Richard III_ His Life _ Character_ Reviewed in the Light of Recent Research Sir Clements R. Markham 1622 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Richard III: His Life &
Character, Reviewed in the Light of Recent Research
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the
Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: Richard III: His Life & Character, Reviewed in the Light of Recent
Research

Author: Sir Clements R. Markham

Release date: June 17, 2011 [eBook #36451]
Most recently updated: January 7, 2021

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36451

Credits: Produced by Al Haines

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RICHARD III:
HIS LIFE & CHARACTER, REVIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT
RESEARCH ***

King Richard III.
From a picture in the National Portrait Gallery

RICHARD III: HIS LIFE &
CHARACTER

REVIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT RESEARCH

BY SIR CLEMENTS E. MARKHAM, K.C.B.

AUTHOR OF 'THE LIFE OF THE
GREAT LORD FAIRFAX' AND
'THE FIGHTING VERES'

WITH A PORTRAIT

LONDON: SMITH, ELDER, AND CO.
15 WATERLOO PLACE. 1906
(All rights reserved)

PREFACE

There are periods of history when the greatest caution is called for in
accepting statements put forward by a dominant faction. Very early in my
life I came to the conclusion that the period which witnessed the change of
dynasties from Plantagenet to Tudor was one of these. The caricature of the
last Plantagenet King was too grotesque, and too grossly opposed to his
character derived from official records. The stories were an outrage on
common-sense. I studied the subject at intervals for many years, and in the
course of my researches I found that I more or less shared my doubts with
every author of repute who had studied the subject for the last three
centuries, except Hume and Lingard. My own conclusions are that Richard
III. must be acquitted on all the counts of the indictment. The present work is
divided into two parts, the first narrating the events of his life and times, and
the second examining the various accusations against him. I did not
contemplate publication because I thought that in these days prejudices were
too strong to make it possible that a fair and candid hearing should be given
to the arguments. But I determined to consult some historical friends, and I
was pleased to find that to a great extent I was mistaken.

In the first place, I wrote a full abstract of my arguments, for publication
in the 'Historical Review,' acting under the advice of my old schoolfellow,
Professor Freeman, to whom I sent it in the first instance. It so happened that
Mr. Freeman had given attention to part of the subject. He upset some odious
fabrications of the chroniclers affecting the character of Margaret of Anjou,
by proving that she was in Scotland at the time when the battle of Wakefield
was fought. Freeman seldom wrote on so late a period of our history, and we
owe this modern excursion to a visit to Mr. Milnes Gaskell at Thornes.

After reading what I sent him, Professor Freeman wrote on August 13,
1890: 'Your abstract has set me a-thinking. It is only a Robert of Bellême
who does that kind of thing. On your main point I will talk to Gardiner and
Stubbs. Meanwhile, I have shown your manuscript to Sidney Owen, who
read it and held it to be what lawyers would call considerable. Owen had
been at those times, and holds Henry VII. to be at least capable of it.

'It would be a self-denying ordinance in Gairdner if he accepted your
view, for he has gone more straight at that time than anybody else. Gardiner
has written to him, and he is a little fierce, as was to be expected, but if you

are like me, no man's fierceness will hinder you from dining and sleeping as
well as usual. The matter is at all events worth discussing.'

Professor York Powell read my manuscript, and wrote: 'I have read the
manuscript and think there is something worth looking into. Henry's conduct
to Tyrrell is exceedingly suspicious. Either Richard or Henry might have put
the boys to death, but it would be interesting for many reasons to know
which it was. I am not convinced by Markham, but I do not think Gairdner
has the right to be cocksure. The Morton suggestive idea is very ingenious
and pretty, and quite probable. It has interested me much to read Markham's
letter, for I remember my difficulties in the matter and the point I got to, that
the great men did not, for a time, hold the now vulgate view of the murder of
the princes. I should rejoice should Markham light upon additional evidence
in favour of his thesis, which à priori is by no means unlikely. There is
something about Richard's character, ability, and reign which, I think,
attracts every real student of history, and gives one a feeling that he has been
unfairly dealt with.'

In 1891, the abstract of my work was published in the 'Historical Review,'
and Bishop Creighton, who was then the editor, wrote: 'Thank you for your
paper, which I have read with great interest. It certainly makes out a strong
case.'

There were two rejoinders from Mr. Gairdner, which enabled me to recast
and improve parts of my work by the light of his criticism.

