Chapter III

. that this is disproved by an investigation of dates given by those writers, and by Stallworthe. It follows Morton in the statement that Lord Rivers and his companions were beheaded without trial. This is disproved by Rous. It asserts that, after King Richard's coronation, there was a rumour that his nephews had been put to death. There is no other contemporaneous mention of this rumour, and reasons will presently be given for believing that there was no such rumour. It also states that Richard was crowned a second time at York. Mr. Davies, in his 'York Records,' has shown that no such coronation ever took place.

The interesting question arises how the monk was misled on these four points, when his information was so accurate, and so directly contradicts Morton, Polydore Virgil, and Fabyan, as regards the dates of events immediately preceding Richard's accession, and as regards the nature of his claim to the throne. Could Morton have been at his elbow? If he was, these errors would be explained, for they are the most telling points in Morton's case. We know that Morton was sent to Brecknock Castle, in the custody of the Duke of Buckingham, in August 1483. Later in the autumn he escaped, crossed England in disguise, and was concealed for some time in the fen country near Ely, before taking ship for Flanders. He even mentions his object in going there. 'If he were in the Isle of Ely,' he told Buckingham, 'he could make many {178} friends to further the enterprise.'[16] He went there to plot and intrigue. The secluded Abbey of Croyland is a likely asylum for Morton to have selected as a place of concealment. A political bishop who had been a principal actor in the recent events would be a Godsend to the chronicling monk; while the intriguer would be in his element, sowing the first seeds of his future crop of calumny. The second Croyland monk would be as clay in the potter's hand. He gives us a striking instance of his gossiping credulity. He had been told that the King's niece, Elizabeth, once appeared at Court in a dress similar to that of the Queen. Instead of the obvious deduction that Queen Anne had kindly provided the girl with a dress like her own, we are treated to dark hints about a rival who was to supplant the Queen, and modern historians have taken the old monk's nonsense in all seriousness. Morton would have found such a man quite ready to accept without further inquiry any statement he might make, and to be the channel of any rumour he chose to spread.

Such are the witnesses arrayed against the last Plantagenet King by his Tudor successors. It will be our business to test the value of their testimony. They had it all their own way. No one was allowed to answer them. For those who knew the truth it was a choice between silence and ruin. The accused had no counsel. Whether the Tudor writers are trustworthy or not, there can be no question that, aided by these advantages, they served their employers well. They have completely succeeded in their object. They have blackened the memory of King Richard III. for all time.

The chief evidence in Richard's favour can only {179} now be found in the contradictions, admissions, inadvertent lapses into truth, and suppressions of his traducers. Official documents and private letters also tell their tale. Falsifications of dates, and the objects of such falsifications by the Tudor writers, are often detected by means of these unimpeachable sources of information. Among the Harleian manuscripts there is a book kept by Dr. Russell, the Bishop of Lincoln and Richard's Chancellor, containing all the documents that passed the Great or Privy Seal during his reign, as well as correspondence with foreign sovereigns and ambassadors.[17] This manuscript has been a mine of rebutting evidence. There is also valuable testimony derivable from the Rolls of Parliament, Patent Rolls, and from Rymer's 'Foedera.' It is worthy of special note that the undesigned evidence of official documents often exposes the true character of Tudor testimony.

Enough has been said to show that the statements of the Tudor writers call for more than ordinary caution in their use; and that the nearest approach to the truth, which is all we can hope for, will not be reached if any fact or insinuation alleged or hinted by them is accepted without being first subjected to very rigorous scrutiny.

[Sidenote: Later chroniclers]

The later chroniclers, such as Hall, Grafton, Holinshed, Stow and Buck, copied from the earlier writers. They cannot be considered as original authorities. Hall is little more than a translation of Polydore Virgil, served up with embellishments invented by himself. Stow is much more trustworthy.

These later writers must not be relied upon for facts. It was their habit to add numerous minor details to the stories they received from their {180} predecessors, and it cannot reasonably be doubted that these additions were inventions intended to add force or interest to their narratives. When they quote from or insert documents the case is different. Thus Hall and Grafton give the conversation between Morton and the Duke of Buckingham at Brecknock, being a copy of some original document. Buck gives the substance of a letter from Elizabeth of York to the Duke of Norfolk, the original of which he had actually seen. He also quotes some older narrative for the imprisonment and death of King Richard's illegitimate son. Hall gives the proceedings of the Council when the imprisonment of the Queen Dowager, at Bermondsey, was ordered. In such cases only ought the evidence of the later writers to be accepted.

