TWO BY-PATHS IN ENGLISH HISTORY.* THE two books we have
bracketed together are singularly unlike in style and subject. Yet they resemble each other in three respects. They deal with what may be termed the personal as distin- guished from the public aspects of well-known historical periods. Their writers are equally and obviously in earnest, although Dr. Lee's earnestness is that of the thoroughly convinced partisan, and Mr. Chancellor's that of the painstaking historical investi- gator. They have both read and mastered a good deal of out- of-the-way literature,—although it would perhaps be more accu- rate to say of Dr. Lee that his out-of-the-way literature has mastered him.
It may be doubted if Dr. Lee's account of the reign of Edward VI. can be regarded in the light of a weighty, although it is a terribly serious contribution to English historical literature. He deserves and has obtained respect for the sincerity, courage, and persistence with which he has, in and out of season, advo- cated opinions on Church and State some of which are, to put the matter mildly and non-controversially, eccentric, while others only suggest the criticism of sancta simplicitas ! But so, no doubt, did the man in the Underground deserve and obtain respect, the burden of whose song, when going to and from the City during the struggle over Household Suffrage, was that Mr. Bright ought to be hanged. But even those most disposed to admire or to make excuses for Dr. Lee's opinions or ecclesiastical standpoint, will hardly venture to credit him with what is com- monly regarded as the historical temper. When a writer, trusting largely to the gossip of the period of which he treats, says of the death of Edward VI., "He was evidently under the influence of some corrosive poison, which had been used judi- ciously but efficiently to rid the interested schemers about him of his presence ;" and, "In almost every contemporary account of the young King's death and burial, there is little or nothing inconsistent with the conviction that he was poisoned, and that the corpse of some other youth was substituted prior to the funeral," it becomes somewhat difficult to expect Hallam-like impartiality from him. For it may be said that in "every contemporary account of the death and burial" of any. body, there is little or nothing inconsistent with either supposi- tion. But surely the onus probandi lies very heavily on those who raise such a possibility to the dignity of a "conviction." It will not suffice to fall back upon the gossip of Strype, or of Burcher, or of Osorius, Bishop of Sylva, or even upon a formal and curious dissertation upon the subject recorded in "a note-book of Richard Powell, born at Theme, Oxon., educated at Merton College, Oxford, M.D. Oxon., F.S.A., a distinguished physician and author, sometime Fellow and Censor of the College of Physicians of London, who died circa 1834." But, in fact, the value—we had almost said the charm—of Dr. Lee's volume lies in its being not a history, in the ordinary sense, of the reign of Edward VI., but in its being a reflection of the Catholic mind of the day—if Dr. Lee will allow us to thus use the word "Catholic" —upon the events of that reign. In his introduction, he himself says that he " has not aimed at producing a history of the reign under consideration, but only a mere historical sketch of the same, in which some events have been passed over, and others, perhaps, have been too considerably enlarged upon. He has endeavoured, however, while avoiding prolixity, to set forth in plain and somewhat vigorous and outspoken language several of the iniquities of change and wrong-doing daring the period in question. Many of the events and alterations commented upon may perhaps appear to some persons in quite a new light." There can be no question as to Dr. Lee's language being "vigorous and outspoken," nor as to the mute he comments on "appearing to some persons in quite a new light." Dr. Lee's book, in fact, reads like an old anti-Reformation pamphlet, taken out of some museum of ecclesiastical curiosities, and reprinted. Or rather, perhaps we should say, it is an ecclesiastical Tower in which one may see the old weapons of warfare duly displayed. To be sure, we modern Englishmen come in for a share of Dr. Lee's " swashing blows." We have an "atheistic system of School Boards," and " numerous repulsive sects." But, on the whole, we do not fare so badly as our predecessors of Edward VI.'s reign, " the distinctive and remarkable features" of which were, says, not Lord Randolph Churchill in an anti-Gladstone mani- • King Edward the Sixth, Supreme Head ,• an Historical Sketch. With en Intro- &lotion and Notes. By Frederick George Lee, D.D. London Burns and Oates. —The Life of Charles I isoolms._ By E. Bereadord Chancellor. London : George Boll and Bone. 1886. ,
feato prepared to snit the purposes and rouse the passions of the hour, but Dr. Lee, in (presumably) cold blood, and after the lapse of three centuries:- " As regards the Christian Revelation, the Church and Religion, misbelief, robbery, and disunion; as regards the poor and wanderers, creel and unjust laws, followed by barbarous punishments ; as regards the people in general and their lawful possessions, a base and most dishonest tampering with the coin. In foreign policy, in every direc- tion, failure ; at home, peculation, fraud, immorality, usury, grinding down the unprotected and oppressed ; and on the part of the autho- rities and puppet-exhibitors, examples of selfishness, injustice, active shuffling as to right and wrong, truth and falsehood, and a loathsome greed almost unparalleled."
