THE BATTLE OF BOSWORTH
Richard's headquarters were at Nottingham Castle, the 'Castle of Care'
as he had called it, since he received the news of his son's death
there. With the aid of the loan a force had been raised and armed;
while reinforcements were on their way from several directions. Here
the news arrived that Henry Tudor[1] had landed at Milford Haven with
2,000 mercenaries. He would never have run this risk unless he had
previously received distinct promises of adherence from the Talbots and
Stanleys. His mother, the wife of Stanley, was an inveterate
intriguer. She had already been detected in treasonable practices and
contemptuously forgiven by the King. Now she had persuaded her
treacherous husband that it would be more for his interests to be
step-father to a new King owing everything to his treason, than to
continue loyal to his generous and forgiving master. This explains the
conduct of the Stanleys, which emboldened the invader to venture upon
such an enterprise. The insurgents advanced by Cardigan and Welshpool
to Shrewsbury. They were joined by several Welsh chiefs, and by Sir
Gilbert Talbot with 2,000 men. Henry Tudor was accompanied by his
uncle Jasper, and by John Vere, {149} son of the attainted Earl of
Oxford. Reginald Bray,[2] his mother's steward, was in attendance on
him, and Dr. Richard Fox[3] acted as his secretary. Most of the
leaders of his troops were exiles who had been concerned in
Buckingham's abortive treason. William Brandon,[4] Sir John Cheney,
Sir Giles Daubeny, Sir Robert Willoughby, Sir John Byron, Richard
Edgcombe,[5] and Sir Thomas Bourchier, all come under this category.
Sir John Savage and Simon Digby[6] joined the invaders after they had
landed, and Walter Hungerford[7] deserted just before the battle. No
peer, except Stanley, joined the rebels.
Lord Stanley and his brother Sir William had raised forces in
Lancashire and Cheshire, with the base intention of turning traitors to
their King if a good opportunity offered, but of being on the winning
side in any circumstances. With this object their design was to hold
aloof until the last moment. Sir William Stanley had a secret
interview with Henry at Stafford. On August 20 the insurgents, about
8,000 strong, arrived at Atherstone, nine miles beyond Tamworth. Here
the Stanleys again met Henry secretly. They pretended to the King that
they were retreating before the invaders.
Richard was undoubtedly a man endowed with great military talent. He
had shown remarkable {150} generalship, when quite a boy, at Barnet and
Tewkesbury. He had conducted the Scottish campaign with signal
success. He had promptly stamped out the Buckingham revolt. He was
now to encounter the rebels. There can be no doubt that if he had
waited for the reinforcements which were on their way, especially from
the north, the result would never have been doubtful. But alas! he
despised his enemy, and his open and generous nature prevented him from
harbouring a suspicion of the foul treachery of the Stanleys until it
was too late.
English pluck has been a motive power which has helped to place the
English-speaking race in the forefront of the world's history. That
dogged courage facing overwhelming odds rather than wait for help or
give ground is the secret of England's success. Often leading to
decisive victory it has sometimes resulted in disaster. Never more
conspicuous than in the audacious campaigns of Crecy and Agincourt,
when fortune was on the side of reckless valour, it was equally present
on the fatal field of Beauge, when Thomas Duke of Clarence lost his
life. We find it again at Wakefield, a battle which resembles Bosworth
in several respects. The brave and chivalrous father lost his life on
the former, the gallant son on the latter field. Both Richards were
full of English pluck. Both scorned to wait for succour; and
preferred, like the men of Zutphen and of Balaclava, to charge into the
midst of countless odds. Both were betrayed--the Duke of York by
Nevill, the King by the Stanleys. These Plantagenets were fitting
leaders of the people of England. While their dogged English pluck led
some of them to destruction, the very same quality has secured decisive
victory for England on a hundred fields.
{151}
On August 14 King Richard was hunting in Beskwood Park. He was an
ardent sportsman, and this was fated to be his last day's sport.
Monday the 15th was the Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin, and he
devoutly kept it, as we learn from the Duke of Norfolk.[8] He
commenced his march from Nottingham on Wednesday morning. He was
surrounded by loyal and devoted friends. Viscount Lovell and Sir
Robert Percy, the companions of his childhood, rode by his side. The
veteran Duke of Norfolk, who had fought with the great Talbot at
Chatillon, was hurrying up with a contingent from the eastern counties.
His son, the gallant Earl of Surrey, was with him. Lords Ferrers and
Zouch had arrived from the Midlands. The loyal old Constable, Sir
Robert Brackenbury, had come by forced marches from London. The Earl
of Northumberland, who owed much to his royal cousin,[9] was bringing a
first instalment of troops from the north. The faithful city of York
was represented by eighty of her citizens, stout-hearted and well
equipped.[10] Other troops were on their way, and if the King had
waited for them his victory was certain. All the loyal gentry of the
north were in arms, but Richard did not give them time to reach his
camp. Among them were the two Lords Scrope, Lords Dacre and Ogle, Lord
Greystoke of Hinderskelf, the King's cousin,[11] who 'brought a mighty
many,' and among the Yorkshire names of those loyal to King Richard
were Gascoigne and Conyers, Strickland and Constable, Mauleverer and
Plumpton, Tempest and Pudsey, Pilkington and Musgrave.
{152}
The King formed his army in two divisions, marching five abreast, with
the cavalry on the flanks. Richard himself was on a white horse richly
caparisoned, and he wore a golden circlet on his helmet. He entered
Leicester in the evening of August 19, and lodged at the 'White
Boar'[12] in North Gate Street. In the morning of Sunday the 21st the
army marched out of Leicester, reaching the little village of
Stapleton, a distance of eight miles, in the afternoon. A camp had
already been prepared in a field near Stapleton, called 'the
Bradshaws,' which is on a slight eminence.
[Sidenote: The Battle of Bosworth]
[Illustration: Map: Battle of Bosworth]
This part of Leicestershire consists of a succession of hills and
dales, with streams flowing westward, and uniting to form the Anker, a
tributary of the Trent. The 'Bradshaws' is on the brow of a gentle
slope, at the base of which flows a rivulet called the Tweed. The Duke
of Norfolk's camp was at Cadeby, about two miles to the north, but he
only arrived at Stapleton the day before the battle. Stanley, still
pretending to retreat, marched with 2,000 men, by Stoke Golding, to a
field now called 'Gamble's Close,' facing the 'Bradshaws,' with the
Tweed flowing between the two positions. Sir William Stanley had a
similar force encamped on the northern side of the field, in front of
the town of Market Bosworth, and near the Duke of Norfolk. Between,
but to the west of Stapleton and Cadeby, there is a ridge known as
Sutton Fields, in front of the village of Sutton Cheney. A gentle
slope sinks thence to Redmore Plain[13] and Ambien Leys, {153} between
which is the hill called Ambien. Further west, across the stream,
there are some fields called the White Moors, with the village of
Shenton to the north, and those of Dadlington and Stoke Golding to the
south-east.
Henry had arrived at Atherstone on August 20, and lodged at the 'Three
Tuns,' while the rebel troops and their French allies under Philibert
de Shaunde encamped in the meadows north of the church. Tudor was here
joined by another traitor, Robert Hardwicke of Lindley. Next day the
insurgents advanced nearly due east, crossed the bridge over the river
Anker at Witherley, and then turned up the Fenn Lanes, encamping on
White Moors. Hardwicke of Lindley acted as their guide. They were a
mile from Ambien Hill, with Lord Stanley in advance of their right
flank, and Sir William Stanley between their camp and Bosworth, on
their left flank.
The King had thrown up a breastwork to protect his camp, 300 yards
long, with flanks of fifty yards, facing Lord Stanley. At length the
suspicious conduct of Stanley forced him to entertain the idea of
treachery. But it was too late. He had about 8,000 men, while
Norfolk's contingent numbered 4,000. The Stanleys had about 8,000 men,
and the insurgent army was composed of 2,000 French mercenaries, 2,000
retainers of Sir Gilbert Talbot, and 4,000 Welsh and English traitors,
in all 8,000 men. Including the Stanley contingents, the enemy largely
outnumbered the royal army.
During the night Sir Simon Digby got into the royal camp as a spy, and
returned with the report that the troops were in motion. The rebel
leaders, therefore, sounded to arms. This must have been at dawn of
Monday, August 22, 1485. The sun rose that {154} day at a quarter
after five.[14] King Richard marched north-eastward for two miles to
effect a junction with the Duke of Norfolk. The royal army was then
formed in two lines, along the ridge of Sutton Fields. The archers
were in the front line, with a few small pieces of artillery, under the
Duke of Norfolk. The bill-men formed the rear line, and the horse were
on the flanks. Stanley marched at the same time as the King, and
halted to the rear of his left flank. The Earl of Northumberland
arrived the same morning, but he seems to have thought that his men
needed rest. He took no part in the battle. This slackness and want
of zeal were punished in after years by the loyal people of
Yorkshire.[15]
King Richard was dressed in the same suit of polished steel that he had
worn at Tewkesbury, with a golden circlet round his helmet. He rode to
a knoll, since called 'Dickon's Nook,' and addressed the army in a
spirit-stirring speech, calling on all true Englishmen to resist the
foreign invaders, and appealing to their loyalty and patriotism. He
then led them down the slope, placing his right towards Ambien Leys.
In front of his centre there was a well, since known as King Richard's
Well.
Philibert de Shaunde had formed the insurgents across Redmore Plain,
with a morass on their right flank. In their first line was John Vere
in the centre, Sir Gilbert Talbot on the right, and Sir John Savage on
the left wing. Jasper Tudor commanded the second line, and his nephew
Henry kept well in {155} the rear. John Vere ordered his men not to
advance more than ten paces in front of their standard; for he knew of
the contemplated treachery, and that the royal troops would be attacked
in the rear.
As soon as the King saw that the insurgents had left their camp and
advanced round the morass, he gave the order for the attack at about 10
A.M. A volley of arrows was discharged on either side: probably a few
shots from some small pieces of ordnance were fired by the rebels.[16]
Then the traitor Stanley threw off the mask and fell upon the left rear
of the royal army, throwing it into confusion. The Duke of Norfolk
fought gallantly and fell in the thickest of the battle.
The young King beheld this treason, and at once made up his mind. He
saw that a desperate charge of cavalry was the only remaining chance.
He received a report that Henry Tudor was skulking in the rear, and
resolved to attack him. It was a well-concerted plan, though made on
the spur of the moment. Richard was surrounded by loyal and devoted
knights. It is said that he stopped to quench his thirst at the well.
Then, putting spurs to his horse, he galloped forward, followed by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State, the Clerk of the
Council, the Constable of the Tower, Lords Lovell, K.G., Ferrers, and
Zouch; Sir Bryan Stapleton, Sir Thomas and Humphrey Stafford, Sir
Richard Clarendon, Sir Gervase {156} Clifton, Sir Robert Percy,[17] Sir
Richard Ratcliffe, K.G.,[18] the flower of England's loyal chivalry.
Sir William Parker was the standard-bearer. Never was the valour of
the kingly race of Plantagenet more gloriously displayed. Sir Robert
Brackenbury was encountered by the traitor Hungerford, who slew the
grey-headed old warrior, loyal to the last. Sir Gervase Clifton was
overthrown and badly wounded, but he was shielded from further harm by
Sir John Byron, his old friend and neighbour in Nottinghamshire, who
eventually obtained his pardon from the usurper.[19] The King himself
felled William Brandon to the ground. He was the adventurer's
standard-bearer, and the red dragon worked on white and green sarcenet
was hurled into the mud. The lions of England still waved over their
defenders. The King then unhorsed Sir John Cheney, a French pensioner,
and was on the point of reaching Henry Tudor himself, when the last and
foulest act of treachery was perpetrated. Sir William Stanley suddenly
attacked the right flank of the royal army with 3,000 men. King
Richard was surrounded. He was urged to fly by the loyal knights who
stood by him to the last. 'Never,' exclaimed the young hero, 'I will
not budge a foot; I will die King of England,' and he dashed into the
thickest of the fight. Like a sturdy oak sinking under a thousand
blows, at length King Richard fell, fighting an army and covered with
wounds. 'Fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies,'
confessed one of the most unscrupulous {157} among them.[20] He fell
at the foot of the hill in Ambien Leys. Lord Ferrers, Lord Zouch, Sir
Richard Ratcliffe, the Secretary of State, and the Clerk of the Council
fell fighting by his side. Sir William Conyers and Sir Richard
Clarendon were also among the slain, with many other loyal knights and
gentlemen. Sir William Parker (or Thurleball?), the King's
standard-bearer, is said to have kept the lions of England on high
until both his legs were cut from under him, nor, when on the ground,
would he let go while breath was left in his body.[21]
The royal charge commenced at 11 A.M. and lasted about half an hour.
Each side lost a hundred men in battle, but the treason of the Stanleys
was followed by the flight of the royal army towards Stoke Golding, and
during the pursuit, which continued for fifty minutes, there was
considerable slaughter.
Henry then came to the front, and was at Stoke Golding when Sir William
Stanley brought him the golden circlet off the late King's helmet,
saluting him {158} as King. The place is called 'Crown Hill.' Stanley
was made Lord Chamberlain by the usurper; but such a traitor could not
be trusted. Henry was conscious that 'though Stanley came in time to
save his life, he delayed long enough to endanger it.' The astute and
patient King, brought up in the school of Louis XI., bided his time.
Before many years his saviour was beheaded.
Shameful indignities are said to have been perpetrated on the lifeless
body of King Richard. They could have been prevented by a word from
Henry, but that word was not spoken. 'Insults offered by the victor to
the corpse of a soldier slain in battle evince a great degree of
meanness or cowardice on the part of the former.'[22]
Richard III. was buried in the church of St. Mary, belonging to the
Grey Friars, at Leicester, and a tomb was erected over his grave. Not
only has the tomb long since disappeared, but the church also. In 1808
a stone pyramid was built over the well on the battlefield, with a
suitable inscription by the learned Dr. Parr, to commemorate the
gallant death of the King:
AQUA EX HOC PUTEO HAUSTA
SITIM SEDAVIT
RICABDUS TERTIUS REX ANGLIAE
CUM HENRICO COMITE DE RICHMONDIA
ACERRIME ATQUE INFENSISSIME PRAELIANS
ET VITA PARITEB AC SCEPTRO
ANTE NOCTEM CARITURUS
II KAL. SEPT. A.D. MCCCCLXXXV
In 1871 the arms of King Richard III., impaling those of Queen Anne,
were placed on an abutment of the new bridge at Nottingham, as a
memorial. {159} Richard III., the last of our Plantagenet kings, is
the only one since the Norman Conquest who has fallen on the field of
battle. He was also the youngest of our actual reigning sovereigns
when he died.[23]
Richard passed through the first thirty years of his life, before his
accession, with honour and repute. He displayed brilliant courage as a
knight, and remarkable ability as a general. In France he upheld the
honour of England against the corrupt faction which surrounded his
sovereign. In Scotland he did admirable service by the capture of
Berwick. He was an efficient and energetic administrator of the
Northern Marches, and was the first to establish postal communication
by means of relays of horses. He was justly popular throughout the
country, and was beloved in Yorkshire, where he was best known. When
the news of his death reached York, the people were plunged in grief.