[Sidenote: Modern authors]

There was a reaction against the acceptance of all the statements put forth by Tudor writers, which began from the moment that it became safe to discuss the subject. The caricature was too gross, and too coarsely drawn for general acceptance. As soon as the last of the Tudors had passed away, Sir George Buck[18] wrote a defence of Richard III. He was followed by Carte in his History of England.[19] Rapin, although he felt {181} obliged to repeat the stories of the Tudor writers, evidently had no confidence in their accuracy, and warned his readers against them more than once. Stronger views on the subject were adopted by Horace Walpole in his 'Historic Doubts'[20] (1768), by Bayley in his 'History and Antiquities of the Tower of London,'[21] by Laing in his continuation of 'Henry's History of England,'[22] by Mr. Courtenay in his 'Commentaries on Shakespeare,'[23] by Miss Halsted in her 'Life of Richard III.'[24] and by Mr. Legge in his 'Unpopular King.'[25] Mr. Thorold Rogers rejects the story of the assassination of Henry VI.; Sharon Turner[26] and Jesse[27] acquit the accused King on all the counts except the murder of his nephews; while Dr. Hook,[28] Dr. Stubbs and Sir Harris Nicolas[29] are unable to believe all the accusations. The arguments put forward by some of {182} these authors are not always tenable. But they show that there has been, from the time when discussion was first allowed, a revulsion of feeling among well-informed students against the acceptance of these accusations without close scrutiny. It was felt that the statements of Tudor writers must at least be considered as those of prejudiced and _ex parte_ witnesses. Miss Halsted's 'Life of Richard III.' is by far the most complete and the most valuable. Her interest in the slandered young King led her to pay frequent visits to the ruins of Middleham Castle, the scene of Richard's boyhood and of his happy married life. Miss Halsted eventually married the dean of the college founded by Richard and lies buried in Middleham Church.

[Sidenote: Tudor fables discredited]

On the other hand, there have been a few historians who have approached the questions at issue either without considering the other side at all or with a strong though possibly unconscious bias. Hume only had a superficial knowledge of the subject. The most authoritative and important upholder of the Tudor accusations is Dr. Lingard.[30] He defends them in their entirety, and in this he stands alone among those who have really studied the subject. Mr. Gairdner[31] rejects some of the accusations and supports other Tudor stories with hesitation, and in an apologetic and more or less doubtful tone. But Mr. Gairdner's knowledge of the subject is so exhaustive, and his {183} position as a historian is so justly high, that I have devoted a separate chapter to the consideration of his views on the chief accusations against King Richard III.

The Tudor fables are now discredited and are dying, but they are dying hard.

[1] Richard II. was the first of our Kings, after the Norman Conquest, who was partly an Englishman. Henry V., Edward IV., and Richard III. were almost pure Englishmen. So was Edward VI., and Elizabeth was a thorough Englishwoman. Mary II. and Anne were half English.

[2] See p. 159, note 1.

[3] 'Dr. Morton had taken his revenge and written a book in Latin against King Richard, which came afterwards to the hands of Mr. More. The book was lately in the hands of Mr. Roper of Eltham, as Sir Edward Hoby, who saw it, told me.'--Buck, p. 75.

[4] 'Written as I have heard by Morton.'--Harington's _Metamorphosis of Ajax_, p. 46. Mr. Gairdner has suggested that the book attributed to More is a translation of one written in Latin by Morton. See _Letters and Papers illustrative of the Reign of Richard III._, &c. Preface xviii. (_n_). It is really the English version that was dictated or inspired by Morton.

[5] More's _Utopia_, p. 20.

[6] See for instance Sharon Turner (iii. 462), who claims unquestioning belief in this scurrilous production, because 'all confess More's ability and integrity.' See also Jesse (p. 156 _n._ and p. 500).

