Henry duke of Bucks.
It is plain, that Buckingham was influenced by this nearness to the
crown, for it made him overlook his own alliance with the queen,
whose sister he had married. Henry the Eighth did not overlook the
proximity of blood, when he afterwards put to death the son of this duke.
It is alleged that the partizans of Gloucester strictly guarded the
sanctuary, to prevent farther resort thither; but Sir Thomas
confesses too, that divers lords, knights, and gentlemen, either for
favour of the queen, or for fear of themselves, assembled companies
and went flocking together in harness. Let us strip this paragraph
of its historic buskins, and it is plain that the queen's party took
up arms.(10) This is no indifferent circumstance. She had plotted to
keep possession of the king, and to govern in his name by force, but
had been outwitted, and her family had been imprisoned for the
attempt. Conscious that she was discovered, perhaps reasonably
alarmed at Gloucester's designs, she had secured herself and her
young children in sanctuary. Necessity rather than law justified her
proceedings, but what excuse can be made for her faction having
recourse to arms? who was authorized, by the tenour of former
reigns, to guard the king's person, till parliament should declare a
regency, but his uncle and the princes of the blood? endeavouring to
establish the queen's authority by force was rebellion against the
laws. I state this minutely, because the fact has never been
attended to; and later historians pass it over, as if Richard had
hurried on the deposition of his nephews without any colour of
decency, and without the least provocation to any of his
proceedings. Hastings is even said to have warned the citizens that
matters were likely to come to a field (to a battle) from the
opposition of the adverse party, though as yet no symptom had
appeared of designs against the king, whom the two dukes were
bringing to his coronation. Nay, it is not probable that Gloucester
had as yet meditated more than securing the regency; for had he had
designs on the crown, would he have weakened his own claim by
assuming the protectorate, which he could not accept but by
acknowledging the title of his nephew? This in truth seems to me to
have been the case. The ambition of the queen and her family alarmed
the princes and the nobility: Gloucester, Buckingham, Hastings, and
many more had checked those attempts. The next step was to secure
the regency: but none of these acts could be done without grievous
provocation to the queen. As soon as her son should come of age, she
might regain her power and the means of revenge. Self-security
prompted the princes and lords to guard against this reverse, and
what was equally dangerous to the queen, the depression of her
fortune called forth and revived all the hatred of her enemies. Her
marriage had given universal offence to the nobility, and been the
source of all the late disturbances and bloodshed. The great earl of
Warwick, provoked at the contempt shewn to him by King Edward while
negotiating a match for him in France, had abandoned him for Henry
the Sixth, whom he had again set on the throne. These calamities
were still fresh in every mind, and no doubt contributed to raise
Gloucester to the throne, which he could not have attained without
almost general concurrence yet if we are to believe historians, he,
Buckingham, the mayor of London, and one Dr. Shaw, operated this
revolution by a sermon and a speech to the people, though the people
would not even give a huzza to the proposal. The change of
government in the rehearsal is not effected more easily by the
physician and gentleman usher, "Do you take this, and I'll seize
t'other chair."
(10) This is confirmed by the chronicle of Croyland, p. 566.
In what manner Richard assumed or was invested with the protectorate
does not appear. Sir Thomas More, speaking of him by that title,
says "the protector which always you must take for the Duke of
Gloucester." Fabian after mentioning the solemn (11) arrival of the
king in London, adds, "Than provisyon was made for the kinge's
coronation; in which pastime (interval) the duke being admitted for
lord protectour." As the parliament was not sitting, this dignity
was no doubt conferred on him by the assent of the lords and privy
council; and as we hear of no opposition, none was probably made. He
was the only person to whom that rank was due; his right could not
and does not seem to have been questioned. The Chronicle of Croyland
corroborates my opinion, saying, "Accepitque dictus Ricardus dux
Glocestriae ilium solennem magistratum, qui duci Humfrido
Glocestriae, stante minore aetate regis Henrici, ut regni protector
appellaretur, olim contingebat. Ea igitur auctoritate usus est, de
consensu & beneplacito omnium dominorum." p. 556.
(11) He was probably eye-witness of that ceremony; for he says, "the
king was of the maior and his citizens met at Harnesey parke, the
maior and his brethren being clothed in scarlet, and the citizens in
violet, to the number of V.C. horses, and than from thence conveyed
unto the citie, the king beynge in blewe velvet, and all his lords
and servauntes in blacke cloth." p. 513.
Thus far therefore it must be allowed that Richard acted no illegal
part, nor discovered more ambition than became him. He had defeated
the queen's innovations, and secured her accomplices. To draw off
our attention from such regular steps, Sir Thomas More has exhausted
all his eloquence and imagination to work up a piteous scene, in
which the queen is made to excite our compassion in the highest
degree, and is furnished by that able pen with strains of pathetic
oratory, which no part of her conduct affords us reason to believe
she possessed. This scene is occasioned by the demand of delivering
up her second son. Cardinal Bourchier archbishop of Canterbury is
the instrument employed by the protector to effect this purpose. The
fact is confirmed by Fabian in his rude and brief manner, and by the
Chronicle of Croyland, and therefore cannot be disputed. But though
the latter author affirms, that force was used to oblige the
cardinal to take that step, he by no means agrees with Sir Thomas
More in the repugnance of the queen to comply, nor in that idle
discussion on the privileges of sanctuaries, on which Sir Thomas has
wasted so many words. On the contrary, the chronicle declares, that
the queen "Verbis gratanter annues, dimisit puerum." The king, who
had been lodged in the palace of the bishop of London, was now
removed with his brother to the Tower.
This last circumstance has not a little contributed to raise horror
in vulgar minds, who of late years have been accustomed to see no
persons of rank lodged in the Tower but state criminals. But in that
age the case was widely different. It not only appears by a map
engraven so late as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, that the Tower was
a royal palace, in which were ranges of buildings called the king's
and queen's apartments, now demolished; but it is a known fact, that
they did often lodge there, especially previous to their
coronations. The queen of Henry the Seventh lay in there: queen
Elizabeth went thither after her triumphant entry into the city; and
many other instances might be produced, but for brevity I omit them,
to come to one of the principal transactions of this dark period: I
mean Richard's assumption of the crown. Sir Thomas More's account of
this extraordinary event is totally improbable, and positively false
in the groundwork of that revolution. He tells us, that Richard
meditating usurpation, divided the lords into two separate councils,
assembling the king's or queen's party at Baynard's castle, but
holding his own private junto at Crosby Place. From the latter he
began with spreading murmurs, whispers, and reports against the
legality of the late king's marriage. Thus far we may credit him--
but what man of common sense can believe, that Richard went so far
as publicly to asperse the honor of his own mother? That mother,
Cecily duchess dowager of York, a princess of a spotless character,
was then living: so were two of her daughters, the duchesses of
Suffolk and Burgundy, Richard's own sisters: one of them, the
duchess of Suffolk walked at his ensuing coronation, and her son the
earl of Lincoln was by Richard himself, after the death of his own
son, declared heir apparent to the crown. Is it, can it be credible,
that Richard actuated a venal preacher(12) to declare to the people
from the pulpit at Paul's cross, that his mother had been an
adultress, and that her two eldest sons,(13) Edward the Fourth and
the duke of Clarence(14) were spurious; and that the good lady had
not given a legitimate child to her husband, but the protector, and
I suppose the duchess of Suffolk, though no mention is said to be
made of her in the sermon? For as the duchess of Suffolk was older
than Richard, and consequently would have been involved in the
charge of bastardy, could he have declared her son his heir, he who
set aside his brother Edward's children for their illegitimacy?
