Historians share the like fate; hence some, who have no regard to propriety or truth, are yet admired for diction, style, manner, and the like.
The editor considers this work in another light.

He long knew the author, and was no stranger to his politics, connections, tendencies, passions, and the whole economy of his life.

He has long been hardily singular in condemning this great man's conduct amid the admiring multitude, nor ever could have thought of making an interest in a man, _whose principles and manners he could by no rule of reason or honour approve, however he might have admired his parts and wit_.
_Such was judged the disposition of the man, whose history of the most interesting period of time in the annals of Britain are now, herein, offered to the reader.

He may well ask from what motives?
The answer is easily, simply given_.
_The causes assigned for delaying the publication of this history were principally these:_[2] _That the manuscript fell into the hands of men, who, whatever they might have been by the generality deemed, were by the Dean believed to be of his party, though they did not, after his death, judge it prudent to avow his principles, more than to deny them in his lifetime.

These men, having got their beavers, tobacco-boxes, and other trifling remembrances of former friendship, by the Dean's will, did not choose publicly to avow principles, that had marred their friend's promotion, and might probably put a stop to theirs.