The following entry was made in the City Register: 'He was piteously
slain and murdered to the great heaviness of this city.'[24]
On his accession to the throne his character did not alter. He loved
his country, and was a King of great administrative ability. He was
prompt and vigorous in suppressing insurrections, and baffling the
schemes of conspirators; but he was lenient, often unwisely so, when
the immediate danger was over. No other King would have spared such
mischievous traitors as Stanley and Morton. His generosity to the
families of attainted rebels will not find any parallel in our history.
Not only did he show liberal clemency to the wives of Rivers, Hastings,
Buckingham and others: {160} but he actually pensioned the wives of men
who were plotting against him in foreign countries, like John Vere,
Lord Dynham, and Alexander Cheney. His uprightness and good faith were
relied upon by enemies and friends alike. Lord Rivers appointed him
supervisor of his last will, well knowing him to be an honourable and
magnanimous foe. Lady Latimer sought the same service from him, as a
kind and trusty friend. As an arbitrator in family disputes, like that
between Sir Robert Plumpton and his relations, Richard, by his
impartial justice, established peace and concord where there had been
ill-will and litigation.[25] There was nothing mean or sordid in his
nature; he was liberal, open-handed, and generous.
[Sidenote: Administration of King Richard]
Richard's Parliament was the best that had met since the time of Edward
I. His administration was patriotic. He checked corruption in the
public service, {161} refused large sums of money that were offered to
him as gifts by several towns,[26] and anxiously sought the welfare of
his people. He took great interest in the administration of justice,
and it is recorded that in Michaelmas term of 1484 he personally
attended in the Star Chamber and propounded questions of law to the
judges. He encouraged trade, and especially voyages to Iceland and the
northern fisheries. In Ireland he was very popular and his government
was successful. His foreign policy was wise and judicious. He made
peace with Scotland, established friendly relations with Brittany and
Spain, observed strict neutrality between Maximilian and the Flemish
towns, while promoting commercial intercourse, and watched the
treacherous regency of France with well-founded suspicion.
King Richard was a great builder.[27] He founded collegiate churches
at Middleham, Barnard Castle, and All Hallows Barking, built a memorial
chapel at Towton, another at Sheriff Hutton, endowed Queens' College,
Cambridge,[28] and erected a handsome tower at Westminster. He pushed
forward the works at St. George's Chapel, Windsor, begun by his
brother, and repaired the castles of Skipton, Carlisle, Nottingham, and
Warwick. His cognizance of the white boar is still to be seen on the
stonework of an oriel window at Barnard Castle. Richard was a prince
of literary tastes, and among his books a manuscript copy of the
romance of Tristan de Leonnais and a Wickliffe Bible have been
preserved. He was the friend and patron {162} of Caxton, who dedicated
a book 'Of the Ordre of Chyvalry and Knyghthode' to 'his redoubted Lord
King Richard.' By letters patent, dated March 21, 1484, he gave the
Heralds a charter of incorporation, and was thus the founder of the
College of Arms. He also granted them 'a right fayre and stately
house,'[29] called Pulteney's Inn. He was devout and religious,
striving to promote greater activity among the clergy in improving the
morals of the people. Richard was a keen sportsman, devoted to the
chase both with hawk and hound. He kept large hunting establishments
at Westminster and in Yorkshire.
King Richard was probably conscious of the political change that was
impending in the world, for he was a vigilant observer of the signs of
the times, and was well versed in the political questions which were
engaging the attention of European statesmen. He had witnessed the
fall of his brother-in-law, Charles the Bold, and the collapse of the
system he upheld. He must have seen that feudalism was giving way to a
new era, in the age of the Renaissance. The young Plantagenet was well
fitted by nature to rule the destinies of England during this period of
change. He had received an excellent training. For years he had been
accustomed to confer with the authorities at York on their local
affairs, he had often been in consultation with clerical advisers when
framing statutes for his collegiate churches, and from early youth he
had had unusual opportunities of acquiring a knowledge of the needs and
wishes of the people. He desired to {163} reign in the hearts of his
countrymen. His proclamations and letters show that he wished to take
his people into his counsels, to consult public opinion, and to be
guided by it. He was an administrator of no mean ability, and although
he was bold even to recklessness in facing the consequences of his
acts, he always showed anxiety to have the public feeling with him. He
would, in all probability, have respected the rights and liberties of
his subjects while leading them into new ways.
[Sidenote: Richard and the Tudors]
In all respects Richard was better fitted to reign over England in the
days of change that were inevitable than the two tyrants who succeeded
him. Henry Tudor caused a beautiful chapel to be built at Westminster
for his own tomb, but his son robbed and destroyed scores of far more
beautiful tombs and churches in all parts of England. There might have
been an age of English Renaissance under Richard. There actually was
an age of Vandalic destruction under the Tudors. The father was a
miserly foreigner, the son a rapacious and remorseless tyrant,[30] both
despots by nature, and haters of constitutional freedom. The battle of
Bosworth was a calamity from which England did not soon recover. But
after seventy-three years of tyranny the Great Queen began to reign.
Though a Tudor by name her high qualities were derived from her
mother's English ancestors. She was a true Englishwoman at heart.
Descendant of the brave and loyal Norfolk who fell fighting for King
Richard at Bosworth, the grand-niece of Richard III. was by blood even
more truly English than were her Yorkist great-uncles.
{164}
Richard was most agreeable and ingratiating in his manners, and where
he was best known he was most liked.[31] He formed friendships which
endured the test of time. Those who knew and loved him in boyhood
fought by his side on the fatal field at Bosworth.[32] Richard III.
was the only one of our kings who made a true love match. His cousin
Anne, the playmate of his childhood, was his first love. United before
they were twenty, they passed ten years of happy married life together
at Middleham. Their love is proved by their constant companionship.
When the Protector was surrounded by perils and difficulties, his wife
hurried up to London to share them with him. Together they were
crowned, together they sat at public banquets, made progresses and
walked in royal processions. Together they mourned over the death of
their beloved child, and sought comfort in mutual sympathy. Richard
only survived his wife's death for five short months; having shared
with her their joys and sorrows for fourteen years.
[Sidenote: Contemporary sovereigns]
The true picture of our last Plantagenet King is not unpleasant to look
upon, when the accumulated garbage and filth of centuries of calumny
have been cleared off its surface.
{165}
CONTEMPORARY SOVEREIGNS
Scotland _James III._ 1460-1488
France _Anne of Beaujeu_ (Regent for 1483
_Charles VIII._)
Brittany _Francis II._ 1458-1488
Low Countries _Mary and Maximilian_ 1477-1493
Germany _Emperor Frederick III._ 1440-1493
Denmark, Sweden, _Hans_ 1481-1513
and Norway
Bohemia _Vladislaus_ 1471-1510
Hungary _Matthias Corvinus_ 1458-1490
Poland _Casimir IV._ 1445-1492
Castille _Isabella_ 1474-1504
Aragon _Ferdinand_ 1479-1516
Portugal _Joam II._ 1481-1495
Naples _Ferdinand of Aragon_ 1458-1494
Pope _Sixtus IV._ (delle Rovere) 1471-1484
" _Innocent VIII._ (Cibo) 1484-1492
Tuscany _Lorenzo de' Medici_ 1469-1492
Milan _Gian Galeazzo Sforza_ 1476-1494
Grand Seigneur _Bayazid II._ 1481-1512
[1] Henry Tudor was not, and never had been, Earl of Richmond. His
father had been deprived by attainder and outlawry. Richard Duke of
Gloucester was created Earl of Richmond by King Edward IV., and when
Richard succeeded, the title merged in the crown.
[2] Sir Reginald Bray was made a K.B. at Henry's coronation, and
afterwards a Knight of the Garter. He was an architect, and has the
credit of having finished St. George's Chapel at Windsor and built
Henry VII.'s Chapel at Westminster.
[3] Fox was a priestly conspirator who had been acting as one of
Morton's agents. He was rewarded with the Bishopric of Winchester.
[4] Henry's standard-bearer.
[5] Knighted after the battle.
[6] Made Lieutenant of the forests of Sherwood, Beskwood, and Clipston,
on Sept. 22, 1485.
[7] Knighted after the battle.
[8] _Paston Letters_, ii. p. 334.
[9] Their mothers were sisters. Richard III. had passed an Act
restoring all their rights and possessions to the Percys.
[10] Davies, _York Records_, p. 216.
[11] Their mothers were sisters.
[12] Afterwards the 'Blue Boar.'
[13] The battle was sometimes called Redmore, 'apud Rodemore juxta
Leicestre' (_York Records_, p. 217). See also Drayton's _Polyolbion_,
xxii.
'O Redmore then it seemed thy name was not in vain,
When with a thousand's blood the earth was coloured red.'
[14] Thirty-first of Gregorian era. Sun rises at 5.15 A.M.
[15] They killed him near Thirsk, on April 28, 1488, when he was
engaged in enforcing the payment of extortionate taxes levied by his
new master (Dugdale's _Baronage_, p. 282).
[16] Four cannon balls were found on Ambien Hill in the last century.
They are now in possession of Mrs. Park Yates, of Sandiway, near
Northwich, who allowed Mr. Gairdner to examine them. One is of lead,
weighing 14-3/4 lbs., another 8-1/2 lbs., another 4 lbs., and the fourth is
of stone and larger. Mr. Gairdner suggests that the guns may have been
brought by the rebels from Tamworth Castle, which was on their line of
march.
[17] Son of Robert Percy of Scotton, near Knaresborough.
[18] Eldest son of Sir Thomas Ratcliffe of Derwentwater. Sir Richard
married Agnes, daughter of Lord Scrope of Bolton.
[19] Sir Gervase Clifton of Clifton lived until 1493. His tomb is in
Clifton Church.
[20] Polydore Virgil, p. 224. 'Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem
dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis ad
ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se
proditum clamans et dicans "Treason! Treason! Treason!" et sic
gustans quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit.'--Rous,
p. 218. 'Nam inter pugnandum et non in fuga, dictus Rex Richardus,
multis vulneribus ictus, quasi princeps animosus et audentissimus in
campo occubuit.'--_Croyland Chron._, Gale, i. p. 574.
[21] Hutton's _Bosworth_. The only detailed account of the battle is
in the history of the Italian Polydore Virgil, who came to England in
about 1503. Hall, Grafton, and Holinshed copied from Polydore, or from
each other. Hutton visited the ground in 1788, and again in 1807, and
wrote a history of the battle. Mr. Gairdner also went over the ground
and wrote an account of the battle in the _Archaeologia_, lv. pt. vii.
p. 159 (1896), read Jan. 24, 1895. The present writer has twice been
over every part of the ground, and examined it carefully with Polydore
Virgil and Hutton as his guides, the first time accompanied by an
accomplished antiquary, the present Earl of Liverpool.
[22] Brooke, _Visits to Battle Fields in England_, p. 170.
[23] Mary II. was two months younger, but she was only a joint
sovereign. Edward VI. never actually reigned.
[24] Davies, _York Records_, p. 218.
[25] The history of this Plumpton arbitration illustrates the
difference between Richard III. and Henry VII. The former appears as a
just and upright king, studying the good of his subjects; the latter,
as a pettifogging tyrant, seeking pretexts and excuses for robbery and
spoliation.
The dispute was between Sir Robert Plumpton and his heirs general as to
rights of succession. At last there was an agreement to abide the
award of the King's Majesty. Richard III. gave the matter his careful
attention, and decided on the merits, solely actuated by the desire of
doing substantial justice. His judgment was given on September 16,
1483. Impartial justice was actually done by Richard's award, and its
conditions were peacefully acquiesced in by both parties, for several
years.
'But,' as the Editor remarks, 'it was the misfortune of Sir Robert
Plumpton to have lived on into the days of Henry VII., who, under the
pretence of a rigid enforcement of the law, sought only the means to
gratify his avarice.' Every defect of title, which might furnish the
pretext for a suit or fine, was eagerly caught at in order to swell the
revenue. In this manner the claim of the Plumpton heirs general was
re-opened by the infamous Empson, the tool of Henry; and after years of
persecution, Sir Robert was reduced to beggary and a debtors' prison.'
_Plumpton Correspondence_, pp. xc. to cxviii. (_Camden Society_, 1839).
[26] London, Gloucester, and Worcester.
[27] 'Erat iste Rex Ricardus in edificiis laudandus, ut
Westmonasteriensi, Notinghamiae, Warwici, Eboraci et apud Midlam,
multisque aliis locis, ut ad oculum manifesta evidet.'--Rous, p. 215.
[28] Rous, p. 216.
[29] Stow. Henry Tudor, when he usurped the crown, seized upon this
property, and turned out the Heralds. They remained houseless until
1555, when the Earl Marshal purchased a house on St. Benet's Hill for
them, the site of the present Heralds' College.
[30] Henry VIII. was never known to exercise the prerogative of mercy.
Even poor young Lord Dacre was among his victims, for a trivial offence.
[31] 'Richard was bold in conceiving and reckless in facing the
consequences of his acts, of high and brilliant courage, and seductive
manners.'--W. Campbell, _Introduction to Materials for the History of
the Reign of Henry VII._, p. xiv.
[32] Lord Lovell and Sir Robert Percy.
{166}
PART II
CHAPTER I
THE AUTHORITIES
The dynasty of the Plantagenets had reigned over England for more than
three centuries, when the last King of that royal race fell at the
battle of Bosworth. Under the Plantagenets, Normans and Saxons were
welded into one nation. The House of Commons became a firmly
established institution. The cherished liberties of England took form
and shape. The victories of the Plantagenet kings are the most
glorious traditions of the English people. No other dynasty became so
thoroughly national, and the Yorkist kings were almost pure Englishmen
in blood.[1] A halo of romance would naturally have gathered round our
last Plantagenet, our youngest reigning sovereign,[2] and the only
English monarch since the Conquest who fell in battle, fighting
valiantly for his crown and country.
