ley, Duke of York, who married Isabella, daughter | Hume, writing without any great regard to the acand co-heiress of Peter, King of Castile and Leon. curacy of his statements, or the contrary, follows John of Gaunt had married her sister, so that there both. There does not seem to be the smallest was a double connection between the houses of reason to believe that either of the "king's brothYork and Lancaster, which for a brief period servers" had the slightest share in the death of the ed to keep them from coming to any direct issue. young prince. The probability is that he was killed York, however, could not forget the usurpation of in the battle, no person, particularly, being responLancaster. The Earl of Cainbridge, the Duke of sible for his death. The grand author of the imYork's second son, married the lady Ann Morti-putation was Polydore Virgil, who was employed mer, sister to the Earl of March and granddaugh- by Henry VII., to write the history of the period, ter of the Earl of Clarence, mentioned above. and who, of course, gave it such a color as would They immediately began to advocate the rights of suit his royal patron. primogeniture which had been abandoned (tacitly) The next charge against Gloucester is that he by Edward Mortimer. This nobleman had died murdered, with his own hand, the unfortunate Henry childless, and his rights became vested in Richard VI. That monarch, who was confined in the tower, Plantagenet, the only son of the Duke of Cam- certainly died on the day of the battle of Tewkesbridge, (mentioned above.) and the lady Ann Mor- bury; but there is no reason to believe that Gloutimer. This prince, having entered into a conspi-cester had any particular share in his death. The racy with the Lord Treasurer Scroop and Sir scene in Shakspeare, in which he is represented Thomas Gray to dethrone Henry V.. was tried as holding his final interview with the aged monfor treason and beheaded, in the year 1415, at arch, is one of the most powerful he has drawn, Southampton. and one from the effects of which it is least easy to disabuse the public mind; yet there has never been any direct testimony that the duke of Gloucester ever saw Henry VI. after the battle of

the battle; Gloucester commanded his brother's forces on that day. Is it probable that he would have left so important a command, travelled post to London, through the midst of people, many of whom must have belonged to the enemy, and all for the purpose of assassinating an old and feeble man whose cause, at the best, was entirely prostrate, and who had nothing farther to oppose to the claims of his rival? It is impossible to believe it! The interview between Gloucester and the widow

The Duke of Cambridge was much beloved, particularly by his own race, and his death begot a degree of hatred between the two families, which never subsided. The families of York and Cla- Tewkesbury. That monarch died on the night of rence, already united by marriage, formed an alliance against the house of Lancaster, which led to that struggle, well known in history as the war of the Roses. The son and heir of the Duke of York, (Edmund Langley) was killed at the battle of Agincourt; he left no issue and consequently the infant heir of the Duke of Cambridge, recently executed, became the heir of all the family honors, titles and estates. In consequence, however, of his father's rebellion, his honors and titles were suppressed by the strong arm of an act of Parliament. This of the young prince of Wales, (the lady Ann of Duke of York was the father of Edward IV., of Shakspeare,) is described with glowing effect, unClarence, and of Richard III., all characters per-doubtedly, by the poet. It is not known to the fectly well known to the readers of Shakspeare. majority of readers, that "the lady Ann" was the The fate of Henry VI. has excited much com- daughter of the Earl of Warwick, (the King mamiseration from the graphic representation of ker,) that she had been raised from her infancy Shakspeare. This in connection with the death of with her cousin, the Duke of Gloucester,--that she his son, prince Edward, is the first crime with had been only betrothed, and never actually marwhich Richard, at that time Duke of Gloucester, is ried to the young prince of Wales--that there is charged. At the time of the battle of Barnet, the every reason to believe, that an attachment had same in which prince Edward was slain, the Duke been formed between the cousins from early childof Gloucester was eighteen years old; an age at hood-that the Duke of Clarence, who married the which cruelty is not natural to the mind of most elder sister, in order to secure the property of the men, and at which there is no reason to believe younger, had left her in the condition of a scullion, that it had taken possession of that of the person and that she was found in that situation by the in question. As to the murder of the young prince, Duke of Gloucester, who not only relieved her, but it is sufficient merely to say, that the eldest of the married her. The play of Shakspeare makes chroniclers who has mentioned the event, represents Richard accost her as she was attending the corpse him as having been slain by the “king's servants." of Henry VI. to Tutbury; that was clearly imThe Tudor historians substituted the word "broth- possible, since the body was conveyed, by water, ers" for "servants;" and thus the whole offence and at midnight; thus rendering it utterly incomis laid upon the Duke of Clarence and Gloucester, patible with all that we can imagine of the true but more especially on the latter. Shakspeare, characters of Shakspeare's description. If the following Holinshed, adopted his prejudices, and reader will only take into consideration the fact,

that at the time of all these transactions Richard was in his nineteenth year, he will be able to estimate the value of history, especially history of the middle ages.

