A supplement to Burnet's History of my own time; derived from his original memoirs, his autobiography, his letters to Admiral Herbert, and his private meditations, all hitherto unpublished;

Front matter

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE

SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND

THE GIFT OF

Introduction

ON THE TEXT OF BURNET'S HISTORY

By far the larger portion of the ensuing work is drawn from a source of which the existence at least is well known to all students of seventeenth-century history. The remarks of Dr. Routh ^ and Miss Strickland 2, of Lord Macaulay ^, Professor Von Ranke *, and Dr. Osmund Airy ^, have emphasized the fact that there exist in the British Museum fragments of Dr. Burnet's History, derived from an original version which differs in many respects from the text as eventually published. The observations of Von Ranke, notwithstanding their value, were in one respect unfortunate ; his report has been erroneously accepted as exhaustive ; and, despite his own ardently expressed aspiration for a complete edition of the manuscript, it has been assumed that he had noticed the chief differences between the early version and the received text. As a matter of fact the quotations of the distinguished German refer exclusively to two important passages ° ; he states specifically that he became acquainted with the document very late in the progress of his monumental work ; and his language leaves us in doubt whether he had ever seen either the original papers or a complete transcript.

* Preface to Burnet's History, ed. quotations of Miss Strickland. The

1823, p. xviii. MS. is described near the beginning

^ Queens of England, vol. viii. (1845) of the second instalment, issued in

p. 444 ; vol. X. (1847) pp. 290, 356 1855 ; in the course of which it is

(and note), 414 ; vol. xi. (1847) pp. 17, frequently mentioned (see ed. 1858,

^ As Macaulay did not employ the 276, 372).

Harleian MS. in the preparation of * Eng. Gesch. ed. Leipzig, vol. vii.

that first instalment of his History 1868, App. ii. pp. 184-99.

which ends with the Revolution settle- » See his quotation of Von Ranke,

ment, and which appeared in 1848, Did. Nat. Biog. vol. vii. p. 405.

there seems some reason to believe ° The 'Characters' of the English

that his attention was originally di- Court in 1663, and the Post-Revolu-

rected to it by the comments and tion Settlement.

vi Introduction

The manuscript is described as No. 6584 in the catalogue of the Harleian Library; which collection, formed by the first and second Earls of Oxford between the years 1705 and 1 741, was acquired for the nation in 1753. The papers in question constitute a substantial folio volume containing 350 leaves, the great majority of which bear writing on both sides. The cover, till within the last few years, was a British Museum binding of the eighteenth century ; and though the authorities lay no stress on the circumstance, the present editor inclines to deduce that the papers reached the Museum in loose quires, and were there arranged for the binder. It is at least certain that about June 6, 1781 1, Dr. Gififord (assistant librarian to the British Museum from 1757 to 1784) perused the manuscript ; that he divided the work, after a somewhat arbitrary fashion, into eight ' Numbers ' (of which the second is obviously misplaced) ; and that he prefaced each ' Number ' by a small inserted sheet of his own memoranda, in which attention is drawn to a few of the more salient discrepancies between the succeeding 'Number' and the published text. Not content with this, he has inscribed, in ink, and upon the margin of the actual manuscript, occasional references to the printed version ^ ; while in two instances he has taken upon himself to add, in a similar manner, substantial annotations.

Upon a close investigation, the original manuscript falls into three main divisions.

I. Folio a is a separate sheet, headed 'Materials,' and including some citations from the ensuing manuscript, with comments derogatory to the Whig party. The query appended by Dr. Ghiford, ' Whether this is not y= Bishop's own handwriting ? ' may be unhesitatingly answered in the negative ; but it approximates in a marked degree to the somewhat peculiar script of Robert Harley, founder of the Harleian collection; and Mr. Cartwright, whose familiarity with Harley's hand is probably unique, ' feels no doubt whatever ' that the writing is in Harley's autograph.

a. (A) Nos. I, 3, 4, a (the first three named of which are in one and the same clerical hand, all four being corrected by

1 Date appended to Dr. Gifford's ^ He quotes the pagination of an

notes on f. i. early octavo edition.

On the Text of Burnet's History vif

the pen of Burnet himself i) are clearly distinct fragments of a single clerical copy, which we shall designate throughout this work as Transcript A. Of these fragments the earliest includes events from 1660 to 1664 ; the next in date relates to the year 1683 ; the third is concerned with events from the end of 1684 to the autumn of 1686 ; the last named narrates incidents from the middle of the year 1689 to the close of 1695.

