etimes of one
false rumor, sometimes of another? Sir Thomas More mentions the one
rumor as well as the other, and treats them both lightly, as they
deserved. It is also thought incredible by Mr. Carte, that Dr. Shaw
should have been encouraged by Richard to calumniate openly his mother
the duchess of York, with whom that prince lived in good terms. But if
there be any difficulty in this supposition, we need only suppose, that
Dr. Shaw might have concerted in general his sermon with the protector
or his ministers, and yet have chosen himself the particular topics, and
chosen them very foolishly. This appears, indeed, to have been the case,
by the disgrace into which he fell afterwards, and by the protector's
neglect of him. (2.) If Sir Thomas's quality of contemporary be disputed
with regard to the duke of Glocester's protectorate, it cannot possibly
be disputed with regard to Perkin's imposture: he was then a man, and
had a full opportunity of knowing and examining and judging of the
truth. In asserting that the duke of York was murdered by his uncle,
he certainly asserts, in the most express terms, that Perkin, who
personated him, was an impostor. (3.) There is another great genius who
has carefully treated this point of history; so great a genius, as to
be esteemed with justice one of the chief ornaments of the nation,
and indeed one of the most sublime writers that any age or nation has
produced. It is Lord Bacon I mean, who has related at full length, and
without the least doubt or hesitation, all the impostures of Perkin
Warbeck. If it be objected, that Lord Bacon was no contemporary, and
that we have the same materials as he upon which to form our judgment;
it must be remarked, the lord Bacon plainly composed his elaborate and
exact history from many records and papers which are now lost, and that
consequently he is always to be cited as an original historian. It were
very strange, if Mr. Carte's opinion were just, that, among all the
papers which Lord Bacon perused, he never found any reascn to suspect
Perkin to be the true Plantagenet. There was at that time no interest
in defaming Richard III. Bacon, besides, is a very unbiased historian,
nowise partial to Henry; we know the detail of that prince's oppressive
government from him alone. It may only be thought that, in summing up
his character, he has laid the colors of blame more faintly than the
very facts he mentions seem to require. Let me remark, in passing, a