Instead of this being the case, the accusations of his enemies have
received full credence. He was charged {167} with the committal of a
series of atrocious crimes, his name has been execrated by posterity,
and historians have vied with each other in heaping opprobrium on his
memory.
[Sidenote: Rooted prejudice]
Yet there are obvious reasons for closely criticising the accusations
against King Richard, and for examining them with more than ordinary
care before accepting them as proved. For his successor had no valid
title to the crown. It was not only the new King's interest, but a
necessity of his position, that he should cause grave charges to be
brought against his predecessor, and that they should be accepted as
true. Henry VII. had the power and the will to silence all comment,
and to prevent any defence from being published. Evidence in favour of
Richard was destroyed. Authors employed by Henry, and others who were
anxious to please him and his successors, were alone permitted to write
histories. Not a syllable was allowed to be uttered on the other side
for one hundred and sixty years. The story thus put forward was
dramatised by Shakespeare, and became so familiar to posterity that
even writers of our own day approach the subject with unconscious
prejudice which they cannot resist. If Richard performs kindly acts,
and many such are recorded, he is trying 'to get unsteadfast friends.'
If he punishes treason he is 'a venomous hunchback.' If a rebellion is
put down during his reign he is an inhuman tyrant. His ability is
cunning, his justice is cruelty, his bravery is fury, his generosity is
artfulness, his devotion is hypocrisy.
In giving some account of the original authorities upon whose testimony
the charges against King Richard rest, I only propose to state general
conclusions with regard to them in the present chapter; because proofs
{168} and arguments will be embodied in the detailed discussions which
follow.
Bernard Andre, Archbishop Morton, and Polydore Virgil were actually in
the pay or under the direct influence of the first Tudor King. In this
trio only one was an Englishman. John Rous and Robert Fabyan wrote
during Henry's reign, accepted his version of events, and sought his
favour. The continuator of the Chronicle of Croyland Abbey is the sole
independent source of information.
[Sidenote: Morton's pamphlet]
By far the most important of the original authorities, and the one on
which all subsequent history has been based, is Archbishop Morton. His
narrative is contained in the 'History of Richard III.,' erroneously
attributed to Sir Thomas More, who was in Morton's household when a
boy. This work first appeared in Hardyng's Chronicle, printed by
Grafton in 1543. It was embodied in Hall's Chronicle, and copied by
Holinshed. Fourteen years after its publication, another and somewhat
different version was brought out by Rastell in 1557. Rastell was
related to Sir Thomas More, and he alleged that his version was taken
from a manuscript in More's handwriting written about 1513. A Latin
version, written long before its publication, was printed at Louvain in
1566, with various additions to the imaginary speeches, and an address
to Henry VIII. and the Earl of Surrey. Sir George Buck[3] and Sir
John Harington[4] had heard that the work was written {169} by Morton.
The Latin version could not have been, for it is addressed to Henry
VIII., and Morton died in 1500.
The history, as we have it, contains long speeches and dialogues which
must have been fabricated by the writer. The narrative from the death
of Edward IV. to the accession of Richard was certainly written or
dictated by Morton, for no one else could have been cognizant of some
of the facts. The title given by the publisher is misleading. It is
not a 'history of Richard III.,' but a very detailed narrative of the
events from his brother's death to his own accession, covering a period
of less than three months. It ends abruptly at a point just before the
date of Morton's flight from England. His personal knowledge ceased
with his departure, and here the story suddenly comes to an end. He
was evidently acquainted personally with every detail, and he possessed
an exceptionally accurate memory.[5] The errors and alterations of
dates in the narrative must consequently have been made intentionally
and with an object. Morton's character and the value of his testimony
will be discussed more fully in a future chapter. The story of the
murder of the young princes at the end of the book cannot have been
written by Morton, for it alludes to events which happened after
October 12, 1500, the date of that prelate's death. The outline of the
story of the murder was no doubt inspired, as Lord Bacon shrewdly
suspected, by Henry VII. himself.
Rastell assumed that the English version of this {170} 'History of
Richard III.' was composed by Sir Thomas More because a copy in his
handwriting was found among his papers. The previous publication by
Grafton proves that there were other copies abroad, differing slightly
from each other, and there is no reason for assuming that the copy in
More's handwriting was the original. Indeed there is evidence that it
was not. Grafton's version contains a good deal at the end which is
not in the narrative attributed to More by Rastell. The latter ends
abruptly, as if the whole had not been copied. More merely made an
unfinished copy. The respect with which this production has been
treated is due to Sir Thomas More's reputed authorship, and to this is
to be attributed its comparative freedom from criticism. It is in
reality an unscrupulous party pamphlet, and its authorship ought not to
affect its character. Yet the reply to any objection to statements
contained in it has hitherto been that it was written by the good and
virtuous Sir Thomas More, and therefore must be true.[6]
Internal evidence makes it certain that More did not write it. The
author speaks of the death-bed of Edward IV. as an eye-witness.[7]
More was then only five years of age. He was born in February 1478.
{171} This seems conclusive. Sir Thomas made an incomplete copy, when
a young man, of a work which was attracting a good deal of attention,
and of which there were other copies in circulation. The date of the
copy is said by Rastell to be 1513, when More's age was about
thirty-five. The actual compiler of the book, as we have it, is
unknown. But the information and the inspiration of the whole work,
with the exception of the story of the murder of the young princes at
the end, is undoubtedly from Archbishop Morton. I have, therefore,
referred to the work as by Morton, and to the story of the murders,
which is clearly not by Morton, as by Rastell's anonymous historian.
[Sidenote: Bernard Andre]
Henry VII. began the business of vilifying his predecessor very early
in his reign. It was indeed a matter of the utmost moment to him, for
he appears to have considered that a belief in the alleged crimes of
Richard was essential to the security of his own position. He brought
over a blind Gascon from France, named Bernard Andre, whom he appointed
his poet laureate and historiographer. Andre began to write a life of
Henry VII. in 1500. It is very brief, with several gaps, and he left
it incomplete when he died in about 1522.
[Sidenote: Polydore Virgil]
But the Italian who arrived some years later in Henry's reign was far
more serviceable. Polydore Virgil was the paid historian of the
Tudors. He was a native of Urbino, and was sent to England by his
patron, the infamous Pope Alexander VI., in 1501 as the assistant
collector of the tax called Peter's pence. Henry requested him to
undertake the history, placing all official materials at his disposal,
and doubtless indicating the line he was to take. He proved {172} an
apt pupil and was well rewarded. He was made absentee Rector of Church
Langton, received a prebend at Lincoln, another at Hereford, and was
appointed Archdeacon of Wells. In 1513 he was made a Canon of St.
Paul's with a house, and he had other preferment. His history was
completed in 1534. Polydore Virgil was a man of learning, and his work
is based on original research. But he did not hesitate to misrepresent
facts not only to please his patrons, but in order to gratify his own
spite and malignity.[8] In his account of events in the life of
Richard III. he merely recorded the version that would be pleasing to
his employer. His imperfect knowledge of the English language impairs
the value of his evidence when obtained from oral sources. The tale of
the assassination of young Edward of Lancaster by a King of England and
his chief nobles is peculiarly Italian, and may be claimed by Polydore
as his original conception. It is worthy of this protege of the
Borgias. His statements respecting King Richard deserve little credit,
unless they are corroborated by independent evidence. Polydore had
access to the written statements of Morton, of which he made
considerable use. He also had the run of all official documents, and
he is said to have made away with numerous original papers, which may
be presumed to have disproved his assertions.[9] One most {173}
important document, which Henry ordered to be destroyed, has been
preserved through a fortunate accident.[10]
These three writers, Andre, Morton, and Virgil, were employed by the
Tudors, and considering the sources from whence their statements come,
little weight ought to be attached to them. They are the paid, and
very well paid, counsel and witnesses of King Richard's cunning enemy.
'The sagacious, patient, unchivalrous man,' says Mr. Campbell,
'although he rewarded his panegyrists with, for him, prodigal
liberality, estimated with mercantile keenness the worth which their
eulogies would bear in his own age.'[11]
[Sidenote: Rous]
The authors who wrote during the reign of Henry VII., but not in his
pay or directly under his influence, next come under review. John
Rous, the so-called hermit of Guy's Cliff, was an antiquary and an
heraldic draughtsman. He knew Richard personally. He was the author
of 'Historia Regum Angliae,' which he dedicated to Henry VII., and in
which he heaped virulent abuse on King Richard, crowding his venom into
a page or two at the end--an after-thought to please his new patron.
He also prepared two pictorial heraldic rolls, representing the
pedigree of the Earls of Warwick. Both were executed during the
lifetime {174} of King Richard. One is at Kimbolton, the other at the
Heralds' College. To the latter Rous had access after the accession of
Henry. To the former he had not. In the former Richard is described
as 'a mighty Prince and special good Lord,' and as 'the most victorious
Prince Richard III. In his realm full commendably punishing offenders
of the laws, especially oppressors of his commons, and cherishing those
that were virtuous, by the which discreet guiding he got great thanks
and love of all his subjects rich and poor, and great laud of the
people of all other lands about him.' The latter roll was still in the
hands of Rous when Richard fell. The above passage is expunged. The
portraits of the two Yorkist Kings are taken out. Queen Anne Nevill is
despoiled of her crown, her son is deprived of crown and sceptre, and
Richard is merely alluded to as Anne's 'infelix maritus.' The
testimony of such an unblushing time-server as Rous must be rejected as
worthless. Yet, in one or two instances, he has inadvertently revealed
the truth, where the official writers have intended to conceal it.[12]
Robert Fabyan was a clothier and alderman of London, who recorded the
events of earlier times and of his own day in a chronicle which was
written during the reign of Henry VII.[13] He was a fulsome Tudor
partisan, anxious to please the reigning powers, and ready to record
any story against the fallen King, even to wholesale falsification of
dates. It will be shown further on that, in concocting part of his
chronicle, he must have been in dishonest collusion with Morton. {175}
Fabyan died in 1513, and his chronicle was first published in 1516. It
was used by Polydore Virgil.
Dr. Warkworth, Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, wrote a diary which
has chiefly been relied upon as evidence of the date of the death of
Henry VI.,[14] but that question will be fully discussed in a future
chapter.
[Sidenote: The monks of Croyland]
Morton, Polydore Virgil, Rous, and Fabyan will be found to be dishonest
and untrustworthy narrators, who can be shown to use deception
deliberately, with a full knowledge of the truth. The second
continuation of the Chronicle of Croyland Abbey occupies an entirely
different position. There is every reason for believing that the monks
who wrote it, though the first was prejudiced, and the second was
credulous and easily deceived, intended to relate what they believed to
be true. This continuation long remained in manuscript, in which state
it was seen by Sir George Buck. It was not printed until 1684. It
occupies twenty-eight folio pages.[15]
The first part of the continuation bears internal evidence of having
been written by one monk who concludes with some local notices
respecting the abbey and its inmates. Then another monk took up the
chronicling pen, and ends his part in the same way. It is capable of
absolute proof that this continuation of the Croyland Chronicle was
written by at least two monks. In referring to the death of Henry VI.,
the first monk prays that the tyrant who caused it may be given time
for repentance. This part must, therefore, have been written while the
tyrant in question was alive, whether Edward IV., Richard, or Lord
Rivers the Constable (who was really the responsible person) {176} is
intended. The second monk says at the end, that the work was finished
on April 30, 1486, and that it was written in ten days. Edward,
Richard and Rivers were all dead in April 1486. Consequently these two
passages must have been written by different hands.
The first of these monks was the more judicious of the two, and he had
probably once mixed in the world. He mentions a councillor of Edward
IV. who was doctor of canon law, and who was sent to Abbeville on an
embassy to the Duke of Burgundy in 1471. In the margin there is a note
to the effect that the same man compiled that part of the chronicle.
If this note is to be relied on, the first monk had once been in the
service of Edward IV., but he had Lancastrian sympathies like Morton.
He refers to the executions after Tewkesbury as vindictive, and he
hints at a rumour that Henry VI. met his death by order of his
successor. His part of the chronicle includes ten pages, and covers
the period from 1471 to the death of Edward IV.
The second monk seems to have known nothing of the outer world, and was
very credulous. It is with him that we have to do in this inquiry. He
relates the events leading to the accession of Richard III. with
general accuracy, and correctly as regards dates, the same dates being
falsified by Morton and Fabyan. He even gives the true grounds on
which Richard's claim to the crown rested, which are falsified by
Morton and by Polydore Virgil, and which were forbidden by Henry VII.
to be mentioned on pain of imprisonment. The chronicle remained in
manuscript, and the truth-telling monk was not found out. The
contribution of the second monk to the continuation of the Chronicle of
Croyland Abbey was written out in {177} ten days, and finished in the
time of Henry VII., on April 30, 1486. Though generally trustworthy it
contains several errors. It follows Morton, Polydore Virgil, and
Fabyan in stating that Hastings was beheaded on the day of his arrest.
It will be seen in Chapter III. that this is disproved by an
investigation of dates given by those writers, and by Stallworthe. It
follows Morton in the statement that Lord Rivers and his companions
were beheaded without trial. This is disproved by Rous. It asserts
that, after King Richard's coronation, there was a rumour that his
nephews had been put to death. There is no other contemporaneous
mention of this rumour, and reasons will presently be given for
believing that there was no such rumour. It also states that Richard
was crowned a second time at York. Mr. Davies, in his 'York Records,'
has shown that no such coronation ever took place.
