are wholly turned upon the general welfare of his country, but perhaps with too little regard to that of particular persons, which renders him less amiable, than he would otherwise have been from the goodness of his humour, and agreeable conversation in a private capacity, and with few dependers.  Yet some allowance may perhaps be given to this failing, which is one of the greatest he hath, since he cannot be more careless of other men’s fortunes than he is of his own.  He is master of a very great and faithful memory, which is of mighty use in the management of public affairs; and I believe there are few examples to be produced in any age, of a person who hath passed through so many employments in the state, endowed with a great share, both of divine and human learning.

[Footnote 12:  Unfortunately, procrastination too often ended for Harley in very unpleasant results, and it is not too much to say, this failing was the indirect cause of his downfall.  Swift’s character of Oxford, as given in this “History,” should be compared with that given of him in “An Enquiry into the Behaviour of the Queen’s Last Ministry” (vol v, pp 431-434, of present edition).  Dr William King, to whom Swift had written in 1736, for certain dates and official extracts to be included in this “History,” wrote to Swift (December 7th, 1736), referring to this very matter of Oxford’s character.  As the letter applies to some other portions of this “History,” it will be better if it be given here.

“London, December 7th, 1736

SIR,

I arrived here yesterday [King had been on a visit to Paris], and I am now ready to obey your commands.  I hope you are come to a positive resolution concerning the History.  You need not hesitate about the dates, or the references which are to be made to any public papers, for I can supply them without the least trouble.  As well as I remember, there is but one of those public pieces which you determined should be inserted at length; I mean Sir Thomas Hanmer’s Representation; this I have now by me.  If you incline to publish the two tracts as an Appendix to the History, you will be pleased to see if the character given of the Earl of Oxford in the pamphlet of 1715 agrees with the character given of the same person in the History.  Perhaps on a review, you may think proper to leave one of them quite out.  You have (I think) barely mentioned the attempt of Guiscard, and the quarrel between Rechteren and Mesnager.  But as these are facts which are probably now forgot or unknown, it would not be amiss if they were related at large in the notes, which may be done from the Gazettes, or any other newspapers of those times,” etc.  See Sir W. Scott’s edit, vol xix, pp 20-21 [T.S.]]

I am persuaded that foreigners, as well as those at home, who live too remote from the scene of business to be rightly informed, will not be displeased with this account of a person, who in the space of two years, hath been so highly instrumental in changing the face of affairs in Europe, and hath deserved so well of his own Prince and country.[13]