Doesthispreamble，doesasinglefactofthecase，justifyhistoriansintalkingofthese\'king\'sdebts\'injustthesametoneasthatinwhichtheywouldhavespokeniftheKinghadsquanderedthemoneyonprivatepleasures？Perhapsmostpeoplewhowritesmallhistoriesbelievethatthisreallywasthecase。TheycertainlywouldgathernootherimpressionfromthepagesofMr。Hallam。Nodoubttheactmusthavebeenburdensomeonsomepeople。Many，wearetold，hadbequeathedtheirpromissorynotestotheirchildren，usedtheirreversionaryinterestintheloaninmanyways;andthese，ofcourse，feltthechangeveryheavily。Nodoubt:butwhyhavewenotarighttosupposethattheParliamentwereawareofthatfact;butchoseitasthelessofthetwoevils？TheKinghadspentthemoney;
hewasunabletorecoveritfromFrancis;couldonlyrefunditbyraisingsomefreshtaxorbenevolence:andwhymaynottheParliamenthaveconsideredthereleaseofoldtaxeslikelytooffendfewerpeoplethantheimpositionofnewones？Itiscertainlyanuglythingtobreakpublicfaith;buttoprovethatpublicfaithwasbroken，wemustprovethatHenrycompelledtheParliamenttoreleasehim;iftheactwasoftheirownfreewill，nopublicfaithwasbroken，fortheyweretherepresentativesofthenation，andthroughthemthenationforgaveitsowndebt。Andwhatevidencehavewethattheydidnotrepresentthenation，andthat，onthewhole，wemustsuppose，asweshouldinthecaseofanyothermen，thattheybestknewtheirownbusiness？Maywenotapplytothiscase，andtoothers，mutatismutandis，theargumentwhichMr。FroudeusessoboldlyandwellinthecaseofAnneBoleyn\'strial——\'TheEnglishnationalso，aswellas……deservesjusticeatourhands？\'
Certainlyitdoes:butitisadisagreeabletokenofthemethodonwhichwehavebeenaccustomedtowritethehistoryofourownforefathers，thatMr。Froudeshouldfinditnecessarytostateformallysoverysimpleatruth。
Whatproof，weaskagain，istherethatthisoldParliamentwas\'servile\'？Hadthatbeenso，Wolseywouldnothavebeenafraidtosummonit。ThespecificreasonfornotsummoningaParliamentforsixyearsafterthatof1524wasthattheywerenotservile;thatwhen（herewearequotingMr。Hallam，andnotMr。Froude）WolseyenteredtheHouseofCommonswithagreattrain，seeminglyforthepurposeofintimidation，they\'madenootheranswertohisharanguesthanthatitwastheirusagetodebateonlyamongthemselves。\'Thedebatesonthisoccasionlastedfifteenorsixteendays，duringwhich，saysaneye—witness，\'therehasbeenthegreatestandsorestholdintheLowerHouse，\'\'thematterdebatedandbeaten\';\'suchholdthattheHousewasliketohavebeendissevered\';inaword，hardfighting——andwhynothonestfighting？——betweenthecourtpartyandtheOpposition，\'whichended，\'saysMr。Hallam，\'inthecourtpartyobtaining，withtheutmostdifficulty，agrantmuchinferiortotheCardinal\'soriginalrequisition。\'Whattokenofservilityishere？
AndisitreasonabletosupposethatafterWolseywasconquered，andacomparativelypopularministryhadsucceeded，andthatmemorableParliamentof1529（whichMr。Froude，notunjustly，thinksmorememorablethantheLongParliamentitself）beganitsgreatworkwithahighhand，backednotmerelybytheKing，butbythepublicopinionofthemajorityofEngland，theirdecisionsarelikelytohavebeenmoreservilethanbefore？IftheyresistedtheKingwhentheydisagreedwithhim，aretheytobeaccusedofservilitybecausetheyworkedwithhimwhentheyagreedwithhim？IsanOppositionalwaysintheright;aministerialpartyalwaysinthewrong？Isitanoffenceagainstthepeopletoagreewiththemonarch，evenwhenheagreeswiththepeoplehimself？Simpleasthesequestionsare，onemustreallystoptoaskthem。