Ladies of the least disputable gallantry generally suffer their
husbands to beget his heir; and if doubts arise on the legitimacy of
their issue, the younger branches seem most liable to suspicion--but
a tale so gross could not have passed even on the mob--no proof, no
presumption of the fact was pretended. Were the duchess(15) and
her daughters silent on so scandalous an insinuation? Agrippina
would scarce have heard it with patience. Moriar modo imperet! said
that empress, in her wild wish of crowning her son: but had he,
unprovoked, aspersed her honour in the open forum, would the mother
have submitted to so unnatural an insult? In Richard's case the
imputation was beyond measure atrocious and absurd. What! taint the
fame of his mother to pave his way to the crown! Who had heard of
her guilt? And if guilty, how came she to stop the career of her
intrigues? But Richard had better pretensions, and had no occasion
to start doubts even on his own legitimacy, which was too much
connected with that of his brothers to be tossed and bandied about
before the multitude. Clarence had been solemnly attainted by act of
parliament, and his children were out of the question. The doubts on
the validity of Edward's marriage were better grounds for Richard's
proceedings than aspersion of his mother's honour. On that
invalidity he claimed the crown, and obtained it; and with such
universal concurrence, that the nation undoubtedly was on his side
--but as he could not deprive his nephews, on that foundation,
without bastardizing their sisters too, no wonder, the historians,
who wrote under the Lancastrian domination, have used all their art
and industry to misrepresent the fact. If the marriage of Edward the
Fourth with the widow Grey was bigamy, and consequently null, what
became of the title of Elizabeth of York, wife of Henry the Seventh?
What became of it? Why a bastard branch of Lancaster, matched with a
bastard of York, were obtruded on the nation as the right heirs of
the crown! and, as far as two negatives can make an affirmative,
they were so.
(12) What should we think of a modern historian, who should sink all
mention of the convention parliament, and only tell us that one Dr.
Burnet got up into the pulpit, and assured the people that Henrietta
Maria (a little more suspected of gallantry than duchess Cecily)
produced Charles the Second, and James the Second in adultry, and
gave no legitimate issue to Charles the First, but Mary princess of
Orange, mother of king William; that the people laughed at him, and
so the prince of Orange became king?
(13) The Earl of Rutland, another son, elder than Richard, had been
murdered at the battle of Wakefield and so was omitted in that
imaginary accusation.
(14) Clarence is the first who is said to have propogated this
slandour, and it was much more consonant to his levity and indigested
politics, than to the good sense of Richard. We can believe that
Richard renewed this story, especially as he must have altered the
dates of his mother's amours, and made them continue to her
conception of him, as Clarence had made them stop in his own favor?
(15) It appears from Rymer's Foedera, that the very first act of
Richard's reign is dated from quadam altera camera juxta capellam in
hospitio dominae Ceciliae ducissae Eborum. It does not look much as
if he had publicly accused his mother of adultry, when he held his
first council at her house. Among the Harleian MSS. in the Museum,
No. 2236. art. 6. is the following letter from Richard to this very
princess his mother, which is an additional proof of the good terms
on which they lived: "Madam, I recomaunde me to you as hertely as is
to me possible, beseeching you in my most humble and affectuouse
wise of your daly blessing to my synguler comfort and defence in my
nede; and, madam, I hertoly beseche you, that I may often here from
you to my comfort; and suche newes as be here, my servaunt Thomas
Bryan this berer shall showe you, to whom please it you to yeve
credence unto. And, madam, I beseche you to be good and graciouse
lady to my lord my chamberlayn to be your officer in Wiltshire in
suche as Colinbourne had. I trust he shall therein do you good
servyce; and that it plese you, that by this barer I may understande
your pleasur in this behalve. And I praye God send you th'
accomplishement of your noble desires. Written at Pomfret, the
thirde day of Juyn, with the hande of your most humble son,
Richardus Rex."
Buck, whose integrity will more and more appear, affirms that,
before Edward had espoused the lady Grey, he had been contracted to
the lady Eleanor Butler, and married to her by the bishop of Bath.
Sir Thomas More, on the contrary (and here it is that I am
unwillingly obliged to charge that great man with wilful falsehood)
pretends that the duchess of York, his mother, endeavouring to
dissuade him from so disproportionate an alliance, urged him with a
pre-contract to one Elizabeth Lucy, who however, being pressed,
confessed herself his concubine; but denied any marriage. Dr. Shaw
too, the preacher, we are told by the same authority, pleaded from
the pulpit the king's former marriage with Elizabeth Lucy, and the
duke of Buckingham is said to have harangued the people to the same
effect. But now let us see how the case really stood: Elizabeth Lucy
was the daughter of one Wyat of Southampton, a mean gentleman, says
Buck, and the wife of one Lucy, as mean a man as Wyat. The mistress
of Edward she notoriously was; but what if, in Richard's pursuit of
the crown, no question at all was made of this Elizabeth Lucy? We
have the best and most undoubted authorities to assure us, that
Edward's pre-contract or marriage, urged to invalidate his match
with the lady Grey, was with the lady Eleanor Talbot, widow of the
lord Butler of Sudeley, and sister of the earl Shrewsbury, one of
the greatest peers in the kingdom; her mother was the lady Katherine
Stafford, daughter of Humphrey duke of Buckingham, prince of the
blood: an alliance in that age never reckoned unsuitable. Hear the
evidence. Honest Philip de Comines says(16) "that the bishop of Bath
informed Richard, that he had married king Edward to an English
lady; and dit cet evesque qu'il les avoit espouses, & que n'y avoit
que luy & ceux deux." This is not positive, and yet the description
marks out the lady Butler, and not Elizabeth Lucy. But the
Chronicle of Croyland is more express. "Color autem introitus &
captae possessionis hujusmodi is erat. Ostendebatur per modum
supplicationis in quodam rotulo pergameni quod filii Regis Edwardi
erant bastardi, supponendo ilium precontraxisse cum quadam domina
Alienora Boteler, antequam reginam Elizabeth duxisset uxorem;
atque insuper, quod sanguis alterius fratris sui, Georgii ducis
Clarentiae, fuisset attinctus; ita quod hodie nullus certus &
incorruptus sanguis linealis ex parte Richardi ducis Eboraci poterat
inveniri, nisi in persona dicti Richardi ducis Glocestriae. Quo
circa supplicabatur ei in fine ejusdem rotuli, ex parte dominorum &
communitatis regni, ut jus suum in se assumeret." Is this full? Is
this evidence?
(16) Liv. 5, p. 151. In the 6th book, Comines insinuates that the
bishop acted out of revenge for having been imprisoned by Edward: it
might be so; but as Comines had before alledged that the bishop had
actually said he had married them, it might be the truth that the
prelate told out of revenge, and not a lie; nor is it probable that
his tale would have had any weight, if false, and unsupported by
other circumstances.
Here we see the origin of the tale relating to the duchess of York;
nullus certus & incorruptus sangnis: from these mistaken or
perverted words flowed the report of Richard's aspersing his
mother's honour. But as if truth was doomed to emerge, though
stifled for near three hundred years, the roll of parliament is at
length come to light (with other wonderful discoveries) and sets
forth, "that though the three estates which petitioned Richard to
assume the crown were not assembled in form of parliament;" yet it
rehearses the supplication (recorded by the chronicle above) and
declares, "that king Eduard was and stood married and troth plight
to one dame Eleanor Butler, daughter to the earl of Shrewsbury, with
whom the said king Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony, long
before he made his pretended marriage with Elizabeth Grey." Could
Sir Thomas More be ignorant of this fact? or, if ignorant, where is
his competence as an historian? And how egregiously absurd is his
romance of Richard's assuming the crown inconsequence of Dr. Shaw's
sermon and Buckingham's harangue, to neither of which he pretends
the people assented! Dr. Shaw no doubt tapped the matter to the
people; for Fabian asserts that he durst never shew his face
afterwards; and as Henry the Seventh succeeded so soon, and as the
slanders against Richard increased, that might happen; but it is
evident that the nobility were disposed to call the validity of the
queen's marriage in question, and that Richard was solemnly invited
by the three estates to accept the regal dignity; and that is
farther confirmed by the Chronicle of Croyland, which says, that
Richard having brought together a great force from the north, from
Wales, and other parts, did on the twenty-sixth of June claim the
crown, "seque eodem die apud magnam aulam Westmonasterii in
cathedram marmoream ibi intrusit;" but the supplication
afore-mentioned had first been presented to him. This will no doubt
be called violence and a force laid on the three estates; and yet
that appears by no means to have been the case; for Sir Thomas More,
partial as he was against Richard, says, "that to be sure of all
enemies, he sent for five thousand men out of the north against his
coronation, which came up evil apparelled and worse harnessed, in
rusty harnesse, neither defensable nor scoured to the sale, which
mustured in Finsbury field, to the great disdain of all lookers on."
