1827.] 



Domestic and Foreign. 



425 



of fanatic fervour, stimulated by what was 

 believed to be the warrant of the court 

 such were the combustible feelings, from 

 previous exasperation, it was but setting; a 

 match to the mine ; they were not contem- 

 poraneous with that of Paris. Proclama- 

 tions were forthwith issued, contradictory as 

 to the causes of the massacre, but concurring 

 in commanding the authorities to arrest the 

 assassins. The very want of simultaneous- 

 ness in the country towns is conclusive against 

 the general and preconcerted plot. 



This is but a very imperfect view of the 

 argument; but, in our judgment, Dr. Lin- 

 gard prostrates the reviewer, and makes out 

 his case or, at the very least, he shews good 

 grounds for questioning the usual confident 

 assertion of along premeditated plot a plot, 

 which to believe, we must first believe that 

 very considerable numbers, in almost every 

 part of the kingdom, had kept the dark de- 

 sign close within their own bosoms for two 

 long- years ; that the Huguenots who, as an 

 oppressed party, may be presumed to have 

 had all their eyes about them never got the 

 least glimpse of it ; and that Coligni a 

 man practised in business, in stratagems, in 

 dangers, acquainted with the world, and 

 knowing his enemies was the dupe of a wo- 

 man he had reason to suspect, and of a head- 

 long boy of twenty plotting against him- 

 self, though labouring to promote the very 

 object of that boy's ambition independent 

 controul. 



But the Doctor now turns from the pros- 

 trate reviewer to another opponent Mr. 

 Todd, who seems scandalized at the treat- 

 ment which Crammer has received at the 

 hands of this Catholic historian. Now the 

 fact is, that few historical characters are so 

 assailable as Cranmer's; his hypocrisies 

 and retractions are so well ascertained, 

 that none but the most resolute panegyrist 

 would ever think of defending them. Cran- 

 merhas great merits, and justly, in the eyes 

 of the friends of the English Church ; but 

 why are those merits to blind us to his faults ? 

 Notoriously he temporized, and that is what 

 Dr. Lingard charges him with doing. He 

 took the oath of obedience to the Pope, and 

 protested in private. No, says Mr. Todd, he 

 did it in the presence of many witnesses. 

 No matter : the protest was not made to 

 the Pope, nor meant to be made known 

 to him, and therefore the act was eva- 

 sive. Dr. Lingard also charges him with 

 playing a hypocritical farce in the sub- 

 ject of the divorce. Immediately after 

 his appointment to the archbishoprick, he 

 urged the King, by letter, to permit him, 

 for the exoneration of his conscience, and 

 the performance of his duty to the country, 

 to examine and determine the great cause of 

 the divorce though this was the very pur- 

 pose for which he had been appointed. The 

 King of course granted the request. But 

 Mr. Todd not questioning, be it observed, 

 the authenticity of this letter, which is still 

 extant thinks every candid reader of this 



MM. New Smcj.~VoL.III.No.16. 



letter will believe the assertion of one of 

 Cranmer's biographers, that the Archbishop 

 was shocked at his request being granted. 

 The fact is, that persons of particular con- 

 nections and views really believe it neces- 

 sary, for the safety of the Protestant Church, 

 to maintain the immaculateness of its au- 

 thors uot perceiving that, by this indul- 

 gence of their zeal, they are injuring their 

 own credit, and deserting their duty as 

 the moral teachers of society. Why not re- 

 present facts and persons as they really are, 

 and trust to the native and inseparable force 

 of truth to work its own blessed effects? 



But Mr. Todd found a faithful backer in 

 the Quarterly ; and the reviewer himself 

 not liking to play nothing but second turns 

 his o\vn ru.vty weapon just to shew his 

 strength and sagacity upon Dr. Lingard, 

 and hacks with might and main at the histo- 

 rian's account of Anne Boleyn. Dr. Lin- 

 gard, on pretty good authority, states that 

 Henry had intrigued with Mary Boleyn, and 

 with Anne had anticipated his conjugal rights. 

 The facts are these Henry expels his own 

 wife ; sends for Anne from her father's, gives 

 , her apartments contiguous to his own, insists 

 on his courtiers paying her the respect due to 

 the Queen, and suffers her to interfere in 

 matters of state, and share the distribution 

 of favours. For three years they are under 

 the same roof, and always together; they ent 

 together, ride together, hunt together, go to- 

 gether from residence to residence ; nor can 

 the King go even to Calais without her. 

 Add to all this, Du Bellay's Letters, which 

 express the fact ; and Henry'sown, which as 

 unequivocally imply it. Then look to Henry's 

 temperament, and the conclusion is ine- 

 vitable. But the shock to the purity and 

 piety of the reviewer throws him quite into 

 a flutter, and, in his trepidation, he involves 

 himself in the most ludicrous contradictions. 



The Doctor, in short, in each case, has 

 fought a good fight, and has given his critics 

 a drubbing, that will at least teach them to 

 approach him, another time, with more re- 

 spect. They, however, will scarcely appear 

 again in the field. 



[Weweremistaken. Since the above sketch 

 of the controversy was written, the reviewer 

 in the Edinburgh has re-appeared, and in 

 propria persona too. Well, what says he 

 now ? Essentially, just what be said before. 

 To repeat must be to confute, or the case 

 stands pretty much where it did. The pro- 

 babilities seem still to be these that the 

 Queen's party h<id often, perhaps even be- 

 fore the Bajonne conferences, contemplated 

 the practicability of exterminating the Hu- 

 guenots; but no definite scheme had ever 

 been planned, much less decided upon; 

 that the assassination on the 22d, of Coligni, 

 is in itself, almost conclusively a proof of 

 the non-existence of any such plan; that 

 the purpose to be answered by the Admiral's 

 destruction, was his removal from the coun- 

 cils of the King, arid the embarrassment of 

 the Huguenots; and that the massacre was 



31 



