New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-12-01

,equaDt bis readers with the authority for his state
he tried I've exact and impartial possible know
hat he read extensively but u Is plain that he ala not
read fully on every subject that he touched upon tnst
knows perfectly well that our opportunities OF arriving
at correct knowledge on this very subject are Vastly
he had Camden Society mo spottiswood society," no
Parker Society and Record Office publications to ur
ush him abundant material. Why then TINS blind
reliance upon Hallam any else, il we ourselves
in favorable condition for knowing the facts as
he wasi For my part will gladly accept Italians own
assertion for any fact that he had personal knowledge
OF for everything that he had not such knowledge or
require the original authority On no other terms VIII
/ follow him. In no other way We keep history
from being what have called IT, AN accepted ne
But Prof. tlshei Is yust as nttle Peaseu VIII ny %
Ing Macaulay TO the same terme ana ne OBJECTS 10 ny
describing him "full Of partv prejudice In his
view, Macaulay is somewhat rhetorical writer; only
that and nothing more. Inc Whole rem ma,et len
rhetorical; the gross Misrepresentation or the CON
diuon OF the Highlands Exposed by Hugh Ailerl was
merely rhetorical; the yet more gross
ton OF the social condition OF the English clergy was
merely rhetorical il is 70 his rhetoric and not TO ms
Wing parysm and prejudice that we must attribute inc
fact that he has never once gwen an account oil aHars
unavorable to the Wings or favorable to the Church
HIS rhetoric had strange turn since III made MN speak
with almost equal detraction or condes alton OF Gran
and Laud aud Atterbury and yet led him 10 apo,o
did so much for the Wings. D It was skul and pru-
dent rhetoric thus TO discriminate! would take the
liberty OF recommending Prof Fisher 10 read the CORE
spOndeuce that took place between the late Bshop OF
Exeter and Lord Macaulay concerning his misrepre-
sensations OF Church affairs venture 10 say that II he
reads that he Will wonder greatly at my refusing TO
accept as unquestonable statement which Maoaulay
copied from other compers, because 1t ran In the line
DIR. Fisher thinks my description of Bishop Burnet is
unjust. Let consider that point then b persons
Ike UstOricrs aud the Editor OF The Philadelphia Pres
bvertan am accused OF having described these various
writer's as fasfers Of history" But readers OF The
TpIRIINE know that made such charge OF wiful dis
honesty In any case. They know that put the
1vho ohecon on the ground OF the absence OF original
authority. Aud then to comparative value OF their
various Histories gave additional reasons drawn nom
facts known supposed to eyery scholar In the case
M instance, said not Syllable aDOub ms
other works. The assertion which Dr Cummlns mace
is found in the posthumous History OF His own Times
and mat acterized "a repeTtory of gossip and
partial representations" Ana Tor thiS description
eve INV authority Has Professor Fisher examined the
lac is not competent 10 decide whether my description
lust or unjust do not agree with some who have
me rclessy exposed the inaccuracies OF Burnct They
say did not scrupe 70 misrepresent tnngs inteno
ally. say only this he was an extreme partisan ana
u The way in which he desired 10 be led he as cred
ulous as any could be. Consequently II would be
exceedingly dlthcnlt If not mposoe 10 arrive az any
~ to ",S "a iatements in the Poshumous History
That Is what said OF hun Prof Fisher takes the coz
traTy side And another gentleman argues ta because
Burners Exposition oI TAG Ibliiy niue Aueies was
receive all the statements made IN ms historical
works!
view of Burnets character as historian The PROBES
that Macaulay has taken Burnets cause
and made special plea IN his behalf His highest eulO-
GUM that he man OF courage. ability and hon
esty; "klnd, generous, grateful, and forgiyng' But
undiss embed vanity his propensity 10 Dlundef, MS pro
vokiDg indscretion his unabashed audacity, afforded
inc XhAustbe subjects OF rdlcule 10 the Tories lie
was pushing. taEative divine, who was always blab-
bling secrets asking npertinent questions and o6trud-
dice and passion" and his knowledge, though "of I'm
mense extent" was mot always accurate such are
admissions made by the best apOlogist Burnett mas
had II Dr. Fisher thinks my representation OF his
general character unjust he at liberty 10 take hacau
laws instead. History OF England, chapter viii
But we dealing with him only as an authority"
upon important historical question. what, then,
~. rff Ia n.gfl 1r Main al
read his History OF the Reformation. Did he ever
read work OF the kind in has life which the text is so
often contradcted by the foot notes or the addenda
or the supplementary yolumef Ist not notorious that
needs TO be taught nor to read that wors nut
Will make no unsupported assertions. DR.. Fisher will
nhS aDII =, ~ booEs rDenfionsd before and nj
the preface Original Letters Parker Library;
Carwlthen's Hist. Ch oi England VOL J., A1; ana Cor
hers History. vol H., book s. Tle very paper Proi.
