outrooting of the truth." (Vol. vii. p. 293.)

We can hardly believe that any other man of modern enlightenment could possibly entertain such opinions. They are simply amazing in their coldblooded and crude ignorance. TorTorture is not only "inconsonant "with modern conceptions of justice, but also with ancient; for it is condemned even by the sages of the law which authorized it. If Mr. Froude had any knowledge of the civil law, he might have learned something of this matter from the Digests, (Liber xviii. tit. 18.) The passage is too long to cite, but one sentence alone tells us in a few words of the fallacy, danger, and decaption of the use of torture: "Etenim res est fragilis et periculosa, et quæ veritatem fallat."

So much for ancient opinion. And modern justice has rejected the horrible thing, not only on the ground of morality, but because it has been demonstrated to be a promoter of perjury and the worst possible means of "outrooting" the truth.

To return the case of Cobham is not the only one in which Mr. Froude has prudently profited by criticism, and hastened, in a new edition of his work, to repair his blunder. Even a slight comparison of his first with his last edition will show him to be under deep obligations to his critics, and it would be wise in him to seek to increase his debt of gratitude by fresh corrections.

THE CHATELAR STORY

is told by Mr. Froude in his characteristic way, and, while acquitting Mary Stuart of blame, " she had probably nothing worse to accuse herself of than thoughtlessness," (vol. vii. p. 506,) manages to leave a stain upon her character. He prefaces the story with the statement that "she was selfish in her politics and sensual in her pas

sions."

Serious historians generally use language with some reference to its value; but one epithet costs Mr. Froude no more effort than another, although there is not a shadow of pretext thus far in his own version of Mary's history to justify so foul an outrage as the use here of this word "sensual." We pass on. Chatelar was a young Huguenot gentleman, a nephew of the noble Bayard, gifted and highly accomplished. He had accompanied his patron D'Amville to Scotland, and returned with him to France. D'Amville was a suitor for Mary's hand, and, after some time, dispatched Chatelar to Scotland with missives for the queen. Randolph was present when Chatelar arrived, and describes D'Amville's letter as of "three whole sheets of paper." Yet Mr. Froude, perfectly aware of all this, writes,

"He went back to France, but he could not remain there. The moth was recalled to the flame whose warmth was life and death to it."

The remainder is of a piece with this.

Supernaturally penetrating in reading Mary Stuart's most hidden thoughts, Mr. Froude is blind to the vulgar envy of the parvenu Randolph, who, writing to Cecil, (Froude, vol. vii. p. 505, note,) has the mendacious impudence to speak of Chatelar as “so unworthy a creature and abject a varlet."

Of the rules that govern the admission of evidence in ordinary courts of law, Mr. Froude does not appear to have any knowledge, and at every page he manifests a total unconsciousness of the most rudimentary test to be applied to the testimony of a witness in or out of court. It is to see whether the witness has not some powerful motive to praise or to blame. Thus, when he desires to establish a high character for "the stainless Murray," he gives us the testimony of —

right.

Not we indeed! But then we really must be excused for venturing to suggest-merely to suggest, that, in the first place, if we assume such a line of argument, we deprive ourselves of weapons wherewith to assail the cruelties of such men as Alva and Philip of Spain. Surely, the right does not essentially go with the power to persecute! And in the second place that this was rather rough treatment for a young and inexperienced girl, against whom thus far nothing has been shown. But here Mr. Froude meets us with "Harlot of Babylon," and we are again silenced.

Maitland absurdly hinted to Knox that if he had a grievance he should complain of it modestly, and was very properly hooted at by Knox in reply. And thereupon comes a fine passage from Mr. Froude, admirably exemplifying his psychological treatment of history. (Vol. vii. p. 419.)

pithy passage from the very latest published volume of French history. We refer to Lanfrey's Histoire de Napoleon I. The author describes the meeting of Napoleon and Alexander at Tilsit, and, referring to the absurd attempt made by some writers to explain the motives which actuated the French and Russian emperors at their private interview on the Niemen, makes this sensible reflection:

"Il est toujours dangereux et souvent puéril de vouloir interpréter les sentiments secrets des personnages historiques."* (Lanfrey, vol. iv. p. 403. Paris, 1870.) Mr. Froude's attention to this teaching would rapidly suppress "air-drawn crowns" and such like stage properties, so freely used by him for dramatic effect.