Violent prejudice was thus, of course, excited against him who had been the perpetrator of so foul a crime. The ballad-writer, who was no doubt a strong partisan, did not venture to mention names; The next crime, of magnitude, attributed to he did what was far more effectual; he threw the Richard is, we believe, the murder of his brother, thing into rhyme and left room for the imagination the Duke, (or Earl as it was at that day,) of Cla- to work. At the same time it was perfectly unrence. It is certain, however, that at the time of derstood, all over the nation, who was meant. The Clarence's death, the Duke of Gloucester had been cruel uncle who, in order to obtain possession of his for six years in the north of England-that he had brother's property, carried his children to the woods been engaged in no possible manner with any po- and there left them to perish-even the robin redlitical party--and that he had no earthly object, as breast, which covered them up with leaves when things then stood, to gain by the perpetration of they were on the point of death, was all understood such a deed. Clarence appears to have been a at the time to bear directly upon the treatment suplight, wavering, uncertain character--a man of posed to have been extended by the Duke of Gloulittle principle and of no common sense. His de-cester to his nephews. The theme was a popular sertion of his own party and his alliance with War- one. It possessed all the qualities which could wick are evidence enough of this truth. But that make it run like wildfire." There was pathos in the Duke of Gloucester ever entertained any fear it-there was interest for the young friends in it— of him, is too absurd for consideration. It may there was political feeling in it-there was every give the readers of Shakspeare and of Hume, who thing, in short, to make it popular; and yet we have been in the habit of indulging their sympa- think any person who will read Mrs. Halsted's thies at the expense of Richard, some pleasure to book will discover in a very few hours, that there know, that after all, he was not drowned in a butt is not the slightest reason to think that Richard of malmsey. He was regularly executed, on the was ever guilty of any of the acts attributed to contrary, according to law-left the world "qui-him, so far as the fate of his nephews, at least, is etly," to use a phrase of Captain Dalgetty, by suf- involved. We should be glad, if for no other focation, after the manner of a great many of his reason yet for the sake of Shakspeare, and our fathers. We learn not from this book, nor from old friend Booth, to believe, since the thing hapWalpole's, the nature of the cord which served to pened so long ago, that Richard actually was the extinguish the line of so many heroes. All we scoundrel that Shakspeare made him out, and that know is, that Richard had no hand in twisting it. Booth, occasionally, represents him to have been. The most singular of all the misconceptions con- But we bow to Mr. Booth; we ask pardon of Shaksnected with the name of Richard III., is the idea peare; and we say to both, speaking as though we that he was ever in any way unkind to his wife--that were lawyers, make out your case gentlemen, behe ever had the most remote intention of murder-fore you call the witnesses into court; and after ing her. It is established by Mrs. Halsted's testimony, collected from the most approved records, that he lived in wedlock ten years with her-that the harmony of their lives was never interrupted, and that she died a natural death, after having borne several children. From the same testimony we are induced to believe that the attachment between the two commenced at an early age, and that it never subsided. It certainly was never interrupted for ten years, the whole period of Richard's residence in the North of England as Governor of that portion of his brother's territories.

they are there, see who it is that you examine. There is a rule of law, we have always heard, that when a witness comes into court, he should come with clean hands. What sort of hands would they exhibit, who have testified against Richard III. ?

The truth is, and we think it will be so understood by any candid man, that there is no proof of Richard's having murdered his nephews; that Perkin Warbeck was really the son of Edward IV., we have not the smallest doubt. But look at the motives for suppressing the fact! Henry VII., the avowed heir of the whole Lancasterian factionThe charge of Richard's having murdered his not only of their property, but of their prejudices nephews, the young sons of Edward IV., is de-also-was on the throne at the time Warbeck serving of far more notice. The popular ballad made his appearance and was received by the king of the "Babes in the Wood" is derived entirely of Scotland as the true heir of the English crown. from this. One good song is enough to neutral- He is said to have borne every trait of having been ize all history. "Give me," says Swift, "the bal- the son of Edward IV.; yet he is denounced in lads of the nation, and I care not who writes its all the English journals of those eventful days laws." How much truth is there in this simple as an impostor! What was the reason? Is it paragraph! This very ballad, understood as it not obvious to all? Henry was of the house of was by the people of England, was of itself enough Lancaster. His disposition was very imperious— to set the hearts of the English people forever he could not bear opposition, and the historian who against Richard III. wrote concerning him, his enemies, or his acts,

