[2] Yet Dr. Lingard tells us that 'Henry was careful not to stain his triumph with blood.' This is a strange assertion, when it is directly followed by the admission that he did stain his triumph with blood. Of all his prisoners,' he continues, 'three only suffered death, the notorious [why notorious?] Catesby and two persons of the name of Brecher, who _probably_ had merited that distinction by their crimes' (iv. p. 260). This is a pure assumption, unwarranted by any evidence whatever. If the word 'loyalty' had been substituted for 'crimes,' Dr. Lingard would have been nearer the truth. All that this historian's praise amounts to is that Henry refrained from committing a massacre, such as he caused to be perpetrated on a subsequent occasion, when Warbeck's followers landed in Kent. Mr. Gairdner says: 'Whether these executions were just is another question, save that the ministers of a bad king must take the responsibility even of his worst deeds' (p. 311). He evidently sees that Henry's conduct is indefensible; and he has elsewhere admitted that Richard was not a bad King. The more impartial Hutton says: 'Thus the first regal act performed by Henry was an act of tyranny' (_Bosworth_, p. 148). [3] 'For men remember not any King of England before that tyme which used such a furniture of daily soldiers.'--Hall, p. 425. [4] Gairdner. [5] 'De jure belli et de jure Lancastriæ.' [6] _Rot. Parl._ vi. 289_a_. The monk of Croyland had a copy, but luckily for him, he was not found out. [7] _Plumpton Correspondence_. Letter dated December 13, 1485 (p. 49). [8] Translation by Mr. Gairdner in his _Henry VII._ (p. 38). [9] 11 Henry VII. cap. 1 (1496). It was enacted that no person serving the King and Sovereign Lord of the land for the time being shall be convicted of high treason, nor suffer any forfeiture or imprisonment. In the previous year the usurper, also no doubt from fear of public opinion, had paid 10_l._ 1_s._ to James Keyley for King Richard's tomb (_Excerp. Hist._ p. 105). [10] Grant to John of Gloucester of an annual rent of 20_l._ during the King's pleasure, from the revenues of the manor of Kingston Lacey, parcel of the Duchy of Lancaster in the county of Dorset. March 1 1486.--_Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII._ i. [11] 'About the same time there was a base-born son of King Richard III. made away, having been kept long in prison.'--Buck, p. 105, from _Chron. MS._ in 4to. apud _Dr. Rob. Cotton_. [12] Rymer, xii. p. 265. [13] A critic, after reading this work, objected that partiality was shown by the fact that while the older writers are blamed for blackening Richard's character in other ways, in order to make the charge of murdering the princes more plausible, precisely the same thing is done with Henry VII. But the other charges against Henry are proved and acknowledged facts. Those against Richard have been disproved. The older writers are justly blamed for inventing calumnies. [14] Fabyan.