(B) Nos. 5-8, on the other hand, compose a single continuous fragment (ranging in subject-matter from 1684 to 1696) of a later transcript, which we shall designate as Transcript B ; and which was evidently copied from the preceding version ^ by a number of clerks working, it would appear, simultaneously ^. There are no author's corrections, though this copy, like the former, betrays in many places (and in some portions with peculiar frequency) the characteristic mistakes of hasty and illiterate scribes ; but a few of the pages present slight emendations or notes, apparently in the hand of Harley *.

So much for the Harleian manuscript ; but investigations in the Bodleian Library have unearthed additional material, of great interest in this connexion. Among the mass of Burnet papers acquired by the University in the year 1 835 for a total sum of ;fi'aio * (which include the now well-known ' autograph '

» There can be no reasonable doubt ' The minute slips of paper gummed

on the subject ; though the separation on ff. 93 and 146 respectively were

of the individual letters for purposes probably used as markers. On one is

of clearness differentiates the writing written, ' Russel's trial. E. of Essex ' ;

somewhat from Burnet's current on the other ' To L'^ Oxford. Russell's

hand. The revision has been rather execution.' The first is now (1902)

carelessly made ; two corrections, on missing.

ff. 129 [V) and 55 (a) respectively, are " Catalogue ofacquisitions. The papers

obviously erroneous. (Mus. Add. D. 15-24) in all probability

= Cf. ff. 119 (a) and 120 (6) with originally descended to David Mitchell,

ff. 164 (o) and 167 (a) respectively. brother-in-law of Sir Thomas Burnet ;

In each case it will be found that cf. Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 11404, f. loi

Transcript B carelessly adopts both the with Hist. i. 32-3, note (we give the

original reading and Burnet's cor- folio pagination). Those of the Bur-

rection of the same. net M SS. which (as we must suppose)

^ The narrative is continuous, but were rejected by the Bodleian authori-

is in a great variety of hands. The fresh ties seem to have been sold at Evans',

writing always fo^«s at the top of a July2i-6, 1838(366 Auction Catalogue,

folio, and the opening words generally, Nos. 1015-22, 1025, 1027-8) ; and the

if not always, coincide with the com- British Museum then acquired Add.

mencement of a folio in Transcript A ; MSS. 11402-4, 11569, 11570. The

on the other hand, the portion assigned source of Mr. Morrison's three auto-

to any one hand frequently terminates graphs is not known. As late as April,

halifway down the folio. 1887, the British Museum purchased viii Introduction

copy of the published History'^) there was found a long autograph fragment of Burnet's original draught, extending from the battle of Oudenarde to the conclusion of the work ; and also the original draught of the Bishop's own Autobiography, on which the Life by his son is principally founded. The historical fragment seems to have hitherto escaped the notice of students ; the Autobiography is, we find, twice cursorily mentioned in the notes appended by Dr. Routh to the edition of Burnet's History (so far as it relates to the reign of James II) which he published in 1853 from the Bodleian autograph of the History.

The questions suggested by the preceding details may be thus briefly summarized. In what manner can we account for the existence of the two Harleian transcripts, and under what circumstances can they have fallen into the hands of the Harley family ? What is the historical relation between this early draught and the work as eventually published ? To what extent do the two versions correspond ? in what respects do they differ? and how far can the variations be said to throw light upon the origin of the so-called ' editorial castrations ' which have occasioned so much comment ?

Three preliminary facts, of great interest, can be at once established. This first draught, or original Memoir, which constituted the basis of Burnet's published History and was commenced in the year 1683 ^, when Burnet was forty years old, may be confidently identified with the 'Apology,' ' Memoir,' or 'History' of which Burnet, anno 1687, in his published correspondence with Lord Middleton, threatened the publication. We find, moreover, that in October, 1688, Burnet, anticipating possible disaster to the impending expedition of the Prince of Orange, left private directions '"^ for the posthumous publication of the work, which he had brought up to date ; and, in the last place, that the narrative was continued at irregular intervals from that period, first to the Peace of Ryswick, and finally to that of Utrecht.

an early manuscript version of the Press edition of the History now in

Lives of the Hamiltons from a Dr. Lipp- progress.

mann (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 33259). " Hist., Airy's ed., ii. 474 ; infra, p. i.