Queen Elizabeth is, of course, Henry VIII.'s " bastard daughter by Anne Boleyn." Latimer, when he preaches the Lent Lectures at St. Margaret's, Westminster, is " a fool-monthed preacher." " Cranmer and his gang " come in for a full measure of reprobation. As for Protector Somerset, attention is called to his " unprecedented accumulation of lands and manors, his arrogance and vanity, his random self-seeking, and the reckless manner in which he overcame all obstacles and silenced all opponents in the race for wealth and power." Dr. Lee delights to lash the foreign Reformers, in particular the German "adven- turers," declaring that " the coarseness of the age was un- doubtedly augmented by the rude and ribald preachers from Germany and Geneva, and by the outrageous and scandalous publications penned by foul-mouthed and crazy or artful fanatics." Again, the foreign preachers from abroad are described as " men who had broken their solemn vows as reli- gions, and taken to preaching sedition, with a batch of bankrupt adventurers, from Strasburg and Berne,—men who, having failed in honest or probably dishonest trade, adroitly took to dealings in things spiritual." Once more Those who ostentatiously professed a belief in the ` new Gospel,' who thumbed their Testaments, quoted their texts, and doubted the number and nature of the Sacraments, were notoriously gailty of very gross vices. Even in this reign, the Communion was regarded as a mere meal, at which those assembled sometimes became in- toxicated, alternating such acts with outward confessions of special spirituality." Possibly enough, if Dr. Lee had been endowed with ever so slight a sense of humour, he would not have regarded as so terrible the fact that " wives under the new Gospel had learnt to henpeck and rule their husbands instead of to obey them." But yet this very earnestness is the saving salt of Dr. Lee's book. To discern the truth of the Reformation as it evolved itself in the days of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., through the mists of savage controversy, is difficult, and—with all respect to recent truly serious contributions to history—pro- bably impossible. Still, it is but fair that if one side of the controversy is to be reproduced—and, after all, a good deal of modern Church history consists of this reproduction—so should the other. It is this service that Dr. Lee renders. Nor will any rational Protestant resent his blows, or deny that one or two of them hit the mark.
It would be unfair to compare Mr. Chancellor's volume, narrating the earlier period of the life of Charles I., from 1600 to 1655, with such well-known works as that of Mr. Gardiner, and it would be especially unfair to Mr. Chancellor himself. He must be judged entirely by his pretensions, and he pretends to do nothing more than deal with the early years of Charles I. from the personal point of view, "avoiding any lengthy details of the events which belong properly to the reign of James I.," and "making no mention of any of the political events of the new reign during the brief period which elapsed before the consummation of Charles's marriage." What Mr. Chan- cellor has done is, with the help of private and public libraries, more particularly in England, Scotland, and France, to give a new picture of Charles in his boyhood =dearly manhood—the Charles who was for a time overshadowed by his elder brother Henry, the Charles whose education was so carefully—if also so whimsically —attended to ; the Charles of " Steenie " and of Henrietta Maria, and very nearly of the Spanish Infanta. If we cannot truly say that Mr. Chancellor has unearthed much about the subject of his biography that is at once new and important, he has unquestion- ably collected a great number of (possibly) minor facts that are apt to be left out of consideration by those who think of Charles only as the Prince who defied Parliament, and lost his head in consequence. Charles, who was born at Dnnfermline, was also brought up there, under the tuition of Alexander Seaton, Lord Fife. At this time Charles was not robust of body, and Lord Fife wrote to his father:" Your Sacred Majestie's most noble son Duke Charles, continues (praisit be God) in grid health, quid courage, and lofty mind. Although yet weak in bodie, he's begin- ning to speak some words. He is far better [forwarder] as yet of his mind and tongue than of his bodie and feet ; but I hope in God he sail be all weel and princelie, worthie of your Majesty, as his Grace is judged to be by all, very like in liniments to your royal person." Charles was conveyed into England from Dunfermline about this time by means of litters ; the cost of the journey was £500. It is tolerably well known that, at the age of ten, Charles went through the forms of holding a public disputation in theology ; but the following is not so familiar a fact :- " In the Calendar of State Papers, under date March 12th, 1610, is a warrant for the payment of £60 Is. 8d. to one John Norton, for certain books which he bad obtained for the use of Charles ; and further necessary sums for hooks, the particulars being first testified and acknowledged by the Prince's tutor, Thomas Murray. Thie extract gives some idea of the expense of juvenile literature in the time of James I."
Mr. Chancellor dismisses the idea that Charles's elder brother Henry was poisoned, and also places little stress on the report current at the time of the death of James, that that event was brought about by the agency of Buckingham. Of " Steenie," handsome, masterful, headstrong, Mr. Chancellor may be said to take a common-sense, rather than an original view. He is probably right, at all events, in thinking that the Spanish escapade of Charles and Villiers was suggested by the latter rather than by the intriguing and subtle Gondemar. As for the negotiations that ended in the marriage of Charles to Henrietta Maria, with which event Mr. Chancellor's book closes, not the least notable circumstance in connection with them is the revelation that a Joseph Home, or at least a Mr. Labouchere, was greatly needed at that time. Here are two entries in the Calendar of State Papers :- "November 20th, 1624.—Buckingham prepares for France. Charles borrows £20,000 to give him towards his expenses, and some barons are to be made to pay his debts of £4,000 or £5,000. December 18th, 1624.—Buckingham is preparing a effiendid train for France. His expense will be £100,000."
The money might as well have been thrown into the Channel. Buckingham all but ruined the matrimonial prospects of his master by his audacious passion for Anne of Austria, and by his vain attempts to match himself against Richelieu.
Previous page
