It was part of his nature, when popular clamour called for the adoption of a particular course, to turn his steps for that reason the more distinctly in the opposite direction. He has not exaggerated the extent or character of his alterations; for an inspection of the various editions of his History which came under his own revision, shows him, by turns of expression, structure of narrative, and other gentle alterations, approaching closer and closer to despotic principles. The democratic opinions contained in his early essays, have already been alluded to; and their suppression in subsequent editions, harmonizes with these variations of the opinions expressed in his History.[74:1] There are, however, a very few alterations in an opposite spirit. Thus, in the following sentence relative to the proceedings of the House of Commons regarding the militia, the part in italics is suppressed in the later editions. "He [the king] issued proclamations against this manifest usurpation; _the most precipitant and most enormous of which there is any instance in the English history_." On one incident of some importance in history, he was obliged materially to change his ground of argument, yet would not alter his original opinion. During the fervour of the civil wars in 1646, Lord Glamorgan had in the name of Charles I. concluded a treaty with the confederated Irish Catholics, by which, on the condition of their aiding the king, besides other concessions, the Roman Catholic religion was to be restored to its old supremacy through a great part of Ireland. Ormond, the lord lieutenant, charged Glamorgan with high treason: but he produced two commissions from the king. The king disowned the commissions: but the parliament believed in their genuineness.--It was in this shape that the matter appeared in the first instance before Hume. In his first edition he accordingly maintained that the commissions were forgeries; and a long note, explanatory of the grounds of this belief, is a remarkable instance of a plausible fabric of historical reasoning, doomed afterwards to fall to pieces by the removal of its foundation. Before he published his second edition, he received a letter from the Rev. John Douglas, afterwards Bishop of Carlisle,[78:1] who was intrusted with the editing of the Clarendon Papers. In this communication, the reverend gentleman regrets that he cannot send to Hume a letter written by Glamorgan, describing the method in which the commissions were actually prepared, and its object; but he gives an account of the contents of the letter.[78:2] Hume could no longer hold that the commissions were not genuine: but he still maintained Charles to be guiltless; and though they were unknown to the lord lieutenant, and bore no attestation of having passed through the proper offices, he still argued that Glamorgan, in treating with the Irish, though he was within the letter of his very wide powers, must have exceeded his