It was very much the fashion for historical writers, who lived in the times of the Tudor sovereigns, in order to court popularity with them, to calumniate Richard, blacken his memory, and in their accounts of him, to represent him as a kind of monster, deformed in person, and malignant in mind, with not a few other strange assertions, which subsequent generations have been induced to consider either as absurdities or exaggerations. Upon a cool and dispassionate comparison, however, of the characters of Richard III. and Henry VII., both of them wicked and unscrupulous men, the contrast is not favourable to Henry. Richard committed sanguinary crimes, in order to obtain the crown; but even his enemies do not accuse him of any tyrannical or unjust actions, as a King: Henry had not the opportunity of perpetrating such offences before he obtained the crown; but history is replete with instances of his tyranny and injustice during the whole of his life, after he became a King. Richard possessed great talents, and natural capacity; but his reign was so short, that he had not many opportunities of evincing his abilities for exercising the royal functions; yet he passed some excellent laws for the benefit of his subjects: Henry was sagacious and clever in many respects, and during his rather long reign, he also passed some very good laws; but, as has been correctly observed, his laws were ever calculated with a view to his own profit; {175} he encouraged commerce, as it improved his customs, and brought money in to his subjects, which he could squeeze out at pleasure. {175} Richard was munificent and liberal: Henry was mean and avaricious. Richard was bold, enterprising, and courageous: Henry was timorous, selfish, and cautious. Richard and Henry, however, closely resembled each other in one respect: each of them was unscrupulous, and did not hesitate without remorse to put to death a fellow-creature who had incurred his displeasure, or was an obstacle to the success of his measures. Richard is believed to have murdered his nephews, Edward V. and the young Duke of York; and Henry is known to have inhumanly and very wickedly put to death Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick—an action which has been properly designated “as vile a murder as that of Edward V.; nay, were it possible to speak in palliation of this worst of crimes, Richard was the least culpable, for he had one temptation which Henry had not—Edward V. had an absolute right to the crown, but Warwick only a shadow.” {176a} The crime of illegally depriving a human being of life is very solemnly reprobated by Shakespeare, in his usual beautiful and powerful language:— “Erroneous vassal! the great King of kings Hath, in the table of his law, commanded, That thou shalt do no murder. Wilt thou then Spurn at his edict, and fulfil a man’s? Take heed; for he holds vengeance in his hand, To hurl upon their heads that break his law.” {176b}