But it is needless to multiply presumptions.  Henry’s conduct and the narrative (40) he published, are sufficient to stagger every impartial reader.  Lord Bacon confesses the king did himself no good by the publication of that narrative, and that mankind was astonished to find no mention in it of the duchess Margaret’s machinations.  But how could lord Bacon stop there?  Why did he not conjecture that there was no proof of that tale?  What interest had Henry to manage a widow of Burgundy?  He had applied to the archduke Philip to banish Perkin:  Philip replied, he had no power over the lands of the duchess’s dowry.  It is therefore most credible that the duchess has supported Perkin, on the persuasion he was her nephew; and Henry not being able to prove the reports he had spread of her having trained up an impostor, chose to drop all mention of Margaret, because nothing was so natural as her supporting the heir of her house.  On the contrary, in Perkin’s confession, as it was called, And which though preserved by Grafton, was suppressed by lord Bacon, not only as repugnant to his lordship’s account, but to common sense, Perkin affirms, that “having sailed to Lisbon in a ship with the lady Brampton, who, lord Bacon says, was sent by Margaret to conduct him thither, and from thence have resorted to Ireland, it was at Cork that they of the town first threaped upon him that he was son of the duke of Clarence; and others afterwards, that he was the duke of York.”  But the contradictions both in lord Bacon’s account, and in Henry’s narrative, are irreconcileable and unsurmountable:  the former solves the likeness,(41) which is allowing the likeness of Perkin to Edward the Fourth, by supposing that the king had an intrigue with his mother, of which he gives this silly relation:  that Perkin Warbeck, whose surname it seems was Peter Osbeck, was son of a Flemish converted Jew (of which Hebrew extraction,(42) Perkin says not a word in his confession) who with his wife Katherine de Faro come to London on business; and she producing a son, king Edward, in consideration of the conversion, or intrigue, stood godfather to the child and gave him the name of Peter, Can one help laughing at being told that a king called Edward gave the name of Peter to his godson?  But of this transfretation and christening Perkin, in his supposed confession, says not a word, nor pretends to have ever set foot in England, till he landed there in pursuit of the crown; and yet an English birth and some stay, though in his very childhood, was a better way of accounting for the purity of his accent, than either of the preposterous tales produced by lord Bacon or by Henry.  The former says, that Perkin, roving up and down between Antwerp and Tournay and other towns, and living much in English company, had the English tongue perfect.  Henry was so afraid of not ascertaining a good foundation of Perkin’s English accent, that he makes him learn the language twice over.(43) “Being sent with a merchant