These rusty companions, despised by the citizens, were not likely to
intimidate a warlike nobility; and had force been used to extort
their assent, Sir Thomas would have been the first to have told us
so. But he suppressed an election that appears to have been
voluntary, and invented a scene, in which, by his own account,
Richard met with nothing but backwardness and silence, that amounted
to a refusal. The probability therefore remains, that the nobility
met Richard's claim at least half-way, from their hatred and
jealousy of the queen's family, and many of them from the conviction
of Edward's pre-contract. Many might concur from provocation at the
attempts that had been made to disturb the due course of law, and
some from apprehension of a minority. This last will appear highly
probable from three striking circumstances that I shall mention
hereafter. The great regularity with which the coronation was
prepared and conducted, and the extraordinary concourse of the
nobility at it, have not all the air of an unwelcome revolution,
accomplished merely by violence. On the contrary, it bore great
resemblance to a much later event, which, being the last of the
kind, we term The Revolution. The three estates of nobility, clergy,
and people, which called Richard to the crown, and whose act was
confirmed by the subsequent parliament, trod the same steps as the
convention did which elected the prince of Orange; both setting
aside an illegal pretender, the legitimacy of whose birth was called
in question. And though the partizans of the Stuarts may exult at my
comparing king William to Richard the Third, it wil be no matter of
triumph, since it appears that Richard's cause was as good as King
William's, and that in both instances it was a free election. The
art used by Sir Thomas More (when he could not deny a pre-contract)
in endeavouring to shift that objection on Elizabeth Lucy, a married
woman, contrary to the specific words of the act of parliament,
betrays the badness of the Lancastrian cause, which would make us
doubt or wonder at the consent of the nobility in giving way to the
act for bastardizing the children of Edward the Fourth. But
reinstate the claim of the lady Butler, which probably was well
known, and conceive the interest that her great relations must have
made to set aside the queen's marriage, nothing appears more natural
than Richard's succession. His usurpation vanishes, and in a few
pages more, I shall shew that his consequential cruelty vanishes
too, or at most is very, problematic: but first I must revert to
some intervening circumstances.
In this whole story nothing is less known to us than the grounds on
which lord Hastings was put to death. He had lived in open enmity
with the queen and her family, and had been but newly reconciled to
her son the marquis Dorset; yet Sir Thomas owns that lord Hastings
was one of the first to abet Richard's proceedings against her, and
concurred in all the protector's measures. We are amazed therefore
to find this lord the first sacrifice under the new government. Sir
Thomas More supposes (and he could only suppose; for whatever
archbishop Morton might tell him of the plots of Henry of Richmond,
Morton was certainly not entrusted with the secrets of Richard) Sir
Thomas, I say, supposes, that Hastings either withstood the
deposition of Edward the Fifth, or was accused of such a design by
Catesby, who was deeply in his confidence; and he owns that the
protector undoubtedly loved him well, and loth he was to have him
lost. What then is the presumption? Is it not, that Hastings really
was plotting to defeat the new settlement contrary to the intention
of the three estates? And who can tell whether the suddenness of the
execution was not the effect of necessity? The gates of the Tower
were shut during that rapid scene; the protector and his adherents
appeared in the first rusty armour that was at hand: but this
circumstance is alledged against them, as an incident contrived to
gain belief, as if they had been in danger of their lives. The
argument is gratis dictum: and as Richard loved Hastings and had
used his ministry, the probability lies on the other side: and it is
more reasonable to believe that Richard acted in self-defence, than
that he exercised a wanton, unnecessary, and disgusting cruelty. The
collateral circumstances introduced by More do but weaken(17) his
account, and take from its probability. I do not mean the silly
recapitulation of silly omens which forewarned Hastings of his fate,
and as omens generally do, to no manner of purpose; but I speak of
the idle accusations put into the mouth of Richard, such as his
baring his withered arm, and imputing it to sorcery, and to his
blending the queen and Jane Shore in the same plot. Cruel or not,
Richard was no fool; and therefore it is highly improbable that he
should lay the withering of his arm on recent witchcraft, if it was
true, as Sir Thomas More pretends, that it never had been otherwise
--but of the blemishes and deformity of his person, I shall have
occasion to speak hereafter. For the other accusation of a league
between Elizabeth and Jane Shore, Sir Thomas More ridicules it
himself, and treats it as highly unlikely. But being unlikely, was
it not more natural for him to think, that it never was urged by
Richard? And though Sir Thomas again draws aside our attention by
the penance of Jane, which she certainly underwent, it is no kind of
proof that the protector accused the queen of having plotted(18)
with mistress Shore. What relates to that unhappy fair one I shall
examine at the end of this work.
(17)Except the proclamation which, Sir Thomas says, appeared to
have been prepared before hand. The death of Hastings, I allow, is
the fact of which we are most sure, without knowing the immediate
motives: we must conclude it was determined on his opposing
Richard's claim: farther we do not know, nor whether that opposition
was made in a legal or hostile manner. It is impossible to believe
that, an hour before his death, he should have exulted in the deaths
of their common enemies, and vaunted, as Sir Thomas More asserts,
his connection with Richard, if he was then actually at variance
with him; nor that Richard should, without provocation, have
massacred so excellent an accomplice. This story, therefore, must be
left in the dark, as we find it.
(18) So far from it, that as Mr. Hume remarks, there is in Rymer's
Foedera a proclamation of Richard, in which he accuses, not the lord
Hastings, but the marquis Dorset, of connexion with Jane Shore. Mr.
Hume thinks so authentic a paper not sufficient to overbalance the
credit due to Sir Thomas More. What little credit was due to him
appears from the course of this work in various and indubitable
instances. The proclamation against the lord Dorset and Jane Shore
is not dated till the 23rd. of October following. Is it credible
that Richard would have made use of this woman's name again, if he
had employed it heretofore to blacken Hastings? It is not probable
that, immediately on the death of the king, she had been taken into
keeping by lord Hastings; but near seven months had elapsed between
that death and her connection with the marquis.
The very day on which Hastings was executed, were beheaded earl
Rivers, Lord Richard Grey, Vaughan, and Haute. These executions are
indubitable; were consonant to the manners and violence of the age;
and perhaps justifiable by that wicked code, state necessity. I have
never pretended to deny them, because I find them fully
authenticated. I have in another(19) place done justice to the
virtues and excellent qualities of earl Rivers: let therefore my
impartiality be believed, when I reject other facts, for which I can
discover no good authority. I can have no interest in Richard's
guilt or innocence; but as Henry the Seventh was so much interested
to represent him as guilty, I cannot help imputing to the greater
usurper, and to the worse tyrant of the two, all that appears to me
to have been calumny and misrepresentation.
(19) In the Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors, vol. 1.
