it, what is more just than to vindicate it? What more reasonable than
that this should be done, while living witnesses may yet be called, to
prove or disprove the several allegations and assertions; since, in a
few years more, such witnesses may be as much wanting as to prevent a
canonization, which is therefore prudently procrastinated for above an
age? Let us then coolly hear what is to be said on this side the
question, and judge like Britons._

_The editor would not be thought to justify the author of this History,
in all points, or even to attempt to acquit him of unbecoming prejudices
and partiality. Without being deeply versed in history or politics, he
can see his author, in many instances, blinded with passions that
disgrace the historian; and blending, with phrases worthy of a Caesar or
a Cicero, expressions not to be justified by truth, reason, or common
sense, yet think him a most powerful orator, and a great historian._

_No unprejudiced person will blame the Dean for doing all that is
consistent with truth and decency to vindicate the government of the
Queen, and to exculpate the conduct of her ministers and her last
general; all good men would rejoice at such a vindication. But, if he
meant no more than this, his work would ill deserve the title of an
History. That he generally tells truths, and founds his most material
assertions upon fact, will, I think be found very evident. But there is
room to suspect, that, while he tells no more than the truth, he does
not tell the whole truth. However, he makes it very clear, that the
Queen's allies, especially our worthy friends the Dutch, were much to
blame for the now generally condemned conduct of the Queen, with regard
to the prosecution of the war and the bringing about the peace_.

_The authors drawings of characters are confessedly partial: for he