The Press.
London, England, 1856-04-26 00:00:00

INTERPELLATIONS.

On the motion that the house on rising should
adjourn until Monday next, various topics were, as
usual, brought forward by different hon. members,
and gave occasion to a miscellaneous discussion.
Among others, Lord C. HAMILTON called attention to
the new arrangements which the termination of the
war would render necessary in the organisation of
the militia; Mr. LAYARD complained of some errors
in recent returns respecting masters in the royal
navy; Mr. BYNG commented upon the inconsistency
displayed by the Government in preparing to cele-
brate the peace with fireworks, while postponing the
announcement of a day of thanksgiving on that
account; and Mr. LAING sought some information
as to the intentions of the Government in sending
troops to Canada.
Replying to Mr. Ryng, Sir G. GREY stated that a
thanksgiving day would be duly appointed, and a
suitable form of prayer drawn up for the conclusion
of peace, as soon as the formal ratifications had
been exchanged. To Mr. Laing. Lord PALMERSTON

reiterated the explanations already given, to the
effect that the troops to be despatched to the British
colonies in North America numbered, not 10,000, as
had been asserted, but very little over 4,000, and
were meant simply to replace the detachments drawn
from that quarter at the first commencement of the
war.

APRIL 26, 1856.

Nittraturr.

History of England from the Fall of TV°bey
to the Death of Elizabeth. By James

Anthony Froude, M.A. Two Vols. Lon-
don : J. W. Parker and Son.
Ir appears to be the principal object of Mr.
Fronde to give in this work a full and complete
history of the Reformation, founded upon the
State Records of the time. Thus far his hero
is Henry VIII. What William 111. is to Mr.
Macaulay, that " bluff King Hal" is to Mr.
Froude; he is the central figure of the narra-
tive; the person in whom the great principle of
the Reformation was embodied and found
expression ; and whose merits for that reason
are to be emblazoned in light, while his faults
and crimes are to be kept in the shade. Mr.
Froude writes in the spirit of an advocate,
but we are not sure that his history will prove
to be the less valuable on that account. It
will, from its opposition to received opinions,
force the reader to inquire more narrowly than
he has yet done into the actual facts of
the period. In this day we are inclined
to think that historical advocacy in a writer
must to a great extent supersede historical
judgment. The public desire to judge for
themselves; and they are in the best posi-
tion to judge truly when both sides of a case
are presented to them with zeal on either part.
We doubt if that even balancing of evidence,
and pretence to perfect impartiality, which at
one time were thought necessary to the his-
torian, would be acceptable now. Philosophic
indifference must always want the warmth and
colour of earliest advocacy, and without the
advocacy, and apart from the evidence it pro-
duces, how can we know that the calmness of
the philosophic historians is real and their im-
partiality perfect?
The limits within which the historical advo-
cate should be confined are obvious. He must
state facts truly ; we must be able to feel that
we can depend on his statements as far as
they go. His evidence should always be at
hand in support of his assertions, and his
narration should avoid vagueness, and be
clear, definite, and precise. Let him present
his case in as one-sided a manner as he
pleases, but let that one side be plain and
correct. Let him strive to make himself an
unimpeachable authority as to that view, and
by comparing it with the case on the other
side the historical student will be in a better
position for coming to a correct conclusion
than if he had half a dozen of the philosophic
and impartial histories before him. As to the
question of the guilt or innocence of Anne
Boleyn, for example, we would rather have the
ease of Mr. Froude before us on one side, and
that of the best advocate of Anne Boleyn on
the other, than trust to Hume or Hallam.
We shall be certain to gather from the advo-
cates a fuller statement of facts, to be more
interested in them from the earnestness with
which they are pressed, and to have the mind
—a great point—stimulated to original thought
and inquiry. Gibbon said he never read an
ex parte statement without perceiving a bias
in his mind the other way. Most persons
must be conscious of a similar operation in
their intellect to whatever cause it may bo
referred, and hence we may account in all free
communities for that continual and healthy
action and reaction of thought which is
observable in literature as well as in politics.
It was a profound remark of Lord George
Bentinck that the history of political opinion
in this country is a history of reaction. Who
could have anticipated little more than twenty
years ago, when Protestant feeling was at its
ebb, and the Irish Church was threatened with
extinction, that, without any apparent move-
ment, Protestantism would now be decidedly
in the ascendant, not only in the country, but
in both branches of the Legislature? There is
a natural balance in the mind. By its consti-
tution it is inclined to truth ; and when that
balance is strained too far on ono side, we
may be sure that no long period will elapse
before reaction will set in, and it will incline
the other way.
We cannot better set forth kthe principle of
Ur- Fronde's history than by turning to the

