ory ought to be more accurately known to us than those which
took place round the deathbed of Charles the Second. We have several
relations written by persons who were actually in his room. We have
several relations written by persons who, though not themselves
eyewitnesses, had the best opportunity of obtaining information from
eyewitnesses. Yet whoever attempts to digest this vast mass of materials
into a consistent narrative will find the task a difficult one. Indeed
James and his wife, when they told the story to the nuns of Chaillot,
could not agree as to some circumstances. The Queen said that, after
Charles had received the last sacraments the Protestant Bishops renewed
their exhortations. The King said that nothing of the kind took place.
"Surely," said the Queen, "you told me so yourself." "It is impossible
that I have told you so," said the King, "for nothing of the sort
happened."----It is much to be regretted that Sir Henry Halford should
have taken so little trouble ascertain the facts on which he pronounced
judgment. He does not seem to have been aware of the existence of the
narrative of James, Barillon, and Huddleston.----As this is the first
occasion on which I cite the correspondence of the Dutch ministers
at the English court, I ought here to mention that a series of their
despatches, from the accession of James the Second to his flight,
forms one of the most valuable parts of the Mackintosh collection.
The subsequent despatches, down to the settlement of the government in
February, 1689, I procured from the Hague. The Dutch archives have been
far too little explored. They abound with information interesting in the
highest degree to every Englishman. They are admirably arranged and they
are in the charge of gentlemen whose courtesy, liberality and zeal for
the interests of literature, cannot be too highly praised. I wish to
acknowledge, in the strongest manner, my own obligations to Mr. De Jonge
and to Mr. Van Zwanne.]

[Footnote 221: Clarendon mentions this calumny with just scorn.
"According to the charity of the time towards Cromwell, very many would
have it believed to be by poison, of which there was no appearance, nor
any proof ever after made."--Book xiv.]

[Footnote 222: Welwood, 139 Burnet, i. 609; Sheffield's Character
of Charles the Second; North's Life of Guildford, 252; Examen,
648; Revolution Politics; Higgons on Burnet. What North says of the
embarrassment and vacillation of the physic