But this is not all: for Stowe affords us but one instance of the cure of a blind man by King Edward; whereas the Abbot's account[192] extends to six men totally blind, besides another who had lost one of his eyes; all of whom were restored to perfect sight by the King[193].
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR
Had business enough upon his hands to employ his time, without thinking of such a matter as this; but however, that he might, in quieter times, enjoy this Kingly attribute (though only a Bastard Son of a Territorial Duke), Voltaire tells us, that some dependants endeavoured to persuade the world, that this Gift was bestowed upon him from Heaven[194]. Whether he ever exercised it does not appear. Nothing but a special bounty of Heaven could convey to him this privilege; and such interference was necessary; for it was anciently held not to be inherent in any but lawful Kings, and not to extend to Usurpers; so that it must have slept during all the wars between the Houses of York and Lancaster, till resumed by Henry VII. as will be mentioned in its place.
EDWARD III.
Mr. Joshua Barnes, the most copious Historiographer of this Reign, does not positively say that King Edward exercised this Gift, presuming only that he had a double right to it, as Heir to both the Realms of England and of France; and, consequently, more eminently endowed than Philip of Valois, the then French King[195]. The French, no doubt, would deny it to him, as an usurping claimant of their Crown; though they could not refuse his right, as derived to him as a legal King of England.
HENRY VI.
I have already conceived the Gift of healing by the Touch to have been, as it were, in abeyance during the Civil Wars between the Houses of York and Lancaster; and therefore have found no historical record of Cures performed by this Saint-like King, who had such ample religious claims. I have called him Saint-like, because he never was canonized, though it was attempted and refused by the Pope in the Reign of Henry VII. for reasons to be seen in Fuller's Church History of Britain[196].
Two reasons against the canonization are suggested by different Writers:—1. That the then Pope thought King Henry VI. too simple to be sainted:—2. That the contingent expence amounted to more than King Henry VII. was willing to defray, being not less than 1500 ducats of gold, a large sum at that time of day[197].
But, however, although King Henry VI. performed no Cures in his life-time, yet was a man miraculously saved from death at the gallows by the appearance of the King, 40 years after his demise (in the 10th year of Henry VII.), by which intervention the halter had no effect; for the convict was found alive, after having hung the usual hour, and went speedily (as in duty bound) to return thanks at the King's Tomb at Chertsey, for such a wonderful deliverance. The Story states, that the man was really innocent, though, from circumstantial evidence, presumed to have been guilty; otherwise the Ghost of so pious and merciful a King had doubtless never appeared to him and interposed.