facts whereby to prove them. One he gives in an important note
containing an extract from a letter of the Venetian Ambassador in
1515. At least, if his conclusions be correct, we must think twice
ere we deny his assertion that 'the man best able of all living
Englishmen to govern England had been set to do it by the conditions
of his birth.'

'We are bound,' as Mr. Froude says, 'to allow him the benefit of his
past career, and be careful to remember it in interpreting his later
actions.' 'The true defect in his moral constitution, that "intense
and imperious will" common to all princes of the Plantagenet blood,
had not yet been tested.' That he did, in his later years, act in
many ways neither wisely nor well, no one denies; that his conduct
did not alienate the hearts of his subjects is what needs
explanation; and Mr. Froude's opinions on this matter, novel as they
are, and utterly opposed to that of the standard modern historians,
require careful examination. Now I am not inclined to debate Henry
the Eighth's character, or any other subject, as between Mr. Froude
and an author of the obscurantist or pseudo-conservative school. Mr.
Froude is Liberal; and so am I. I wish to look at the question as
between Mr. Froude and other Liberals; and therefore, of course,
first, as between Mr. Froude and Mr. Hallam.

Mr. Hallam's name is so venerable and his work so Important, that to
set ourselves up as judges in this or in any matter between him and
Mr. Froude would be mere impertinence: but speaking merely as
learners, we have surely a right to inquire why Mr. Hallam has
entered on the whole question of Henry's relations to his Parliament
with a praejudicium against them; for which Mr. Froude finds no
ground whatsoever in fact. Why are all acts both of Henry and his