in the groundwork of that revolution. He tells us, that Richard
meditating usurpation, divided the lords into two separate councils,
assembling the king's or queen's party at Baynard's castle, but
holding his own private junto at Crosby Place. From the latter he
began with spreading murmurs, whispers, and reports against the
legality of the late king's marriage. Thus far we may credit him--
but what man of common sense can believe, that Richard went so far
as publicly to asperse the honor of his own mother? That mother,
Cecily duchess dowager of York, a princess of a spotless character,
was then living: so were two of her daughters, the duchesses of
Suffolk and Burgundy, Richard's own sisters: one of them, the
duchess of Suffolk walked at his ensuing coronation, and her son the
earl of Lincoln was by Richard himself, after the death of his own
son, declared heir apparent to the crown. Is it, can it be credible,
that Richard actuated a venal preacher(12) to declare to the people
from the pulpit at Paul's cross, that his mother had been an
adultress, and that her two eldest sons,(13) Edward the Fourth and
the duke of Clarence(14) were spurious; and that the good lady had
not given a legitimate child to her husband, but the protector, and
I suppose the duchess of Suffolk, though no mention is said to be
made of her in the sermon? For as the duchess of Suffolk was older
than Richard, and consequently would have been involved in the
charge of bastardy, could he have declared her son his heir, he who
set aside his brother Edward's children for their illegitimacy?
Ladies of the least disputable gallantry generally suffer their
husbands to beget his heir; and if doubts arise on the legitimacy of
their issue, the younger branches seem most liable to suspicion--but
a tale so gross could not have passed even on the mob--no proof, no
presumption of the fact was pretended. Were the duchess(15) and
her daughters silent on so scandalous an insinuation? Agrippina