ON THE r.IFE AND DEATH OF EARL GODWINE. 335 iElfred was like, and finding that he had too many Normans with him, abandoned or betrayed him to Harold. Nor has that writer any business, in thus narrating the story, to put into Godwine's mouth a speech out of Henry of Huntingdon, who tells the whole tale in a completely different manner (making iElfred not come till after the death of Harthacnut) ; still less, two or three pages after, to make the whole share of Godwine in the business fabulous. If Godwine, as I imagine, came to iElfred really intending to support him, and if, during Godwine's temporary absence, Harold's emissaries carried him off, one can quite understand that the cautious Earl might think it useless to venture any further in his behalf, and might thus easily undergo the suspicion of treachery. And wlien suspicion had thus touched him, his accusation and acquittal before Harthacnut become, in them- selves, perfectly intelligible ; the only difficulty is presented by the particular form of words put into Godwine's mouth by Florence. Taken alone, one Avould infer from them that Godwine arrested iElfred at Harold's command, but that all the special barbarities were entirely the king's own act. Yet, as we have seen, it is impossible to conceive that Godwine was then in Harold's service. If he were, surely the royal command would be ample justification for merely seizing the pei'sons of uElfred and his followers, as disturbers of the peace of the realm,^ provided he was guiltless of treachery in the manner of accomplishing it, and of com- plicit} in the fiendish atrocities which followed their arrest. On the whole, the matter must remain now, as it did then, involved in obscurity and suspicion. I do not pretend to make out a demonstrative case in conclusion. favour of Godwine, but still less can such an one doubtftd^^ be made out against him. I certainly think that, amid such a mass of difficulties and conflicting statements, the great earl, every other action of whose life is that of an English patriot, is at least entitled to a verdict of Not Proven, if not of Not Guilty.' ^ Would auy officer, military or civil, case would have been just analogous to lathe service of George I. or II. have tliis view of Godwine and Harold, been blameworthy for apprehending the ' So jI. la IJutte (Dues de Normandie elder or the younger Pretender I If such i. 281) *' Cette opinion [that against God- au event had taken place, and the king, of wine] est fort contestable, et dans tons his own act, had caused the full penalties les cas, elie est fort contestee. of the law of treason to be inflicted, the
