[#] Boots.
"Eh, dear heart! but my poor Lady—I am sorry for her!"
"So am I," said Philip, suddenly dropping his mask of light nonchalance, and becoming another man. "So am I, Mistress Marston: and trust me, I am worser than sorry for the Lady Anne, that is wed against her will and allowing to the man she hated most. Eh, well! God be lauded in all His works!"
And Philip turned into the inn, without vouchsafing any explanation of the manner in which he meant his words to be taken.
His news was only too true. The poor Countess of Warwick, the richest heiress in England, had been stripped of every penny of her vast inheritance by the rapacious greed of her own sons-in-law. Their cruel and wicked deed was formally sanctioned by Act of Parliament about a year later—May 9th, 1474—by which statute it was decreed that George Duke of Clarence and Isabel his wife, and Richard Duke of Gloucester and Anne his wife, were to have and hold all possessions of the said Countess "as if she were naturally dede, and the said Countess is to be barrable, barred, and excluded as well of all jointours, dower, actions, executions, right, title, and interesse, of, in, and for all honours, lordships, castles, manors, etc., as were at any time the said Earl's her husband:" and "the said dukes and their said wives may make partition of all the premisses."[#] More sweeping language could scarcely be. No notice was taken of poor Lady Warwick's piteous allegation of "noon offence by her doon," nor of her fervent assurance that she had "duly kept her fidelity and ligeance, and obeyed the King's commandments." Naboth's title to his vineyard, even though Divine, was accounted of small matter, so long as King Ahab wanted it for a garden of herbs.
[#] Patent Roll, 14 Edw. IV.
How Lady Warwick lived through the next twelve years is not recorded. We only know that she had nothing to live on. Perhaps, like Warwick's sister, his widow kept herself alive by means of her needle, deeming herself happy when she could buy a few yards of serge for a new dress, while her daughters were decked with pearls and diamonds, and trailed velvet and ermine trains over palace floors. One of the daughters at least was not to blame. The Duchess Anne of Gloucester was as helpless in her palace as her destitute mother in her northern refuge. Gloucester kept her in watch and ward as closely as if she had been his prisoner, which in fact she was: for the first three years of her hated marriage were spent in perpetual efforts to escape its cruel toils. The Act of Parliament just quoted contains the significant entry that if a divorce shall take place between Gloucester and Anne, he shall nevertheless continue to enjoy her property as if she were still his wife, so long as he "doo his effectuell diligence and continuell deuoir by all conuenient and laufull meanes to be lawfully maried to the said Anne." No words could have shown more plainly that the caged bird was constantly working at the fastenings of the cage, and that the jailer was afraid lest it should compass its end some time.
Less than this can be said for Isabel of Clarence. She was in no durance, and her influence over her husband was great. She was, in fact, the only person who was permanently able to do any thing with Clarence. It is difficult to believe that if she had chosen to exert herself, some small pension at least—which would have made all the difference between comfort and care—should not have been conferred on her lonely and destitute mother. But she did it not. Are we justified in assuming that it was by more than fortuitous coincidence or the action of sanitary laws, that her days were not long in the land?
"God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
CHAPTER XII.