1 Used as the basis for Dr. Routh's ^ See infra, Appendix HI. Burttefs James //, and the Clarendon

On the Text of Burnet's History

IX

The portion of this original draught which we assume to have ended with the Peace of Ryswick, and within which fall the entire series of the Harleian fragments, first demands our attention ; since it appears probable, that this initial portion was on its first completion regarded as an integral whole ; and that its fortunes were at once more complicated and more curious than those of the subsequent part,

^ There can be no doubt that the ' Secret History ' (as Burnet himself terms it) was throughout originally committed to paper by Burnet's own hand. The Harleian fragments show that he revised at least one clerical copy of the portion anterior to the Peace of Ryswick ^ ; and the motives for such a duplication are not far to seek. Burnet, with characteristic garrulfty, seems to have freely advertised the existence of his ' secret ' Memoirs ^ ; and as — partly perhaps in deference to importunate curiosity ^, partly on design to obtain critical suggestions * — he appears to have shown it, in confidence, to several of his acquaintance ^, common prudence must have suggested the preparation of a duplicate.

The question now arises, whether among those to whom Burnet, during the closing years of the seventeenth century, submitted the first portion of the original draught we must include Robert Harley. The circumstance could throw no light upon Harley 's possessio7t of the fragments, which must in any case have been secured subsequently, and from a surreptitious source ; but it is not in itself altogether improbable. The Bishop, in earlier years, had been intimate with Harley 's family ° ; and though, by 1699, the trial of Fen wick had proved for both a parting of the ways (so that Burnet ranked as a staunch if independent supporter of the Court, while Harley led the antiministerial opposition), still the final identification of Harley with the Tory party' remained a

' The writer of the Occasional Letter, ' Ibid.

who says there was only one' clerical ' See the interesting correspondence

transcript (see ««/^ra, p. XV, note I ), may published by the Hist. MSS. Comm.,

allude either to the original draught, or Longleat MSS., vol. i.

a first recension. ' To which we owe the unfavour-

' Preface to the Elliot Specimens, able comments of Burnet's published

p. 6. ^ Ibid. History, see vol. ii. 109, 255, 270,

* Hist. i. 3-4 (folio pagination) and 291, 381, 486-97, 553-62 (folio pagi-

Dartmouth's note. nation), and the virulent juvenile

X Introduction

remote contingency ; and his extensive knowledge of Parliamentary forms would have lent to his criticism of a work, so frequently concerned with parliamentary proceedings, a special value. That Harley, during the summer of 1699, did, whether in legitimate or clandestine fashion, peruse Burnet's Memoirs, is at any rate certain. Mrs. S. C. Lomas, who has kindly devoted some study to the sheet of rough and almost illegible notes ^ prefixed to the Harl. MSS. 6584, argues very conclusively that the initial dates represent the period of their composition ; and show us Harley, during the recess of 1699^ collecting from Burnet's original Memoirs materials for the renewed attack on the administration, which he carried into effect during the ensuing session.

But, as we have already hinted, it is not altogether necessary to conclude that Mr. Harley derived his knowledge of the Burnet Memoirs from an act of confidence on the part of their author. A remarkable anecdote is extant, which may throw light upon a possible source of Harley's knowledge, and the probable genesis of the second Harleian transcript.

Itwas towards the closeof the seventeenth century — probably between 1697 and 1700 ^ — that Burnet temporarily confided his Memoirs — presumably the Harleian clerical transcript satires of Burnet's son. See also the 29, 1699 ; Beauties of England and

bitter observations of Oxford himself, Wales, vi.494, xv. (i) 604-5). 3- That

Hist. MSS. Com. Rep., XI. pt. v. p. the affair of the Royal Oak Lottery

322. _ took place in the spring of 169^ (see

' Printed infra, as Appendix VII. Commons Journals, xii. 497, 588

The references to the Burnet Memoirs 623-4, 644, 646, 665 ; Statutes at Large

have been appended as notes. We (1769), iv. 15 ; and a curious little

may here add— i. That S' W' Y» is tract called The Arraignment, Trial

probably Sir Walter Yonge, who long and Condemnation of Squire Lottery,

represented Honiton in the Whig alias Royal Oak Lottery. Printed and

interest. 2. That the list of charters sold by A. Baldwin . . . 1699). 4. That

given is presumably the list of char- ' marshal ' law is military, not ' mar-

ters granted by William III. Such a tial' law; and that the Mutiny Act

list was demanded by a committee of was in abeyance for nearly four years

the House ofCommons (which included from April 10, 1698. Harley) during the ensuing session ; ' Dr. Cockburn, Specimen, pp 64--;

