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.