of horsemen, Jews as well as Gentiles, at whose head was one who cried, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, the son of David, who is just.' The manner of his receiving authority from the Caliph was by the laying on of hands, on the day of which ceremony he rode in the second chariot of the realm, with all its dependent ornaments, wearing robes of silk with Phrygian embroidery, a noble tiara on the head, encircled by a white veil, similar to those, perhaps, now used in the service of the synagogue at Jerusalem, and round this veil a rich chain of gold, so that he appeared in as high splendour as the Prophet Daniel himself at the court of the great Belshazzar, in Susa. The city of Bagdad, the rulers and chief people of which Benjamin of Tudela thus minutely describes, was then, to use his own words, seated in the most fertile part of the land of Senaar, or Shinar, abounding in fine gardens, producing excellent fruits, and being the rendezvous of merchants and traders from all parts of the world, as well as the focus of wisdom and science, and the school of philosophers and men learned in the mathematics, in astrology, and the doctrines of the Cabala,"

ART. II.-History of the Reformation of Church of England. By H. Soames, M. A. 2 Vols. 8vo.

The History of the Reign of Henry VIII., comprising the Political History of the Commencement of the English Reformation. By Sharon Turner, F. S. A. and R. A. S. L. Second edition. 2 Vols. 8vo.

History of England from the First Invasion by the Romans. By John Lingard, D. D. Vol. VI. Second edition.

(Concluded from p. 279.)

THE epithet metuendissimus was certainly never applied with more fitness to any prince than to Henry VIII. Dreaded equally by his friends and by his enemies, by those who had served and by those who had injured him, by the statesman whom he had called to his councils and the wife whom he had taken to his bosom, by the noble and by the humble, by stranger and by subject, he was regarded by all with feelings of apprehension and of terror. When Sir Thomas More was in favour, and the King came one day unexpectedly to dine with him, and even condescended so far as to walk an hour with him in his garden, with one arm round his neck, Roper, Sir Thomas's son-in-law, congratulated him on this especial mark of royal kindness. "Son," said More, "I thank our lord; I find his grace my very good lord, indeed; I believe he doth as singularly favour me as any subject within this realm. Howbeit, son Roper, I may tell thee, I have no cause to be proud thereof, for if my head would win him a castle in France it should not fail to go."

Such was the opinion of Henry's justice and humanity formed by one who enjoyed ample opportunities of studying both; but Mr. Turner has failed to discover in his character any traces of that natural cruelty which has hitherto been supposed to have deformed it. By the following extract our readers will be enabled to judge not only of the correctness of the view which the historian has taken of Henry's character in this respect, but also of the style of reasoning which distinguishes the work before us.

"One man's crime never justifies another's: but these recollections are important when we are considering if any peculiar denigration ought to be fixed upon Henry and his government for what occurred under the great Revolution, and (as all but the friends of the popedom think) under the ra

tional improvements which they who suffered resisted; which resistance on their part was voluntary and wilful, and for which alone they were molested. The historical fact may be therefore again repeated, that changes so mighty in the opinion of all, and so beneficial in the judgment of most, have never been achieved in any country, when so opposed, with such little bloodshed and individual cruelty. The personal imputation presses most on Henry in his sanctioning the execution of women and of his friends, even though not guiltless, because in their cases, whatever may have been the offence, the sympathies and charities of the heart ought not to have been ineffective.

Yet we ought not to infer any natural cruelty in this King, because these benign feelings had not a more suasive influence in his bosom. It is too much the case with us all, that the understanding, the reason alone-without that other appendage of our being, which all ages, all classes, and all nations, even in central Africa, concur to call the heart-tends from its very energies to be tyrannical, violent and stern. It is the essence and character of mental power to be active, and to act with force and determination in proportion to its vigour; to allow no resistance to its sovereignty; to combat with all its strength what opposes it, and, identifying from its very sincerity its own conclusions with truth and right, to see only falsehood and mischief in what is contrary and in those who support it. Hence our intellectual energy is naturally intolerant, zealous, impatient and severe; and even becomes so in proportion to its theoretical philanthropy, unless it associates itself intimately and inseparably with the cultivated feelings of a softened, softening, impressed, impressible, benevolent, affectionate, benign and sensitive heart."

If we rightly understand this apology, (of which we by no means feel assured,) Mr. Turner means to say, that if we obey the dictates of our "understanding and reason alone," we shall become" tyrannical, violent and stern;" in other words, that if we follow our reason we shall be unreasonable; for certainly nothing can be more contrary to reason than tyranny and violence. Such is the logical theory which Mr. T. has devised to palliate the cruelties of as remorseless a man as ever doomed a fellow-creature to death. When the blood of the wise and the brave and the beautiful was poured out like water at his bidding, we are "not to infer any natural cruelty in this King," but to attribute it to the operation of his energetic "understanding and reason alone."

In the second chapter of his work, Mr. Turner has collected all the encomiums which friends or flatterers have bestowed upon Henry.

