That early love of liberty he boasts of is absolutely false; for the first book that I believe he ever published is an entire treatise in favour of passive obedience and absolute power; so that his reflections on the clergy, for asserting, and then changing those principles, come very improperly from him.

He is the most partial of all writers that ever pretended so much to impartiality; and yet I, who knew him well, am convinced that he is as impartial as he could possibly find in his heart; I am sure more than I ever expected from him; particularly in his accounts of the Papist and fanatic plots.

This work may be more properly called "A History of Scotland during the Author's Time, with some Digressions relating to England," rather than deserve the title he gives it.

For I believe two thirds of it relate only to that beggarly nation, and their insignificant brangles and factions.

What he succeeds best in, is in giving extracts of arguments and debates in council or Parliament.
Nothing recommends his book but the recency of the facts he mentions, most of them being still in memory, especially the story of the Revolution; which, however, is not so well told as might be expected from one who affects to have had so considerable a share in it.