was laid before the House, Feb. 7, says he had seen the extracts ' about

^^ ; and should appear in the nine or ten years before 1705' (Mr

Journals, from which however it is Airy, note to Hist. i. xxi. of his edi-

absent (Com. Joum. vol. xiii. pp. 8, tion, misreads the passage). But few

164, 176, 183, 203, 220, 224. See memories are accurate at a distance of

also Registers of the Privy Council, twenty years ; the Specimen is dated

On the Teo^t of Burnefs History xi

which we describe as A — to the custody of a certain Lord W. P. ; who is very plausibly identified by Dr. Bliss with Lord William Paulet, second son of the Duke of Bolton ^. In him the work appears to have excited an interest which prevailed over the punctilios of honour. Desirous of retaining a copy, he hired, before the return of the manuscript, a number of clerks ; and dividing among them, with every possible precaution of secresy, the papers in question, he managed to secure, within a very short time, a complete transcript ; which, from the circumstances of its origin, must necessarily have presented many of the peculiarities observable in our Transcript B. We know nothing of the relations existing between Paulet and Harley ; but it does not appear incredible that the clandestine copy may have been lent by the one to the other.

Meanwhile, the indiscretion of Paulet was destined to bear fruit elsewhere. Among his hirelings was an impoverished Scotch nonjuror, in episcopal orders, of the name of Elliot ^ who had been compelled by want to assume lay attire and labours ; and who, exasperated by the tendencies of the work, political and religious, found means to record, upon 'some clean paper,' which he had concealed under, his cuff, a few illicit extracts from the sheets before him. These evidently related to the years 1679-81, and are, as it happens, missing from the Harleian fragments ^.

These extracts Elliot seems to have almost immediately * communicated to a former acquaintance of Dr. Burnet, Dr. Cockburn the nonjuring pamphleteer, a nephew of Bishop Scougall of Aberdeen. The act was represented as a mark of peculiar confidence on the part of Elliot, who was under obligations to Cockburn; and we presume it was intended

» Preface to the History, ed. 1823. 27 Aug. 1690 for refusing the oaths.

Lord William was a pall-bearer at the = All this from the anonymous preface

Duke of Gloucester's funeral, Aug. 9, to the Elliot Specimens.

noo- sat in Parliament 1688-1729 ; • Probably during the year i697,when

became a Teller of the Exchequer Cockburn, who spent almost the whole

1715; and died Sept. 25. 1729, aged of the period between 1696 and 1709

63 (Collins' Peerage, 1812, ii. 382). in exile, happened to be in England.

» See Hew Scott's Fasti Ecclesiae Cf. p. xiv, note 2, with the Kev. Scoticanae, vol. i. pt. 2, p. 552; Robert Alexander Gordon's article on Cock- Elliot, minister of Lessuden, deprived burn. Diet. Nat, Btog. xi. 189-91.

xii Introduction

that the latter should make some controversial use of this material. Cockburn, however, finding that the papers owed their existence to a double, breach of trust, very properly refused his countenance ; and recommended their destruction, or at least suppression. Elliot', 'disappointed and disgusted,' declined the hint ; and himself drew up, between August, 1699, and August, 1700^, some exceedingly virulent annotations, which he appended to the extracts. He then placed the whole in the hands of an anonymous friend ; a ' brother ' (whether brother in blood, in law, or in orders does not appear) of the celebrated Jacobite controversialist Charles Leslie. This nameless recipient*, before returning the manuscript, took a complete copy.

Within the next few years, Elliot seems to have died ; and his papers, in some unexplained fashion, fell into the hands of his friend Leslie. Among them, Leslie found Elliot's autograph copy of the Burnet extracts *. How far Leslie himself was aware of the circumstances under which they had been obtained is not perfectly clear; but he certainly knew that the transaction was clandestine^.

It was in the winter session of 1703-3 that the Bishop of Salisbury (who, in the eyes of nonjuring Anglicans in general and of Leslie in especial ", had long been the most obnoxious of living divines) filled the cup of his ecclesiastical iniquities by a strenuous opposition to the first Bill against Occasional Conformity. At a moment of such acute crisis, when Burnet stood exposed to clerical odium as a supposed renegade to the interests of his order, the temptation of publishing certain sweeping strictures on the clergy, included in the Elliot extracts, proved too strong for Charles Leslie. To a tract

' All this from Cockburn, Specimen , preface to the Elliot Specimens,

of Remarks, p. 64. His statement that ' This, and a fair copy, are probably

the extracts contained great part of in the Bodleian ; see infra, p. Ixiii.

the Preface to the History is clearly a = See New Association, Pari II, p. 2a ;

lapse of memory. Cassandra, No. ii. p. 23.

