Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 8.djvu/368

276 and the Duke of Buckingham doubtless felt that though he obtained honours, castles and manors, yet if the moveables of the Earl of Hereford were kept back, he was still defrauded of his just rights.

Sad as was his fate, we cannot lament it, as this Duke was the accomplice of some of the blackest crimes committed by Richard III.; and though he was the chief instrument of that monarch's ambition, yet his son himself admits, in the language of Shakespeare, that his noble father, Henry of Buckingham, actually "first rais'd head against usurping Richard."

From one most serious charge I am anxious to vindicate this nobleman, as it must be admitted to rest on very doubtful authority. Carte tells us that the Duke hoped to have been admitted into Richard's presence at Salisbury, designing, as his son afterwards said, to have stabbed him with a knife, provided secretly for the purpose. Carte quotes Lord Herbert as his authority. The latter refers to the articles exhibited against the last Duke of Buckingham, grounded on the evidence of his discarded steward or surveyor, Knevet. That base dependant asserted to Wolsey that the Duke would have played the part towards Henry VIII., which his father intended to have put in practice against Richard III. at Salisbury. The Scene in Shakespeare's Henry VIII., (Act. I., Scene 2) with the dignified rebuke of Queen Katherine to Knevet, when accusing his late master, will immediately recur to my readers.

The whole charge, therefore, appears to rest upon the testimony of one who betrayed his master, and who only received the report second-hand, and Lord Herbert adds, "how far these particulars were proved, and in what sort, my authors deliver not."

The reasons that prompted Duke Henry to take arms against his former friend and ally are not clearly stated. Richard and the Duke separated at Gloucester, More says, "in the most loving and trusty manner," and the Duke went to Brecknock "loaded with rich gifts and high behests." Sir James Macintosh is mistaken in his conjecture that no share in the spoils followed a share in the guilt; for though he obtained not all that he required, yet riches and honours, as