THE following SUMMARY ACCOUNT* of the times and places of the several battles fought between the two houses of York and Lancaster, and of the numbers killed on both sides, is given by Trussel, at the end of his History of England, a book of little value, but in matters of this kind tolerably correct. I have compared his account with our earliest historians, and in some places corrected it by them.

1. THE BATTLE OF SAINT ALBANS, fought on the 23d of May 1455, between Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, and King Henry VI. In this battle the Duke of York was victorious, and Henry was taken prisoner.

KILLED, on the royal side 5041, (among whom were Edmond Duke of Somerset, Henry Earl of Northumberland, Humphrey Earl of Stafford, and Thomas Lord Clifford;) on the side of the Duke of York, 600. TOTAL-5641.

2. THE BATTLE OF BLOARHEATH in Shropshire, fought on the 30th of September 1459, between James Lord Audley on the part of King Henry, and Richard Nevil Earl of Salisbury on the part of the Duke of York; in which battle Lord Audley was slain, and his army defeated.

KILLED-2411.

3. THE BATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON, 20th of July, 1460, between Edward Plantagenet, Earl of March, eldest son of the Duke of York, and Richard Nevil Earl of Warwick, on the one side, and King Henry on the other; in which the Yorkists were victorious.

KILLED-1035, among whom were John Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury, Humphrey Duke of Buckingham, and Sir William Lucy.

4. THE BATTLE OF WAKEFIELD, December 30, 1460, between Richard Duke of York and Queen Margaret; in which the Duke of York was defeated.

KILLED-2801, among whom were the Duke of York, Edmond Earl of Rutland his second son, Sir John and Sir Hugh Mortimer, his base uncles, and the Earl of Shrewsbury. Richard Nevil Earl of Salisbury was in this battle taken prisoner, and afterwards beheaded at Pomfret.

on Candlemas-day, 1460-1, between Edward Duke of York, on the one side, and Jasper Earl of Pembroke, and James Butler Earl of Wiltshire, on the other; in which the Duke of York was victorious.

KILLED-3800, among whom was Sir Owen Tuther or Tudors, who married Queen Katharine, the widow of King Henry V.

6. THE SECOND BATTLE OF SAINT ALBANS, February 17, 1460-1, between Queen Margaret on the one side, and the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Warwick on the other; in which the Queen obtained the victory.

KILLED-2303; among whom was Sir John Grey, a Lancastrian, whose widow, Lady Grey, afterwards married King Edward the Fourth.

7. THE ACTION AT FERRYBRIDGE, in Yorkshire, March 28, 1461, between Lord Clifford on the part of King Henry, and the Lord Fitzwalter on the part of the Duke of York.

KILLED-230, among whom were Lord Fitzwalter, John Lord Clifford, and the bastard son of the Earl of Salisbury.

8. THE BATTLE OF TOWTON, four miles from York, PalmSunday, March 29, 1461, between Edward Duke of York and King Henry; in which King Henry was defeated.

KILLED-37,046, among whom were Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the Lords Nevil, Beaumond, Willoughby, Wells, Roos, Gray, Dacres, and Fitzhugh. The Earl of Devonshire was taken prisoner, and soon afterwards beheaded at York.

9. THE BATTLE OF HEDGELEY MOOR, in Northumberland, April 29, 1463, between John Nevil Viscount Montague, on the part of King Edward IV. and the Lords Hungerford and Roos on the part of King Henry VI: in which the Yorkists were victorious.

KILLED-108, among whom was Sir Ralph Percy.

10. THE BATTLE OF HEXHAM, May 15, 1463, between Viscount Montague and King Henry, in which that King was defeated.

KILLED-2024. Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, and the Lord Roos and Hungerford, fighting on the side of King Henry, were taken prisoners, and soon afterwards beheaded.

11. THE BATTLE OF HEDGECOTE, four miles from Banbury, July 25, 1469, between William Herbert Earl of Pembroke, on the part of King Edward, and the Lords Fitzhugh and Latimer, and Sir John Conyers, on the part of King Henry; in whiclı the Lancastrians were defeated.

KILLED-5009. The Earl of Pembroke and his brother, Richard Widville Earl of Rivers, father to King Edward's Queen, Sir John Widville, John Tiptoft Earl of Worcester, the Lords Willoughby, Stafford, and Wells, were taken prisoners, and soon afterwards beheaded.

13. THE BATTLE OF STAMFORD, in Lincolnshire, October 1, 1469, between Sir Robert Wells and King Edward; in which the former was defeated and taken prisoner. The vanquished who fled, in order to lighten themselves, threw away their coats, whence the place of combat was called Losecoatfield.

KILLED-10,000,

14. THE BATTLE OF BARNET, on Easter-Sunday, April 14, 1471, between King Edward on one side, and the Earl of Warwick, the Marquis of Montague, and the Earl of Oxford, on the part of King Henry VI. in which the Lancastrians were defeated. KILLED-10,300; among whom were the Earl of Warwick, the Marquis of Montague, the Lord Cromwell, and the son and heir of Lord Say.

In a letter which was written at London four days after the battle of Barnet, the total number killed on both sides is said to have been "more than a thousand." Faston Letters, Vol. II. p. 65. Fabian, the nearest contemporary historian, says

1500.