SOME OMISSIONS.

Mr. Froude appears to have no knowledge of the important proceedings at Mary's first Parliament, May,

for it all."

We do not know how this may affect other people, but "air-drawn crowns" did the business for us, and we proceed to make it the text for A LESSON IN HISTORICAL WRITING. Mr. Froude may or may not have transferred the contempt and hatred of France of the sixteenth century, which throughout his book he loses no opportunity of manifesting, to France of the nineteenth century; but we venture to suggest to him that he may find in France models and principles of historical treatment which he might study with signal profit. Specially would we commend to his lection and serious perpension the following

Earl of Huntly, kept for the purpose since the previous October, was brought in for attainder. Forfeiture was declared mainly for Murray's benefit, and at the same time the forfeitures of the Earl of Sutherland (the evidence against him being forgeries) and eleven barons of the house of Gordon were passed. In vain the Countesses of Huntly and Sutherland endeavored to petition the queen; they were, by Murray's intervention, denied access to her. Nor does our historian appear to have heard of the circumstances attending Murray's sur reptitious procuring of the queen's signature to the death-warrant of young Huntly. It is a most interesting episode, but we have not room for it. Some three weeks later, we find a curious letter of Randolph to

"The attempt to make one's self the interpreter of the secret sentiments of historical personages is always dangerous and frequently ridiculous."

Cecil, which need not be sought for in Froude. It is important as showing the peculiar esteem in which Muray was held at the court of Elizabeth. A packet addressed to Queen Mary had been stopped and opened by the English officials at Newcastle. Mary, not recognizing her position as the vassal of Elizabeth, complained of it to Randolph. Whereupon Randolph writes to Cecil, (June, 1563,) advising, "If any suspected letters be taken, not to open them, but to send them to my Lord of Moray, of whose services the Queen of England is sure." And good reason there was to be sure; for all the world, except Mr. Froude, knows that the "stainless," from first to last, was the bribed and pensioned agent of Elizabeth.

KNOX AND THE COUNCIL.

"The Queen of Scots," says Mr. Froude, "had quarrelled again with Knox, whom she attempted to provide with lodgings in the castle; the lords had interfered, and anger and disappointment had made her ill." (Vol. vii. p. 549.)

Here again Mary seems to fall away from the high standard of " consummate actress;" but, on the other hand, Mr. Froude is fully up to his own standard of consummate historian; for the passage is clever, even for him. Here is what it all means: Cranston and Armstrong, two members of Knox's congregation who were afterward among the murderers of Riccio, had been arrested and thrown into prison for raising a riot in the chapel royal at Holyrood, to prevent service there. And why should they not? A Catholic queen had no rights which her Protestant subjects were bound to respect. Knox thereupon sent a circular throughout Scotland convening his brethren to meet in Edinburgh on a certain day -in other words, to excite tumult and inaugurate civil war. Let Randolph,

But

Murray and Maitland sent for Knox and remonstrated with him. Knox showed no respect for either of them. Nothing came of the interview, and they had him summoned before the queen and her privy council. Seriously ill as she was, she attended. Now compare these facts with Mr. Froude's statement above, (vol. vii. p. 549,) and see if it is possible to crowd into three lines more misrepresentation and malevolence. Note quarrelled. Mary knew nothing of the affair until after the action of the lords and the attempt of Murray and Maitland to persuade Knox. Mr. Froude says Mary attempted to imprison him, and the lords interfered. "Anger and disappointment made her ill." Now, this Knox affair occurred while Randolph was waiting to have audience of Mary, but was delayed on account of her illness. To return to the council. Knox's seditious letter was produced. He boldly avowed it, and significantly observed, referring to certain reported practices of Murray and Maitland, that "no forgeries had been interpolated in the spaces he had left blank." A week after this event, Randolph describes Mary as still sick, although compelled to confer with her council.

MARY'S MARRIAGE.

All this time Mary has been waiting Elizabeth's good pleasure as to whom she shall marry. Elizabeth finally decided to bestow upon her Scottish sister her own lover Leicester, who "was, perhaps, the most worthless of