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