He makes a few lapses on the other side, without being as clear as an impartial historian would choose to appear.  He more than hints at the Queen’s displeasure at its being moved in Parliament, that the Prince Elector should be invited to reside in England, to whose crown he was by law declared presumptive heir, but is always open upon the Queen’s insisting on the Pretender’s being sent out of France.—­It is easy to see how incompatible these things appear.  Nothing could tend more to secure the Hanover succession, and to enlarge its benefits to Britain, than the bringing over the successor, who should, in every country, be well instructed in the language, customs, manners, religion, and laws of his future subjects, before he comes to hold the reins of government.  And our author does not take the proper care to inform us how far the French thought fit to comply with banishing the Pretender their dominions, since many still live in doubt, that if he was sent out of France, he was sent into England.

But there is one expression of our author too perverse, too grossly abused, to admit of any apology, of any palliation.  It is not to be supposed, that he was ignorant of any word in the English language.  And least of all can he be supposed ignorant of the meaning of a word, which, had it been ever so doubtful before, had a certain meaning impressed upon it by the authority of Parliament, of which no sensible subject can be ignorant.

Notwithstanding this, where our author speaks of the late King James, he calls him the abdicated King, and gives the same epithet even to his family.  Though this weak, ill-advised, and ill-fated prince, in every sense of the word, with Romans and English, and to all intents and purposes, abdicated, yet can he, in no sense, be called abdicated; unless the people’s asserting their rights, and defending themselves against a king, who broke his compact with his subjects, and overturned their government, can be called abdication in them; which no man in his senses can be hardy enough to support upon any principle of reason or the laws of England.  Let the reader judge which this is most likely to be, error or design.

These exceptions the editor thought himself bound to make to some parts of this work, to keep clear of the disagreeable imputations of being of a party, of whatsoever denomination, in opposition to truth and the rights and liberties of the subject.

These laid aside, the work will be found to have many beauties, many excellencies.  Some have of late affected to depreciate this History, from an insinuation, made only since the author’s death, to wit, that he was never admitted into the secrets of the administration, but made to believe he was a confident, only to engage him in the list of the ministerial writers of that reign.

The falsehood of this will readily appear upon perusal of the work.  This shows he knew the most secret springs of every movement in the whole complicated machine.  That he states facts, too well known to be contested, in elegant simplicity, and reasons upon them with the talents of the greatest historian.  And thus makes an History, composed rather of negotiations than actions, most entertaining, affecting, and interesting, instead of being, as might be expected, heavy, dull, and disagreeable.