The interesting question arises how the monk was misled on these four
points, when his information was so accurate, and so directly
contradicts Morton, Polydore Virgil, and Fabyan, as regards the dates
of events immediately preceding Richard's accession, and as regards the
nature of his claim to the throne. Could Morton have been at his
elbow? If he was, these errors would be explained, for they are the
most telling points in Morton's case. We know that Morton was sent to
Brecknock Castle, in the custody of the Duke of Buckingham, in August
1483. Later in the autumn he escaped, crossed England in disguise, and
was concealed for some time in the fen country near Ely, before taking
ship for Flanders. He even mentions his object in going there. 'If he
were in the Isle of Ely,' he told Buckingham, 'he could make many {178}
friends to further the enterprise.'[16] He went there to plot and
intrigue. The secluded Abbey of Croyland is a likely asylum for Morton
to have selected as a place of concealment. A political bishop who had
been a principal actor in the recent events would be a Godsend to the
chronicling monk; while the intriguer would be in his element, sowing
the first seeds of his future crop of calumny. The second Croyland
monk would be as clay in the potter's hand. He gives us a striking
instance of his gossiping credulity. He had been told that the King's
niece, Elizabeth, once appeared at Court in a dress similar to that of
the Queen. Instead of the obvious deduction that Queen Anne had kindly
provided the girl with a dress like her own, we are treated to dark
hints about a rival who was to supplant the Queen, and modern
historians have taken the old monk's nonsense in all seriousness.
Morton would have found such a man quite ready to accept without
further inquiry any statement he might make, and to be the channel of
any rumour he chose to spread.
Such are the witnesses arrayed against the last Plantagenet King by his
Tudor successors. It will be our business to test the value of their
testimony. They had it all their own way. No one was allowed to
answer them. For those who knew the truth it was a choice between
silence and ruin. The accused had no counsel. Whether the Tudor
writers are trustworthy or not, there can be no question that, aided by
these advantages, they served their employers well. They have
completely succeeded in their object. They have blackened the memory
of King Richard III. for all time.
The chief evidence in Richard's favour can only {179} now be found in
the contradictions, admissions, inadvertent lapses into truth, and
suppressions of his traducers. Official documents and private letters
also tell their tale. Falsifications of dates, and the objects of such
falsifications by the Tudor writers, are often detected by means of
these unimpeachable sources of information. Among the Harleian
manuscripts there is a book kept by Dr. Russell, the Bishop of Lincoln
and Richard's Chancellor, containing all the documents that passed the
Great or Privy Seal during his reign, as well as correspondence with
foreign sovereigns and ambassadors.[17] This manuscript has been a
mine of rebutting evidence. There is also valuable testimony derivable
from the Rolls of Parliament, Patent Rolls, and from Rymer's 'Foedera.'
It is worthy of special note that the undesigned evidence of official
documents often exposes the true character of Tudor testimony.
Enough has been said to show that the statements of the Tudor writers
call for more than ordinary caution in their use; and that the nearest
approach to the truth, which is all we can hope for, will not be
reached if any fact or insinuation alleged or hinted by them is
accepted without being first subjected to very rigorous scrutiny.
[Sidenote: Later chroniclers]
The later chroniclers, such as Hall, Grafton, Holinshed, Stow and Buck,
copied from the earlier writers. They cannot be considered as original
authorities. Hall is little more than a translation of Polydore
Virgil, served up with embellishments invented by himself. Stow is
much more trustworthy.
These later writers must not be relied upon for facts. It was their
habit to add numerous minor details to the stories they received from
their {180} predecessors, and it cannot reasonably be doubted that
these additions were inventions intended to add force or interest to
their narratives. When they quote from or insert documents the case is
different. Thus Hall and Grafton give the conversation between Morton
and the Duke of Buckingham at Brecknock, being a copy of some original
document. Buck gives the substance of a letter from Elizabeth of York
to the Duke of Norfolk, the original of which he had actually seen. He
also quotes some older narrative for the imprisonment and death of King
Richard's illegitimate son. Hall gives the proceedings of the Council
when the imprisonment of the Queen Dowager, at Bermondsey, was ordered.
In such cases only ought the evidence of the later writers to be
accepted.
[Sidenote: Modern authors]
There was a reaction against the acceptance of all the statements put
forth by Tudor writers, which began from the moment that it became safe
to discuss the subject. The caricature was too gross, and too coarsely
drawn for general acceptance. As soon as the last of the Tudors had
passed away, Sir George Buck[18] wrote a defence of Richard III. He
was followed by Carte in his History of England.[19] Rapin, although
he felt {181} obliged to repeat the stories of the Tudor writers,
evidently had no confidence in their accuracy, and warned his readers
against them more than once. Stronger views on the subject were
adopted by Horace Walpole in his 'Historic Doubts'[20] (1768), by
Bayley in his 'History and Antiquities of the Tower of London,'[21] by
Laing in his continuation of 'Henry's History of England,'[22] by Mr.
Courtenay in his 'Commentaries on Shakespeare,'[23] by Miss Halsted in
her 'Life of Richard III.'[24] and by Mr. Legge in his 'Unpopular
King.'[25] Mr. Thorold Rogers rejects the story of the assassination
of Henry VI.; Sharon Turner[26] and Jesse[27] acquit the accused King
on all the counts except the murder of his nephews; while Dr. Hook,[28]
Dr. Stubbs and Sir Harris Nicolas[29] are unable to believe all the
accusations. The arguments put forward by some of {182} these authors
are not always tenable. But they show that there has been, from the
time when discussion was first allowed, a revulsion of feeling among
well-informed students against the acceptance of these accusations
without close scrutiny. It was felt that the statements of Tudor
writers must at least be considered as those of prejudiced and _ex
parte_ witnesses. Miss Halsted's 'Life of Richard III.' is by far the
most complete and the most valuable. Her interest in the slandered
young King led her to pay frequent visits to the ruins of Middleham
Castle, the scene of Richard's boyhood and of his happy married life.
Miss Halsted eventually married the dean of the college founded by
Richard and lies buried in Middleham Church.
[Sidenote: Tudor fables discredited]
On the other hand, there have been a few historians who have approached
the questions at issue either without considering the other side at all
or with a strong though possibly unconscious bias. Hume only had a
superficial knowledge of the subject. The most authoritative and
important upholder of the Tudor accusations is Dr. Lingard.[30] He
defends them in their entirety, and in this he stands alone among those
who have really studied the subject. Mr. Gairdner[31] rejects some of
the accusations and supports other Tudor stories with hesitation, and
in an apologetic and more or less doubtful tone. But Mr. Gairdner's
knowledge of the subject is so exhaustive, and his {183} position as a
historian is so justly high, that I have devoted a separate chapter to
the consideration of his views on the chief accusations against King
Richard III.
The Tudor fables are now discredited and are dying, but they are dying
hard.
[1] Richard II. was the first of our Kings, after the Norman Conquest,
who was partly an Englishman. Henry V., Edward IV., and Richard III.
were almost pure Englishmen. So was Edward VI., and Elizabeth was a
thorough Englishwoman. Mary II. and Anne were half English.
[2] See p. 159, note 1.
[3] 'Dr. Morton had taken his revenge and written a book in Latin
against King Richard, which came afterwards to the hands of Mr. More.
The book was lately in the hands of Mr. Roper of Eltham, as Sir Edward
Hoby, who saw it, told me.'--Buck, p. 75.
[4] 'Written as I have heard by Morton.'--Harington's _Metamorphosis of
Ajax_, p. 46. Mr. Gairdner has suggested that the book attributed to
More is a translation of one written in Latin by Morton. See _Letters
and Papers illustrative of the Reign of Richard III._, &c. Preface
xviii. (_n_). It is really the English version that was dictated or
inspired by Morton.
[5] More's _Utopia_, p. 20.
[6] See for instance Sharon Turner (iii. 462), who claims unquestioning
belief in this scurrilous production, because 'all confess More's
ability and integrity.' See also Jesse (p. 156 _n._ and p. 500).
In the same spirit Sir John Harington defended his own filthy treatise
because 'the worthy and incorrupt Master More' was dirty in his History
of Richard III. These writers seem to think that falsehood becomes
truth, and obscenity becomes decency in this book, merely because its
authorship is attributed to More. See _Metamorphosis of Ajax_, p. 46.
[7] 'As I myself, who wrote this pamphlet, truly know.' This is not in
Rastell's version; but in the continuation of Hardyng's Chronicle.
[8] Speaking of Polydore Virgil in his _Life of Henry VIII._ (p. 9),
Lord Herbert of Cherbury adds: 'in whom I have observed not a little
malignity.' The story of Cardinal Wolsey's ingratitude to Fox owes its
parentage to the spite of Polydore Virgil; whom Wolsey imprisoned. It
was quite untrue.--Brewer.
[9] 'Polydore Virgil committed as many of our ancient manuscript
volumes to the flames as would have filled a waggon, that the faults of
his own work might pass undiscovered.'--Caius, _De Antiquitate
Cantabrigiae_ (1574), p. 52.
'Polydore caused all the histories to be burnt which by the King's
authority and the assistance of his friends he could possibly come
at.'--La Popliniere, _Histoire des Histoires_, ix. 485.
[10] The Act of Parliament explaining the title of Richard III. to the
crown.
[11] Mr. Campbell's Introduction to the _Materials for the History of
the Reign of Henry VII_.
[12] Rous was one of the Chantry Priests at Guy's Cliff. He died in
1491, and was buried at St. Mary's, Warwick.
[13] One proof of this is that he calls Lord Stanley the Earl of Derby.
He was created Earl of Derby by Henry VII.
[14] _Rerum Anglicarum scriptorum veterum_. Tom. i. (Oxoniae, 1684.)
[15] _Alia Hist. Croylandensis continuatio_, pp. 549-578.
[16] Grafton, p. 130.
[17] _Harl. MS._ 433.
[18] Sir George Buck was descended from John Buck, comptroller of King
Richard's household, who was put to death after the battle of Bosworth.
Sir George served with the Earl of Essex in the Cadiz expedition of
1596. He was knighted by James I. in July 1603, and became Master of
the Bevels in 1610, a post which he held until 1622. He died on
September 22, 1623. His _History of the Life and Reign of King Richard
III._, composed in five books, was published in 1646, with 'George
Buck, Esq.,' as author. But the existence of the manuscript in the
British Museum, with Sir George as the author, and in his handwriting,
proves the substitution of 'Esquire' for 'Sir' to be a mistake. Camden
speaks of Buck as a man of distinguished learning.
[19] Thomas Carte, _History of England to_ 1654 _inclusive_. 4 vols.
folio. 1753.
[20] Horace Walpole, _Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard
III._, 4to. 1768.
[21] John Bayley, _History and Antiquities of the Tower of London_, 2
vols. 4to. 1821.
[22] Laing, _Continuation of the History of Great Britain by Dr.
Henry_. 1795.
[23] J. P. Courtenay, _Commentaries on the Plays of Shakespeare_, 2
vols. 8vo. 1840.
[24] Miss Halsted, _Life of Richard III_. 2 vols. 8vo. 1844.
[25] Alfred O. Legge, _The Unpopular King_. _Life and Times of Richard
III_. 2 vols. 8vo. 1883.
[26] Sharon Turner, _History of England during the Middle Ages_. 5
vols. 8vo. 1830.
[27] John H. Jesse, _Memoirs of King Richard III_. 8vo. 1862.
[28] Dr. W. F. Hook, D.D., _Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury_. 9
vols. 8vo. 1860-72. He considers the slander of the Duchess of York
incredible.
[29] Sir N. H. Nicolas, _Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York_.
1830. He utterly rejects the story of Richard having poisoned his
wife, and having wanted to marry Elizabeth of York (p. liii.) Dr. W.
Stubbs, _Constitutional History of England_, vol. ii. Thorold Rogers,
_Work and Wages_, ii. 212.
[30] Dr. Lingard, _History of England to the Revolution_. 4th ed.
1837; 6th ed. 1854.
[31] James Gairdner, _Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of
Richard III. and Henry VII_. 1861-63. _Memorials of Henry VII_.
1858. _History of the Life and Reign of Richard III_. 1878. _Life of
Henry VII_. 1889. Article in the _English Historical Review_. 1891.
{184}
CHAPTER II
EXAMINATION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RICHARD III
1. The Deformity.
2. Murder of Edward of Lancaster.
3. Murder of Henry VI.
4. Marriage with Anne Nevill.
5. Treatment of the Countess of Warwick.
6. Death of Clarence.
An indictment, in many counts, was brought against Richard III. after
his death, by the authors who wrote during the reign of his successor,
and in the interests of that successor's dynasty. It will be seen, in
the course of the discussion, with what object these accusations were
made, and why a belief in them was considered to be so important to the
success of the Tudor usurpation. The reckless profusion of abuse was
due to the complete license of the traducers. No one could appear for
the accused. The brave young King was dead, his body subjected to
cowardly insults, his friends proscribed, his people silenced. Calumny
was triumphant and unchecked. Yet there was method and system in the
scheme of the Tudor writers. Their accusations were all intended to
lead up to a belief in the dead King's guilt with regard to one central
crime. If he was to be deformed, if he was to be an assassin at the
age of eighteen, the murderer of his brother and his wife, a ruthless
usurper {185} and tyrant, it was because such a monster would be more
likely to commit a crime of which he must be thought to be guilty in
the interests of his wily successor. It will now be our business to
examine these charges one by one. The first concerns Richard's
personal appearance.
[Sidenote: Deformity]
It is stated that he was two years in his mother's womb,[1] that he was
born feet foremost,[2] with a complete set of teeth,[3] and with hair
down to the shoulders,[4] that he was hump-backed, that his right
shoulder was higher than his left,[5] that his left shoulder was much
higher than his right,[6] and that one of his arms was withered.[7]
Passing over the obvious fables with the remark that they throw just
suspicion on other statements from the same sources, we come to the
hump-back. We do not find this deformity mentioned by any contemporary
except Morton. If it had existed it is certain that so conspicuous a
blemish would have been dwelt upon by all contemporary detractors.
Stow, the most honest of the later chroniclers, told Sir George Buck
that he had talked to old men who had seen and known Richard, and who
said that he was in bodily shape comely enough.[8] In the two
portraits drawn by Rous no inequality is visible. Richard here has a
handsome youthful face, slight build and good figure. The portrait at
Windsor shows a face full of energy and decision, yet gentle and
melancholy. The shoulders are quite even.
{186}
Rous, Polydore Virgil, and Morton are the authorities for the unequal
shoulders. Rous says that the right shoulder was higher. Morton makes
the left shoulder much higher. Their contradictory testimony shows the
worthless character of both these authorities. Polydore Virgil merely
mentions an inequality. Fabyan and the Croyland monk do not say a word
against Richard's personal appearance. A curious piece of evidence was
discovered by Mr. Davies of York, which bears on the question.[9] From
the 'York Records' it appears that, six years after King Richard's
death, a man named Burton was brought before the Lord Mayor accused of
calling that prince, whose memory was so beloved in the north, 'a
crouchback.' One John Poynter, who heard this remark, told Burton that
he lied, and struck at him with a little rod he had in his hand. It
would seem, therefore, that if there was any defect in Richard's
figure, it was so slight that its very existence was matter of dispute
among those who could well remember the King, while it was
imperceptible to Stow's informants. On the whole, we may accept the
conclusion of Miss Halsted that Richard was of slight and delicate
build, and that the severe martial exercises in which his youth had
been spent had caused the shoulder of his sword-arm to be very slightly
higher than the other.
