44 



Both of them were usurpers, and neither of them had any legal right 

 to the throne ; and if they had lived nearer these times, and in humble 

 life, it is not improbable that the intrepid disposition and invincible 

 courage of Eichard, might have made him a daring robber or highway- 

 man ; and the mean and avaricious propensities of Henry might have 

 caused him to become an adroit pickpocket or sordid miser. 



It was very much the fashion for historical writers who lived in the 

 times of the Tudor sovereigxis, in order to court popularity with them, 

 to calumnate Richard, blacken his memory, and in their accounts of 

 him, to represent him as a kind of monster, deformed in person and 

 malignant in mind, with not a few other strange assersions, which 

 subsequent generations have been induced to consider either as ab- 

 surdities or exaggerations. 



Upon a cool and dispassionate comparison, however, of the characters 

 of Richard III. and Henry VII., both of them wicked and unscrupulous 

 men, the contrast is not favourable to Henry. Richard committed san- 

 guinary crimes in order to obtain the crown, but even his enemies do 

 not accuse him of any tyrannical actions as a king ; Henry had not the 

 opportunity of perpetrating such offences before he obtained the crown, 

 but history is replete with instances of his tyranny and injustice during 

 the whole of his life, after he became a king. Richard possessed great 

 talents and natural capacity, but his reign was so short, that he had not 

 many opportunities of evincing his abilities for exercising the royal 

 functions, yet he passed some excellent laws for the benefit of his sub- 

 jects ; Henry was sagacious and clever in many respects, and during 

 his rather long reign, he also passed some very good laws ; but, as has 

 been correctly observed, his laws were ever calculated with a view to 

 his own profit ;^ he encouraged commerce as it improved his customs, 

 and brought money in to his subjects, which he could squeeze out 

 at pleasui-e. Richard was munificent and liberal ; Henry was mean 

 and avaricious. Richard was bold, enterprising, and courageous ; 

 Henry was timorous, selfish, and cautious. Richard and Henry, 

 however, closely resembled each other in one respect ; each of them 

 was unscrupulous, and did not hesitate, without remoree, to put to 

 death a fellow-creature who had incuri'ed his displeasure, or was an 

 obstacle to the success of his measures. 



Richard is believed to have murdered his nephews, Edward V., and 

 the young Duke of York ; and Henry is known to have inhumanly and 

 very wickedly put to death Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick ; an 

 action which has been properly designated " as vile a murder as that of 

 Edward V. ; nay, were it possible to speak in palliation of this worst of 

 ' Carte, vol. ii., p. 866. 



