The questions are these, 1.  Had not the queen-mother and the other heads of the York party been fully assured of the death of both the young princes, would they have agreed to call over the earl of Richmond, the head of the Lancastrian party, and marry him to the princess Elizabeth?—­I answer, that when the queen-mother could recall that consent, and send to her son the marquis Dorset to quit Richmond, assuring him of king Richard’s favour to him and her house, it is impossible to’ say what so weak and ambitious a woman would not do.  She wanted to have some one of her children on the throne, in order to recover her own power.  She first engaged her daughter to Richmond and then to Richard.  She might not know what was become of her sons:  and yet that is no proof they were murdered.  They were out of her power, whatever was become of them;-and she was impatient to rule.  If she was fully assured of their deaths, could Henry, after he came to the crown and had married her daughter, be uncertain of it?  I have shown that both Sir Thomas More and lord Bacon own it remained uncertain, and that Henry’s account could not be true.  As to the heads of the Yorkists;(47) how does it appear they concurred in the projected match?  Indeed who were the heads of that party?  Margaret, duchess of Burgundy, Elizabeth duchess of Suffolk, and her children; did they ever concur in that match?  Did not they to the end endeavour to defeat and overturn it?  I hope Mr. Hume will not call bishop Morton, the duke of Buckingham, and Margaret countess of Richmond, chiefs of the Yorkists. 2 The story told constantly by Perkin of his escape is utterly incredible, that those who were sent to murder his brother, took pity on him and granted him his liberty.—­Answer.  We do not know but from Henry’s narrative and the Lancastrian historians that Perkin gave this account.(48) I am not authorized to believe he did, because I find no authority for the murder of the elder brother; and if there was, why is it utterly incredible that the younger should have been spared? 3.  What became of him during the course of seven years from his supposed death till his appearance in 1491?—­Answer.  Does uncertainty of where a man has been, prove his non-identity when he appears again?  When Mr. Hume will answer half the questions in this work, I will tell him where Perkin was during those seven years. 4.  Why was not the queen-mother, the duchess of Burgundy, and the other friends of the family applied to, during that time, for his support and education?—­Answer.  Who knows that they were not applied to?  The probability is, that they were.  The queen’s dabbling in the affair of Simnel indicates that she knew her son was alive.  And when the duchess of Burgundy is accused of setting Perkin to work, it is amazing that she should be quoted as knowing nothing about him. 5.  Though the duchess of Burgundy at last acknowledged him for her nephew, she had lost all pretence to authority by her former acknowledgment