All obstacles thus removed, and Richard being solemnly instated in
the throne by the concurrent voice of the three estates, "He
openly," says Sir Thomas More, "took upon him to be king the
ninth(20) day of June, and' the morrow after was proclaimed, riding
to Westminster with great state; and calling the judges before him,
straightly commanded them to execute the laws without favor or
delay, with many good exhortations, of the which he followed not
one." This is an invidious and false accusation. Richard, in his
regal capacity, was an excellent king, and for the short time of his
reign enacted many wise and wholesome laws. I doubt even whether one
of the best proofs of his usurpation was not the goodness of his
government, according to a common remark, that princes of doubtful
titles make the best masters, as it is more necessary for them to
conciliate the favour of the people: the natural corollary from
which observation need not be drawn. Certain it is that in many
parts of the kingdom not poisoned by faction, he was much beloved;
and even after his death the northern counties gave open testimony
of their affection to his memory.
(20) Though I have copied our historian, as the rest have copied
him, in this date I must desire the reader to take notice, that this
very date is another of Sir T. More's errors; for in the public acts
is a deed of Edward the Fifth, dated June 17th.
On the 6th of July Richard was crowned, and soon after set out on a
progress to York, on his way visiting Gloucester, the seat of his
former duchy. And now it is that I must call up the attention of the
reader, the capital and bloody scene of Richard's life being dated
from this progress. The narrative teems with improbabilities and
notorious falshoods, and is flatly contradicted by so many
unquestionable facts, that if we have no other reason to believe the
murder of Edward the Fifth and his brother, than the account
transmitted to us, we shall very much doubt whether they ever were
murdered at all. I will state the account, examine it, and produce
evidence to confute it, and then the reader will form his own
judgment on the matter of fact.
Richard before he left London, had taken no measures to accomplish
the assassination; but on the road "his mind misgave him,(21) that
while his nephews lived, he should not possess the crown with
security. Upon this reflection he dispatched one Richard Greene to
Sir Robert Brakenbury, lieutenant of the Tower, with a letter and
credence also, that the same Sir Robert in any wise should put the
two children to death. This John Greene did his errand to
Brakenbury, kneeling before our Lady in the Tower, who plainly
answered 'that he never would put them to death, to dye therefore.'
Green returned with this answer to the king who was then at Warwick,
wherewith he took such displeasure and thought, that the same night
he said unto a secret page of his, 'Ah! whom shall a man trust? They
that I have brought up myself, they that I thought would have most
surely served me, even those faile me, and at my commandment will do
nothing for me.' 'Sir,' quoth the page 'there lieth one in the palet
chamber without, that I dare say will doe your grace pleasure; the
thing were right hard that he would refuse;' meaning this by James
Tirrel, whom," says Sir Thomas a few pages afterwards, "as men say,
he there made a knight. The man" continues More, "had an high
heart, and sore longed upwards, not rising yet so fast as he had
hoped, being hindered and kept under by Sir Richard Ratcliffe and
Sir William Catesby, who by secret drifts kept him out of all secret
trust." To be short, Tirrel voluntarily accepted the commission,
received warrant to authorise Brakenbury to deliver to him the keys
of the Tower for one night; and having selected two other villains
called Miles Forest and John Dighton, the two latter smothered the
innocent princes in their beds, and then called Tirrel to be witness
of the execution.
(21) Sir T. More.
It is difficult to croud more improbabilities and lies together than
are comprehended in this short narrative. Who can believe if Richard
meditated the murder, that he took no care to sift Brakenbury before
he left London? Who can believe that he would trust so atrocious a
commission to a letter? And who can imagine, that on Brakenbury's(22)
non-compliance Richard would have ordered him to cede the government
of the Tower to Tirrel for one night only, the purpose of which had
been so plainly pointed out by the preceding message? And had such
weak step been taken, could the murder itself have remained a
problem? And yet Sir Thomas More himself is forced to confess at the
outset of this very narration, "that the deaths and final fortunes
of the two young princes have nevertheless so far come in question,
that some remained long in doubt, whether they were in his days
destroyed(23) or no." Very memorable words, and sufficient to
balance More's own testimony with the most sanguine believers. He
adds, "these doubts not only arose from the uncertainty men were in,
whether Perkin Warbeck was the true duke of York, but for that also
all things were so covertly demeaned, that there was nothing so
plain and openly proved, but that yet men had it ever inwardly
suspect." Sir Thomas goes on to affirm, "that he does not relate
the story after every way that he had heard, but after that way that
he had heard it by such men and such meanes as he thought it hard
but it should be true." This affirmation rests on the credibility of
certain reporters, we do not know whom, but who we shall find were
no credible reporters at all: for to proceed to the confutation.
James Tirrel, a man in no secret trust with the king, and kept down
by Catesby and Ratcliffe, is recommended as a proper person by a
nameless page. In the first place Richard was crowned at York (after
this transaction) September 8th. Edward the Fourth had not been
dead four months, and Richard in possession of any power not above
two months, and those very bustling and active: Tirrel must have
been impatient indeed, if the page had had time to observe his
discontent at the superior confidence of Ratcliffe and Catesby. It
happens unluckily too, that great part of the time Ratcliffe was
absent, Sir Thomas More himself telling us that Sir Richard
Ratcliffe had the custody of the prisoners at Pontefract, and
presided at their execution there. But a much more unlucky
circumstance is, that James Tirrel, said to be knighted for this
horrid service, was not only a knight before, but a great or very
considerable officer of the crown; and in that situation had walked
at Richard's preceding coronation. Should I be told that Sir Thomas
Moore did not mean to confine the ill offices done to Tirrel by
Ratcliffe and Catesby solely to the time of Richard's protectorate
and regal power, but being all three attached to him when duke of
Gloucester, the other two might have lessened Tirrel's credit with
the duke even in the preceding reign; then I answer, that Richard's
appointing him master of the horse on his accession had removed
those disgusts, and left the page no room to represent him as ready
through ambition and despondency to lend his ministry to
assassination. Nor indeed was the master of the horse likely to be
sent to supercede the constable of the Tower for one night only.
That very act was sufficient to point out what Richard desired to,
and did, it seems, transact so covertly.
(22) It appears from the Foedera that Brakenbury was appointed
Constable of the Tower July 7th; that he surrendered his patent
March 9th of the following year, and had one more ample granted to
him. If it is supposed that Richard renewed this patent to Sir
Robert Brakenbury, to prevent his disclosing what he knew of a
murder, in which he had refused to be concerned, I then ask if it is
probable that a man too virtuous or too cautious to embark in an
assassination, and of whom the supposed tyrant stood in awe, would
have laid down his life in that usurper's cause, as Sir Robert did,
being killed on Richard's side at Bosworth, when many other of his
adherents betrayed him?
(23) This is confirmed by Lord Bacon: "Neither wanted there even at
that time secret rumours and whisperings (which afterwards
gathered strength, and turned to great trouble) that the two young
sons of king Edward the Fourth, or one of them (which were said to
be destroyed in the Tower) were not indeed murthered, but conveyed
secretly away, and were yet living." Reign of Henry the Seventh, p. 4.
again, p. 19. "And all this time it was still whispered every where
that at least one of the children of Edward the Fourth was living."
That Sir James Tirrel was and did walk as master of the horse at
Richard's coronation cannot be contested. A most curious,
invaluable, and authentic monument has lately been discovered, the
coronation-roll of Richard the Third. Two several deliveries of
parcels of stuff are there expressly entered, as made to "Sir James
Tirrel, knyght, maister of the hors of our sayd soverayn lorde the
kynge." What now becomes of Sir Thomas More's informers, and of
their narrative, which he thought hard but must be true?
I will go a step farther, and consider the evidence of this murder,
as produced by Henry the Seventh some years afterwards, when,
instead of lamenting it, it was necessary for his majesty to hope it
had been true; at least to hope the people would think so. On the
appearance of Perkin Warbeck, who gave himself out for the second of
the brothers, who was believed so by most people, and at least
feared by the king to be so, he bestirred himself to prove that both
the princes had been murdered by his predecessor. There had been but
three actors, besides Richard who had commanded the execution, and
was dead. These were Sir James Tirrel, Dighton, and Forrest; and
these were all the persons whose depositions Henry pretended to
produce; at least of two of them, for Forrest it seems had rotted
piece-meal away; a kind of death unknown at present to the college.
