Hall says, “Poore kyng Henry the Sixte, a little before deprived of hys realme and imperial croune, was now in the Tower of London spoyled of his life and all wordly felicite by Richard duke of Gloucester (as the constant fame ranne) which, to the intent that king Edward his brother should be clere out of al secret suspicyon of sudden invasion, murthered the said king with a dagger.”  Whatever Richard was, it seems he was a most excellent and kind-hearted brother, and scrupled not on any occasion to be the Jack Ketch of the times.  We shall see him soon (if the evidence were to be believed) perform the same friendly office for Edward on their brother Clarence.  And we must admire that he, whose dagger was so fleshed in murder for the service of another, should be so put to it to find the means of making away with his nephews, whose deaths were considerably more essential to him.  But can this accusation be allowed gravely? if Richard aspired to the crown, whose whole conduct during Edward’s reign was a scene, as we are told, of plausibility and decorum, would he officiously and unnecessarily have taken on himself the odium of slaying a saint-like monarch, adored by the people?  Was it his interest to save Edward’s character at the expence of his own?  Did Henry stand in his way, deposed, imprisoned, and now childless?  The blind and indiscriminate zeal with which every crime committed in that bloody age was placed to Richard’s account, makes it greatly probable, that interest of party had more hand than truth in drawing his picture.  Other cruelties, which I shall mention, and to which we know his motives, he certainly commanded; nor am I desirous to purge him where I find him guilty:  but mob-stories or Lancastrian forgeries ought to be rejected from sober history; nor can they be repeated, without exposing the writer to the imputation of weakness and vulgar credulity.

III.  The murder of his brother Clarence.

In the examination of this article, I shall set aside our historians (whose gossipping narratives, as we have seen, deserve little regard) because we have better authority to direct our inquiries:  and this is, the attainder of the duke of Clarence, as it is set forth in the Parliamentary History (copied indeed from Habington’s Life of Edward the Fourth) and by the editors of that history justly supposed to be taken from Stowe, who had seen the original bill of attainder.  The crimes and conspiracy of Clarence are there particularly enumerated, and even his dealing with conjurers and necromancers, a charge however absurd, yet often made use of in that age.  Eleanor Cobham, wife of Humphrey duke of Gloucester, had been condemned on a parallel accusation.  In France it was a common charge; and I think so late as in the reign of Henry the Eighth Edward duke of Buckingham was said to have consulted astrologers and such like cattle, on the succession of the crown.  Whether Clarence was guilty we cannot easily tell;