" There are allusions to the trial of » See infra, p. xxii. note 2. (R. F. the Bishop of St. David's, Aug. 3, 1699 ; Leslie's Life of Leslie, which is strongly and to Burnet's charge of the Duke of biassed, and seldom gives authorities Gloucester, w^hich lapsed vifith the should be read with caution.) Lathboy's death, Aug. 1700. bury's Nonjurors, pp. 210-1' is valu-

' Who places the incident about able on the main question. ' fifteen years ' before 1715. See the

On the Text of Burnet's History xiii

entitled The New Association, Part II, which probably appeared in the first days of April, 1703 ', he appended the sub-title ' With . . . the Discovery of a certain Secret History not yet published ' ; and in the body of the work, without actually mentioning names, he animadverted, in sufficiently intelligible fashion, upon the author of this ' most virulent and voluminous Secret History.' Part of it, Leslie explains, he has already seen ; the author ' dares not publish [it] whilst it may be disproved. But intends to leave it as a legacy and libel against the Church and the Crown ... so much of it as I have seen ... is the lewdest libel that ever my eyes saw drop from the pen of any atheist, or the most spiteful dissenter, against the Church and the Crown, and all clergymen whatever, of whatever degree or profession.' He proceeded to quote a selection from the passages most likely to prove offensive in the eyes of his readers ; compared his author to Archbishop Williams as described in Clarendon's newly published History ; contrived to insert a trenchant reference to Burnet's early papers on polygamy and divorce ; and described the circumstances which had brought the extracts into his own possession as providential ^.

It is clear that a publication of this kind could not long escape the notice of Burnet himself. We are informed, in fact, that ' as soon as he read it he knew himself to be the person meant, which put him, as any one may believe, into a passion ; nor was he long aguessing how his Secret History came to be known ; which made a rupture of old friendship, and was like to have produced other ill-effects ^.' Whether, on discovering Lord W[illiam]'s indiscretion, Burnet may have insisted on the return of the illegitimate copy; whether he then may have made arrangements for the destruction of this, and his own clerical transcript ; whether his arrangements can have been in part frustrated by the treachery of an agent; and whether imperfect fragments rescued from the intended holocaust can have been offered to Harley, when he became known as a collector of historical MSS., we have no means of knowing ;

' The ' Supplement ' (written after » New Association, Part 11, pp. 5,

thebodyoftheworkhadgonetopress) 22. is dated March 25, 1703. ' Cockburn, p. 65.

xiv Introduction

but such a supposition would at least afford a plausible explanation of the Harleian fragments ^.

The question next arises, can any connexion be traced between Leslie's pamphlet and Burnet's first revision of his manuscript History ? It seems unlikely that Leslie's revelation occasioned the recension ; since we have Burnet's own evidence to the fact that the task was undertaken before the appearance of the Leslie tract, though possibly but a few days previously ^. For such a revision indeed there must have already existed quite sufficient motives. A resolution of imitating the method of de Thou ^ by placing the events of the author's life as a supplement to those of his time (which is specifically adduced both by himself and his biographer), must have involved the complete remodelling of a narrative, in which the two strands were originally interwoven ; while the criticism of his friends * — the emulation inspired by the stately eloquence of Clarendon's History, which had appeared during the preceding year ^ — a desire of repelling the charge of literary negligence, so delicately (we might almost say so flatteringly) insinuated by one of the two distinguished men who, during Burnet's life, had shed a lustre on the title of Halifax^, may have induced a critical review of his own pedestrian narrative.

But if Mr. Leslie's tract did not supply the impulse for the revision, it probably affected its character. The recension of the reign of Charles II, within which fall the passages censured by Leslie, was completed by the month of August, 1703; and in this recension'' the passages stigmatized by Leslie, with others of a similar tenor, are sensibly modified ; while

^TheHarleianfragmentsarenotmen- Hon appeared in April, 1703; see

tioned in thecopiousmanuscriptmemo- supra^ p. xiii, note 1. randa of Humphrey Wanley, Harley's ^ See infra, p. 451 ; Life in Hist.

librarian ; which extend, with some ii. 671 ; the anonymous Occasional

breaks (July 18, 1716-Jan. 11, 17^ Letter oi t-jq^, p. 13. July is-Oct. 28, 1721), from March 2, ' Hist. i. 4.

