Henry’s great son, Edward I, also appears to have been no mean master of this same art; and so, probably, might be his son, Edward II, though otherwise no great conjuror; but as to his son, Edward III, few, if any, seem to have gone beyond him in this sanative employment. _Bradwardine_, who attended him in his wars, and whose counsel is said to have contributed to his success, gives a pompous advertisement, in his book _De Causa Dei_, of the wonderful cures wrought by that prince. _F. le Brun_, however, pays no regard to this. He looks upon it as a crafty stratagem, and says, he does not doubt but that Edward’s pretensions to the crown of France excited his zeal to touch those who were diseased; which is not unlikely; princes often, when nothing but politics lie at the bottom, chusing to make religion to swim on the top. {302b} Edward’s grandson, Richard II, cannot be supposed to drop or lay aside a practice for which his grandfather and immediate predecessor on the throne had been so celebrated. Nor is it at all likely that his successors, of the rival house of Lancaster, should discontinue this practice, as that might have been construed to imply a consciousness of inferiority to the princes of the other house, or something like a defect in their own title to the crown. Least of all is it to be supposed that this practice should be dropt or neglected afterwards, on the restoration of the York line, in the person of _Edward IV_, who would naturally take care to exercise every prerogative or power supposed to have belonged to his ancestors, and which had any way contributed to their popularity, consequence, or celebrity. This monarch, though of a far less religious or devout cast than his immediate predecessor Henry VI. might not on that account be the less qualified to work these miracles, any more than _Charles II._ afterwards; who, though by his clerical subjects denominated _most religious_, was yet certainly, in fact, one of the _most irreligious_ and profligate wretches that ever wore a crown: nevertheless he unquestionably practiced the _royal touch_, as extensively, effectually, and successfully as any one whatever in the whole list of our crowned, or kingly practitioners. And why not?—as the extraordinary gift, supernatural virtue, or miraculous power, belonged entirely, it seems, to his regal quality or dignity; {303} and had nothing at all, apparently, to do with his personal or moral character.