But there were some others, of whom no notice was taken; as the
nameless page, Greene, one Black Will or Will Slaughter who guarded
the princes, the friar who buried them, and Sir Robert Brakenbury,
who could not be quite ignorant of what had happened: the latter was
killed at Bosworth, and the friar was dead too. But why was no
enquiry made after Greene and the page? Still this silence was not
so impudent as the pretended confession of Dighton and Sir James
Tyrrel. The former certainly did avow the fact, and was suffered to
go unpunished wherever he pleased--undoubtedly that he might spread
the tale. And observe these remarkable words of lord Bacon, "John
Dighton, who it seemeth spake best the king, was forewith set at
liberty." In truth, every step of this pretended discovery, as it
stands in lord Bacon, warns us to give no heed to it. Dighton and
Tirrel agreed both in a tale, as the king gave out. Their confession
therefore was not publickly made, and as Sir James Tirrel was
suffered to live;(24) but was shut up in the Tower, and put to death
afterwards for we know not what reason. What can we believe, but
that Dighton was some low mercenary wretch hired to assume the guilt
of a crime he had not committed, and that Sir James Tirrel never
did, never would confess what he had not done; and was therefore put
out of the way on a fictitious imputation? It must be observed too,
that no inquiry was made into the murder on the accession of Henry
the Seventh, the natural time for it, when the passions of men were
heated, and when the duke of Norfolk, lord Lovel, Catesby,
Ratcliffe, and the real abettors or accomplices of Richard, were
attainted and executed. No mention of such a murder (25)was made in
the very act of parliament that attainted Richard himself, and which
would have been the most heinous aggravation of his crimes. And no
prosecution of the supposed assassins was even thought of till
eleven years afterwards, on the appearance of Perkin Warbeck. Tirrel
is not named in the act of attainder to which I have had recourse;
and such omissions cannot but induce us to surmise that Henry had
never been certain of the deaths of the princes, nor ever interested
himself to prove that both were dead, till he had great reason to
believe that one of them was alive. Let me add, that if the
confessions of Dighton and Tirrel were true, Sir Thomas More had no
occasion to recur to the information of his unknown credible
informers. If those confessions were not true, his informers were
not credible.
(24) It appears by Hall, that Sir James Tirrel had even enjoyed the
favor of Henry; for Tirrel is named as captain of Guards in a list
of valiant officers that were sent by Henry, in his fifth year, on
an expedition into Flanders. Does this look as if Tirrel was so much
as suspected of the murder. And who can believe his pretended
confession afterwards? Sir James was not executed till Henry's
seventeenth year, on suspicion of treason, which suspicion arose on
the flight of the earl of Suffolk. Vide Hall's Chronicle, fol. 18 &
55.
(25) There is a heap of general accusations alledged to have been
committed by Richard against Henry, in particular of his having shed
infant's blood. Was this sufficient specification of the murder of a
king? Is it not rather a base way of insinuating a slander, of which
no proof could be given? Was not it consonant to all Henry's policy
of involving every thing in obscure and general terms?
Having thus disproved the account of the murder, let us now examine
whether we can be sure that the murder was committed.
Of all men it was most incumbent on cardinal Bourchier, archbishop
of Canterbury, to ascertain the fact. To him had the queen entrusted
her younger son, and the prelate had pledged himself for his
security--unless every step of this history is involved in
falshood. Yet what was the behaviour of the archbishop? He appears
not to have made the least inquiry into the reports of the murder of
both children; nay, not even after Richard's death: on the contrary,
Bourchier was the very man who placed the crown on the head of the
latter;(26) and yet not one historian censures this conduct. Threats
and fear could not have dictated this shameless negligence. Every
body knows what was the authority of priests in that age; an
archbishop was sacred, a cardinal inviolable. As Bourchier survived
Richard, was it not incumbant on him to show, that the duke of York
had been assassinated in spite of all his endeavours to save him?
What can be argued from this inactivity of Bourchier,(27) but that
he did not believe the children were murdered.
(26) As cardinal Bourchier set the crown on Richard's head at
Westminster, so did archbishop Rotheram at York. These prelates
either did not believe Richard had murdered his nephews, or were
shamefully complaisant themselves. Yet their characters stand
unimpeached in history. Could Richard be guilty, and the archbishops
be blameless? Could both be ignorant what was become of the young
princes, when both had negotiated with the queen dowager? As neither
is accused of being the creature of Richard, it is probable that
neither of them believed he had taken off his nephews. In the
Foedera there is a pardon passed to the archbishop, which at first
made me suspect that he had taken some part in behalf of the royal
children, as he is pardoned for all murders, treasons, concealments,
misprisons, riots, routs, &c. but this pardon is not only dated
Dec. 13, some months after he had crowned Richard; but, on looking
farther, I find such pardons frequently granted to the most eminent
of the clergy. In the next reign Walter, archbishop of Dublin, is
pardoned all murders, rapes, treasons, felonies, misprisons, riots,
routs, extortions, &c.
(27) Lord Bacon tells us, that "on Simon's and Jude's even, the
king (Henry the Seventh) dined with Thomas Bourchier, archbishop of
Canterburie, and cardinal: and from Lambeth went by land over the
bridge to the Tower." Has not this the appearance of some curiosity
in the king on the subject of the princes, of whose fate he was
uncertain?
Richard's conduct in a parallel case is a strong presumption that
this barbarity was falsely laid to his charge. Edward earl of
Warwick, his nephew, and son of the duke of Clarence, was in his
power too, and no indifferent rival, if king Edward's children were
bastards. Clarence had been attainted; but so had almost every
prince who had aspired to the crown after Richard the Second.
Richard duke of York, the father of Edward the Fourth and Richard
the Third, was son of Richard earl of Cambridge, beheaded for
treason; yet that duke of York held his father's attainder no bar to
his succession. Yet how did Richard the Third treat his nephew and
competitor, the young Warwick? John Rous, a zealous Lancastrian and
contemporary shall inform us: and will at the same time tell us an
important anecdote, maliciously suppressed or ignorantly omitted by
all our historians. Richard actually proclaimed him heir to the
crown after the death of his own son, and ordered him to be served
next to himself and the queen, though he afterwards set him aside,
and confined him to the castle of Sheriff-Hutton.(28) The very day
after the battle of Bosworth, the usurper Richmond was so far from
being led aside from attention to his interest by the glare of his
new-acquired crown, that he sent for the earl of Warwick from
Sheriff-Hutton and committed him to the Tower, from whence he never
stirred more, falling a sacrifice to the inhuman jealousy of Henry,
as his sister, the venerable countess of Salisbury, did afterwards
to that of Henri the Eight. Richard, on the contrary, was very
affectionate to his family: instances appear in his treatment of the
earls of Warwick and Lincoln. The lady Ann Poole, sister of the
latter, Richard had agreed to marry to the prince of Scotland.
(28) P. 218. Rous is the more to be credited for this fact, as he
saw the earl of Warwick in company with Richard at Warwick the year
before on the progress to York, which shows that the king treated
his nephew with kindness, and did not confine him till the plots of
his enemies thickening, Richard found it necessary to secure such as
had any pretensions to the crown. This will account for his
preferring the earl of Lincoln, who, being his sister's son, could
have no prior claim before himself.
The more generous behaviour of Richard to the same young prince
(Warwick) ought to be applied to the case of Edward the Fifth, if no
proof exists of the murder. But what suspicious words are those of
Sir Thomas More, quoted above, and unobserved by all our historians.
"Some remained long in doubt," says he, "whether they (the children)
were in his (Richard's) days destroyed or no." If they were not
destroyed in his days, in whose days were they murdered? Who will
tell me that Henry the Seventh did not find, the eldest at least,
prisoner in the Tower; and if he did, what was there in Henry's
nature or character to prevent our surmizes going farther.
