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. 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.

Of

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

contained, according to the assertion of some persons, the following incredible story. That in the year 1640 the king sent a warrant to sir William Balfour, lieutenant of the tower of London, to execute immediately the earl of Loudon for the crime of high treason, although, as it is well known, it had formerly been pardoned in consequence of a general act of grace; which illegal warrant was to take effect without any previous trial; and that Charles was diverted from insisting on Balfour's obedience to the order, solely by the interference of the marquis of Hamilton. See the Conclusion of Birch's Inquiry into King Charles the First's Transactions with the Earl of Glamorgan, Second Edition, where this tale is brought forward against the king. Let the duke of Hamilton however be heard in his own defence, and at the same time in behalf of his royal master. In his speech before his execution, this nobleman has the following expressions." I take God to witness, that I "have constantly been a faithful subject and "servant to his late majesty, in spight of all “malice and calumny. I have had the ho

nour since my childhood to attend and be “ near him, till now of late, and during all “that time I observed in him as many vir"tues and as little vice, as in any man I ever

"knew." Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 398.

III. Thus much concerning the restored passages. To the notes of the earls of Dartmouth and Hardwicke, speaker Onslow, and dean Swift, several others have been added, for the purpose of correction, and of fuller illustration. They are drawn principally from the professed answerers of Burnet, the historians of particular periods of our history, from writers of memoirs and of scarce tracts, and occasionally from manuscript authorities. They were selected and appended to the text, whilst the press was going on, in the course of the last year; and will, it is hoped, as well as the strictures on some doctrines and opinions in the other annotations, appear to owe their situation in the following pages to a zeal for truth, sincere, at least, however mistaken. All these notes are interspersed with the others, and included within a parenthesis.

It is proper to apprise the reader, that Ralph's History of the three first reigns contained in bishop Burnet's work, namely, those of Charles II. James II. and king William, was not procured for consultation before some part of the reign of James II. was already printed. But this circumstance ap