In the same spirit Sir John Harington defended his own filthy treatise because 'the worthy and incorrupt Master More' was dirty in his History of Richard III. These writers seem to think that falsehood becomes truth, and obscenity becomes decency in this book, merely because its authorship is attributed to More. See _Metamorphosis of Ajax_, p. 46.

[7] 'As I myself, who wrote this pamphlet, truly know.' This is not in Rastell's version; but in the continuation of Hardyng's Chronicle.

[8] Speaking of Polydore Virgil in his _Life of Henry VIII._ (p. 9), Lord Herbert of Cherbury adds: 'in whom I have observed not a little malignity.' The story of Cardinal Wolsey's ingratitude to Fox owes its parentage to the spite of Polydore Virgil; whom Wolsey imprisoned. It was quite untrue.--Brewer.

[9] 'Polydore Virgil committed as many of our ancient manuscript volumes to the flames as would have filled a waggon, that the faults of his own work might pass undiscovered.'--Caius, _De Antiquitate Cantabrigiae_ (1574), p. 52.

'Polydore caused all the histories to be burnt which by the King's authority and the assistance of his friends he could possibly come at.'--La Popliniere, _Histoire des Histoires_, ix. 485.

[10] The Act of Parliament explaining the title of Richard III. to the crown.

[11] Mr. Campbell's Introduction to the _Materials for the History of the Reign of Henry VII_.

[12] Rous was one of the Chantry Priests at Guy's Cliff. He died in 1491, and was buried at St. Mary's, Warwick.

[13] One proof of this is that he calls Lord Stanley the Earl of Derby. He was created Earl of Derby by Henry VII.

[14] _Rerum Anglicarum scriptorum veterum_. Tom. i. (Oxoniae, 1684.)

[15] _Alia Hist. Croylandensis continuatio_, pp. 549-578.

[16] Grafton, p. 130.

[17] _Harl. MS._ 433.

[18] Sir George Buck was descended from John Buck, comptroller of King Richard's household, who was put to death after the battle of Bosworth. Sir George served with the Earl of Essex in the Cadiz expedition of 1596. He was knighted by James I. in July 1603, and became Master of the Bevels in 1610, a post which he held until 1622. He died on September 22, 1623. His _History of the Life and Reign of King Richard III._, composed in five books, was published in 1646, with 'George Buck, Esq.,' as author. But the existence of the manuscript in the British Museum, with Sir George as the author, and in his handwriting, proves the substitution of 'Esquire' for 'Sir' to be a mistake. Camden speaks of Buck as a man of distinguished learning.

[19] Thomas Carte, _History of England to_ 1654 _inclusive_. 4 vols. folio. 1753.

[20] Horace Walpole, _Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III._, 4to. 1768.

[21] John Bayley, _History and Antiquities of the Tower of London_, 2 vols. 4to. 1821.

[22] Laing, _Continuation of the History of Great Britain by Dr. Henry_. 1795.

[23] J. P. Courtenay, _Commentaries on the Plays of Shakespeare_, 2 vols. 8vo. 1840.

[24] Miss Halsted, _Life of Richard III_. 2 vols. 8vo. 1844.

[25] Alfred O. Legge, _The Unpopular King_. _Life and Times of Richard III_. 2 vols. 8vo. 1883.

[26] Sharon Turner, _History of England during the Middle Ages_. 5 vols. 8vo. 1830.

[27] John H. Jesse, _Memoirs of King Richard III_. 8vo. 1862.

[28] Dr. W. F. Hook, D.D., _Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury_. 9 vols. 8vo. 1860-72. He considers the slander of the Duchess of York incredible.

[29] Sir N. H. Nicolas, _Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York_. 1830. He utterly rejects the story of Richard having poisoned his wife, and having wanted to marry Elizabeth of York (p. liii.) Dr. W. Stubbs, _Constitutional History of England_, vol. ii. Thorold Rogers, _Work and Wages_, ii. 212.

[30] Dr. Lingard, _History of England to the Revolution_. 4th ed. 1837; 6th ed. 1854.

[31] James Gairdner, _Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III. and Henry VII_. 1861-63. _Memorials of Henry VII_. 1858. _History of the Life and Reign of Richard III_. 1878. _Life of Henry VII_. 1889. Article in the _English Historical Review_. 1891.

{184}

##