served of lord Dartmouth, opposed to him in politics: but Arthur Onslow, speaker in four successive parliaments in the reign of George II. enjoyed the confidence of the whigs, and with it a high reputation for integrity and moderation. The remaining annotator, lord Hardwicke, son of the lord chancellor Hardwicke, and one of the authors of those elegant compositions the Athenian Letters, always adhered to the same party. Lord Dartmouth uses strong, and Swift much ill language, on Burnet's supposed want of veracity; and the excellent Latin verses of dean Moss on the same subject are now, we understand, in print. Yet the bishop's friends need not be apprehensive of a verdict of wilful falsehood against him in consequence of the corrections of his narrative in the subsequent annotations. Lord Dartmouth indeed, a man of honour, asserts, that this author has published many things which he knew to be untrue. See his note at the beginning of vol. iv. His lordship, it must be allowed, had better opportunities than we have for determining what Burnet knew; but, as he has adduced little or nothing in support of this charge, we may be permitted to think, that strong prejudice, not wilful falsehood, occasioned the bishop's erroneous statements. It

ought to be recollected in his favour, that he never professed a belief, either in the discoveries of Oates, or in the alleged murder of the earl of Essex, although articles of his party's creed. And notwithstanding the idle stories told by him, on the authority of others, concerning the birth of the prince of Wales, he no where, that we remember, explicitly avows an opinion of his illegitimacy. Nor, although an active and zealous opposer of king James's measures, does he appear to have been concerned in those two other infamous falsehoods imposed at the same time on the credulity of the nation; the letter of the Jesuits at Liege, which he mentions in vol. iii. p. 169, and the intended massacre of the protestants in this country. There is a story indeed, which used to be told on the authority of the dowager countess of Nottingham, that Burnet, in a conversation with her lord, accused him of having professed different sentiments in the house of peers on some subject from what he then did; and on lord Nottingham's denying that he had so expressed himself, the bishop, as it was stated, rejoined, if his lordship had not, he ought to have done so: and that, notwithstanding this in Burnet's History of his Own Time lord Nottingham is represented to have said

that, which he denied he had said. All this may be true, and yet the bishop might not believe himself to have been mistaken. It must however be confessed, that where either party-zeal or personal resentment was concerned, this author too frequently appears to have been no patient investigator of the truth, but to have written under the influence of both those feelings, even whilst he was delineating the characters of some of the most virtuous persons of the age in which he lived. Amongst these are the archbishops Sheldon and Sancroft, of whom he frequently speaks with unpardonable severity. He has also directed much indiscriminate censure against public bodies of men. Indeed it appears by the preface to his work, that he himself suspected he had treated the clergy in particular with excessive harshness, irritated, he says, "perhaps too "much against them, in consequence of the peevishness, ill-nature, and ambition of

66

many of them." Nay, from some particulars, which will hereafter be mentioned, it may be collected, that the author actually omitted many passages of his history still more highly reflecting on his brethren.

That he was by no means acceptable to those prelates, who governed the church of

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