The story of the withered arm comes from Morton. That astute prelate
always had an object in making his statements. This particular tale
was invented to draw off attention from the real charge made by the
Protector against the Woodvilles. It served its turn, and may be
dismissed as false without any hesitation. {187} For it is not
mentioned by a single other authority. The victor of Barnet and
Tewkesbury, the leader of the brilliant charge at Bosworth, who
unhorsed Sir John Cheney[10] and William Brandon, must have had
serviceable arms.
The object of the Tudor historians in commencing their grotesque
caricature of an imaginary monster with these stories of his personal
deformity is transparent. They intended to make him detestable from
the outset. They calculated that improbable crimes would be more
readily believed if the alleged perpetrator was a deformed hunchback
born with teeth. They were right. Nothing has more conduced to an
unreasoning prejudice against Richard, and to a firm belief in his
alleged crimes, than the impression of his personal repulsiveness.
Modern writers have also understood this method of treatment. Lord
Macaulay was careful to prepare the minds of his readers for the
alleged judicial crimes of Sir Elijah by telling them that little Impey
was in the habit of stealing cakes at school.[11] The great essayist,
as well as the Tudor historians, knew their public. The one invented
the pilfering story and the others the deformity with the same motive.
If a judge had been a juvenile thief, or if a king had been a deformed
little monster, the charges against them in after life would be more
readily accepted as true. It is illogical, but it is human nature.
Richard was described as a venomous hunchback[12] and made to commit
several atrocious crimes in order {188} to prepare men's minds to
receive, without incredulity, the story of the murder of his nephews.
It was evidently anticipated that this final draft on their powers of
belief would be dishonoured unless the alleged murderer had been
steeped in crime from his infancy.
At the early age of eighteen Richard is accordingly accused of having
committed a cowardly and inhuman murder in cold blood after the battle
of Tewkesbury, on evidence which would be insufficient to hang a
dog.[13]
[Sidenote: Young Edward's death]
The battle took place on May 4, 1471. The young Duke of Gloucester had
displayed valour and generalship, and had won for himself a name in
chivalry. On the other side, Prince Edward of Lancaster, who was
exactly one year younger than Richard, led the main battle of his army,
and bore himself manfully. Carried away in the rout and closely
followed by his victorious enemies, he was slain on the field of
battle. There was one eye-witness who wrote an account of the battle
of Tewkesbury. He said that young Edward of Lancaster 'was taken
fleeing to the townwards and slain in the field.'[14] A drawing
accompanies this writer's report, in which we see a horse on its knees,
{189} the rider receiving his deathblow, the helmet struck off, and the
bright golden locks sinking on the horse's mane.[15] This was the
plain truth. He fell, fighting bravely, on the battle-field. All
contemporaries, without an exception, corroborate this evidence. The
next writer was Warkworth, but he was not present. He wrote 'There was
slain on the field Prince Edward, which cried for succour to the Duke
of Clarence.'[16] Bernard Andre, the paid historian of Henry VII., says
the same, 'Is enim ante Bernardi campum Theoxberye proelio belligerens
ceciderat.' The Croyland monk says that some of the Lancastrian
leaders fell in the battle, others 'by the revengeful hands of certain
persons afterwards,'[17] referring to the fact that some were executed
after trial before the Earl Marshal and Constable. There is no hint
here of the alleged assassination of Edward. Comines tells the same
story, 'et fut le Prince de Galles tue sur le champ et plusieurs autres
grans seigneurs.' Such is the unanimous testimony of contemporaries.
We now come to the other Tudor writers and their versions of young
Edward's death. Fabyan, writing to please Henry VII., is the first who
said that the Prince was captured and brought before Edward IV., {190}
and he added the following tale: 'The King strake him with his gauntlet
in the face, on which the Prince was by the King's servants
incontinently slain.'[18] Fabyan's baseless gossip came before
Polydore Virgil, and the protege of Pope Alexander VI. conceived the
idea of giving it a lurid Borgian colouring, better suited to the
latitude of Urbino than to that of Tewkesbury and calculated to make
our flesh creep. It was thus that his ideas found words: 'King Edward
gave no answer, only thrusting the young man from him with his hand,
whom forthwith those that were present, who were George Duke of
Clarence, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and William Lord Hastings,
crewelly murderyd.'[19] This story was improved upon by Grafton, Hall,
Holinshed and other Tudor chroniclers. Dorset was added to the list of
alleged assassins by Habington, Grafton, and Hall. Gloucester is made
to strike the first blow by Holinshed. Here we have a striking example
of the gradual growth of a legend which has eventually become embedded
in history.[20] Its original conception was due to an Italian, not to
an English brain. It is {191} thus that the fable has become a part of
the history of England. Honest John Stow is alone in rejecting the
Italian's embellishment. He discredits the version of Polydore Virgil
as a palpable fraud, and merely repeats Fabyan's statement.
It is very remarkable that three authorities patronised by Henry VII.
give no countenance to the fable of Polydore Virgil. Bernard Andre is
in perfect agreement with the contemporaries, simply because Virgil's
story had not been invented when he wrote. Rous is silent for the same
reason. He was the originator of the birth with teeth and with hair to
the shoulders. He heaped calumny on calumny, and would have eagerly
repeated the Tewkesbury story if it had existed in his time. Morton's
silence is still more singular except on the hypothesis that the
slander was not then in existence.
Dr. Morton was actually present at Tewkesbury. If young Edward was
murdered he must have known it. Yet in a work prepared for the express
purpose of enumerating the alleged crimes of Richard he said {192}
nothing. He had no scruples. He repeats all he can think of, with the
object of heaping opprobrium on Richard's memory. But there is not a
hint about assassinating Edward of Lancaster. Morton's silence, under
these circumstances, amounts to a proof that the story was a
fabrication of later times. Andre, Rous, and Morton wrote before
Polydore Virgil, and when the Italian's calumny had not yet been
invented. It cannot be that Virgil found out what the less vigilant
Andre, Rous, and Morton overlooked. If anyone knew all the details of
the battle of Tewkesbury at first hand, it was Morton. He was there.
His silence explodes the fable. It also convicts Polydore Virgil of
having fabricated an exceptionally foul slander, with a rank scent of
its Borgian origin:--
'Virgilii duo sunt: alter Maro: tu Polydore
Alter: Tu Mendax: ille Poeta fuit.'[21]
Unless the testimony of those who were absent, and for the most part
unborn, is to be preferred to that of eye-witnesses, and that of future
generations to contemporaries, the fable of young Edward's murder ought
never again to find a place in serious history.
[Sidenote: Death of Henry VI]
The charge against the Duke of Gloucester that he murdered Henry VI. is
an insinuation rather than an accusation. None of his traducers state
it as a fact. One says 'as men constantly say,' another, 'it was the
continual report,' another, 'as many believe.' We must, therefore,
first treat this alleged 'continual {193} report' as a rumour only, and
judge of it from probabilities.
We are asked to believe that young Richard, a boy of eighteen, who had
just won great military renown, arrived at the Tower in the evening of
one day with orders to proceed on active service very early the next
morning; that, although fully occupied with preparations for his
departure, he found time to induce Lord Rivers, the Constable of the
Tower, and his political enemy, to deliver up charge to him in order
that he might assassinate a defenceless and feeble invalid with his own
hand, a deed which might just as well have been perpetrated by any
hired jailer; that it was done without his brother Edward's knowledge,
and that, although the deed must have been done with the knowledge of
Lord Rivers and his officials, of Henry's ten servants and three
readers, yet there was never any certainty about the matter. Rivers,
be it remembered, was not Richard's friend.
This grossly improbable rumour bears the evidence of its origin clearly
marked. It was put forward in the reign and in the interests of Henry
VII. It was a rumour manufactured by his paid writers and their
followers. We can examine the process.
Morton says: 'He slew with his own hand King Henry VI. as men
constantly say, and that without knowledge or commandment of the King.'
Polydore Virgil has the following version: 'King Edward, to the intent
that there should be no new insurrections, travelled not long after
through Kent, which business being despatched, to the intent that every
man might conceive a perfect peace to be attained, Henry VI. being not
long before deprived of his diadem, was put to death in the Tower of
London. {194} The continual report is that Richard Duke of Gloucester
killed him with a sword, whereby his brother might be delivered from
all hostility.'
Dr. Warkworth tells us that 'the same night that King Edward came to
London, King Harry being in ward in prison in the Tower of London, was
put to death on the 21st of May on a Tuesday night between eleven and
twelve of the clock, being then at the Tower the Duke of Gloucester,
brother to King Edward, and many others. On the morrow he was chested,
and brought to Paul's and his face was open that every man might see
him. And in his lying he bled on the pavement there, and afterwards at
the Blackfriars was brought, and there bled afresh.' This Dr.
Warkworth was Master of St. Peter's College, Cambridge, from 1473 to
1500. He kept a private diary, receiving his facts from informants he
saw at Cambridge. His account of Henry's death shows that he was
superstitious and credulous. His second-hand report of the time and
manner of the death cannot be received as of any authority. His
mention of Gloucester's presence has been assumed to be intended, by
the writer, to imply that the Duke was concerned in the crime. This
does not follow and, in a mere private diary, such innuendo would be
out of place and improbable. The date of the 21st, given by Warkworth
and Fabyan, would be approved by Henry VII. as throwing suspicion on
his predecessor, and would be fixed as the obit of Henry VI. Any
subsequent repetition of that date gives it no additional authority.
Such repetition has as much or as little authority as is given to it by
the assertions of Warkworth and Fabyan.[22]
{195}
Fabyan gives the same date as Warkworth, and adds, 'of the death of
Henry divers tales were told, but the most common fame went that he was
stikked with a dagger, by the hands of Richard of Gloucester.'[23]
Rous says, 'He killed by others or, as many believe, with his own hand,
that most sacred man Henry VI.'[24]
The continuator of the Croyland Chronicle insinuates nothing against
Richard. His words are: 'The body of King Henry was found lifeless in
the Tower; may God pardon and give time for repentance to that man,
whoever he was, that dared to lay his sacrilegious hand upon the Lord's
anointed. The doer may obtain the name of a tyrant, the sufferer of a
glorious martyr.'[25] The antithesis of tyrant and martyr shows that
the monk alluded to King Edward and King Henry. The prayer that 'the
doer' may have time for repentance is a proof that the passage was
written during Edward's lifetime, and that there was {196} then a
rumour that Henry had met with foul play. But it also furnishes a
proof that rumour had not then imputed the supposed act to Richard.
Of these authorities, Warkworth's informant and the City Chronicler are
the only two who perceived that in order to give any plausibility to
the alleged 'continual report,' Henry's death must be made to tally
with young Richard's presence in the Tower. They, therefore, fixed
upon May 21, the single day when Richard was there. Their fabrication
is exposed by the evidence of the accounts for Henry's maintenance, as
will be seen directly; and also by the contradiction of Polydore
Virgil. That author, who had access to all official sources of
information, places Henry's death in the end of May, after King
Edward's progress through Kent. Thus these authorities do not agree,
and are quite unworthy of credit.
[Sidenote: True date of Henry's death]
We are not altogether without the means of ascertaining the truth.
Henry VI. was not an old man. His age was 47. But he was feeble and
half-witted. His health was very precarious, his constitution having
been weakened by long illnesses. He inherited the mental and physical
imbecility of his grandfather Charles VI. of France. Shortly before
his liberation by the Earl of Warwick in 1470, some ruffian had stabbed
him[26] and then fled. Henry was said to have been convalescent, but,
with his feeble hold on life, it is not likely that his recovery was
permanent. He gradually sank, and died on May 24, or perhaps in the
night of the 23rd. Queen Margaret of Anjou arrived at the Tower as a
prisoner on the 21st, just in time to soothe her husband's last {197}
moments, and to be with him when he died. The Lancastrian leanings of
the family of Lord Rivers, who was Constable of the Tower, make it
likely that the unhappy queen was granted access to her dying husband.
We know that Margaret was treated with consideration, and allowed to
reside with her most intimate English friend, the old Duchess of
Suffolk, at Wallingford, until her ransom was paid.
The date of Henry's death is fixed by the evidence of his household
accounts, which are given by Rymer.
'_Accounts of the costs and expenses for the custody of King Henry, The
Wednesday after the feast of Holy Trinity, June 12._'
'To the same William Sayer for money to his own hand delivered for the
expenses and diet of the said Henry and of ten persons his attendants
within the tower, for the custody of the said Henry, namely, for
fourteen days the first beginning on the 11th of May last, as per
account delivered 14_l._ 5_s_.'
'To William Sayer for money delivered at times, namely at one time,
7_s._ for the hire of three hired readers for the said William and
other attendants within the tower in charge of the King for xiv days
and for the board of the same for the same time, and on another time
3_s._ 10_d._ for the board of said Henry within the said tower as per
account delivered 10_s._ 10_d_.'[27]
It is clear from these entries that Henry's accounts were made up on
May 11, and that they were again made up when he died, fourteen days
after May 11, that is, on May 24.[28] We also gather that he was {198}
maintained in becoming state, at a cost of 400_l._ a year, equivalent
to upwards of 2,000_l._ of our money, and that he had ten servants, and
three readers to read aloud to him. Mr. Thorold Rogers says: 'I make
no doubt that Henry was used well during the nine years of his
residence in the Tower: nor do I believe that he was done to death
after Tewkesbury. The story of his assassination in the Tower is, I am
persuaded, a Tudor calumny.'[29] 'I conclude that nature which had hid
his misfortunes from him more than once by a lethargy which seemed
almost like death, at last released him in the same merciful fashion
from the recurrent sorrows of his life.'[30]
The only contemporary writer was the author of a letter to the citizens
of Bruges, giving an account of the events which led to the restoration
of Edward IV. Speaking from personal knowledge he reported that Henry
VI. died on May 23, and his accuracy is established by the evidence of
the accounts.
