is, however, given in the Memoir of James the Second published by Dr. Clarke: 'It seems, upon the King's withdrawing from London, the lords about town met at Guildhall to consult what was fit to be done. They looked upon the present state of affairs as an interregnum, that the government was in a manner devolved upon them, and were in great haste to make a present of it to the Prince of Orange,'[1] Other acts of this Assembly are then mentioned; and its proceeding are among the most interesting and important events in English history, not only from their forming a precedent in a conjuncture of affairs for wich no express provision is to be found in the constitution, but from the first regular offer of the throne to the Prince of Orange having emanated from this Convention. No Record of its proceedings has, it is presumed, been hitherto known to exist; and the fact that so valuable a Document is extant, cannot be too generally stated, for it is obvious that it has high claims to the attention of historians.
"Sir Thomas Miller possesses the original Minutes of this Assembly of the Peers in the handwriting of a Mr. Glyn, who acted as secretary. His appointment to that situation is also preserved; and, as it is signed by all the Lords who were present, it affords evidence of the names of the Peers who took part in the business of the Assembly, and contains a very interesting collection of autographs.
"The MS. itself is a small folio, but not above fifty pages are filled. It comprises the period between the Jlth and the 28th December, 1688, both days inclusive, and appears to be a perfect Record of every Act of that memorable Assembly. The indorsement on the cover merits notice: it states with singular minuteness the precise hour of James's abdication, namely, at one in the morning of the 11th of December, 1688."
Sir Thomas Miller also possessed a manuscript, containing an "Account of the Earl of Rochester, Captain Kendall, and the Narrator's Journey to Salisbury with King James, Monday, Nov. 19. to Friday, Nov. 23. 1688, inclusive."
In connection with this subject, it may be noticed that there is no entry of any payment in the Issue Books of the clerks of the Pells between Tuesday, 11th December, and Monday 24th December, 1688. J. E.
[Perhaps some of our correspondents could inform us where the MSS. in question are now deposited.]
OPINIONS OF WRITERS ON ENGLISH HISTORY, NO. 1.
"Oh, do not read history, for that I know must be false."—Sir Robert Walpole.
Sir,—I have from time to time made a few notes on our historical writers—rather I should say the conflicting opinions of critical writers on their relative value, and the dependence to be placed on them as historical guides. They are so opposite, as would in a great measure confirm the opinion of the celebrated statesman above quoted. I send, as a specimen, the opinions upon Buruet, and, should its insertion in your "Notes and Queries" be deemed advisable, I will from time to time send others which I have in my note-book. M.
Burnet, "A good historian and an honest man."—Lord Brougham.
"The History of his Own Times, which Burnet left behind him, is a work of great instruction and amusement.… His ignorance of parliamentary forms has led him into some errors, it would be absurd to deny, but these faults do not detract from the general usefulness of his work."—Lord John Russell.
"The most partial, malicious heap of scandal and misrepresentation, that was ever collected for the laudable design of giving a false impression of persons and things to all future ages."—Lord Dartmouth: note in Dr. Routh's edition.
"A rash and partial writer."[2]—Macaulay.
"It is a piece of justice I owe to historical truth to say, that I have never tried Burnet's facts by the tests of dates and of original papers, without finding them wrong."—Sir J. Dalrymple.
"Burnet had all the merits and all the faults of an ardent, impetuous, headstrong man, whose mind was honest, and whose objects were noble. Whatever he reports himself to have heard or seen, the reader may be assured he really did hear and see. But he must- ↑ Vol. ii. pp. 259, 260.
- ↑ [Our correspondent should have added exact references to the places where these passages are to be found. Mr. Macaulay may have written these words quoted by our correspondent, in some hasty moment, but his summary of the character of Burnet in his History of England, ii. 175. 2nd edition—a very noble and well considered passage—gives a very different and far juster estimate of Burnet's character.]
mob, and the arrest of Judge Jefferies, Bishop Burnet says:—"The Lord Mayor was so struck with the terror of this rude populace, and with the disgrace of a man who had made all people tremble before him, that he fell into fits upon it, of which he died soon after.
"To prevent the further growth of such disasters, he called a Meeting of the Privy Councillors and Peers, who met at Guildhall," &c. The pronoun he must relate to the Lord Mayor, but the sentence is obscurely expressed.