because Froude wrote avowedly in defence of that change that he
incurred the bitter hostility of a powerful section in the English
Church. He also irritated, partly perhaps because his tone betrayed
the influence of Carlyle, a large body of Liberal opinion to which all
despotism and persecution were obnoxious. The compliments, the
reluctant compliments, of The Edinburgh reviewer must be taken as the
admissions of an enemy. He acknowledges fully and frankly the
thoroughness of Froude's research among the State Papers of the reign,
not merely those printed and published by Robert Lemon, but "a large
manuscript collection of copies of letters, minutes of council,
theological tracts, parliamentary petitions, depositions upon trials,
and miscellaneous communications upon the state of the country
furnished by agents of the Government, all relating to the early years
of the English Reformation." No historian has ever been more diligent
than Froude was in reading and collating manuscripts. For Henry's
reign alone he read and transcribed six hundred and eighty-seven pages
in his small, close handwriting. That in so doing, and in working
without assistance, he should sometimes fall into error was
unavoidable. But he never spared himself. He was the most laborious of
students, and his History was as difficult to write as it is easy to
read. He had, as this hostile reviewer says, a "genuine love of
historical research," and there is point in the same critic's
complaint that his pages are "over-loaded with long quotations from
State Papers."

What, then, it will be asked, was the real gist of the charges made
against Froude by The Edinburgh Review? The question at issue was
nothing less than the whole policy of Henry's reign, and the motives
of the King. The character of Henry is one of the most puzzling in
historical literature, and Froude had to deal with the most
difficult part of it. To the virtues of his earlier days Erasmus is
an unimpeachable witness. The power of his mind and the excellence
of his education are beyond dispute. He held the Catholic faith, he
was not naturally cruel, and, compared with Francis I., or with
Henry of Navarre, he was not licentious. But he was brought up to
believe that the ordinary rules of morality do not govern kings.
That the king can do no wrong is now a maxim of the Constitution,
and merely means that Ministers are responsible for the acts of the
Crown. Henry could scarcely have been made t