never have taken place had I conceived those Notes fell within your plan.  The fact was that the letter on the Revolution was mislaid and the little Ma[nuscript] having disappeared also, though it was afterwards recovered, it seemed to me worth while to have it put in a printed shape for the sake of preservation, and as only one hundred copies were printed, I hope it will rather excite than gratify curiosity on the subject of Lord Fountainhall.  I expected to see you before I should have thought of publishing the Letter on the Revolution, and hoped to whet your almost blunted purpose about doing that and some other things yourself.  I think a selection from the Decisions just on the contrary principle which was naturally enough adopted by the former publishers, rejected[12] the law that is and retaining the history, would be highly interesting.  I am sure you are entitled to expect[13] on all accounts and not interruption from me in a task so honorable, and I hope you will spare me a day in town to talk the old Judge’s affairs over.  The history of the Bass should be a curious one.  You are of course aware of the anecdote of one of your ancestors insisting on having the “auld craig back again.”

  ’Constable undertook to forward to you a copy of the Notes with my
  respects, and it adds to my piggish behaviour that I see he had omitted
  it.  I will cause him send it by the Ferry Carrier.

’I beg to assure you that I am particularly sensible of the kind and accomodating view you have taken of this matter, in which I am sensible I acted very thoughtlessly because it would have been easy to have written to enquire into your intentions.  Indeed I intended to do so, but the thing had gone out of my head.  I leave Edin’r in July, should you come after the 12 of that month may I hope to see you at Abbotsford, which would be very agreeable, but if you keep your purpose of being here in the beginning of June I hope you will calculate on dining here on Sunday 2d at five o’clock.  I will get Sharpe to meet you who knows more about L’d Fountainhall than any one.—­I am with great penitence, dear Sir Thomas, your very faithful humble servant,

  ‘WALTER SCOTT.’

    [12] sic for rejecting.

    [13] A word is omitted, perhaps ‘assistance.’

’N.B.—­The foregoing letter from Sir Walter, written in answer to mine of the 25th May,[14] sufficiently shows the extent of the dilemma he found himself thrown into.  It is full of strange contradictions.  He talks of “printing rather than publishing” a book which was publickly advertised and publickly sold.  He assures me that he believed that it was Fountainhall’s Life, and not his works I meant to publish, though the former part of the correspondence between us must have made him fully aware that it was the works I had in view; and he unwittingly proves to me immediately afterwards that he had not altogether forgotten that