These are the plain facts connected with Henry's death. They are fatal
to the story of the murder. {199} Warkworth and Fabyan give the 21st
for the date of Henry's death, because Gloucester was in the Tower on
that day only. Their assertions are disproved by Polydore Virgil, by
the writer of the letter at Bruges, and by the accounts which show the
date of Henry's death to have been May 23 or 24. On those days
Gloucester was at Sandwich, upwards of seventy miles from the Tower.
The tale of Henry's assassination by the Duke of Gloucester is a Tudor
calumny, and was invented many years afterwards to please Henry VII.
It is possible that a false rumour of foul play may have been spread by
the enemies of Edward IV., and this seems likely from the words of the
Croyland Chronicle. But the absurd accusation against the King's young
brother was concocted after Richard III. had fallen at Bosworth, and
when any calumny against the dead was welcomed and rewarded by a
successor, who believed that his security depended upon a belief in his
predecessor's infamy. Habington, in his life of Edward IV., has
pointed out the absurdity of charging Richard with the alleged
murder.[31]
The next charge against the Duke of Gloucester is that he forced the
Lady Anne Nevill to marry him, immediately after he had murdered young
Edward of Lancaster, who was her husband.[32] The answers to this are
that Edward was not her husband,[33] that Richard {200} did not murder
him, and that Richard did not force Anne's inclinations. No marriage
between Edward and Anne ever took place. The Croyland monk always
speaks of Anne, at this time, as the 'maiden' and the 'damsel.'
[Sidenote: Anne Nevill and her mother]
But there is more to be said. The two young cousins, Richard and Anne,
were brought up together, and their union was most natural. Miss
Halsted has well remarked that Richard showed peculiar delicacy towards
Anne, in placing her in sanctuary at St. Martin's before the marriage,
where her inclinations could in no way be forced. Anne was her
husband's constant companion at every important crisis of his life, and
there is good reason to believe that the marriage was a happy one.
A very bitter enemy of Richard's memory, in later times, has attempted
to draw conclusions to his disadvantage from the marriage settlements.
There had been no time to obtain the usual dispensations, and it
therefore became advisable that the trustees, for the sake of the
offspring, should guard against any possible informality in the
marriage. A protecting clause was inserted, in case the property could
not be held without a renewal of the marriage ceremony; arising from
any alleged informality in the nuptials. This clause, framed by the
lawyers, was to the effect that if the Duke of Gloucester and the Lady
Anne Nevill should be divorced, and afterwards marry again, the Act for
the partition of property should nevertheless be valid, and that in
case of a divorce, and if the Duke shall do his continual diligence and
effectual devoir by all lawful {201} means to be lawfully married to
the said Anne, he shall have as much of the premises as pertained to
her during her lifetime. It was merely a formal clause inserted by the
lawyers, and probably never even read by Richard or Anne.
Miss Strickland calls this 'an ominous clause relating to a wedlock of
a few months; proving Anne meditated availing herself of some
informality in her abhorred marriage; but if she had done so her
husband would have remained in possession of her property. The absence
of the dispensation is a negative proof that Anne never consented to
her second marriage, and that it was never legalised may be guessed by
the rumours of a subsequent period when the venomous hunchback
meditated in his turn divorcing her.'
This is a good example of the sort of stuff which rooted and
unreasoning prejudice allows to pass for argument.
The next charge is made by only one of the Tudor writers. Rous alleged
that 'Richard imprisoned for life the Countess of Warwick who had fled
to him for refuge.'[34] This is untrue. The Countess of Warwick heard
of the defeat and death of her husband at Barnet, when she landed in
England. She took sanctuary at Beaulieu in Hampshire, was attainted,
and all her property passed to her daughters Isabella and Anne, who
married the Dukes of Clarence and Gloucester. The Countess remained at
Beaulieu for two years, from 1471 to 1473. We next hear of her in a
letter from Sir John Paston dated June 3, 1473. 'The Countess of
Warwick is now out of Beaulieu, and Sir James Tyrrel conveyeth her
northward, men say {202} by the King's assent, whereto some men say
that the Duke of Clarence is not agreed.'[35] Evidently the King had
given his assent to a request of Gloucester that his wife's mother
might be allowed to come and live with her daughter at Middleham.
There was no prison but a home with her child. Tyrrel, who was then an
officer of Edward's Court, was sent to escort her from Beaulieu to
Middleham.[36]
There is evidence of Richard's kindly feeling towards his wife's
family. He interceded for the heirs of the Marquis Montagu, Warwick's
brother, and it was at the request of Gloucester that the King allowed
them to inherit part of their father's property.[37] Another
indication of the Duke's friendliness, as regards his mother-in-law and
her relations, is afforded by their confidence in him. Lady Latimer, a
sister of the Countess of Warwick, appointed Richard the supervisor of
her will, which was a position of great trust in those days. Such
kindly offices performed for those who were near and dear to the
Countess of Warwick are cogent, though indirect, proofs that the
statement of Rous is a calumny.
[Sidenote: Death of Clarence]
Shakespeare and others have further accused Richard of having abetted
and aided in the death of his brother George Duke of Clarence. No
serious historian, except Sandford, has ventured to bring forward the
charge directly. The Croyland monk, Polydore Virgil, Andre, Rous,
Fabyan are all silent on {203} the subject.[38] But Morton is equal to
the occasion. The passage in which he insinuates suspicion is a good
specimen of the style of this unscrupulous slanderer:
'Some wise men also ween that his drift, covertly conveyed, lacked not
in helping forth his brother of Clarence to his death; _which he
resisted openly_, howbeit somewhat, as men deemed, more faintly than he
that were heartily minded to his wealth. And they who thus deem think
that he, long time in King Edward's life, forethought to be King in
case that the King his brother (whose life he looked that evil diet
should shorten) should happen to decease (as indeed he did) while his
children were young. And they deem that for this intent he was glad of
his brother's death, the Duke of Clarence, whose life must needs have
hindered him so intending whether the same Clarence had kept him true
to his nephew the young King, or enterprised to be King himself. But
of all this point there is no certainty, and whoso divineth upon
conjectures may as well shoot too far as too short.'
The object of this involved passage is to leave a sort of general
impression that Richard had something or other to do with the death of
Clarence.[39] By throwing up a dust cloud of verbiage the central fact
that Richard {204} intervened in his brother's favour is obscured and
thrown into the background.
The guilt of the death of Clarence rests with Rivers and the Woodville
faction. He was a great danger to them, as will be seen in the next
chapter, while they benefited by his attainder and got the wardship of
his son. All Richard did was to protest against the execution of his
brother.
[1] Rous, 214. 'Biennio matris utero tentus, exiens cum dentibus et
capillis ad humeros.' This is false, for Richard was born three years
after his brother George, and there was another child, named Thomas,
between them.
[2] Morton.
[3] Rous.
[4] Rous.
[5] Rous.
[6] Morton.
[7] Morton.
[8] Buck, p. 79.
[9] Davies, York Records, May 14, 1190, p. 220.
[10] 'A man of much fortitude, and exceeding the common
sort.'--Polydore Virgil, p. 224.
[11] In Macaulay's review of Gleig's _Life of Warren Hastings_.
[12] Miss Strickland.
[13] Mr. Gairdner gives the evidence. 'Each crime rests on slender
testimony enough, though any one of them being admitted, lends greater
credit to the others. From this point of view it is not at all
improbable that Richard was a murderer at nineteen' (p. 13). Richard
killed his nephews, consequently he assassinated a prisoner when he was
nineteen. It thus having been shown that he was a murderer when he was
nineteen, what more probable than that he killed his nephews? This
method of arguing has been perfectly satisfactory to generations of
historical students, and appears to be so still.
[14] _Fleetwood Chron._ p. 30. This is the narrative of the recovery
of his kingdom by Edward IV., in _Harl. MS._ no. 543, printed by the
Camden Society.
[15] The drawing is in the abridgment sent to Bruges, reproduced in the
_Archaeologia_, xxi. p. ii.
[16] _Warkworth Chronicle_, Camden Society, p. 18.
[17] The Croyland monk wrote: 'As well in the field as afterwards by
the revengeful hands of certain persons, Prince Edward, Devon,
Somerset,' &c.: that is Prince Edward and Devon on the field, Somerset
by 'the revengeful hands': by which phrase he is pleased to refer to
the Earl Marshal's Court which was a constitutional tribunal (_Chron.
Croyland_, p. 555). 'Tum in campo tum postea ultricibus quorundam
manibus, ipso Principe Edwardo unigenito Regis Henrici, victo Duce
Somersetiae, Comiteque Devoniae ac aliis dominis omnibus et singulis
memoratis' (p. 555).
[18] Fabyan, p. 662.
[19] Polydore Virgil, p. 336.
[20] Hall is notorious for the embellishment of fables that were passed
on to him by Polydore Virgil, by adding names and incidents of his own
invention. In the case of the death of the young Earl of Rutland, he
first took several years off his age and made a little child of him,
then gave him a tutor and supplied the tutor's name. With these
properties he got up a very effective scene on Wakefield Bridge. When
Rutland's real age is known, Hall's story becomes absurd, and he is
convicted of intentional inaccuracy. Again when he described the
burial of Henry VI., he said that the corpse was conveyed to Chertsey
'without priest or clerk, torch or taper, singing or saying.' This is
something worse than embellishment, it is absolutely false. The
payments are recorded (and the records are still preserved), for
obsequies and masses said by four orders of brethren, for linen cloth,
spices, and for wages of men carrying torches. The statements of Hall
are certainly unreliable. In retailing Polydore Virgil's calumny about
the assassination of Prince Edward at Tewkesbury, Hall cannot refrain
from similar inventions and embellishments. He adds that Edward was
taken prisoner by Sir Richard Croft and delivered up to the King in
consequence of a proclamation offering a reward of 100_l._ a year to
whosoever should yield up the Prince dead or alive: accompanied by an
assurance that his life should be spared (Hall, p. 301). Habington
repeats this and adds, as his own contribution, that 'the good knight
repented what he had done, and openly professed his service abused and
his faith deluded' (_Life of Edward IV._ p. 96). This statement is
confuted by the fact that it was on the battle-field of Tewkesbury that
Richard Croft received his knighthood from King Edward. This would not
have been so if he had 'openly declared his service abused.' He
afterwards received benefits from King Richard (_Paston Letters_). The
fable of Fabyan was embellished and added to by various hands, until it
became a very elaborate and highly finished lie circumstantial.
[21] The name of Virgil borne by two,
One Maro and one Polydore.
The first a Poet wise and true,
The last a lying slanderer.
[22] Mr. Gairdner mentions that there is a MS. City Chronicle among the
_Cottonian MSS._ (Vitell. A. xvi. f. 133), which states that Henry's
body was brought to St. Paul's on Ascension Eve (May 22), '_who was
slain, as it was said, by the Duke of Gloucester_.' In _MS. Arundel_,
28, in the British Museum, there is an old Chronicle, on a fly-leaf of
which, at the end, there are some jottings relating to Edward IV.'s
time in a contemporary hand, and among others--'_eodem die decessit
Henricus sextus_,' meaning the day of Edward's arrival in London. A
MS. in Heralds' College (printed by Mr. Gairdner) dates the death '_in
vigilia Ascencionis Dominicae_'; a MS. at Oxford (Laud, 674) gives the
same date; a MS. in the Royal Library at the British Museum says:
'_Obitus Regis Henriei Sexti, gui obiit inter vicesimum primum diem
Maii et xxiim diem Maii_.' Henry's obit is set down May 22. None of
these documents have any date. Their statements about May 21 are the
same as those of Warkworth or Fabyan, from whom they must have been
derived. But Warkworth and Fabyan are proved to be wrong by the
evidence of the accounts for Henry's maintenance: and by the evidence
of Polydore Virgil, as well as by the letter at Bruges.
[23] Fabyan, p. 662.
[24] Rous, p. 215. 'Ipsum sanctissimum virum Henricum Sextum per alios
vel multis credentibus manu pocius propria interfecit.'
[25] _Croyland Chron._ p. 557.
[26] '_Collectarum et mansuetudinum et bonorum morum regis Henrici VI.,
et ex collectione magistri Joannis Blakman bacchalaurii theologiae et
post Cartusiae monachi Londini._'--Hearne, p. 202.
[27] Rymer's _Foedera_, xi. pp. 712, 713.
[28] Laing, in his continuation of _Henry's History of Great Britain_,
in referring to the accounts for the maintenance of Henry VI. in
Rymer's _Foedera_, mistook the day on which they were audited and
passed, namely June 12, for the day on which the expenses were
incurred; and concluded that Henry was alive on June 12. This is
triumphantly pointed out by Dr. Lingard. But the triumph is imaginary.
Dr. Lingard ought to have seen that the date of auditing does not
affect the question. The fact remains that Henry's board was paid, and
that he was consequently alive, for fourteen days after May 11, that is
until May 24, which is fatal to the story of the murder.
This is shown by Bayley, who quotes the accounts in his _History of the
Tower of London_, and points out that they furnish satisfactory
evidence of Henry having been alive at least until May 24 (second ed.
p. 323). Mr. Gairdner has suggested that the payments up to the 24th
were to Henry's servants who were not discharged until then, and do not
prove that Henry was alive. But this is untenable, for they are for
Henry's keep as well.
[29] _Work and Wages_, ii. 312.
[30] _Ibid._ ii. 313.
[31] 'I cannot believe a man so cunning in declining envy and winning
honour to his name, would have undertaken such a business and executed
it with his own hand. Nor did this concern the Duke of Gloucester so
particularly as to engage him alone in the cruelty.'--Habington, in
_Kennet_, p. 455.
[32] Gairdner, p. 22.
[33] Sharon Turner, iii. p. 323. Anne had been contracted to Edward of
Lancaster in July 1470, she being only fourteen, and he sixteen; but
she was never married to him. The marriage was not to take place
unless certain conditions were complied with by Anne's father, the Earl
of Warwick. The conditions were not fulfilled, and the contract, _ipso
facto_, was null and void.
[34] Rous, p. 215. 'Durante vita sua incarceravit.' The Countess
out-lived Richard III.
[35] _Paston Letters_, iii. p. 92.
[36] Mr. Gairdner quotes a letter from William Dengayn to William
Calthorp (_Third Report of Hist. MSS. Commission_, p. 272), from which
it appears that the Countess of Warwick was actually with the Duke of
Gloucester in June 1473.--Gairdner's _Richard III._ p. 27 (_n_).
