derived importance from the circumstances of the times— the King's now dangerous illness, and the prince's tender age—and suggested that the Howards were looking forward to a protectorate over the young King which might not impossibly develop into a succession to his throne. Henry's jealousy was aroused, and an investigation followed, ending in the implication of the Duke also, at least to the extent of a guilty knowledge of his son's acts. Mr. Froude[1] tells us that the execution of Lord Surrey has been unanimously treated by historians as a gratuitous murder, but he has himself shown very good reason to doubt the correctness of their verdict; and one is inclined to think that the generally brilliant reputation of Lord Surrey, and his high literary and poetical fame, have conspired with the general belief in the despotic and sanguinary character of Henry's government to induce the historians to undervalue some very damaging evidence against him, notably that of his sister, the Dowager Duchess of Richmond. However this may be, the result of the charge was that Surrey was tried, condemned, and executed, and a bill of attainder passed against the Duke of Norfolk, who was saved only by the King's death. Thus, whether the alleged misdeeds of these two noblemen were real, or whether they owed their fall only to a successful intrigue of the opposite party, the result was the same, for when Henry died the reactionary party was left without its leaders, and the new men were able to reap the advantage thereof.
Between these two extreme parties, however, it is hardly necessary to say there were many persons who held different shades of opinion. Many, of whom Gardiner was the type, had entertained no great affection
- ↑ Froude, vol. iv. pp. 510-23.
