortly after his arrival in town. It may be assumed, therefore, that he reached London late in August or early in September. Moray had died on the 4th of July, and indeed the tone of Burnet's remarks on his position at London seems to imply that Sir Robert had disappeared from the scene.5

Nevertheless, the same writer, in his preface to the Lives of the Hamiltons, published five years later, makes a statement which is very difficult to reconcile with the fact of Moray's death early in July, 1673. After explaining that at Sir Robert's suggestion he had inserted the documents in full, he continues: and when it was written over again, as I now offer it to the world, he was so much pleased with it that, though I know the setting down his words would add a great value to it among all that knew him, yet they are so high in the commendation of it, that I cannot but conceal them.'6 In the History of My Own Time, however, Burnet was less modest. 'I will take the boldness to set down the character which Sir Robert Moray, who had a great share in the affairs of that time, and knew the whole secret of them, gave, after he read it in MS., that he did not think there was a truer history writ since the Apostles' days.'7

Now, it was possible, though very unlikely, that Burnet in 1675 had forgotten the exact date of his first interview with Lauderdale in 1673, and he may have arrived in London before Sir Robert's death. But it is impossible to suppose that Moray ever saw the version which in 1678 Burnet offered to the world. It has been pointed out that the second MS. which he brought with him from Scotland in 1673 underwent very important changes. Some considerable time would elapse before these changes were made. Moreover, precisely because it is so improbable that Sir Robert and Burnet met in the summer of 1673, it can scarcely be held that Moray's eulogy was passed on the second version of the Lives. Nor does Burnet give us the least reason to suppose that a copy of the work was

1 Sc. Hist. Review, iv. p. 384 et seq. 2 Burnet, Own Time, v. ii. p. 26.

3 Ibid, v. ii. p. 26, foot-note 1.

4 Letters to Sir Joseph Williamson, i. No. 43, p. 85, 4th July, 1673; No. 46, p. 92, 7th July, 1673. Evelyn's Diary, v. ii. pp. 292-3, date July 6th, 1673.

sent to Sir Robert before the author himself repaired to London, and that he obtained from Moray his opinion of it in writing.

On the other hand, it is hard to believe that Burnet deliberately put into Sir Robert's mouth words which he had never uttered. It is difficult to suppose that the writer of the glowing tribute to Moray which occurs in the preface of the Lives could be guilty of such baseness.

It would be a much less serious offence to assert that Sir Robert had said about the final version what he really had affirmed about the first. As a matter of fact, after reading the 1671 MS., Moray suggested that the narrative should give place largely to the documents on which it was based. The truth of the work in the two cases would not differ greatly in amount; the change of method would only make the truth of it more apparent and A incontestable. Therefore, Moray's words of praise may have applied to the version of 1671, or he may in 1671 have said that, with the improvement which he had suggested, it would be deserving of such a commendation. In any case, the words were more applicable to the early versions than to the latest one.

It is evident from the preceding remarks that Sir Robert had nothing to do with the deletions and additions which the second MS. underwent, and which lessened the value of the book. Indeed, it was he who suggested that insertion of documents in extenso, which, according to Mr. Dewar, gives the Lives their chief value.1

ALEXANDER ROBERTSON.

1 Sc. Hist. Review, iv. pp. 384 et seq. Cf. also C. H. Firth, Introd. to Clarke and Foxcroft, Life of Burnet. It is obvious, however, that had Burnet published the 1671 MS. its value would eventually have been found to be considerable; i.. when it came to be compared with those MS. sources upon which it was based. As to the insertion of documents, John Cockburn, in his Specimen of some Free and Impartial Remarks (London, 1735), PP. 45 et seq., points out that those were not included which would have shown Hamilton in an unpleasant light.

IN BYWAYS OF SCOTTISH HISTORY. (S.H.R. x. 316.) Mr. Barbé has written to us disclaiming direct and large indebtedness to Dr. Neilson's Caudatus Anglicus. The disclaimer, however, which our critic willingly accepts, does not clearly explain why Mr. Barbé refrained from naming Dr. Neilson's Essay, which he knew had, in 1896, covered the vital facts, discussed the whole problem, and reached substantially the same conclusions as those now advanced (certainly with valuable supplementary data) by himself.

Mr. Barbé also resents the objection taken to his allusion to the fact of publication of Randolph's Fantasie, on the ground that his article is a reprint; but his footnote on page 103 is not a reprint.

We regret that we have not space to print Mr. Barbé's long letter, which would involve a reply from our reviewer. We place on record, however, that in Mr. Barbe's opinion some of the statements in the review of his work are inaccurate and not fair to him.

A