corroborate this last theory he refers to the story of Chapuys that Cromwell was ill-behaved when young, and was forced after an imprisonment to leave the country, and also asserts, in order still further to strengthen his case, that ‘the Court Rolls contain nothing more respecting Thomas Cromwell than what we have already stated[20].’ It seems very extraordinary that Mr. Phillips should make this last statement in view of his readiness to jump at the conclusion that Thomas Smyth and Thomas Cromwell are identical. ‘Thomas Smyth,’ as a very cursory examination of the Court Rolls will show, is mentioned therein every year from 1493 to 1529 (inclusive), except in 1494 and 1516. As there is certain evidence that Thomas Cromwell was in other places during many of the years that Thomas Smyth was in Wimbledon, it is clear that the two names cannot always stand for the same man. The question which now arises is this: were there two Thomas Smyths, one of them Thomas Cromwell and the other some other member of the Smyth family, perhaps a descendant of William Smyth, armourer? Or is the Thomas Smyth mentioned in the Court Rolls one man, and not Thomas Cromwell at all? The second theory seems on the whole more probable than the first. There are no contradictory statements about Thomas Smyth in the rolls, nor is the name mentioned twice in any of the lists of the Homage or Frank Pledge. Moreover had there been two Thomas Smyths, one of whom was entitled to the name Cromwell, he would almost certainly have been called so, in order to avoid confusion. On the other hand, it scarcely seems likely that the son of Walter Cromwell should not be mentioned at all in the Court Rolls. But this may be partially explained by Chapuys’ account of his youthful wildness and early imprisonment; it seems quite probable that he was a mere boy when he left his home. The evidence which we possess certainly seems to strengthen the conclusion that there was but one Thomas Smyth: the man mentioned in the Court Rolls by that name was probably a descendant of William Smyth, armourer[21]. Surely none of the entries in the manorial records concerning Thomas Smyth can be said to prove anything conclusive concerning the early life of the subject of this essay. It has been the fashion to decry Bandello and Foxe and to disbelieve all their stories, because of the undoubted confusion of dates which vitiates their testimony. But if no reliance can be placed on them, or on Pole, Chapuys, and the chronicles of the period, must we not confess that our knowledge of the early years of our subject’s life must reduce itself to an interrogation point? Let us guard ourselves against accepting with implicit faith the statements of these authors, but let us not cast them aside as utterly worthless. Let us rather recognize that they still remain our most trustworthy sources of information concerning the early life of Thomas Cromwell, and