THE PRESS.

last chapter of that portion of his work before
us which describes the fate of Anne Boleyn.
He has published many documents never
given to the world before, and we hope he will
not object to our designating him as Attorney-
General for the Prosecution. A better speci-
men of historical advocacy we never met with.
He begins his narrative of the Queen's fall
with some admirable reflections such as a
skilful and intellectual advocate would natu-
rally introduce to bespeak favour for his
case :

First I have to say that, as with all the great events of
Henry's reign, so especially with this, we must trust to no
evidence which is not strictly contemporary. During
periods of revolution, years do the work of centuries in
colouring actions and disturbing forms; and events are
transferred swiftly from the deliberation of the judgment to
the precipitate arrogance of party spirit The
Anne Boleyn as she appeared in contemporary letters is
not the Anne Boleyn of Fox or Wyatt, or the other cham-
pions of Protestantism who saw in her the counterpart of
her child. These writers, though living so near to the
events which they describe, yet were divided from the pre-
ceding generation by an impas4able gulf. They were sur-
rounded with the heat and flame of a controversy, in
which public and private questions were wrapped insepar-
ably together; and the more closely we scrutinise their
narratives, the graver occasion there appears for doing so.
After this exordium he proceeds with his
statement, taking care to mark all circum-
stances unfavorable to the Queen, as :
Her education had been in the worst school in Europe.
On her return from the French Court to England we have
seen her entangled in an unintelligible connection with
Lord l'ercy, and in a second which amounted to an en-
gagement with some other person There had
been circumstances in her conduct, as by her own after-
confessions was amply evident, which justified Sir Thomas
More in foretelling a stormy end to her splendour.
The facts follow:

In February, 1536, she miscarried with a dead boy.
. . . . Towards the middle of April, IMO, certain
members of the Privy Council were engaged secretly in
receiving evidence which implicated the Queen in adultery.
Nothing is known of the quarter from which the informa-
tion came which led to the inquiry. Something, however,
there was to call for inquiry, or something there was
thought to be, and on the 24th of April the case was con-
sidered sufficiently complete to make necessary a public
trial. On that day an order was issued for a special com-
mission. The members of the tribunal were selected with
a care proportioned to the solemnity of the occasion. It
was composed of the Lord Chancellor, the first noblemen
of the realm, and of the judges. The investigation had,
however, been conducted so far with profound secrecy, and
the object for which it was to assemble was unknown even
to Cranmer himself, a member of the Privy Council.
With the same mysterious silence on the cause of so un-
expected a measure, the writs were issued for a general
election, and Parliament was required to assemble as soon
as possible. On Thursday, the 27th, the first arrest was
made. Sir William Brereton, a gentleman of the King's
household, was sent suddenly to the Tower ; and on the
Sunday after Mark Smeton, of whom we know only that
he was a musician high in favour at the Court, apparently
a spoilt favorite of royal bounty.

Then follows an account of the royal tilting
on the Ist May at Greenwich; of the King's
disturbance, and sudden► return to London ;
and of the arrest of Lord Rochford (the
Queen's brother), of Sir Henry Norris and Sir
Francis Weston, two young courtiers who had
been favored by the King, and of the Queen
herself. Smeton, Weston, and Norris were
examined at Greenwich :

On being first questioned, these three made general ad-
missions, but denied resolutely that any actual offence had
been committed. On being pressed further, and cross-
examined, Smeton confessed to actual adultery. Norris
hesitated ; being pressed, however, by Sir William Fitz-
william to speak the truth, he also made a similar acknow-
ledgment, although he afterwards withdrew from what he
had said. Weston persisted in declaring himself innocent.
The result was unsatisfactory; and it was thought that it
would " much touch the King's honour " if.the guilt of
the accused was not proved more clearly.

In a note to this passage, there is quoted from
Constantyne (•' Arelueologia," vol. xxiii.
p. 63) an assertiou:—

That the King took Norris with him to London, and, u
he beard say, urged him all the way to confess, with
promises of pardon if be would be honest with him. He
persisted in his denial, however, and was committed to the
Tower. Afterwards, before the Council, he confessed.
On his trial his confession was read to him, and he said
he was deceived into making it by Sir William Fitz-
william, an accusation against this gentleman very difficult
to believe.