was bound to keep a sharp lookout, or he might hero; Richard, his opponent, was a tyrant of the chance to wake up some morning and find a very worst description. The history of Henry "lion playing with his head," just as the Eng- VII. is before the world; that of Richard III. is

lish gentleman who kept a tiger as his pet, woke involved in impenetrable darkness. The friends of up and found that interesting specimen of the qua- the house of York did not dare to express their druped family, dandling the head of his valet, as sympathies for their fallen chief; the friends of the though it were nothing more than a trap-ball, for House of Lancaster did not hesitate to cast every which he retained the fondness natural to one who epithet of horror and hatred upon the unhappy had ever been addicted to that manner of sport. representative of the House of York. Sir Thomas Civilized beasts, however, are more dangerous More, Lord Bacon, Holinshed, Shakspeare, and than even those of the forests; and so, beyond last of all, Davy Hume, have done more to damn doubt, did Sir Thomas More find it. He might all modern history in the eyes of men who have have gotten out of the way of a tiger; he would been accustomed to look on it as a true representahave found it very hard to escape the long claws tion of things that actually did occur, than all the of the Tudor lion. He thought, beyond doubt, other falsifiers of history combined. that there was little wisdom in trifling with a crea- The death of Richard III. as is proved by Mrs. Halture who possessed such terrific powers; his in- sted, was as undeserved as his life had been misstinct would have kept him out of reach of the ti- represented. Betrayed by his pretended friendsger. Something very much of the same nature meeting with nothing but enemies abroad, and traikept him beyond the spring of the beasts that walk-tors at home-he fell sword in hand at the head of ed upon two legs. It was his aim to vilify the his array. How should so gallant an enemy have house of York. It has never been the aim of other been treated by the brave and magnanimous Richhistorians to correct it. He was the man to whom mond? When Sir John Moore fell at Corunna the all this vilification of Richard has been owing. French commander, Marshal Soult, raised a mon. "As Nathan said unto David, 'Thou art the man." ument to his memory. When Richard, the last A brief statement of the evidence, we think, will monarch of the race of Plantagenet, fell, his body be sufficient to satisfy any, even the most scepti- was borne to Leicester-not on the back of a horse cal, on the subject of this very interesting pas- but under his belly--and there buried with every sage in history. mark of hatred and scorn which it was possible to conceive.

White

lowed to take a look behind the scenes, he might have found that there were other persons as much to blame as Varro.

In the year 1674, (during the reign of Charles II.) it was found necessary to rebuild the We have already said that there have been scapeTower" at the foot of the stairs, in the precise goats in history through all time; when Hannibal spot where the sons of Edward IV. were repre-invaded Italy, and Varro with his ninety thousand sented to have been buried, one hundred and ninety men fell before him, the fault was attributed enyears before-two skeletons were found, which tirely to Varro; perhaps if any man had been alwere thought to correspond to the age of the two children, (one of them was thirteen and the other eleven.) Sir Thomas More had suspected-Holinshed went a little farther-Shakspeare, like a Upon the whole, after having read, many years true dramatist, had no doubt, and to clinch the mat- ago, the "Historic Doubts" and more recently ter, Sandford actually saw the skeletons of two chil- the history of Mrs. Halsted, we are led to the dren which were disinterred at the foot of the conclusion that history has been guilty of much "Tower Stairs!" Here is a case for a lawyer!! injustice to this very celebrated character--celeand if any from any portion of our country-Phila- brated perhaps in a way no man would particularly delphia or elsewhere--(we say Philadelphia be- desire. It seems to us to prove how little faith is cause we have always heard them spoken of as at best to be placed in history. The very personal men scarcely less skilled in the solution of knotty appearance of the man in question has been a subpropositions than Ædipus himself)-will undertake ject of reproach; he has been called by many histo convict any human being for any offence, how-torians "Richard Crookback." By Queen Marever slight-upon such testimony, then we must con-garet he is represented in the play of Henry VI. as fess that their notions of law are very different from ours. Richard may have murdered his nephews or he may not, we pretend not to be positive upon and yet there is no reason to believe, from any conany such contested point-all we say is "prove be- temporary evidence, that Richard was either defore ye print." Harder things even than that may formed or more "hard-favored" than the generality be proved against the "NOBLE RICHMOND;" in of persons. The truth is that he has been unfortuother words, King Henry VII., the very worst man nate, and that with the majority of the world is a sufwho ever sat on an English throne. It is aston- ficient warrant for any degree of infamy it may be ishing to what degree prejudices will carry us all! pleased to attribute to the unhappy party. The Richmond, with the readers of Shakspeare, was a times in which he lived were highly excited-he

"Hard favored Richard,"