And here let me lament that two of the greatest men in our annals
have prostituted their admirable pens, the one to blacken a great
prince, the other to varnish a pitiful tyrant. I mean the two (29)
chancellors, Sir Thomas More and lord Bacon. The most senseless
stories of the mob are converted to history by the former; the
latter is still more culpable; he has held up to the admiration of
posterity, and what is worse, to the imitation of succeeding
princes, a man whose nearest approach to wisdom was mean cunning;
and has raised into a legislator, a sanguinary, sordid, and
trembling usurper. Henry was a tyrannic husband, and ungrateful
master; he cheated as well as oppressed his subjects,(30) bartered
the honour of the nation for foreign gold, and cut off every branch
of the royal family, to ensure possession to his no title. Had he
had any title, he could claim it but from his mother, and her he set
aside. But of all titles he preferred that of conquest, which, if
allowable in a foreign prince, can never be valid in a native, but
ought to make him the execration of his countrymen.
(29) It is unfortunate, that another great chancellor should have
written a history with the same propensity to misrepresentation, I
mean lord Clarendon. It is hoped no more chancellors will write our
story, till they can divest themselves of that habit of their
profession, apologizing for a bad cause.
(30) "He had no purpose to go through with any warre upon France;
but the truth was, that he did but traffique with that warre to make
his returne in money." Lord Bacon's reign of Henry the Seventh,
p. 99.
There is nothing strained in the supposition of Richard's sparing
his nephew. At least it is certain now, that though he dispossessed,
he undoubtedly treated him at first with indulgence, attention, and
respect; and though the proof I am going to give must have mortified
the friends of the dethroned young prince, yet it shewed great
aversion to cruelty, and was an indication that Richard rather
assumed the crown for a season, than as meaning to detain it always
from his brother's posterity. It is well known that in the Saxon
times nothing was more common in cases of minority than, for the
uncle to be preferred to the nephew; and though bastardizing his
brother's children was, on this supposition, double dealing; yet I
have no doubt but Richard went so far as to insinuate an intention
of restoring the crown when young Edward should be of full age. I
have three strong proofs of this hypothesis. In the first place Sir
Thomas More reports that the duke of Buckingham in his conversations
with Morton, after his defection from Richard, told the bishop that
the protector's first proposal had been to take the crown, till
Edward his nephew should attain the age of twenty four years. Morton
was certainly competent evidences of these discourses, and therefore
a credible one; and the idea is confirmed by the two other proofs I
alluded to; the second of which was, that Richard's son did not walk
at his father's coronation. Sir Thomas More indeed says that Richard
created him prince of Wales on assuming the crown; but this is one
of Sir Thomas's misrepresentations, and is contradicted by fact, for
Richard did not create his son prince of Wales till he arrived at
York; a circumstance that might lead the people to believe that in
the interval of the two coronations, the latter of which was
celebrated at York, September 8th, the princes were murdered.
But though Richard's son did not walk at his father's coronation,
Edward the Fifth probably did, and this is my third proof. I
conceive all the astonishment of my readers at this assertion, and
yet it is founded on strongly presumptive evidence. In the
coronation roll itself(31) is this amazing entry; "To Lord Edward,
son of late king Edward the Fourth, for his apparel and array, that
is to say, a short gowne made of two yards and three-quarters of
crymsy clothe of gold, lyned with two yards of blac velvet, a long
gowne made of vi yards of crymsyn cloth of gold lynned with six
yards of green damask, a shorte gowne made of two yards of purpell
velvett lyned with two yards of green damask, a doublet and a
stomacher made of two yards of black satin, &c. besides two foot
cloths, a bonnet of purple velvet, nine horse harness, and nine
saddle houses (housings) of blue velvet, gilt spurs, with many other
rich articles, and magnificent apparel for his henchmen or pages."
(31) This singular curiosity was first mentioned to me by the lord
bishop of Carlisle. Mr. Astle lent me an extract of it, with other
usual assistances; and Mr. Chamberlain of the great wardrobe obliged
me with the perusal of the original; favours which I take this
opportunity of gratefully acknowledging.
Let no body tell me that these robes, this magnificence, these
trappings for a cavalcade, were for the use of a prisoner.
Marvellous as the fact is, there can no longer be any doubt but the
deposed young king walked, or it was intended should walk, at his
uncle's coronation. This precious monument, a terrible reproach to
Sir Thomas More and his copyists, who have been silent on so public
an event, exists in the great wardrobe; and is in the highest
preservation; it is written on vellum, and is bound with the
coronation rolls of Henry the Seventh and Eighth. These are written
on paper, and are in worse condition; but that of king Richard is
uncommonly fair, accurate, and ample. It is the account of Peter
Courteys keeper of the great wardrobe, and dates from the day of
king Edward the Fourth his death, to the feast of the purification
in the February of the following year. Peter Courteys specifies what
stuff he found in the wardrobe, what contracts he made for the
ensuing coronation, and the deliveries in consequence. The whole is
couched in the most minute and regular manner, and is preferable to
a thousand vague and interested histories. The concourse of nobility
at that ceremony was extraordinarily great: there were present no
fewer than three duchesses of Norfolk. Has this the air of a forced
and precipitate election? Or does it not indicate a voluntary
concurrence of the nobility? No mention being made in the roll of
the young duke of York, no robes being ordered for him, it looks
extremely as if he was not in Richard's custody; and strengthens the
probability that will appear hereafter, of his having been conveyed
away.
There is another article, rather curious than decisive of any
point of history. One entry is thus; "To the lady Brygitt, oon of
the daughters of K. Edward ivth, being seeke (sick) in the said
wardrobe for to have for her use two long pillows of fustian stuffed
with downe, and two pillow beres of Holland cloth." The only
conjecture that can be formed from this passage is, that the lady
Bridget, being lodged in the great wardrobe, was not then in
sanctuary.
Can it be doubted now but that Richard meant to have it thought that
his assumption of the crown was only temporary? But when he
proceeded to bastardize his nephew by act of parliament, then it
became necessary to set him entirely aside: stronger proofs of the
hastardy might have come out; and it is reasonable to infer this,
for on the death of his own son, when Richard had no longer any
reason of family to bar his brother Edward's children, instead of
again calling them to the succession, as he at first projected or
gave out he would, he settled the crown on the issue of his sister,
Suffolk, declaring her eldest son the earl of Lincoln his successor.
That young prince was slain in the battle of Stoke against Henry the
Seventh, and his younger brother the earl of Suffolk, who had fled
to Flanders, was extorted from the archduke Philip, who by contrary
winds had been driven into England. Henry took a solemn oath not to
put him to death; but copying David rather than Solomon he, on his
death bed, recommended it to his son Henry the Eighth to execute
Suffolk; and Henry the Eighth was too pions not to obey so
scriptural an injunction.
Strange as the fact was of Edward the Fifth walking at his
successor's coronation, I have found an event exactly parallel which
happened some years before. It is well known that the famous Joan of
Naples was dethroned and murdered by the man she had chosen for her
heir, Charles Durazzo. Ingratitude and cruelty were the
characteristics of that wretch. He had been brought up and formed by
his uncle Louis king of Hungary, who left only two daughters. Mary
the eldest succeeded and was declared king; for that warlike nation,
who regarded the sex of a word, more than of a person, would not
suffer themselves to be governed by the term queen. Durazzo quitted
Naples in pursuit of new ingratitude; dethroned king Mary, and
obliged her to walk at his coronation; an insult she and her mother
soon revenged by having him assassinated.
I do not doubt but the wickedness of Durazzo will be thought a
proper parallel to Richard's. But parallels prove nothing: and a man
must be a very poor reasoner who thinks he has an advantage over me,
because I dare produce a circumstance that resembles my subject in
the case to which it is applied, and leaves my argument just as
strong as it was before in every other point.