As Mr Fronde proceeds, his advocacy
becomes more evident. Of Cranmcr, it is

The fortunes of the Reformation had been so closely
linked to those of the Queen that he trembled for the con-
sequences to the Church of the King's too just in-
dignation.

Three days after the arrest of the Queen
Henry wrote to her, "holding out hopes of for-

399

" giveness if she would be honest and open
"with him." Can it be doubted that this letter
wag a snare? Is it likely that, if the Queen
had been weak enough to confess, she would
have been forgiven ? Mr. Fronde appears to
think so, and supposes that Henry's offer may be
explained as " the result of natural feeling."
The affecting letter of the Queen, " from my
" doleful prison in the Tower, this 6th of May,"
though it is admitted to "tell powerfully in
" her favour," is yet described as " unwise in
"point of worldly prudence," and " unbecom-
" ing in a wife who (by her own showing) was
"so gravely to blame." Her " own showing"
being the admission that expressions of
homage had been addressed to her by her
courtiers. The author writes

Young men do not speak of love to young and beautiful
married women, still less to ladies of so high rank, unless
something more than levity has encouraged them.

He overlooks the fashion of the time, which,
in whatever light we may be disposed to view
it, allowed the humblest gentlemen to profess
themselves the devoted servants of the highest
ladies, and to express their " service " in lan-
guage of passionate adoration. The Queen
implores her husband :

Try me, good King, but let me bays a lawful trial ; and
let not my sworn enemies sit as my accusers and my
judges ; yea, let me receive an open trial, for my truth
shall fear no open shame.

Had she such a trial? Mr. Fronde thinks she
had. He gives complete lists of the grand.
jurors and commissioners to show that they
were fairly selected, and he prints the indict-
ment against the Queen at full. Certainly a
want of precision cannot he urged against it.
The times and places are expressly set down
when the Queen had guilty intercourse with
Norris, Brereton, Weston, Smeton, and with
her own brother, Lord Rochford. Furthermore
she was charged with compassing the King's
death, and that the King had in consequence
been so grieved, thg.t " certain harms and
" dangers had happened to his royal body."
On the 12th May, eleven days after the dis-
turbance of the King at Greenwich, the four
commoners were tried at Westminster. Mark
Smeton pleaded guilty of adultery with the
Queen, the others not guilty. A verdict of
guilty was returned, and judgment passed as
usual in cases of high treason :

This is all which the record contains ; the nature of the
evidence is not mentioned. But again there was a jury ;
and if we have not the evittence which convinced that
jury, we have the evidence that they were, or professed to
be, convinced.

On the 15th the Queen and her brother were
tried. The names of the peers who were sum-
moned are given —" twenty-seven in all ;
"men hitherto of unblemished honour—the
" noblest blood in the realm." The record of
the trial only states that the accused were
arraigned, found guilty, and sentenced

:-

We can form no estimate of the evidence, for we do not
know what it was. We cannot especially excuse the form
of trial, for it was the form which was always observed.
But the fact remains to us, that these twenty-seven peers,
who were not ignorant as we are, but were folly acquainted
with the grounds of the prosecution, did deliberately, after
hearing the Queen's defence, pronounce against her a
unanimous verdict. If there was foul play, they had ad-
vantages infinitely greater than any to which we can pre-
tend for detecting it. They were not blinded with political
passion, for men of all parties united in the sentence.

The five gentlemen were executed on the 15th
May. Mr. Froude says that on the scaffold
Smeton and Brereton acknowledged the justice
of their sentence, and " none denied the
" clime for which they suffered." He supports
his assertion by the testimony of Constantyne,
" In a manner all confessed but Mr. Norris,
" who said almost nothing at all." Previous
to her execution the Queen was induced to
make

an extraordinary avowal either that she had been married
or contracted in early life, or had been entangled in some con-
nection which invalidated her marriage with the King.....
Perhaps the confession itself was only a vague effort which
she made to save her life. But whatever she said, and whe-
ther she spoke truth or falsehood, she was pronounced di-
vorced, and the divorce did not save her. Friday, the 19th,
was fixed for her death, and when she found that there was
no hope she recovered her spirits. The last scene was to be
on the green inside the Tower. The public were to be ad-
mitted; but Kingston suggested that to avoid a crowd it
was desirable not to fix the hour, since it was clear that she
would make no further confession. " This morning she
sent for me," he added, " that I might be with her at such
a time as she received the good Lord, to the intent that I
should hear her speak as touching her innocency always
to be clear. ' Mr. Kingston,' she said, ' I hear say 1 shall
not die afore noun, and I am very sorry therefore, for I

•
• Ism -