Burgundy, whose son about this time married his sister Margaret, and Warwick seconding the views of Louis XI. to whom he had lately been sent upon a special mission, and whose ambassadors now accompanied him to England with a view of preventing their alliance with Burgundy. According to Comines, Warwick was in league with Louis.* What discontents existed were apparently assuaged in January, 1468, when the Archbishop and Lord Rivers met for that purpose, and Warwick openly escorted Margaret towards the coast.† By this time Clarence had united himself with Warwick, probably from sharing with him the jealousy of the Widvilles, and discontented at his brother's opposition to his marriage with Isabel Neville. This marriage took place in July, 1469. An insurrection soon broke out in the north, in the course of which the father and the brother of the queen were put to death. The Nevilles were suspected, how justly, it is really impossible to pronounce, of encouraging this outbreak. After a summons, in which Edward's suspicions were pretty plainly insinuated, Warwick and Clarence joined * In Petitot, xii. 23-4. He says that the court of Burgundy was the refuge of the Lancastrian exiles. He mentions particularly Somerset (Edmund Beaufort), and Exeter (Henry Holland), the latter begging his bread from door to door. + Lingard, 189; W. Wyrc., 510. the king in England, and treated him as a prisoner. But all this was previous to the espousal of Henry's cause by Warwick and to the renewal of the war between York and Lancaster. For it is remarkable, that while Edward was a captive, Warwick marched against and defeated a body of Lancastrians, who raised the standard of Henry on the Scottish borders.* Soon after this, Edward was set free; with the consent, as some suppose, of Warwick himself, who obtained from him the office of Justiciary of South Wales. Others say, that the Archbishop let him escape. After this the two confederates were ostensibly reconciled to the king, and obtained a pardon for all offences committed. The king even visited the Archbishop of York at his country-seat, but suddenly left the place on an information of intended treachery. Whether this was true or false, the quarrel now became mortal. An insurrection broke out in Lincolnshire, encouraged, it is said, by Clarence and Warwick; it was defeated; they were summoned by the king in March, 1470, to come in and vindicate themselves, if possible. obeying this call, they were declared traitors,+ but escaped to France. And then it was that Warwick was reconciled to Margaret, and * Lingard, 195. + Rymer, xi. Rolls, vi. 233. § July or August, 1470. Ellis, Second Series, i. 132. Not espoused the cause of the house of Lancaster. But this reconciliation was not effected easily, as Shakspeare has it. Many days elapsed before Warwick's excuses and Louis's persuasions brought the highspirited Queen to agree to the connexion. Clarence and the Earl landed in Devonshire, and marched northward in pursuit of Edward, who receiving information of their approach while he lay at Doncaster, fled precipitately to Flanders. The new confederates then proceeded to London, and released King Henry from the Tower. A parliament was held,* and now again Edward became the usurper, and the Yorkists were subjected to attainder. Edward rallied, being secretly supported by the Duke of Burgundy, and landed in Yorkshire,―at the very place, Ravenspur, it is said, where the first of the Lancastrian kings had disembarked; and like him, Edward at first disclaimed-though he could scarcely expect to be believed his pretensions to the crown; vowing that he sought only his paternal inheritance as Duke of York. It is even said, he raised the cry of Long live King Henry,' and wore in his own cap the ostrich feather of the Prince of Wales.† Some historians affirm, with doubtful accuracy, that the municipal autho * Westm., 26 Nov. 1470. Rolls, vi. 191. rities of York, required him to abjure his pretensions to the crown on the high altar of the cathedral.* Clarence continued with his father-in-law but for a short time after his open declaration in favour of Henry. He was, however, a professed Lancastrian long enough to be declared by Parliament heir to the crown after Henry and his son, to the exclusion of his elder brother.† Nevertheless, he transferred to the side of his brother the forces which he had raised in the cause of his rival, and once more assumed the badge of York. I have thought it right to give this sketch of the history, upon a very general notion of which the play is founded; but the truth is, that the histories are not much more precise than the drama; and it is not possible in every case to compare the two. Returning to the play, we find the Lancastrian *The Restoration" says (p. 5), nothing of this oath, nor does Leland's MS. It is from Pol. Verg. Fabyan says, 660, that he professed only to claim his dukedom, and confirmed it with an oath. Bruce says truly, that he is poor authority. Comines says, liv. 3, ch. 7. in Petitot, xii. 46, that Edward on landing, went straight to London. ↑ Rolls, vi. 194. "It is told me by the under sheriff, that the lord of Clarence is gone to his brother, late king, insomuch that his men have the gorget on their breasts, and the rose over it." Fenn, ii. 62; Lingard (207) says, the white rose, I know not on what authority. force in Warwickshire, under Warwick and Oxford, with their French auxiliaries. These are joined by Clarence and Somerset, when the marriage with the daughter of Warwick is agreed upon. Edward's camp is in the neighbourhood, very ill guarded; he is surprised and taken prisoner. Being placed in the custody of Archbishop Neville, at Middleham, in Yorkshire, he is liberated, while hunting, by Gloucester, with Sir John Stanley and others. These improbable events, excepting always as to Gloucester, who is improperly brought into every occurrence, are taken from Holinshed.* Some historians disbelieve them, but Lingard, on the authority of one contemporary, and an ambiguous record,t gives credence to the statement of the captivity of Edward. The error of the dramatist consists in placing the event after the junction between Margaret and Warwick. There is no authority for the mode of escape, which, on the contrary, is said to have occurred with the consent of the Earl of Warwick. There is, in the whole transaction, a mystery which I cannot solve. When released, Edward did not, as in the play, fly to Lynn, and thence to Flanders; that flight was in 1470. There is another anachronism in *P. 293. + Rolls, vi. 193, where Edward, in enumerating Clarence's offences, says, that he put him in strait ward. |