ounger
of the princes, Henry VII's neglect to confute his pretensions may have
arisen from other causes than a suspicion that he was the true duke of
York. There is no reason to suppose that his followers in England were
numerous. The belief in the murder appears to have been general. It
was mentioned as a fact by the Chancellor of France, in addressing the
estates-general which met at Tours in the following January. It was
acknowledged to be true in part by Warbeck himself, who, it has been
shown since Walpole's time, in personating the Duke of York, admitted
that his brother Edward had been murdered, though he asserted that he
himself had providentially escaped. It is evident that no one dreamed in
those days that the story of the murder was altogether a fiction. The
utmost that any well-informed person could doubt was whether it had been
successfully accomplished as to both the victims.

With regard to the confessions of Tyrell and Dighton, Bacon has certainly
spoken without warrant in stating that they were examined at the time of
Warbeck's appearance. The time when they were examined is stated by
Sir Thomas More to have been when Tyrell was confined in the Tower for
treason against Henry VII, which was in 1502, three years after Warbeck's
execution. Before that date there is no ground for believing that
Tyrell's guilt in regard to the murder was generally known. Before that
date, indeed, the world seems to have had no conception in what manner
the crime was committed, and the common story seems to have been that
Richard had put his nephews to the sword; but the confession of Tyrell at
once put an end to this surmise, and we hear of it no longer. Henry VII
assuredly did not for a long time treat him as a criminal; for not only
did he hold under Henry the office of captain of Guisnes, but he was
employed by the King in an expedition against Flanders. Nay, even after
Warbeck had been taken and confessed his imposture, Tyrell was employed
on an important embassy to Maximilian, King of the Romans. It is quite
clear, therefore, that he was never questioned about the murder in
consequence of Warbeck's pretensions. But being afterward condemned to
death on a charge of treason--not an unknown charge, as Walpole imagines,
but a charge of having treasonably aided the escape of the Earl of
Suffolk--he was then, as More says, examined about it in the Tower,
having probably made a voluntary confession of guilt to ease his
consci