I have not indeed made such inquiry as would authorize my speaking positively and with precision. But precision is not wanted in such a matter."-p. 258.

Dr. Maitland certainly in this passage draws pretty largely on the principle laid down in the concluding sentence. He can lay no claim to "precision" at least. The death of Cromwell, which was followed by the persecution, took place at the end of July, 1540 from that date to the accession of Edward VI., at the end of January, 1547, is, according to our computation, exactly six years and a half; which comprise, in round numbers, 2370 days. Dr. Maitland, we suppose, will not pretend that the persecution under the Act of the Six Articles continued during the reign of Edward VI. The Act was, in fact, repealed in 1547. If Dr. Maitland's calculation of the number of sufferers under the Six Articles Act at 25,000, being at the rate of one per diem, be correct, we arrive at the somewhat curious and novel fact, that a hot persecution under the Six Articles Act raged against Protestantism during the whole reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, as well as Mary, and that it even continued down to the year of grace 1610, the eighth year of King James I. ! We congratulate Dr. Maitland on this interesting discovery. He has evidently "looked very sharp," to use his own words, into this part of ecclesiastical history; though we cannot, of course, compliment him on a "precision" which he modestly disclaims.

But really the very admissions made by Dr. Maitland appear fatal to his attempt. If, as he allows, "strict precision" is not to be so very urgently insisted on in matters of this kind, is he not himself most unreasonable in taking such an expression as "they suffered daily," after the death of Cromwell, to imply that the writer meant to assert simply and literally, that from the time of Cromwell's death till the end of Henry the Eighth's reign some one or other was regularly killed each day of the year, Sundays, holidays, and all included; that there was a kind of organized plan, that every single day a victim of this kind should smoke in atonement for the sins of the people? We must really demur to any such interpretation. The words plainly and in all common sense mean, that after a certain time, and during a certain time, (which is not defined,) executions for the cause of religion frequently,—sometimes, perhaps, daily,-took place. We think that it is very unreasonable to strain such expressions to their most literal sense, and then, after exaggerating the numerical result more than tenfold, to turn round upon us, and say, that instead of 25,000 martyrs there are probably not more than twenty-five; but that really the subject has not been investigated so as to enable a positive and precise statement to be made.

It

may be, for aught we can see, that the author to whom Dr. Maitland refers did not mean that there were thousands of martyrs. As far as his mere words, "suffered daily," go, they do not amount to an assertion that any very great number suffered. We must pass over various succeeding details of irreverent conduct and of improper language, which Dr. Maitland has diligently accumulated; but we may notice, in passing, the fact, that from his own extracts it appears that Protector Somerset disapproved of such doings, and disclaimed for himself and his party all association with them.-(pp. 298, 299.)

Having thus laboured assiduously, if not successfully, to throw discredit in every way on the moral character of so many of those who were engaged in the English Reformation, and to represent that their conduct was so blasphemous, wicked, and treasonable, that it was absolutely necessary to put them to death, or inflict penalties upon them, Dr. Maitland next proceeds to describe the Romish leaders Gardiner and Bonner, and their party, as worthy and well-meaning men.

He begins (p. 309) with Bishop Gardiner, (rather an unmanageable subject, we should have thought,) and starts with the suggestion that "the will of Henry VIII., under which Somerset and his colleagues took the reins of government, has been suspected of being a forgery." Dr. M. does not tell us who made this accusation; but, as he repeats it without comment, we may infer that he thinks it possibly may have been so; and thus, again, we have the party favourable to the Reformation indirectly charged with want of common moral principle. Dr. M. even urges that it is very extraordinary that Gardiner's name should not have appeared in the commission, because he was a great favourite with King Henry VIII. This leads to details of Gardiner's life and doings, amongst which Dr. Maitland enters on the part alleged to be taken by Gardiner in endeavouring to procure the death of Queen Katharine Parr, and he labours assiduously to show that the whole story is incredible, having in view to prove that Gardiner was always in great favour with King Henry; and we presume, therefore, that there can be no way of accounting for his name not appearing in the commission, except on the supposition of Protestant forgery.

We have next a very lengthened discussion, which we do not mean further to notice, intended to prove that Gardiner and Bonner were not inconsistent in their opinions on the Royal Supremacy. Dr. Maitland produces many arguments to throw doubts on the genuineness of the preface by Bonner to Gardiner's book, "De Vera Obedientiâ;" but, after suggesting that this preface is by a different hand, and making a great many diffi

culties about the place where it professed to be printed, he comes at last to a quotation from Fox (p. 373) which establishes clearly the fact against which he has been contending, and thus renders superfluous all the preceding discussion. If Fox's narrative be true, there is no use in attempting to throw doubts on the genuineness of a preface which Bishop Bonner expressly acknowledged in open court. We do not think that there is any thing particularly objectionable in Dr. Maitland's remarks in favour of Gardiner; but whatever is said is to the credit of this persecutor, and is so far advantageous to the Romish and anti-Reformation cause.