[37] _Rot. Parl._ vi. 124.
[38] Gloucester was in London at the opening of Parliament on January
16, 1478; but there is no evidence where he was in February, the month
of Clarence's death. He was certainly at Middleham in March. Mr.
Gairdner pronounces Gloucester 'guiltless of his brother's death' (p.
40).
[39] Morton did this so successfully that his imitators soon began to
make a direct accusation. The slander grew and prospered until at last
we find the following passage in Sandford: 'He was drowned in a butt of
malmsey, his brother the Duke of Gloucester assisting thereat with his
own proper hands!' He refers to Hall, p. 246.--_Genealogical History_
(London, 1707), p. 438.
{205}
CHAPTER III
FURTHER CHARGES AGAINST RICHARD III
7. Execution of Hastings.
8. Execution of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey, and Haute.
9. The 'Usurpation.'
10. Refusal of Buckingham's petition.
11. Second coronation at York.
12. Poisoning of his wife.
13. Intended marriage with Elizabeth of York.
14. Intended execution of Lord Strange.
The most elaborate and detailed part of the indictment against Richard
III. refers to the so-called 'usurpation,' including the period from
his arrival in London to his coronation. The events of the interregnum
had to be represented in such a way as that it should appear that Henry
Tudor was righteously superseding an unscrupulous usurper. This was a
matter of vital importance to the intruding dynasty. Accordingly much
art was devoted to the preparation of a plausible story, while careful
but not always effectual efforts were made to destroy all documents
that would contradict it.
[Sidenote: Archbishop Morton]
The portion of the history published by Grafton and Rastell was
undoubtedly written or dictated by John Morton himself. It is on
Morton's story that all subsequent historians have relied for their
facts; and as it is on this period that the whole career of Richard as
a sovereign hinges, it is necessary that we should bear in mind what
manner of man this Morton really {206} was. He was born at Beer Regis
in Dorsetshire, but the year is very uncertain, and he received his
first instruction at Cerne Abbey. Thence he proceeded to Oxford, and
began life as a lawyer, practising in the Court of Arches. He became a
Master in Chancery, increasing his income by taking orders, and was
Parson of Bloxworth in Dorsetshire. He took the Lancastrian side, and
was at York when the battle of Towton was fought. In 1462 he fled to
the Continent with Queen Margaret. His fortunes were then at a low
ebb, but they brightened when the Earl of Warwick came to France to
betray the cause of Edward IV. Morton attached himself to Warwick at
Angers, went with him to England in August 1470, escaped from Barnet to
join Queen Margaret at Weymouth, and was with her at Tewkesbury.
Nothing but ill luck had attended his fortunes since he had joined the
Lancastrian party. So he changed sides, obtained a pardon from Edward
IV. and wormed himself into that good-natured monarch's confidence. He
became one of the greatest pluralists on record. 'He was avaricious
and grasping.'[1] He received a bribe from Louis XI. for inducing his
own sovereign to accept dishonourable terms of peace, and was further
bribed with a pension of 2,000 crowns a year.[2] The contrast between
the upright conduct of the Duke of Gloucester and his own corrupt
practices on that occasion explains the wily priest's malignant
hostility to Richard. Morton was made Bishop of Ely in 1479. On the
death of Edward he saw a wide opening for his ambition in the chances
of a long minority. The facts revealed to the Council by Bishop
Stillington were, consequently, distasteful to him. He was the heart
and soul of the conspiracy of Hastings {207} and the Woodville faction
against the Protector. He brought Hastings to his death, but escaped
himself. The incorrigible plotter was entrusted to the custody of the
Duke of Buckingham. By his cunning artifices he induced that weak
nobleman to become a traitor, and claim the crown for himself. He led
Buckingham to his death; but secured his own safety. He then joined
Henry Tudor's conspiracy, and it was doubtless through Morton's advice
that the Welsh adventurer put forward a claim to the crown. Success at
length attended the intriguer's schemes. Henry VII. made him
Chancellor in 1486, Archbishop of Canterbury in 1487, and, after much
importunity, a cardinal's hat was obtained for him, from the Borgian
Pope.[3] He became enormously rich. He revealed to Henry VII. 'the
confessions of as many lords as his grace listed.'[4] He was one of
the most odious instruments of Henry's extortions. The argument that
those who spent little must have saved much, and that those who spent
much must have much, was called 'Morton's fork.'[5] He died in 1500,
hated and execrated by all ranks of the people.
This is the man from whom history derives the narrative of Richard's
accession. We must remember the circumstances in which he wrote or
dictated his version. He was then Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry
VII. He had to traduce Richard in the interests of his master, and at
the same time he had to conceal from Henry himself certain parts of his
own proceedings, especially as regards his intrigue with Buckingham.
{208}
[Sidenote: Morton's misrepresentations]
Morton was most unscrupulous in fabricating his story, throwing out
misleading insinuations, garbling and suppressing facts, making false
statements, and altering dates. He was a leading actor in, and an
eyewitness of what he described, he was an able and clever man, and he
was intimately acquainted with the facts as they really happened.
Moreover, we are informed by Sir Thomas More, who knew him, that he had
an extraordinary memory.[6] Consequently every mistake that is
detected in his narrative, every date that is altered, must have been
inserted with a special object. It is fortunate for the cause of truth
that he was more careless, and wrote in greater detail, than he
certainly would have done, if there had been any chance of an answer
being put forward by one equally conversant with the facts. But he
knew that he was safe--power unscrupulously enforced was on his side.
Morton opens his case with the assumption that the Duke of Gloucester
had always intended to supplant his nephew. He asserts that the Duke
concerted plans with Buckingham and Hastings against the Queen and her
relations; that he then, secretly, and by divers means, caused the
Queen to be persuaded to advise her son not to come with a large force
to London; and that he and other lords wrote to the Queen's friends so
lovingly that they, nothing mistrusting, brought the young prince up in
good speed with sober company. Gloucester and Buckingham then went to
Northampton and met Rivers there. For all that appears in this part of
the narrative, Gloucester was in London, and came thence with
Buckingham to Northampton. Gloucester was really in the marches of
Scotland, and he could not possibly have carried on {209} all these
intrigues at that distance, between April 9 when King Edward died and
the 23rd when Rivers left Ludlow. He could not even have heard of the
King's death for several days. It is true that, towards the end of his
lampoon, when telling his story about an alleged quarrel between
Gloucester and Buckingham, Morton does mention the Duke being at York,
and Buckingham having sent a messenger to him who met him at
Nottingham.[7] But this messenger could not have been the channel of
all the intrigues he describes. There was no time.
The Duke may have received some hasty notice from a messenger, but the
first real news of what had been going on in London came from
Buckingham at Northampton.
Morton's story about Gloucester's intrigues at this time is therefore a
fabrication. The truth is exactly the reverse of Morton's version.
Richard's conduct was straightforward and loyal. After attending
solemn obsequies of his brother in York Minster, he called on the
nobility and gentry of Yorkshire to swear allegiance to his young
nephew. When he arrived in London, he ordered preparations to be made
for his nephew's coronation, and he sent summonses to forty esquires to
receive knighthood of the Bath on the occasion.[8] He also caused the
dresses to be worn by his nephew at his coronation to be got ready.[9]
These acts were well known to Morton, who passed them over in silence,
{210} because they would tend to give a true impression, where he
wanted to leave a false one.
Having thus raised a prejudice against the Protector, Morton's next
object was to instil a belief that Hastings worked against the
Woodvilles throughout in concert with Richard. In order to create this
impression he gives two false dates. He makes young Richard leave
sanctuary on June 9. The true date was the 16th.[10] He asserts that
Lord Rivers was beheaded on June 13, the very day of the arrest of
Hastings, and he makes a great point of it, observing as a striking
coincidence that Hastings suffered death on the self-same day and about
the self-same hour as Rivers whose execution he had approved.[11] He
knew this to be false. Rivers made his will on the 23rd, and was not
beheaded until the 25th.[12] Morton had a motive for falsifying the
dates, and it is obvious. He wanted it to appear that Hastings was an
enemy of the Woodville {211} faction to the end, that he was a party to
the removal of young Richard from sanctuary and to the execution of
Rivers. But why? Clearly because Hastings was not an enemy of the
Woodvilles to the end, because he had, with Morton and others, formed a
coalition with them, and entered into a conspiracy with them against
the Protector. It was important to conceal this, because it justified
the Protector's action against Hastings; and Morton did so by resorting
to a falsification of dates. He then proceeds to enter into minute
details, in describing the scene when Hastings was arrested on Friday,
June 13.
Morton makes the Protector ask him for a mess of strawberries from his
garden at Holborn. He then alleges that Gloucester suddenly altered
his tone, accused the Queen-Dowager of witchcraft, displayed a withered
arm as having been injured by sorcery, upbraided Hastings for having
Jane Shore as a mistress, and ordered Hastings to be beheaded on a log
of wood before dinner. We are also informed that Master William
Catesby made the mischief between the Protector and the Lord
Chamberlain, and that a proclamation was issued setting forth the cause
of the execution of Hastings.
These details enable us to obtain some glimmering of the truth. We
have the reminiscences of an eyewitness, who was also a schemer so
dealing with the facts as to leave false impressions clothed in the
similitude of veracious recollections. The tale of the strawberries is
doubtless true, and is a masterly touch designed to give an air of
reality to the scene. The withered arm is a fabrication intended to
conceal the real charge made by the Protector. That charge was
contained in the proclamation which Morton mentions {212} as having
been well indited and written on parchment. He professes to give the
substance of it. The seeker after truth would very much prefer the
original text. But it was destroyed. Its destruction is a strong
presumption in favour of the Protector, and justifies the conclusion
that the real charge was a serious one. It is incredible that Catesby
merely revealed the nonsense about Jane Shore's sorcery. Morton has
inserted this rubbish in order to conceal the real charge made by the
Protector. Morton further tells us that 'Shore's wife was of all women
the one the Queen most hated,' and that she was the mistress of
Hastings. She was really the mistress of Dorset,[13] the Queen's son,
and the motive for bringing in the Queen's alleged hatred, in this
place, is to conceal the real position of Jane Shore, which was that of
a secret agent between the party of the Woodvilles and Hastings.
The fullness of Morton's details defeats his object. He draws
attention to the truth which he elaborately endeavours to hide. We are
thus enabled to deduce from the garrulity of the designing priest the
facts that, probably through his prompting, Hastings had formed a
coalition with the Queen-Dowager and her party against the Protector,
and that the negotiation had been conducted through Jane Shore as
intermediary. We learn that Catesby revealed the plot to the
Protector, who promptly arrested Hastings, and brought a charge of
treason against him.
[Sidenote: Falsification of dates]
Morton would have us believe that Hastings was beheaded on the spot
without trial. This version of the story is also told by Fabyan, and
adopted by Polydore Virgil. It was told to the second Croyland {213}
monk, who wrote that Hastings was beheaded on June 13.[14] It was a
version industriously spread by Morton, as a charge of lawless cruelty
and indecent haste against the Protector. It can be proved to be false.
Morton's story is that Hastings was hurried out of the council room and
beheaded on a log of wood in the court of the Tower, that the Protector
and Buckingham appeared to the citizens in rusty armour, pretending
that they had been in mortal danger from Hastings, and that the
Protector swore he would have the head of Hastings before he dined.
This is a grossly improbable story on the face of it; but Bishop
Morton, on the accession of Henry VII., was evidently very anxious that
it should be accepted, for he must have given it publicity at a very
early date. It was supplied to the credulous old Croyland monk, and
was accepted by Fabyan, who must have known it to be false, with such
zeal that he added a few extra touches to the story. Fabyan was a
citizen of London and knew the truth. Yet he clearly implies that the
delivery of young Richard and the execution of Rivers took place before
the arrest of Hastings, adopting the falsifications of Morton. He also
falsified dates in order to reconcile the alleged date of the execution
of Hastings with other events, following Morton in this also. This
justifies the conclusion that Fabyan and Morton were in collusion; for
they both were aware of the truth from personal knowledge, and they
both perverted it in the same way.[15]
{214}
There is other testimony on this point which is quite above suspicion.
Simon Stallworthe, a prebendary of Lincoln, wrote a letter from London
to Sir William Stonor, a gentleman of Oxfordshire, on Saturday June 21,
1483,[16] in which he said that 'on Friday last was the Lord Chambleyn
[Hastings] hedded sone after noon.' As Saturday was the 21st, Friday
last was the 20th. We here have evidence that Lord Hastings was not
beheaded until a week after his arrest and, as there was no indecent
haste, we may assume that there was a trial and sentence by a proper
tribunal. The story of Morton about the hurried execution on the 13th,
and the log of wood, is therefore false. It has been suggested that
when Stallworthe wrote 'Friday last,' he did not mean Friday last, but
the Friday before Friday last. This theory is exploded by the very
next line in Stallworthe's letter. He there says that 'on Monday last'
young Richard came out of sanctuary. This is certainly the correct
date. But it contradicts both Morton and Fabyan, though it is
corroborated by the Croyland Chronicle. If 'Monday last' meant 'Monday
last,' 'Friday last' must be taken to mean 'Friday last' in
Stallworthe's letter, and not any other date that the exigencies of
calumniators may require.
The evidence that the story of the hasty execution of Hastings is false
does not rest solely on Stallworthe's letter. Morton and Fabyan are
convicted out of their own mouths.
{215}
This is a point which should be clearly understood. It must be borne
in mind that we have certain fixed dates. Hastings was certainly
arrested on June 13. It is also certain that Thursday, June 26, was
the date of Richard's accession: it is fixed by the year book. Dr.
Shaw's sermon was preached on the previous Sunday, that is June 22.
Fabyan, as well as Stallworthe, tells us that the execution of Hastings
took place on the previous Friday. These are fixed beacons, and will
lead us to the truth. They will also enable us to detect the false
lights thrown out by Morton and Fabyan. They both knew the truth well,
but they had to manipulate the dates so as to make it appear that
Hastings was executed on the 13th. It must be borne in mind that, on
Fabyan's own showing, the execution took place on the Friday before
Shaw's sermon was preached.