Fisher quotes from him as giving Cranmers views
furnishes instance OF inaccuracy great enough OF
itself make any careful person hesitate TO follow hun
place OF 1910 and thus changed IT'S whole character.
making it appear document OF the Reformed Church
of England, which IL was not at all.
But The preface 10 BOhns edition OF the History tells
enough 10 show how little dependence can be placed
upon the it, The editor who mas abored hard 10
paate the isults of Burnett coneses the plain truth
mat The Bishop added 10 hls hrst Part or volume ad
latter could be read without the ohcr-thd at the
end Of part H. he printed vet more even "a long list OF
corrections the former part" sent by Rev Mr. Full
man. ana finally that, 80 years afterwards, In Issuing
the third Part he gave further ana abundant corree,
as by his careful reading In addition 10 tins,
We know tnat the eminent Henry Wharton corrected
multitude OF errors; and all hs in the formal history
which his fame rests and for the compiling OF which
ne had actual documentary evidence before hn.
1t is only natural 10 suppose that matters wOud he
still worse In very extensive work. in the compilation
OF which ne had TO rely chiefly upon memory. Well,
matters the inaccuracies very aumer
and the errors IN caused 10y prejudice
far Outnumber those IN the other Work. The History
OF His own Times rs valuable contribution TO his
tory, but that must alwayy be very carefully used
It's faults many and soebvious that ms editor is
to H.
preudced in his conclusions -" occasionally ne wrong
datesi"" sometimes be Is absolutely wrong. &C., sc.
tie had not the advantage OF the help OF Fdiman or
SrvDe for he kept his work private and left II 10 be
published years after he was dead OF course its
nor TO be wondered At that it was denounced ana ex
posed by Higgous. by Salmon by Dr. Cockburn, by Mr.
Peterborough as well as by anonymous critics. II
ee9saEed Py Hume and Ios Dfsry@ple o and it is
that, after all, there is reason to believe
Burhet was an honest who meant TO tell the plain
accept his unsupported statements concerning Affairs in
which ne was engaged as a partisan. cear in mind
Times" " knew Burnett, Bishop OF Salisbury; he
a furious party man and easily imposed upon" And
bear mind also what Burnet says himself. Conessng
that apt 10 think generally the worst of men
and parties" and that MS spirit was sharpened too
reader 10 take all say ON these heads with some grains
OF allowance, though have watched over myself aud
my carefully that hope there no great occasion
for tins apology" That apology ample justification OF
my refusal to take the mere dctum OF Bsnop Burnet as
evidence OF fact.
And yet it is not the only justification that he himself
supplies. DIR. Cummns anu Prof Fisher cite him as
stating In this history that Presbyterian dvnes such
were admitted TO hvlngs nihe Englsh Church but IN
the Commission appointed by KING William III. 10
make alterations and proposals or amendment In Church
matters formally declared that 1t has been the
slant practice OF this Church the Reformation
allow that not ordained OF Bishops where
they could be had This declaration was sen forth by
body of divines consisting OF Archbishop Lamplugh
and nine Bishops, with twenty presbyters or the first
eminence many OF whom were afterward Bishops, aud
all OF whom Jealous for the interests Of
Epscopalians as any men the Church OF England has
mad in the last years In such body that the
mistakes of one member would be corrected by the
knowledge Of the rest Now the report in the sentence
quoted above coDtradicts point blank the assertion
which DR.. Cummlns and DIR. Fisher make on Burneps
authority yet Burnet himself signed that report and
was OF the chief movers In the whole matter. What,
then, is his unsupported assertion worthl
Prof Fisher proceeds 10 say Even Strype he thinks
is not to be trusted" II the reverend gentleman means
that doubt StrYpes veracltY he docs