The case of Bishop Bonner is more elaborately treated, and every possible pains is taken to represent him as a maligned and ill-used man. We extract the following passage as comprising the view which Dr. Maitland is anxious to impress upon his readers :

"When the reader of Fox has become sufficiently familiar with the 'MARVELLOUS RAGE,' and 'GREAT FURY,' that embellish so many of his descriptions of prelatical proceedings, to treat them as Mr. Burchell would have done,-when he calmly inquires what these tales, so full of rage and fury, really mean-when they mean any thing—he finds the bloody wolf transformed, (I will not say into a spaniel, for that might imply fawning,) but into something much more like a goodtempered mastiff, who might safely be played with, and who, though he might be teazed into barking and growling, had no disposition to bite, and would not do it without orders. In plainer terms, setting aside declamation, and looking at the details of facts left by those who may be called, if people please, Bonner's victims, and their friends, we find, very consistently maintained, the character of a man, straightforward and hearty, familiar and humorous, sometimes rough, perhaps coarse, naturally hot-tempered, but obviously (by the testimony of his enemies) placable and easily entreated, capable of bearing most patiently much intemperate and insolent language, much reviling and low abuse directed against himself personally, against his order, and against those peculiar doctrines and practices of his Church, for maintaining which he had himself suffered the loss of all things, and borne long imprisonment. At the same time not incapable of being provoked into saying harsh and passionate things, but much more frequently meaning nothing, by the threatenings and slaughter which he breathed out, than to intimidate those on whose ignorance and simplicity arguments seemed thrown away-in short, we can scarcely read with attention any one of the cases detailed by those who are no friends of Bishop Bonner without seeing in him a judge who (even if we grant that he was dispensing bad laws badly) was obviously desirous to save the prisoner's life."—pp. 422, 423.

We congratulate Dr. Maitland on the subject of his eulogium; we can only express our wonder at the moral courage which

he has exhibited in attempting to whitewash the character of this ferocious persecutor: it is for the readers of Fox's "Martyrology" to form their opinion whether Dr. Maitland is right or wrong in

his view.

We were certainly not prepared, from the author's reputation, to find his arguments so insufficiently sustained, and his imputations against moral character so sweeping and yet apparently so unfounded. The fact is, that his controversies with various writers on the Protestant side of the question have led him by degrees to take the Romish view, which sufficiently accounts for the excessive prejudice which he has against the Reformation and so many of its friends, without any necessary leaning to Romanism as a system of doctrine and practice.

ART. V.-1. Cathedral Trusts and their Fulfilment. By the Rev. ROBERT WHISTON, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; and Head Master of the Cathedral Grammar School, Rochester. Second Edition. London: Ollivier.

2. Five Speeches on Ecclesiastical Affairs, delivered by EDWARD HORSMAN, Esq., M.P., in the House of Commons, in the Sessions of 1847 and 1848. London: Seeleys.

3. A Few Words on Cathedral Music and the Musical System of the Church. With a Plan of Reform. By SAMUEL SEBASTIAN WESLEY, Mus. Doc. London: Rivingtons.

THE question which has been opened in the publications at the beginning of this article, is one of great importance in all points of view; and requires careful consideration in all its bearings. It should be the aim of all churchmen, that in any arrangement which may be made in reference to cathedrals, the interests of the Church at large shall not suffer, but be advanced; and we have reason to feel grateful to writers like Mr. Whiston, who, at this particular crisis, have devoted themselves to the investigation of the origin and uses of cathedral institutions.

Mr. Whiston's name is, of course, known to all our readers in connexion with the suit which has lately been carried on between him and the chapter of Rochester, who deemed it fitting and right to deprive him of his office of Head Master of their school, in consequence of the publication of his pamphlet on Cathedral Trusts. Into the merits of the case, as between Mr. Whiston and the chapter of Rochester, we have no disposition to enter at present, more especially since the chapter have withdrawn their act of deprivation. But the pamphlet in question contains a very great amount of information on the subject of cathedral foundations, much of which is, we are persuaded, altogether new to the majority of the Church, and which on many accounts deserves to be attentively considered.

The origin of cathedral chapters traces itself up in some sort to the time of the apostles, when elders or presbyters, under the presidency of the bishop, were instituted in every city, and, with the deacons, constituted its cathedral clergy. This body was charged in common with the care of souls in the chief city of the primitive diocese or parish; and the bishop possessed the chief