“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."[7]—­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 we must {41} receive his representations and conclusions with that caution which must ever be observed when we listen to the relation of a warm and busy partizan, whatever be his natural integrity and good sense.”—­Smyth’s Lectures on Modern History.

“His history is one which the present editor (Dr. Routh) truly says will never lose its importance, but will continue to furnish materials for other historians, and to be read by those who wish to derive their knowledge of facts from the first sources of information.  The accuracy of his narrative has often been attacked with vehemence, and often, it must be confessed, with success, but not so often as to overthrow the general credit of his work.”—­Quarterly Review.

“Rarely polished, I never read so ill a style.”—­Swift.

[7] 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.

* * * * *

QUEEN ELIZABETH’S DOMESTIC ESTABLISHMENT.

Your readers may be curious to see a list of the persons composing the domestic establishment (as it may be called) of Queen Elizabeth in the middle of her reign, and an account of the sums of money severally allowed to them out of the privy purse of the sovereign.  The payments will seem remarkably small, even allowing for the great difference in the value of money then and now.  What that difference may be, I am not prepared to say; and I will venture here to put it as a “Query,” to be answered by some competent person who may read this “Note.”  I have seen it stated by more than one writer, that the difference in the value of money at the end of Elizabeth’s reign was at least five times, i.e. that one pound then would go as far as five pounds now; but I am not aware of the data upon which the calculation was made.  I apprehend, besides, that the difference was greater in 1582, to which what follows applies, than afterwards, and I should be glad to have the matter cleared up.  The subsequent account is indorsed in the hand-writing of Lord Burghley, Lord Treasurer, in these words:—­“1582.  The payment of the Ladies of the Privy Chamber;” but it applies also to the gentlemen.