The custom among our old writers of using Arabick numerals, has been the cause of innumerable errors, the carelessness of a transcriber or printer by the addition of a cipher converting hundreds into thousands. From the inaccuracy in the present instance we have ground to suspect that the numbers said to have fallen in the other battles between the houses of York and Lancaster, have been exaggerated. Sir John Paston, who was himself at the battle of Barnet, was probably correct.

15. THE BATTLE OF TEWKSBURY, May 3, 1471, between King Edward and Queen Margaret, in which the Queen was defeated, and she and her son Prince Edward were taken prisoners. On the next day the Prince was killed by King Edward and his brothers, and Edmond Duke of Somerset beheaded.

KILLED-3,032. Shortly afterwards, in an action between the bastard son of Lord Falconbridge and some Londoners, 1092 persons were killed.

16. THE BATTLE OF BOSWORTH, in Leicestershire, August 22, 1455, between King Richard III. and Henry Earl of Richmond, afterwards King Henry VII. in which King Richard was defeated and slain.

KILLED, on the part of Richard, 4,013, among whom were John Duke of Norfolk, and Walter Lord Ferrers; on the part of Richmond, 181.

THE TOTAL NUMBER of persons who fell in this contest, was NINETY-ONE THOUSAND AND TWENTY-SIX. MALONE.

The three parts of King Henry VI. are suspected, by Mr. Theobald, of being supposititious, and are declared, by Dr. Warburton, to be certainly not Shakspeare's. Mr. Theobald's suspicion arises from some obsolete words; but the phraseology is like the rest of our author's style, and single words, of which howèver I do not observe more than two, can conclude little.

Dr. Warburton gives no reason, but I suppose him to judge upon deeper principles and more comprehensive views, and to draw his opinion from the general effect and spirit of the composition, which he thinks inferior to the other historical plays.

From mere inferiority nothing can be inferred; in the productions of wit there will be inequality. Sometimes judgment will err, and sometimes the matter itself will defeat the artist. Of every author's works one will be the best, and one will be the worst. The colours are not equally pleasing, nor the attitudes equally graceful, in all the pictures of Titian or Reynolds.

Dissimilitude of style and heterogeneousness of sentiment, may sufficiently show that a work does not really belong to the reputed author. But in these plays no such marks of spuriousness are found. The diction, the versification, and the figures, are Shakspeare's. These plays, considered, without regard to characters and incidents, merely as narratives in verse, are more happily conceived, and more accurately finished than those of K. John, Richard II. or the tragick scenes of King Henry IV. and V. If we take these plays from Shakspeare, to whom shall they be given? What author of that age had the same easiness of expression and fluency of numbers?

Having considered the evidence given by the plays themselves, and found it in their favour, let us now enquire what corroboration can be gained from other testimony. They are ascribed to Shakspeare by the first editors, whose attestation may be received in questions of fact, however unskilfully they superintended their edition. They seem to be declared genuine by the voice of Shakspeare himself, who refers to the second play in his epilogue to King Henry V. and apparently connects the first Act of King Richard III. with the last of The Third Part of King Henry VI. If it be objected that the plays were popular, and that therefore he alluded to them as well known; it may be answered, with equal probability, that the natural passions of a poet would have disposed him to separate his own works from those of an inferior hand. And, indeed, if an author's own testimony is to be overthrown by speculative criticism, no man can be any longer secure of literary reputation.

Of these three plays I think the second the best. The truth is, that they have not sufficient variety of action, for the incidents are too often of the same kind; yet many of the characters are well discriminated. King Henry, and his Queen, King Edward, the Duke of Gloucester, and the Earl of Warwick, are very strongly and distinctly painted.

The old copies of the two latter parts of King Henry VI. and of King Henry V. are so apparently imperfect and mutilated, that there is no reason for supposing them the first draughts of Shakspeare. I am inclined to believe them copies taken by some auditor who wrote down, during the representation, what the time would permit, then perhaps filled up some of his omissions at a second or third hearing, and, when he had by this method formed something like a play, sent it to the printer.

JOHNSON.

So, Heywood, in the Preface to his Rape of Lucrece, (fourth impression,) 1630:

" -for though some have used a double sale of their labours, first to the stage and after to the press, for my own part I here proclaim myself ever faithful to the first, and never guilty of the last: yet since some of my plays have (unknown to me, and without any of my direction,) accidentally come into the printer's hands, and therefore so corrupt and mangled (copied only by the ear,) that I have been as unable to know them as ashamed to challenge them, this therefore I was the willinger," &c. COLLINS.

There is another circumstance which may serve to strengthen Dr. Johnson's supposition, viz. that most of the fragments of Latin verses, omitted in the quartos, are to be found in the folio; and when any of them are inserted in the former, they are shamefully corrupted and misspelt. The auditor, who understood English, might be unskilled in any other language.

STEEVENS.

I formerly coincided with Dr. Johnson on this subject, at a time when I had examined the two old plays published in quarto under the title of The Whole Contention of the Two famous Houses of York and Lancaster, in two parts, with less attention than I have lately done. That dramas were sometimes imper