18

forth into the most touching self-accusations and upbraidings of his suit that never tried to plead for his unhappy brother. Wicked Gloster, being afraid that Edward should pardon Clarence, and that such a nice opportunity of getting rid of him would perhaps not offer itself again, had order- ed the murder in all haste, but he tries to lay the crime upon the shoulders of the queen's party, which is quite as much amazed at the unexpected news as the king himself. Gloster thus succeeds in throwing new suspicion and disaffection between the parties that just had been reconciled by Edward.

But it has been stated already before, that, in reality, there was no connexion whatever between Clarence's murder and Edward's death since both events were separated from each other by an interval of about five years, the former occurring on the 18th of February 1478, and the latter on the 9th of April 1483. It is beyond doubt that Gloucester was not at London at the death of Edward, but in the north where he had just returned from a successful inroad into Scot- land, and was preparing for a new campaign against France in order to punish Lewis XI. for having broken the treaty of Picquiny. The news of Edward'’s death was not unexpected as Edward had been ailing for some time; the lascivious life he had been indulging in for years having undermined the forces of a body that nature had endowed with uncommon beauty and strength. Edward died quite a young man, in his 41st year, in the absence of his elder son, who was staying with his uncle Rivers at Ludlow castle in Wales. When the news of Edward's death reached Gloucester, he is said to have been deeply grieved. He at once wrote to his sister-in-law assuring her of his compassion, and offering her his services. He had masses said, and a requiem performed for the repose of his brother's soul, swore the oath of allegiance to his nephew, and made the others do so too, and did all that a faithful subject could have done at such an occurrence(Pauli, Auf- sätze). Are we to believe all this to be hypocrisy? He always had been on the best terms with his brother, never cloud had obscured their protherly affection. Richard had always shown great attachment and love to his brother, and Edward returning those feelings, had overwhelmed Richard with tokens of affection and esteem. It is astonishing after all this that in after times Richard has been suspected of having had a share in the premature death of Edward by administering him a dose of poison. No, the poison that consumed Edward's body were the profligate habits he had been indulging in. Since Edward loved, and respected his brother Gloucester so much, it is not unlikely at all that, when he felt death creeping over him, he should have thought of him as the fittest person for being the protector of his son, and of the realm, and to have appointed him such, although death may have surprised him before having distinctly declared his will. And so Shakespeare represents it when Queen Elizabeth, rather in anxiety that it should be so, says:

he(Edward) is young; and his minority

Is put into the trust of Richard Gloster,

A man that loves not me, nor none of you,(Richard III. I. 3.) and when Rivers asking her:

Is it concluded he shall be Seeaon gets the answer:

It is determin'd, not concluded yet:

But so it must be if the king miscarry.(Ibid.) It was certainly the most natural measure, and in conformity with previous examples that the king's brother should be the protector of his sons. This, however, could not be agreeable to the