I never heard of one; nor does my simple understanding suggest the use of such a forgery, on cases immediately pressing; because an act of attainder being a matter of public notoriety, it would be revolting to the common sense of all mankind to plead such an one’, if it had not really existed.  If it could be carried into execution by force, the force would avail without the forgery, and would be at once exaggerated and weakened by it.  I cannot, therefore, conceive why Richard should make use of so absurd a trick, unless that having so little to do in so short and turbulent a reign, he amused himself with treasuring up in the tower a forged act for the satisfaction of those who, three hundred years afterwards, should be glad of discovering new flaws in his character.  As there are men so bigoted to old legends, I am persuaded, Sir, that you would please them, by communicating your question to them.  They would rejoice to suppose that Richard was more criminal than even the Lancastrian historians represent him; and just at this moment I don’t know whether they would not believe that Mrs. Rudd assisted him.  I, who am, probably, as absurd a bigot on the other side, see nothing in the paper you have sent me, but a confirmation of Richard’s innocence of the death of Clarence.  As the Duke of Buckingham was appointed to superintend the execution, it is incredible that he should have been drowned in a butt of malmsey, and that Richard should have been the executioner.  When a seneschal of England, or as we call it, a lord high steward, is appointed for a trial, at least for execution, with all his officers, it looks very much as if, even in that age, proceedings were carried on with a little more formality than the careless writers of that time let us think.  The appointment, too, of the Duke of Buckingham for that office, seems to add another improbability [and a work of supererogation] to Richard’s forging the instrument.  Did Richard really do nothing but what tended to increase his unpopularity by glutting mankind with lies, forgeries, absurdities, which every man living could detect?  I take this opportunity, Sir, of telling you how sorry I am not to have seen you long, and how glad I shall be to renew our acquaintance, especially if you like to talk over this old story with me, though I own it is of little importance, and pretty well exhausted.(241) I am, Sir, with great regard, your obliged humble servant.

(241) To the above letter it was intended to subjoin the following queries:—­

“If there was no such Parliament held, would Richard have dared to forge an act for it?

“Would Henry vii. never have reproached him with so absurd a forgery?

“Did neither Sir T. More nor Lord Bacon ever hear of that forgery?

“As Richard declared his nephew the Earl of Warwick his successor, would he have done so, if he had forged an act of attainder of Warwick’s father?