[22] Mr. Gairdner mentions that there is a MS. City Chronicle among the _Cottonian MSS._ (Vitell. A. xvi. f. 133), which states that Henry's body was brought to St. Paul's on Ascension Eve (May 22), '_who was slain, as it was said, by the Duke of Gloucester_.' In _MS. Arundel_, 28, in the British Museum, there is an old Chronicle, on a fly-leaf of which, at the end, there are some jottings relating to Edward IV.'s time in a contemporary hand, and among others--'_eodem die decessit Henricus sextus_,' meaning the day of Edward's arrival in London. A MS. in Heralds' College (printed by Mr. Gairdner) dates the death '_in vigilia Ascencionis Dominicæ_'; a MS. at Oxford (Laud, 674) gives the same date; a MS. in the Royal Library at the British Museum says: '_Obitus Regis Henriei Sexti, gui obiit inter vicesimum primum diem Maii et xxiim diem Maii_.' Henry's obit is set down May 22. None of these documents have any date. Their statements about May 21 are the same as those of Warkworth or Fabyan, from whom they must have been derived. But Warkworth and Fabyan are proved to be wrong by the evidence of the accounts for Henry's maintenance: and by the evidence of Polydore Virgil, as well as by the letter at Bruges. [23] Fabyan, p. 662. [24] Rous, p. 215. 'Ipsum sanctissimum virum Henricum Sextum per alios vel multis credentibus manu pocius propria interfecit.' [25] _Croyland Chron._ p. 557. [26] '_Collectarum et mansuetudinum et bonorum morum regis Henrici VI., et ex collectione magistri Joannis Blakman bacchalaurii theologiæ et post Cartusiæ monachi Londini._'--Hearne, p. 202. [27] Rymer's _Foedera_, xi. pp. 712, 713. [28] Laing, in his continuation of _Henry's History of Great Britain_, in referring to the accounts for the maintenance of Henry VI. in Rymer's _Foedera_, mistook the day on which they were audited and passed, namely June 12, for the day on which the expenses were incurred; and concluded that Henry was alive on June 12. This is triumphantly pointed out by Dr. Lingard. But the triumph is imaginary. Dr. Lingard ought to have seen that the date of auditing does not affect the question. The fact remains that Henry's board was paid, and that he was consequently alive, for fourteen days after May 11, that is until May 24, which is fatal to the story of the murder. This is shown by Bayley, who quotes the accounts in his _History of the Tower of London_, and points out that they furnish satisfactory evidence of Henry having been alive at least until May 24 (second ed. p. 323). Mr. Gairdner has suggested that the payments up to the 24th were to Henry's servants who were not discharged until then, and do not prove that Henry was alive. But this is untenable, for they are for Henry's keep as well. [29] _Work and Wages_, ii. 312. [30] _Ibid._ ii. 313.