46

"If," says Mr. T., "Henry had died after this length of reign (twenty-six years), before the Act of Parliament for abolishing the papal supremacy in England, the mortal and yet unpardoned offence of this applauded Prince, had been carried into resolute execution, no king since Alfred the Great would have descended to his tomb with such lavish encomiums and universal admiration from the literature of that period. If he had died the day before he signed the death-warrant of Fisher and decided on that of Sir Thomas More, he would have nearly rivalled our great Saxon benefactor in his historical praise, and perhaps in the public gratitude."

This singular mode of estimating character appears to us at once false and puerile. Nero, before he became Emperor, was not distinguished for his cruelties, and before the French Revolution no one imagined that Robespierre could be guilty of the atrocities which he afterwards committed. Had Thurtell died before he murdered Mr. Weare, no odium would have attached to his memory. But was Nero the less a tyrant, or Robespierre the less a monster, or Thurtell the less a murderer, on these accounts? And is it any apology for the cruelties which stained the later years of Henry's reign, that the earlier portion of it is free from the charge of blood?

The same spirit of literary innovation which has led Mr. Turner to exalt the character of Henry VIII., has induced him to depreciate that of Sir Thomas More in almost an equal proportion. The large measure of praise which, in modern times at least, has been dealt out to that justly celebrated person, appears to have excited the spleen of our historian, who thus delivers himself upon the subject:

"His (Wolsey's) spirit descended to his successor in the highest legal dignity of England, Sir Thomas More, who presents to us in his character the revolting compound of being as coarse in his controversial writings, and as sanguinary in his bigotry, as he was jocular in his humour and moral in his life. The first theological cruelties which preceded the rupture with the Pope are therefore not personally imputable to Henry. They were the works of his merry and unfeeling Chancellor, and of the old hierarchy, and of those who afterwards acted on its elder plans and principles before the new statute had been enacted to disarm their unsparing animosity. More's conduct to Bilney, burnt at Norwich; to Bayfield, whom the flames under his co-operation consumed in Smithfield; to Petit, whom he imprisoned till the worthy citizen died of his dungeon sufferings; to Tewkesbury, the honest leatherseller, who was taken from More's own house, without the King's writ, to the stake; to Barnham, the Gloucestershire gentleman and Temple student, whom he whipped in his own garden, and had racked in the Tower, to extort accusations of others, and whom he had finally brought to his house at Chelsea and chained there to a post for two nights, and at last burnt; to the learned Oxford youth, John Frith, whom, not contented with opposing by his pen, he persecuted till he became another victim of the flames; and even to the man Silver, whom he liberated not from humanity or reason, but for his witty repartee: these lamentable, and in the eye of reason and of true and enlightened religion, inexcusable barbarities, were achievements of this too highly extolled man, which gave to such atrocities the impressive sanction of his high character and popularity, and therefore must have operated like an education of his Sovereign's mind to similar cruelties, when his passions became strongly excited and his worldly interests endangered."-Vol. II p. 363.

Now, if Mr. Turner had established the guilt of More in these instances, we should freely have admitted that his animadversions were not misplaced. As it is not, however, altogether just to consign the memory of a celebrated man to infamy without very sufficient evidence, we looked anxiously for the authorities upon which Mr. Turner has founded these grievous charges. We discovered the following reference to them in a note:

"These instances are enumerated by Strype, in his Eccl. Mem. Vol. I. pp. 310-316, from contemporary authorities; and are also noticed by Burnet, Ref. Vol. I. pp. 163–170; and see Mr. Southey's Book of the Church, Vol. p. 18."

II.

Not being before aware of the existence of any contemporary authorities by which the guilty participation of Sir Thomas More in these atrocities was established, we turned with some curiosity to the pages of Strype, but without deriving the satisfaction which we anticipated, that learned writer giving no reference whatever to any contemporary authority. Upon a further inquiry we discovered, what we had before suspected, that the only

Even Burnet terms More "the glory of his age," and "a true Christian philosopher." Hist. of the Ref. Vol. III. p. 172, Fol. edit. And Dr. Aikin, whose temperate judgment seldom permitted him to be unduly eulogistic, has said, that "the qualities of More's mind were so happily blended and tempered, that he wanted little of being a perfect character." Gen, Biog, art. More..

authority which Strype possessed for these statements was Fox's Martyrology, as our readers will perceive by contrasting the respective passages given below, from which it will appear that all the instances of the persecutions by More, referred to by Mr. Turner, rest solely on the authority of Fox.

BARNHAM'S PERSECUTION.

James Barnham, Gentleman, sonne to one Master Barnham, a Knight of Gloucestershire, was accused to Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of England, and arrested by a Serjeantat-Arms, and carried out of the Middle Temple to the Chancellor's house at Chelsey, where he continued in free prison awhile, till the time that Sir T. More saw that he could not prevaile in perverting of him to his sect. Then he cast him into prison in his own house, and whipped him at the tree in his garden, called the tree of troth, and after sent him to the Tower to be racked, and so he was, Sir Thomas More being present himself, till in a manner he had lamed him, because he would not accuse the gentlemen of the Temple of his acquaintance, nor would shew where his books lay.-Fox's Mart. Vol. II. p. 279.

