were so covertly demeaned, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved, but that yet men had it ever inwardly suspect.”  Sir Thomas goes on to affirm, “that he does not relate the story after every way that he had heard, but after that way that he had heard it by such men and such meanes as he thought it hard but it should be true.”  This affirmation rests on the credibility of certain reporters, we do not know whom, but who we shall find were no credible reporters at all:  for to proceed to the confutation.  James Tirrel, a man in no secret trust with the king, and kept down by Catesby and Ratcliffe, is recommended as a proper person by a nameless page.  In the first place Richard was crowned at York (after this transaction) September 8th.  Edward the Fourth had not been dead four months, and Richard in possession of any power not above two months, and those very bustling and active:  Tirrel must have been impatient indeed, if the page had had time to observe his discontent at the superior confidence of Ratcliffe and Catesby.  It happens unluckily too, that great part of the time Ratcliffe was absent, Sir Thomas More himself telling us that Sir Richard Ratcliffe had the custody of the prisoners at Pontefract, and presided at their execution there.  But a much more unlucky circumstance is, that James Tirrel, said to be knighted for this horrid service, was not only a knight before, but a great or very considerable officer of the crown; and in that situation had walked at Richard’s preceding coronation.  Should I be told that Sir Thomas Moore did not mean to confine the ill offices done to Tirrel by Ratcliffe and Catesby solely to the time of Richard’s protectorate and regal power, but being all three attached to him when duke of Gloucester, the other two might have lessened Tirrel’s credit with the duke even in the preceding reign; then I answer, that Richard’s appointing him master of the horse on his accession had removed those disgusts, and left the page no room to represent him as ready through ambition and despondency to lend his ministry to assassination.  Nor indeed was the master, of the horse likely to be sent to supercede the constable of the Tower for one night only.  That very act was sufficient to point out what Richard desired to, and did, it seems, transact so covertly.

(22) It appears from the Foedera that Brakenbury was appointed Constable of the Tower July 7th; that he surrendered his patent March 9th of the following year, and had one more ample granted to him.  If it is supposed that Richard renewed this patent to Sir Robert Brakenbury, to prevent his disclosing what he knew of a murder, in which he had refused to be concerned, I then ask if it is probable that a man too virtuous or too cautious to embark in an assassination, and of whom the supposed tyrant stood in awe, would have laid down his life in that usurper’s cause, as Sir Robert did, being killed on Richard’s side at Bosworth, when many other of his adherents betrayed him?