Richard III: His Life & Character Part 22

[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 a.s.sa.s.sinated 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 const.i.tutional 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 pa.s.sed 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 ma.s.ses 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 a.s.sa.s.sination 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 a.s.surance 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 circ.u.mstantial.

[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 s.e.xtus_,' 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 s.e.xti, gui obiit inter vicesimum primum diem Maii et xxiim diem Maii_.' Henry's obit is set down May 22. None of these doc.u.ments 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 Henric.u.m s.e.xtum 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 pa.s.sed, 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 p.r.o.nounces 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 pa.s.sage in Sandford: 'He was drowned in a b.u.t.t of malmsey, his brother the Duke of Gloucester a.s.sisting 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 pet.i.tion.

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 doc.u.ments 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 Dorsets.h.i.+re, 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 Dorsets.h.i.+re. 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 n.o.bleman 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 circ.u.mstances 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.