prove, he did not to the last give up thoughts of a still further edition, and as late as 1621 he was making researches for the purpose (Apparat. Annul. Jac. I, p. 70).
Under date of 1608 Camden enters in his 'Memorabilia' the words 'Annales digerere cœpi:' he began to digest the material for a history of Elizabeth's reign which he had contemplated for some years. As far back as 1597 he had been urged to the work by his patron, Lord Burghley; but the death of the latter in the following year had probably been one of the principal reasons for laying it aside. He now resumed his preparations, but was interrupted by a severe illness which seized him on his birthday, 2 May 1609. The fear of the plague, which broke out in his neighbourhood at the same time, drove him to his friend Heather's house in Westminster, where he recovered under the treatment of Dr. John Giffard. When convalescent he removed to Chislehurst in August, and remained there till the close of the following October.
It was at this period that an attempt was made to carry out a plan, devised by Dr. Sutcliffe, dean of Exeter, to found a college at Chelsea for a certain number of learned men who were to be employed in writing against the errors of the church of Rome. The king nominated a provost (Dr. Sutcliffe himself), seventeen fellows, and two historians. One of the latter was Camden, whose appointment was dated 10 May 1610. The scheme fell through for lack of funds, and the site of the building, which was actually begun, was finally used for the present Chelsea Hospital.
At length, in 1615, Camden published his annals brought down to the end of the year 1588, 'Annales rerum Anglicarum et Hibernicarum, regnante Elizabetha, ad annum Salutis mdlxxxix.' The book was received generally with high praise. Smith and other biographers of Camden specially quote Selden's eulogy, who singles out Camden's 'Annals' and Bacon's 'History of Henry VII' as the only two books of their kind which reach a high standard of excellence, for, except them, 'we have not so much as a publique piece of the history of England that tastes enough either of the truth or plenty that may be gained from the records of the kingdom' (Letter quoted in Vincent's Discoverie of Errours, 1622). But Camden's impartiality was afterwards impugned in certain points, and particularly in the contradictions which appeared between his own account of the events in Scotland and concerning Mary Queen of Scots, and the information which he was said to have supplied to the French historian De Thou on the same subject. Gough points out that Camden writing in England could not use the same freedom as De Thou writing abroad. But, as a matter of fact, there is really no evidence to show that Camden supplied De Thou with the information which has been attributed to him. Their correspondence began at a date when the second part of the French historian's work was already in the press, and there is nothing in their letters to show that any such information had passed (see Smith, Vita, p. 54; Bayle, Dictionary, English ed. 1736, iv. 64, 65). On the contrary, in his first letter to Camden, February 1605-6 (ep. 54), De Thou, telling him that the book is being printed, asks his advice how he may best avoid giving offence in treating of the affairs of Scotland. But there was then no time to alter the whole complexion of his account, however he may have modified anything on Camden's suggestion of moderation; and, in fact, he apologises for doing so little in this direction in the letter which accompanied the gift of his work, August 1606 (ep. 59). Camden wrote a paper of 'Animadversiones in Jac. Aug. Thuani Historiam, in quâ res Scoticæ memorantur' (printed with the 'Epistolæ'); and, although this was done by James's order, Camden could hardly have thus criticised work for which he was himself partly answerable. At a later period De Thou was greatly indebted to Camden's assistance. There is extant (Cotton MS. Faustina F. x, f. 254) a memorandum by the latter: 'The copye of this story of Queen Elizabeth, from 1583 to 1587, not transcribed for myself as yett, but sent into France to Tuanus.' The transcript was no doubt sent to De Thou in continuation of Sir Robert Cotton's 'Commentaries,' which, as far as the year 1582, had been placed at his service in 1613 (De Thou to Camden, ep. 99). De Thou refers to it in his letter of July 1515 (ep. lll), in which he also asks for the rest of the annals of Elizabeth's reign, and, if possible, the continuation to 1610.
As to the theory that Camden smoothed down his original account to please James, or even that the king himself made alterations, we are able to go to the manuscripts themselves for evidence. Camden's drafts and transcripts (unfortunately imperfect) of his 'Annals' are in the Cottonian Library (Faustina F. i-x). In the first part of the work these manuscripts contain a portion of the first drafts, a first fair copy, which was further revised, and, from this revision, a second fair copy, which, after receiving further corrections and insertions, presents,