They who the most firmly believe the murder of the two princes, and
from what I have said it is plain that they believe it more strongly
than the age did in which it was pretended to be committed; urge the
disappearance(32) of the princes as a proof of the murder, but that
argument vanishes entirely, at least with regard to one of them, if
Perkin Warbeck was the true duke of York, as I shall show that it is
greatly probable he was.
(32) Polidore Virgil says, "In vulgas fama valuit filios Edwardi
Regis aliquo terrarum partem migrasse, atque ita superstates esse."
And the prior of Croyland, not his continuator, whom I shall quote
in the next note but one, and who was still better informed,
"Vulgatum est Regis Edwardi pueros concessisse in fata, sed quo
genere intentus ignoratur."
With regard to the elder, his disappearance is no kind of proof that
he was murdered: he might die in the Tower. The queen pleaded to the
archbishop of York that both princes were weak and unhealthy. I have
insinuated that it is not impossible but Henry the Seventh might
find him alive in the Tower.(33) I mention that as a bare
possibility--but we may be very sure that if he did find Edward
alive there, he would not have notified his existence, to acquit
Richard and hazard his own crown. The circumstances of the murder
were evidently false, and invented by Henry to discredit Perkin; and
the time of the murder is absolutely a fiction, for it appears by
the roll of parliament which bastardized Edward the Fifth, that he
was then alive, which was seven months after the time assigned by
More for his murder, if Richard spared him seven months, what could
suggest a reason for his murder afterwards? To take him off then was
strengthening the plan of the earl of Richmond, who aimed at the
crown by marrying Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Edward the Fourth.
As the house of York never rose again, as the reverse of Richard's
fortune deprived him of any friend, and as no contemporaries but
Fabian and the author of the Chronicle have written a word on that
period, and they, too slightly to inform us, it is impossible to
know whether Richard ever took any steps to refute the calumny. But
we do know that Fabian only mentions the deaths of the princes as
reports, which is proof that Richard never declared their deaths, or
the death of either, as he would probably have done if he had
removed them for his own security. The confessions of Sir Thomas
More and lord Bacon that many doubted of the murder, amount to a
violent presumption that they were not murdered: and to a proof that
their deaths were never declared. No man has ever doubted that
Edward the Second, Richard the Second, and Henry the Sixth perished
at the times that were given out. Nor Henry the Fourth, nor Edward
the Fourth thought it would much help their titles to leave it
doubtful whether their competitors existed or not. Observe too, that
the chronicle of Croyland, after relating Richard's second
coronation at York, says, it was advised by some in the sanctuary at
Westminster to convey abroad some of king Edward's daughters, "ut si
quid dictis masculis humanitus in Turri contingerat, nihilominus per
salvandas personas filiarum, regnum aliquando ad veros rediret
haeredes." He says not a word of the princes being murdered, only
urges the fears of their friends that it might happen. This was a
living witness, very bitter against Richard, who still never accuses
him of destroying his nephews, and who speaks of them as living,
after the time in which Sir Thomas More, who was not then five years
old, declared they were dead. Thus the parliament roll and the
chronicle agree, and both contradict More. "Interim & dum haec
agerentur (the coronation at York) remanserunt duo predicti Edwardi
regis filii sub certa deputata, custodia infra Turrim Londoniarum."
These are the express words of the Chronicle, p. 567.
(33) Buck asserts this from the parliament roll. The annotator in
Kennett's collection says, "this author would have done much towards
the credit he drives at in his history, to have specified the place
of the roll and the words thereof, whence such arguments might be
gathered: for," adds he, "all histories relate the murders to be
committed before this time." I have shown that all histories are
reduced to one history, Sir Thomas Moore's; for the rest copy him
verbatim; and I have shown that his account is false and improbable.
As the roll itself is now printed, in the parliamentary history, vol.
2. I will point out the words that imply Edward the Fifth being
alive when the act was passed. "Also it appeareth that all the issue
of the said king Edward be bastards and unable to inherit or claim
any thing by inheritance, by the law and custom of England." Had
Edward the Fifth been dead, would not the act indubitably have run
thus, were and be bastards. No, says the act, all the issue are
bastards. Who were rendered uncapable to inherit but Edward the
Fifth, his brother and sisters? Would not the act have specified the
daughters of Edward the Fourth if the sons had been dead? It was to
bastardise the brothers, that the act was calculated and passed; and
as the words all the issue comprehend male and females, it is clear
that both were intended to be bastardized. I must however,
impartially observe that Philip de Comines says, Richard having
murdered his nephews, degraded their two sisters in full parliament.
I will not dwell on his mistake of mentioning two sisters instead of
five; but it must be remarked, that neither brothers or sisters
being specified in the act, but under the general term of king
Edward's issue, it would naturally strike those who were uncertain
what was become of the sons, that this act was levelled against the
daughters. And as Comines did not write till some years after the
event, he could not help falling into that mistake. For my own part
I know not how to believe that Richard would have passed that act,
if he had murdered the two princes. It was recalling a shocking
crime, and to little purpose; for as no< woman had at that time ever
sat on the English throne in her own right, Richard had little
reason to apprehend the claim of his nieces.
As Richard gained the crown by the illegitimacy of his nephews, his
causing them to be murdered, would not only have shown that he did
not trust to that plea, but would have transferred their claim to
their sisters. And I must not be told that his intended marriage
with his neice is an answer to my argument; for were that imputation
true, which is very problematic, it had nothing to do with the
murder of her brothers. And here the comparison and irrefragability
of dates puts this matter out of all doubt. It was not till the very
close of his reign that Richard is even supposed to have thought of
marrying his neice. The deaths of his nephews are dated in July or
August 1483. His own son did not die till April 1484, nor his queen
till March 1485. He certainly therefore did not mean to strengthen
his title by marrying his neice to the disinherison of his own son;
and having on the loss of that son, declared his nephew the earl of
Lincoln his successor, it is plain that he still trusted to the
illegitimacy of his brother's children: and in no case possibly to
be put, can it be thought that he wished to give strength to the
claim of the princess Elizabeth.
Let us now examine the accusation of his intending to marry that
neice: one of the consequences of which intention is a vague
suspicion of poisoning his wife. Buck says that the queen was in a
languishing condition, and that the physicians declared she could
not hold out till April; and he affirms having seen in the earl of
Arundel's library a letter written in passionate strains of love for
her uncle by Elizabeth to the duke of Norfolk, in which she
expressed doubts that the month of April would never arrive. What is
there in this account that looks like poison; Does it not prove that
Richard would not hasten the death of his queen? The tales of
poisoning for a time certain are now exploded; nor is it in nature
to believe that the princess could be impatient to marry him, if she
knew or thought he had murdered her brothers. Historians tell us
that the queen took much to heart the death of her son, and never
got over it. Had Richard been eager to ned his niece, and had his
character been as impetuously wicked as it is represented, he would
not have let the forward princess wait for the slow decay of her
rival: nor did he think of it till nine months after the death of
his son; which shows it was only to prevent Richmond's marrying her.
His declaring his nephew his successor, implies at the same time no
thought of getting rid of the queen, though he did not expect more
issue from her: and little as Buck's authority is regarded, a
contemporary writer confirms the probability of this story. The
Chronicle of Croyland says, that at the Christmas festival,(34) men
were scandalized at seeing the queen and the lady Elizabeth dressed
in robes similar and equally royal. I should suppose that Richard
learning the projected marriage of Elizabeth and the earl of
Richmond, amused the young princess with the hopes of making her his
queen; and that Richard feared that alliance, is plain from his
sending her to the castle of Sheriff-Hutton on the landing of
Richmond.
