scriptions of its contents; and
the preamble of the act of parliament of which it formed the foundation,
dwells upon its character with much distinctness. I cannot discuss the
insoluble question whether the stories which it contained were true.
History is ill occupied with discussing probabilities on _a priori_
grounds, when the scale of likelihood is graduated by antecedent
prejudice. It is enough that the report was drawn up by men who had the
means of knowing the truth, and who were apparently under no temptation
to misrepresent what they had seen; that the description coincides with
the authentic letters of the visitors; and that the account was
generally accepted as true by the English parliament.

[Sidenote: Two thirds of the monks are living in habits which may not be
described.]

It appeared, then, on this authority, that two-thirds of the monks in
England were living in habits which may not be described. The facts were
related in great detail. The confessions of parties implicated were
produced, signed by their own hands.[518] The vows were not observed.
The lands were wasted, sold, and mortgaged. The foundations were
incomplete. The houses were falling to waste; within and without, the
monastic system was in ruins. In the smaller abbeys especially, where,
from the limitation of numbers, the members were able to connive
securely at each other's misdemeanours, they were saturated with
profligacy, with Simony, with drunkenness.[519] The case against the
monasteries was complete; and there is no occasion either to be
surprised or peculiarly horrified at the discovery. The demoralization
which was exposed was nothing less and nothing more than the condition
into which men of average nature compelled to celibacy, and living as
the exponents of a system which they disbelieved, were certain to fall.

[Sidenote: A great debate in the House.]

There were exceptions. In the great monasteries, or in many of them,
there was decency and honourable management; but when all the
establishments, large and small, had been examined, a third only could
claim to be exempted from the darkest schedule. This was the burden of
the report which was submitted to the legislature. So long as the extent
of the evil was unknown, it could be tolerated; when it had been exposed
to the world, honour and justice alike required a stronger remedy than
an archiepiscopal remonstrance. A "great debate" followed.[520] The
journals of the session a