“ pressed, and yet has given the mass of the work in Hume’s own words. and it is wonderful how little interpolation has been necessary to make it a sound history, and to justify what should have been it’s title, to wit, ‘Hume’s history of England abridged and rendered faithful to fact and principle.’ I cannot say that his amendments are either in matter or manner, in the fine style of Hume. yet they are often unpercieved and occupy so little of the whole work as not to depreciate it. unfortunately he has abridged Hume, by leaving out all the less important details. it is thus reduced to about one half it’s original size. he has also continued the history, but very summarily, to 1801. the whole work is of 834. quarto pages, printed close, of which the Continuation occupies 283. I have read but little of this part. as far as I can judge from that little, it is a mere Chronicle, offering nothing profound. this work is so unpopular, so distasteful to the present Tory palates & principles of England that I believe it has never reached a 2 ^d. edition. I have often enquired for it in our book shops, but never could find a copy in them, and I think it possible the one I imported may be the only one in America. can we not have it reprinted here? it would be about 4 vols. 8 ^vo. ”

[Jefferson was right, and a second edition was not printed, though in a footnote at the end of the volume, the author mentions that a new Edition is now printing.]

Duane replied from Philadelphia, on August 17, that: “It is singular enough that I should have before me at the moment, a history of England in 4to, which I take to be the same which you mention. Several years ago you mentioned the same book to me, and through Mr. G. Erving then in London I obtained the book before me. Having just completed my Military Dictionary this day, I was turning over in my mind what book to put in hand . . .”

After giving a detailed description of the book, Duane added: “I am thus particular, that you may be able to determine whether it is the same work or not; as it is my fixed purpose to print it . . .”

To this Jefferson replied from Monticello on September 16: “ the history of England you describe is precisely Baxter’s, of which I wrote to you; and if you compare him with Hume, you will find the text preserved verbatim, with particular exceptions only . . . ”

Several years later, in 1818, Jefferson approached Mathew Carey on the same subject. On November 22, 1818, Jefferson wrote to Carey: “ the reverend mr Weems called on me a few days ago on the subject of your letter of Oct. 6. and recieved the same answer which I had given to yourself in mine of the 25 ^th. in the course of our conversation however I mentioned to him that there was indeed a history of England which, could we get it reprinted, I would risk the presumption of inviting the attention of readers to it, meaning the history published by Baxter, one of the whigs prosecuted at the same time with Horne Tooke, and discharged on the verdict rendered in favor of Tooke. it’s particular character requires explanation.

" We all know the high estimation in which Hume’s history of England is held in that and this country. the charms of it’s stile and selection of it’s matter, had it but candor and freedom from political bias, would make it the most perfect sample of fine history which has ever flowed from the pen of man; not meaning to except even the most approved models of antiquity. it was a great misfortune for the world that he wrote this history backwards. he began with that of the Stuarts, and at that time probably meant to give no other. being his first exhibition in that line, it was to establish his character, and he bestowed on it all the powers & polish of his acute mind & fine taste. like other writers he was disposed to magnify the merits of his heroes, and that disposition was whetted perhaps by the pride of country, and a desire to raise it into that degree of respect which it had well merited by it’s eminence in science, but had not as yet obtained from the sister kingdom. from these, or other, motives he gave to his history the aspect of an apology, or rather a justification of his countrymen the Stuarts. their good deeds were displayed their bad ones disguised or explained away, or altogether suppressed where they admitted no palliation, and a constant vein of fine ridicule was employed to disparage the patriots who opposed their usurpations, and vindicated the freedom and "