In order to give a plausible appearance to the assertion that Hastings
was beheaded on the 13th, Fabyan tried to get rid of the week between
the 13th and the 20th. He thought he was bound to recognise the fact
that the execution was on the Friday before Shaw's sermon, so he
brought the sermon back a week too. But Shaw's sermon was well known
to have been preached on the Sunday before the accession. So he had to
move back the accession also, and he placed it on June 20. Here
Fabyan's dishonesty is detected, for the 20th was not a Thursday, and
that the 26th was the date of the accession is beyond dispute.
Morton was, of course, in the same difficulty as regards his dates.
But he was far better practised in the manipulation of evidence. Such
an old hand would commit himself to dates as little as possible. {216}
He would fear them as a thief fears a detective. He gives only one,
and he selects the right day of the week, which Fabyan did not. But
this is quite enough to convict him. He chose the 19th for the day of
Richard's accession with the very same object as Fabyan, to get rid of
the gap between the 13th and the 20th; well knowing that the right date
for the accession was the 26th.
We can now perceive the truth, both through the direct testimony of
Stallworthe and through the detection of the dishonesty of Morton and
Fabyan. Lord Hastings was arrested on June 13 on a charge of treason,
tried and sentenced. He was executed, after a decent interval, on
Friday, June 20. The admission of Morton that a proclamation was
issued, announcing the details of the Hastings-Woodville conspiracy, is
important. This document, and all others relating to the business,
were destroyed in the same way as the Act of Parliament recording
Richard's title was destroyed. The object of making away with the Act
was to conceal the truth. The disappearance of all documents relating
to the execution of Hastings can only be explained in the same way.
But what must we think of Morton and Fabyan, who are thus proved to
have been guilty of such a fraud? Their evidence against Richard, on
all other points, must be held to be utterly worthless.
[Sidenote: Trial of Rivers]
The trial of Lord Rivers, with Grey, Vaughan and Haute, followed on
that of Hastings. They had been charged with treasonable designs,
immediately after the death of King Edward, on the very clearest
evidence. But the long delay in bringing them to trial justifies the
belief that their capital punishment was not intended, if fresh charges
had not been brought {217} against them, arising out of the Hastings
conspiracy. Morton brings forward the same accusation in their case,
and he gives a false date for their execution. He would have us
believe that Rivers and his companions were also put to death 'without
so much as the formality of a trial.' So he appears to have told the
second Croyland monk. But his untruthfulness is exposed by the
evidence of another Tudor witness. Rous inadvertently let out the
truth, not knowing there was any reason for concealing it. He
certainly did not do so out of any good will for King Richard. There
was a trial and the Earl of Northumberland presided at it. He was not
the sole judge, but the President acting with other judges.[17] He
probably sat as a Commissioner to execute the office of Lord Steward,
with a jury of northern Peers, to try Rivers. Morton falsified the
date of the executions, making them earlier by twelve days. One object
of this falsification has already been pointed out. It also served to
indicate such haste in the executions as would make the absence of any
trial appear probable.
The overt acts of Rivers and his associates show that their
condemnation was just; and their punishment was necessary for the
safety and tranquillity of the country. It was a righteous retribution
for the death of Clarence, by whose fall the Woodvilles had so largely
profited.
Morton next proceeds to falsify the title of King Richard III. to the
crown. This point is of great importance and merits close attention.
The statement of Richard's title to the crown was drawn up, and adopted
by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, after considering all
the evidence {218} between June 8 and 25. The document was afterwards
embodied in an Act of Parliament entitled the 'Titulus Regius,' with
which the writers employed by Henry VII. must have been well
acquainted. When Henry came to the throne, he ordered this Act to be
repealed without quoting the preamble, with a view to its purport being
concealed. He caused it to be destroyed, and threatened any one who
kept a copy with fine and imprisonment during his pleasure. The reason
he gave for this was that 'all things in the said Act may be forgot.'
In spite of this threat the truth was told by the Croyland monk, but
his chronicle remained in manuscript, and he was not found out.
Henry's conduct affords a strong presumption that the title was valid.
But he did more. He granted an illusory pardon to Bishop Stillington,
who was the principal witness to the truth of the main statement in the
'Titulus Regius.' This was done with the object of keeping silence on
the subject of his real offence, which was telling the truth. Henry
then arrested him on another trumped up charge, and kept him in close
and solitary imprisonment in Windsor Castle until his death in June
1491.
These proceedings show the immense importance attached by Henry VII. to
a suppression of the truth relating to Richard's title to the crown.
It is certain that if the alleged previous contract with Lady Eleanor
Butler was false, the falsehood would have been eagerly exposed, and
there would have been no occasion to invent any other story. On the
other hand, if the alleged previous contract was true, the evidence
would have been suppressed and another story would have been invented
and promulgated. The evidence was suppressed, and a different tale was
{219} put forward. The conclusion is inevitable that the previous
contract of Edward IV. with Lady Eleanor Butler was a fact.
[Sidenote: The true claim to the Crown]
By a mere accident the original draft of the 'Titulus Regius' was not
destroyed. It was discovered long afterwards among the Tower records.
Its tenor was given in the continuation of the Croyland Chronicle.[18]
Richard's title rested on the statement that Edward IV. was already
married to Lady Eleanor Butler, a daughter of the first Earl of
Shrewsbury,[19] when he went through the ceremony with Lady Grey. It
is certain, therefore, that this and this only was the statement made
in inspired sermons and speeches at the time; for it was the official
case of those who advocated Richard's accession. It is impossible that
one ground for the claim should have been put forward officially, and
another which was not only different but contradictory, in the sermons
and speeches directed to be made at the same time.
Now all this was well known to Morton, and to {220} Polydore Virgil,
when they concocted their stories. They had free access to all
official sources of information. But they clearly believed that the
evidence had been so effectually placed out of reach, that it was safe
for them to adopt what tale they chose. They, therefore, stated that
Dr. Shaw preached a sermon at Paul's Cross on June 22, in which he
calumniated the Duchess of York by maintaining that Edward IV. and
Clarence were her children by some other man, and that Gloucester was
the only legitimate son of the Duke her husband. The object was to
throw the reader off the scent respecting Edward's own connubial
proceedings, by bringing an infamous and very absurd charge against his
mother. This is clearly the line that Polydore Virgil was instructed
to take, for he alludes to the common report that Edward's children
were called bastards, and declares it to be 'void of all truth,' that
there was such a report. He goes further, alleging that the Duchess of
York complained of the injury done her, and that Dr. Shaw died of
sorrow for having uttered the slander.[20] With the 'Titulus Regius'
before us, it will be allowed that this witness did not stick at
trifles.
[Sidenote: Morton's fabrications]
But Morton was not to be outdone by the Italian. He puts the slander
about the Duchess of York into Dr. Shaw's mouth, and he also makes the
preacher tell another tale which would make bastards of Edward's
children. According to Polydore Virgil the report that the preacher
made bastards of Edward's children was 'voyd of all truthe.' According
to Morton the preacher said that Edward was previously married to a
woman named Lucy. It will be seen that {221} these authorities
contradict each other. Morton proceeds to knock down his own ninepin,
by telling us that Lucy confessed she was never married to the King.
No one but Morton ever said she was.
Morton farther alleged that when Edward IV. proposed to marry the widow
of Sir J. Grey he was opposed by his mother, who represented that he
was already contracted before God to Elizabeth Lucy. Morton knew
perfectly well that this never happened, and that Edward went through a
marriage ceremony with Lady Grey without the knowledge of his mother or
any one else. He has only introduced the name of Elizabeth Lucy as a
herring drawn across the scent. His great object was to conceal the
name of Lady Eleanor Butler.
The absurdity of Morton's fabrications respecting the woman Lucy will
be appreciated when we remember that she actually had two children by
Edward IV.[21] We are asked to believe that Dr. Shaw, in preaching a
sermon in support of Richard's right to the throne, put forward a
statement which, if true, would make two children legitimate, whose
legitimacy would at once bar any claim on the part of Richard.
These misrepresentations discredit the authority of Polydore Virgil and
Morton. Of course there can be no doubt that Dr. Shaw in his sermon,
if indeed he {222} ever preached it, and the Duke of Buckingham if he
ever made a speech at the Guildhall, simply explained to the people the
contents of the petition stating Richard's title, which was about to be
presented to him: namely that Edward IV. was previously contracted to
the Lady Eleanor Butler, and that the children by Lady Grey were
consequently illegitimate. The invention of the infamous slander
against the Duchess of York by Morton and Polydore Virgil, the careful
exclusion of Lady Eleanor's name and of any allusion to her, and the
elaborate efforts of Henry VII. to destroy all traces of the evidence
are very significant. They amount to a proof that the Butler contract
was a reality, and that (if the children of Clarence were incapacitated
by their father's attainder) King Richard's title was sound and just.
The Croyland monk and Rous do not mention Dr. Shaw's sermon. Fabyan
tells us that the preacher stated that King Edward's children were not
legitimate, thus contradicting Polydore Virgil, who declares that the
preacher never made any such allegation. But Fabyan does not mention
the slander against the Duchess of York. This is a further proof that
it was invented by Morton. Virgil, in adopting it, had, however, been
instructed to avoid all allusion to Edward's own matrimonial affairs.
Having misrepresented Dr. Shaw's sermon on Sunday the 22nd, Morton goes
on to say that on the following Tuesday the Duke of Buckingham went to
the Guildhall and made a speech to the people. On Wednesday, according
to Morton, the Lord Mayor and aldermen came to Baynard's Castle, with
Buckingham and divers noblemen, besides many knights and gentlemen.
{223}
This is another falsification of dates made as usual with a purpose.
Nothing really happened on Wednesday. On Thursday the 26th, Morton
says that Richard III. went to Westminster Hall in royal state. What
Morton has done is to transfer the events of Thursday to Wednesday, and
to make as little as possible of them, in order to draw off attention
from a very momentous event. No one would gather from Morton's
narrative that on Thursday, June 26, the Convention Parliament, as it
would have been called in later days, consisting of the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal and the Commons, which had been summoned for the 25th and
actually met, proceeded to Crosby Place with the petition embodying
Richard's title, and urged him to accept the crown.[22] Morton ignores
all this, in order that his readers may be kept in ignorance of the
solemn and deliberate proceedings which accompanied Richard's
acceptance of the crown. Polydore Virgil does the same.
[Sidenote: Buckingham's treason]
We next come to the treason of the Duke of Buckingham. Its motive was
misrepresented by Morton, with the object of creating a belief that the
Duke advocated the cause of Henry Tudor. A long conversation between
Buckingham and Morton at Brecknock is recorded by Grafton. It is very
characteristic, and is no doubt authentic, so far as that it was
written or communicated by Morton. But whether it ever took place as
narrated is quite another matter. This conversation sets forth the
arguments by which the mischievous old intriguer alleged that he
induced Buckingham to rebel, and the pretended object of the
insurrection.
It is asserted by Morton and Polydore Virgil that the cause of
Buckingham's discontent was the refusal {224} of Richard III. to grant
him the moiety of the Bohun lands. It is added that Buckingham's suit
was rejected by the King, with many spiteful words, and that there was
ever afterwards hatred and distrust between them. This can be proved
to be false. Richard granted Buckingham's petition, and made him a
grant[23] of the lands under the royal sign manual, giving him the
profits from the date of signature, until the formality was completed
by authority of Parliament.
[Sidenote: Buckingham and Morton]
This story must have been fabricated to conceal the true motive of
Buckingham's treason. He probably aspired to the throne as the next
heir of the Plantagenets after Richard and his son, in accordance with
the 'Titulus Regius.' He had himself concurred in declaring the
children of Edward IV. to be illegitimate, and those of Clarence to be
incapacitated. Next came Richard III. and his delicate son, of whom he
would dispose if the rebellion was successful. He ignored the sisters
of the King and their children.[24] This completed the descendants of
the second son of Edward III. The legitimate descendants of the third
son came to an end with Henry VI. Buckingham himself represented the
fifth son of Edward III.
{225}
Assailed by the insidious flattery of Morton, he was prematurely
hurried into a rash attempt which cost him his life. When Morton
recorded the conversation with his victim many years afterwards, he was
Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry VII. was King, and it was advisable, in
order to gratify the new sovereign, that Richard should be accused of
murdering his nephews, and that Buckingham should be made to give up
the scheme for his own aggrandisement, in order to risk his life for
the sake of an unknown adventurer in Brittany. It will be admitted
that this is a grossly improbable story.
It is certainly astounding that the childish nonsense which Morton puts
into Buckingham's mouth should have been gravely accepted as true by
subsequent historians. We are first told that when Buckingham heard of
the murder of the two innocents, to which he never agreed, he abhorred
the sight of the King and could no longer abide with the Court. So he
took his leave at Gloucester with a merry countenance but a despiteful
heart. According to this, the murders took place in July, for
Buckingham left Gloucester on August 1. The more detailed story
directly contradicts Morton, and places the murders in the end of
August. Both are false, but this is one out of many instances of the
utter recklessness of these slanderers. Buckingham is then made to say
that he stopped at Tewkesbury for two days to think. The result was
that he came to the conclusion that he ought to be King, not on the
ground of his descent from the fifth son of Edward III., but because
his mother was a daughter of Edmund, Duke of Somerset. His mother was
the fourth daughter of that Duke, who had not the remotest right to the
throne, and never put forward a claim. {226} If there had been such a
claim, Buckingham would not have first found it out, by thinking for
two days at Tewkesbury. After this mental effort he continued his
journey towards Shrewsbury, and met Margaret Lady Stanley, the mother
of Henry Tudor, on the road. She told him that she was the daughter of
John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, Edmund's elder brother. This, we are
asked to believe, was quite a new idea to Buckingham. We are to
suppose that he knew nothing about his relations before his cogitations
at Tewkesbury and his chat with Lady Stanley, and that the receipt of
the information made him give up his own ambitious plans altogether.
He is made to propose to his fellow-traveller that her son should be
king and that he should marry the eldest daughter of Edward IV.
Buckingham, after examining the evidence, had just concurred in a
solemn declaration that this daughter was illegitimate. But he now
evolved from his inner consciousness the discovery that the evidence
was derived from suborned witnesses. The Duke then took his leave of
Margaret, and proceeded with Morton to Brecknock Castle. Margaret's
steward, Reginald Bray, conveyed messages between the conspirators, and
an insurrection was arranged. Morton acknowledges that he originally
advised Buckingham himself to claim the crown at Brecknock, on which
the Duke related the above wonderful story. To complete the absurdity
of this childish romance, it must be remembered that Morton was
travelling with Buckingham, all the way from Gloucester to Brecknock.