Strype.

About the same time one Barnham, a gentleman of Gloucestershire, of good quality, and Student of the Law in one of the Temples, was brought before More at Chelsea, who cast him into prison in his own house there, and whipped him at a tree in the garden, called the tree of troth, and afterwards sent him to the Tower to be racked, and so he was, More himself present at it, till in a manner he had famed him, because he would not accuse the gentlemen of the Temple of his acquaintance, nor would show where his books lay.-Strype, Mem. Vol. I. p. 204.

Burnet also has repeated the same story, evidently on the authority of Fox. Hist of the Ref. Vol. I. p. 165.

Fox.

FRITH'S PERSECUTION.

through the great hatred and deadly pursuit of Sir Thomas More, who, at that time being Chancellor of England, pursued him both by land and sea, besetting both the waies and havens, yea, and promising great rewards if any man could bring him any newes or tydings of him.-Fox's Mar. Vol. II. p. 304.

Strype.

In the next year, 1532, he prosecuted to death John Frith, a young man, once elected from Cambridge, for his excellent learning, to the Cardinal's College in Oxford. The poor man fled from place to place, absconding himself, but More persecuted him both by sea and land, besetting the ways and havens, and promising great rewards to any that would bring him news or tidings of him.-Strype, Mem. Vol. I. p. 204.

With regard to Tewksbury, Strype has followed Fox, Vol. II. p. 296, even citing the Martyrology in the margin. So with regard to Bilney, his authority is the same (p. 272).

The "contemporary authorities" of Mr. Turner, therefore, resolve themselves into the later authority of Fox, for it cannot be contended that Fox is to be considered a contemporary authority. At the time of the transactions in question, Fox was only a boy of 15, and his Martyrology was not published until many years after More's death. If Mr. Turner was aware

that Strype relied in this instance on the authority of Fox, he ought undoubtedly to have cited the original authority, and his readers would then have formed their own opinion as to the credit which is due to such statements; if, on the contrary, he was ignorant of that fact, as would appear to be the case, from his mention of the "contemporary authorities," he has displayed a want of research by no means creditable to his character as an historian. With regard to the reliance which we ought to place upon the writings of Fox, different opinions have been entertained. While his follower Strype, and other Protestant writers, have vouched for his accuracy and fidelity, by the Catholics he is regarded as a credulous and bigoted partizan; and an impartial reader cannot fail to discover in his pages such strong proofs of party feeling and coloured representations, as are sufficient to prevent a judicious historian from resting with confidence upon his unsupported assertions. In charging Sir Thomas More with participating in these cruel persecutions, the accuracy of Fox is extremely doubtful. In the passage above-cited he says, that More "at that time being Chancellor of England," persecuted Frith. Now, in fact, Frith was not apprehended until the month of May, 1533, (see Burnet's Hist. of the Ref. Vol. I. p. 169,) and on the 16th of that month More resigned the seals; nor was Frith put to death until the 4th July, nearly two months after More had ceased to be Chancellor. To the authority of Fox we may also oppose that of Erasmus, a real" contemporary authority." "His friend Erasmus said of him, (More,) that he hated the seditious tenets with which the world was then miserably disturbed; but it is a sufficient argument of his moderation, that whilst he was Chancellor no person was put to death for his disproved opinions."-Gen. Dict. art. More.

We must also notice the very inaccurate manner in which Mr. Turner has related the anecdote of Sir Thomas More and Silver. The note in which it is contained is as follows:

“More, in conveying him to be burnt, punned on his name, as if he had no heart, at a moment so distressing to every natural sensibility— Silver must be tried in the fire.' It was the lucky thought of the man to answer, Aye! but quick-silver will not abide it! This paronomasia had the effect which reason and piety had failed to produce. More was delighted with it, and dismissed him. Strype, p. 316. So little has principle to do with persecution."

In Strype we have no mention whatever of More "conveying" the man "to be burnt." The words 66 are, examining a Protestant whose name was Silver," &c. but Mr. Turner would have his readers believe that More was himself conveying his victim to the faggot, and that he took advantage of "a moment so distressing to every natural sensibility" to aggravate his sufferings. According to Strype, the man never appears to have been condemned, but in reading Mr. Turner's note we imagine that the pun saved him at the stake.

In detailing the history of More's trial, Mr. Turner is equally inaccurate. He argues that it was not merely for denying the King's supremacy that More and, before him, the Carthusian priests, were executed, as many writers have asserted, but for certain substantive acts of treason. As this is a point of very considerable importance, affecting the character and government of the King, our readers will, we hope, pardon us, if we enter into the question rather diffusely. As to the Carthusian priests, Mr. Turner says, "That these men were found guilty of high treason for refusing to take the oath of supremacy, which is the allegation of their friends, cannot be true, because the statute enjoining it did not make it high treason. The confusion