(34) "Per haec festa natalia choreis aut tripudiis, variisque
mutatoriis vestium Annae reginae atque dominae Elizabeth,
primogenitae defuncti regis, eisdem colore & forma distributis
nimis intentum est: dictumque a multis est, ipsum regem aut
expectata morte reginae aut per divortium, matrimonio cum dicta
Elizabeth contrahendo mentem omnibus modis applicare," p. 572. If
Richard projected this match at Christmas, he was not likely to let
these intentions be perceived so early, nor to wait till March, if
he did not know that the queen was incurably ill. The Chronicle
says, she died of a languishing distemper. Did that look like
poison? It is scarce necessary to say that a dispensation from the
pope was in that age held so clear a solution of all obstacles to
the marriage of near relations, and was so easily to be obtained or
purchased by a great prince, that Richard would not have been
thought by his contemporaries to have incurred any guilt, even if he
had proposed to wed his neice, which however is far from being clear
to have been his intention.
The behaviour of the queen dowager must also be noticed. She was
stripped by her son-in-law Henry of all her possessions, and
confined to a monastery, for delivering up her daughters to Richard.
Historians too are lavish in their censures on her for consenting to
bestow her daughter on the murderer of her sons and brother. But if
the murder of her sons, is, as we have seen, most uncertain, this
solemn charge falls to the ground: and for the deaths of her
brothers and lord Richard Grey, one of her elder sons, it has
already appeared that she imputed them to Hastings. It is much more
likely that Richard convinced her he had not murdered her sons, than
that she delivered up her daughters to him believing it. The rigour
exercised on her by Henry the Seventh on her countenancing Lambert
Simnel, evidently set up to try the temper of the nation in favour
of some prince of the house of York, is a violent presumption
that the queen dowager believed her second son living: and
notwithstanding all the endeavours of Henry to discredit Perkin
Warbeck, it will remain highly probable that many more who ought to
know the truth, believed so likewise; and that fact I shall examine
next.
It was in the second year of Henry the Seventh that Lambert Simnel
appeared. This youth first personated Richard duke of York, then
Edward earl of Warwick; and was undoubtedly an impostor. Lord Bacon
owns that it was whispered every-where, that at least one of the
children of Edward the Fourth was living. Such whispers prove two
things; one, that the murder was very uncertain: the second, that it
would have been very dangerous to disprove the murder; Henry being
at least as much interested as Richard had been to have the children
dead. Richard had set them aside as bastards, and thence had a title
to the crown; but Henry was himself the issue of a bastard line, and
had no title at all. Faction had set him on the throne, and his
match with the supposed heiress of York induced the nation to wink
at the defect in his own blood. The children of Clarence and of the
duchess of Suffolk were living; so was the young duke of Buckingham,
legitimately sprung from the youngest son of Edward the Third;
whereas Henry came of the spurious stock of John of Gaunt, Lambert
Simnel appeared before Henry had had time to disgust the nation, as
he did afterwards, by his tyranny, cruelty, and exactions. But what
was most remarkable, the queen dowager tampered in this plot. Is it
to be believed, that mere turbulence and a restless spirit could in
a year's time influence that woman to throw the nation again into a
civil war, and attempt to dethrone her own daughter? And in favour
of whom? Of the issue of Clarence, whom she had contributed to have
put to death, or in favour of an impostor? There is not common sense
in the supposition. No; she certainly knew or believed that Richard,
her second son, had escaped and was living, and was glad to overturn
the usurper without risking her child. The plot failed, and the
queen dowager was shut up, where she remained till her death, "in
prison, poverty, and solitude."(35) The king trumped up a silly
accusation of her having delivered her daughters out of sanctuary to
King Richard, "which proceeding," says the noble historian, "being
even at the time taxed for rigorous and undue, makes it very probable
there was some greater matter against her, which the king, upon
reason of policie, and to avoid envy, would not publish." How truth
sometimes escapes fiom the most courtly pens! What interpretation
can be put on these words, but that the king found the queen dowager
was privy to the escape at least or existence of her second son, and
secured her, lest she should bear testimony to the truth, and foment
insurrections in his favour? Lord Bacon adds, "It is likewise no
small argument that there was some secret in it; for that the priest
Simon himself (who set Lambert to work) after he was taken, was
never brought to execution; no, not so much as to publicke triall,
but was only shut up close in a dungeon. Adde to this, that after
the earl of Lincoln (a principal person of the house of York) was
slaine in Stokefield, the king opened himself to some of his
councell, that he was sorie for the earl's death, because by him
(he said) he might have known the bottom of his danger."
(35) Lord Bacon.
The earl of Lincoln had been declared heir to the crown by Richard,
and therefore certainly did not mean to advance Simnel, an impostor,
to it. It will be insinuated, and lord Bacon attributes that motive
to him, that the earl of Lincoln hoped to open a way to the crown
for himself. It might be so; still that will not account for Henry's
wish, that the earl had been saved. On the contrary, one dangerous
competitor was removed by his death; and therefore when Henry wanted
to have learned the bottom of his danger, it is plain he referred to
Richard duke of York, of whose fate he was still in doubt.(36) He
certainly was; why else was it thought dangerous to visit or see the
queen dowager after her imprisonment, as lord Bacon owns it was;
"For that act," continues he, "the king sustained great obliquie;
which nevertheless (besides the reason of state) was somewhat
sweetened to him In a great confiscation." Excellent prince! This is
the man in whose favour Richard the Third is represented as a
monster. "For Lambert, the king would not take his life," continues
Henry's biographer, "both out of magnanimitie" (a most proper
picture of so mean a prince) "and likewise out of wisdom, thinking
that if he suffered death he would be forgotten too soon; but being
kept alive, he would be a continual spectacle, and a kind of remedy
against the like inchantments of people in time to come." What! do
lawful princes live in dread of a possibility of phantoms!(37) Oh!
no; but Henry knew what he had to fear; and he hoped by keeping up
the memory of Simnel's imposture, to discredit the true duke of
York, as another puppet, when ever he should really appear.
(36) The earl of Lincoln assuredly did not mean to blacken his uncle
Richard by whom he had been declared heir to the crown. One should
therefore be glad to know what account he gave of the escape of the
young duke of York. Is it probable that the Earl of Lincoln gave
out, that the elder had been murdered? It is more reasonable to
suppose, that the earl asserted that the child had been conveyed
away by means of the queen dowager or some other friend; and before
I conclude this examination, that I think will appear most probably
to have been the case.
(37) Henry had so great a distrust of his right to the crown in that
in his second year he obtained a bull from pope Innocent to qualify
the privilege of sanctuaries, in which was this remarkable clause,
"That if any took sancturie for case of treason, the king might
appoint him keepers to look to him in sanctuarie." Lord Bacon, p. 39.
That appearance did not happen till some years afterwards, and in
Henry's eleventh year. Lord Bacon has taken infinite pains to prove
a second imposture; and yet owns, "that the king's manner of shewing
things by pieces and by darke lights, hath so muffled it, that it
hath left it almost a mysterie to this day." What has he left a
mystery? and what did he try to muffle? Not the imposture, but the
truth. Had so politic a man any interest to leave the matter
doubtful? Did he try to leave it so? On the contrary, his diligence
to detect the imposture was prodigious. Did he publish his narrative
to obscure or elucidate the transaction? Was it his matter to muffle
any point that he could clear up, especially when it behoved him to
have it cleared? When Lambert Simnel first personated the earl of
Warwick, did not Henry exhibit that poor prince one Sunday
throughout all the principal streets of London? Was he not conducted
to Paul's cross, and openly examined by the nobility? "which did in
effect marre the pageant in Ireland." Was not Lambert himself taken
into Henry's service, and kept in his court for the same purpose? In
short, what did Henry ever muffle and disguise but the truth? and
why was his whole conduct so different in the cases of Lambert and
Perkin, if their cases were not totally different? No doubt remains
in the former; the gross falshoods and contradictions in which
Henry's account of the latter is involved, make it evident that he
himself could never detect the imposture of the latter, if it was
one. Dates, which every historian has neglected, again come to our
aid, and cannot be controverted.