‘One of the most startling … events was the appearance, in 1838, of the first series of Froude’s _Remains_, edited by Keble and Newman jointly. It is not surprising that this publication raised a violent outcry: it gave to the world the off-hand utterances of a young enthusiast whose opinions would probably have toned down with age, but were here expressed with all the recklessness of inexperience, and were only intended, in the first instance, to be read by sympathetic friends. ‘His views on the English Reformation and Reformers were sufficiently startling. “The present Church system is an incubus upon the country”; “the Reformation was a limb badly set: it must be broken again in order to be righted”; the English Reformers generally were “a set of men with whom [I wish] to have less and less to do”; Jewel, in particular, was “an irreverent Dissenter”; Latimer, “a Martyr somewhat in the Bulteel line.” One can conceive the horror with which such sentiments would be read by men with whom “our happy Establishment in Church and State,” “our glorious Reformation,” and “our martyred Reformers” were almost articles of faith! ‘It has been thought that the Editors miscalculated the effect which the book would produce; but the theory is not very complimentary to their judgement. Surely must they have known that the glamour of Froude’s personality would not affect the general, still less the hostile, reader (and his name was legion), who would greedily seize upon any handle which could be turned, as Froude could so easily be, against the Movement. Moreover, how does it agree with the fact that when they found out their mistake, they nevertheless published in the following year, 1839, a second series as _outré_ as the first? And this they introduced with a Preface pointing out how Froude’s sagacity had anticipated all the improvements that had taken place, and representing him, not as a disturber of the people, but as a prophet indeed. This Preface is said to have been chiefly the work of Keble, and it is highly characteristic of the man, though not of the popular conception of him: for Keble was always for the bold course. ‘The other Editor, Newman, writing to his friend Frederic Rogers in July, 1837, gives six reasons why Froude’s private letters should be published; and to his Co-editor he writes at the same time: “We have often said the Movement must be enthusiastic. Now here is a man fitted above all others to kindle enthusiasm.” May it not have been that both Editors put forth the _Remains_ with their eyes perfectly wide open as to what the result would be? that they were not unwilling the _enfant terrible_ of the Movement should say his say, and startle the public? The public was startled: it took in all seriousness the audacious dicta of Froude as if they were stamped with the approval of the whole party, which it denounced with increased vigour, accordingly.