I7if> t° i^^^ 23, 1726, and contain 'See Burnet'sspeechofDec.3, 1703;

notices of all acquisitions as made Hist., Airy's ed., vol. i. p. 53, note b. (Brit. Mus. Lans. MSB. 771-2). ' See Life in Hist. ii. 725-6. The

' It was probably begun in the character may possibly be by Monr

spring of 1702-3 ; i.e. before March tagu.

25. 1703. Cf. heading of Bodl. Add. ' Contained in the original readings

MSS. D. 18 (1702) with Hist. i. i, ii. of the Bodleian autograph and quoted

474 in Airy's edition ; 1683 + 20 = 1 703. in the textual notes to Airy's ed. The second part of the New Associa-

On the Text of Burnet's History

XV the Preface, written (or at least rewritten) on the occasion, excuses such censures on the clergy as remain.

Nor does it appear that Leslie's influence in the matter ended here. A pamphlet, by an anonymous author, which, without naming the Bishop, undertook his defence ^ was answered by Leslie, anonymously, in the second number of Cassandra (1704). In this work, to which he appended the sarcastic portrait of Burnet entitled the 'Character of an Enthusiast,' he contrived to insert, not very consequently, all the remaining 'Elliot' extracts. One of these, which described the murder of Archbishop Sharp, probably evoked the resentful intervention of the Archbishop's son Sir William, who wrung from Burnet a promise that the strictures it contained should be modified * ; and the passage in question has, it appears, actually undergone a second and final recension ^

Meanwhile, during the course of these alterations the first revision was rapidly proceeding. On Sept. 15, 1704, Burnet completed the recast narrative, as far as the end of the fourth book in the reign of William and Mary. On the first of May, 1705, he resumed his pen * ; and the period of the Peace of Ryswick was reached by June 15 in that year ^.

Moreover, concurrently with this elaborate revision of the earlier portion, the rough draught of the later History went steadily on. In June, 1708, as his son tells us [Hist. ii. 669) ", Burnet wrote his so-called 'Conclusion' ; in 17 10 he executed the proposed autobiographical appendix.; and with 17 13 the work reached its termination. The revision of the latter portion

' The Occasional Letter, No. i of uponsecond-orthird-handinformation. 1704, Leslie's biographer treats the ^ See Cockburn, who however supauthor 'as Burnet's apologist or atnan- posed, no doubt erroneously, that uensis,' if not ' Burnet himself ' ; the Sharp had seen the extract in MS. latter a quite inadmissible hypothesis. ^ See on this the curious letter from The occasional writer describes Leslie's Canon William Stratford to Edward extracts as either false, or at best Lord Harley, Nov. 15, 1723 (Portland grossly exaggerated, though the work, MSS., vol. vii. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep, so he maintains, remains unaltered. He 367-8). Leslie's tracts arealsoprobably says the author never had more than the source whence the quotations in one copy taken, and that by a person }i\c'k&s^'PTefa.c&ioThree Short Treatises yetalive, whose attestation to the effect (1709) are derived; also tht Examiner, that he had never revealed its con- Nos. 41, 50, 51 ; Spec. Saris., p. 10. tents the writer had seen. This * Bodl. Add. MSS. D. 19, f. 126. account is clearly either misinformed ' Zbid. {. 235.

or disingenuous, and probably merely ^ On Burnet's own authority ; see

emanatesfromsomepartyhack, writing last page of the Bodleian transcript.

xvi Introduction

probably occupied the last two years of the Bishop's life ; but it was never extended to the autobiographical supplement itself^

We now come to the interesting and important question, upon which circumstances have already compelled us to trench, How far and in what respects does the earlier draught differ from the first recension ? And are these differences of such a nature as to render the earlier version of other than literary interest ?

We must preface our remarks by the explanation, which can excite no surprise, that the variations decrease in importance as the interval between composition and correction lessens. The divergences are extensive in the earliest of the Harleian fragments (i 661-4) and very considerable in the remainder (1683-96) ; the Bodleian draught, concluded only two years before the Bishop's death, is of much inferior interest ; while the original of the famous ' Conclusion ' differs very little from the version eventually published. This premised, we may pronounce —