confined to the enumeration of offences only committed after the
general amnesty in 1469;" and then, surely with some inconsistency,
quotes the attainder of Clarence many years afterwards, in which the
king enumerates it among his offences, "as jeopardyng the king's royal
estate, person, and life, in strait warde, putting him thereby from
all his libertye after procuring great commotions." But it is clear
that if the amnesty hindered Edward from charging Warwick with this
imprisonment only one year after it was granted, it would, a fortiori,
hinder him from charging Clarence with it nine years after. Most
probable is it that this article of accusation does not refer to any
imprisonment, real or supposed, at Middleham, in 1469, but to
Clarence's invasion of England in 1470, when Edward's state, person,
and life were jeopardized by his narrow escape from the fortified
house, where he might fairly be called "in straite warde;" especially
as the words, "after procuring great commotions," could not apply to
the date of the supposed detention in Middleham, when, instead of
procuring commotions, Clarence had helped Warwick to allay them, but
do properly apply to his subsequent rebellion in 1470. Finally,
Edward's charges against his brother, as Lingard himself has observed
elsewhere, are not proofs, and that king never scrupled at any
falsehood to serve his turn. Nothing, in short, can be more improbable
than this tale of Edward's captivity,--there was no object in it. At
the very time it is said to have taken place, Warwick is absolutely
engaged in warfare against the king's foes. The moment Edward leaves
Middleham, instead of escaping to London, he goes carelessly and
openly to York, to judge and execute the very captain of the rebels
whom Warwick has subdued, and in the very midst of Warwick's armies!
Far from appearing to harbour the natural resentment so vindictive a
king must have felt (had so great an indignity been offered to him),
almost immediately after he leaves York, he takes the Nevile family