laugh over shamelessly; while, as Mr. Froude well says, 'If we are to
hold her entirely free from guilt, we place not only the King, but
the Privy Council, the Judges, the Lords and Commons, and the two
Houses of Convocation, in a position fatal to their honour and
degrading to ordinary humanity' (Mr. Froude should have added Anne
Boleyn's own uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, and her father, who were on
the commission appointed to try her lovers, and her cousin, Anthony
St. Leger, a man of the very highest character and ability, who was
on the jury which found a true bill against her). 'We can not,'
continues Mr. Froude, 'acquiesce without inquiry in so painful a
conclusion. The English nation also, as well as she, deserves
justice at our hands; and it cannot be thought uncharitable if we
look with some scrutiny at the career of a person who, but for the
catastrophe with which it closed, would not have so readily obtained
forgiveness for having admitted the addresses of the King, or for
having received the homage of the court as its future sovereign,
while the King's wife, her mistress, as yet resided under the same
roof.' Mr. Froude's conclusion is, after examining the facts, the
same with the whole nation of England in Henry's reign: but no one
can accuse him of want of sympathy with the unhappy woman, who reads
the eloquent and affecting account of her trial and death, which ends
his second volume. Our only fear is, that by having thus told the
truth he has, instead of justifying our ancestors, only added one
more to the list of people who are to be 'given up' with a cynical
shrug and smile. We have heard already, and among young ladies too,
who can be as cynical as other people in these times, such speeches
as, 'Well, I suppose he has proved Anne Boleyn to be a bad creature;
but that does not make that horrid Henry any more right in cutting
off her head.' Thus two people will be despised where only one was
before, and the fact still ignored, that it is just as senseless to