I lost my adviser, Mr. Freeman, in 1892. One of the last things he did was
to warn me of an objection taken by Miss Edith Thompson, which enabled
me to meet it.[1]

After careful revision I showed my manuscript to the late Sir Archibald
Milman, who had given close attention to those times. On December 27,
1897, he wrote: 'It is your bounden duty to tell your story of Richard III.,
giving the date for every fact. It is only by sticking to dates that you get at
truth in criminal causes, and the same method must be followed at the bar of
history. It would be a pleasure to think that the last Plantagenet was not a
cruel scoundrel. By giving dates and authorities for them, you render a great
service. Richard's loyalty and able administration in the north seem

inconsistent with such ferocity. I was much interested in one of your facts,
that, according to the story put forward by Henry VII., the bodies of the little
princes were taken up from the place of hasty interment and placed in
consecrated ground. But lo! they remained under the staircase, where they
were found in Charles II.'s reign.'

In consequence of Sir A. Milman's letter I made another close scrutiny of
dates given by various authorities for the same events with important results.
I also went very carefully over the ground of the battlefields of Wakefield,
Towton, Barnet, Tewkesbury, and Bosworth; and I added some chapters to
the work.

The correspondence to which I have referred has led me to the conclusion
that students of history are not, as I once believed, unwilling to reconsider
the questions which form the subject of the present work, when they are
presented from new points of view; and that the well-known arguments
which were supposed to suffice for the defence of the Tudor stories in the
past are in these days insufficient. The numerous points now raised and
submitted for the judgment of students are at all events worth discussing.
The present work is about as complete as very frequent revision can make it.

[1] She pointed out that the titles of Norfolk and Nottingham, granted by Edward
IV. to his second son Richard, were given by Richard III. to Lords Howard and
Berkeley, and that, therefore, young Richard must have been dead. The answer is
that the grants to Lords Howard and Berkeley were made on June 28, 1483,
before it was even pretended that young Richard had been murdered.

CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . v

PART I
CHAPTER I
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD

Description of Fotheringhay . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 1
Possessions of the Duke of York. Marriage . . . . . .
. . 2, 3
Birth of Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 3
Letter of Edward and Edmund to their father . . . . .
. . 4
Children of the Duke of York . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 6
Richard a prisoner of war aged 7 . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 7
Refuge in John Paston's chambers . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 8

CHAPTER II
DEATH OF RICHARD'S FATHER AND BROTHER AT THE BATTLE OF WAKEFIELD

The Duke of York declared Heir-Apparent . . . . . . .
. . 9
The Duke and his family united at Baynard's Castle . .
. . 10
March to Sandal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 11
Description of Sandal Castle and its neighbourhood . .
. . 12, 13
Battle of Wakefield. Death of the Duke . . . . . . .
. . 14, 15
Death of Edmund, Earl of Rutland . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 15, 16
Cruelty and inhuman folly of the Lancastrians . . . .
. . 17
Edward's victory at Mortimer's Cross . . . . . . . . .
. . 18
George and Richard sent to Holland for safety . . . .
. . 18, 19

CHAPTER III
THE CROWNING VICTORY OF TOWTON

Description of Edward IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 20
Edward proclaimed King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 21, 22
March to the north. Yorkist leaders . . . . . . . . .
. . 23
Lancastrian leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 24
Sir Andrew Trollope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 25
Description of the country round Towton . . . . . . .
. . 26
Surprise at Ferrybridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 27
Chase and death of Clifford . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 28
Yorkists march to Saxton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 29, 30
Marshalling of the Lancastrians . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 31
Battle of Towton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 32, 33
Flight of Henry and his partisans. Edward at York . .
. . 34
Coronation of Edward IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 35
Edward's generous treatment of his foes . . . . . . .
. . 36
Chapel built by Richard at Towton . . . . . . . . . .
. . 37

CHAPTER IV
THE CROWN LOST AND WON--BATTLE OF BARNET

Return of George and Richard from Holland . . . . . .
. . 38
Their Dukedoms, Earldoms and Richard's K.G. . . . . .
. . 38

Richard chief mourner at his father's obsequies . . .
. . 39
Military training under Warwick . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 40
Description of Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 40
Treason of Warwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 41
Flight of Edward and Richard to Holland. . . . . . . .
. . 42, 43
Expedition fitted out at Veere . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 44
Landing at Ravenspur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 45
Edward's brilliant campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 46, 47
Richard's negotiation with Clarence . . . . . . . . .
. . 48
Battle of Barnet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 49, 52

CHAPTER V
MARGARET OF ANJOU AND HER SON EDWARD

Birth and marriage of Margaret . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 53, 54
Birth of Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 55
Adventures in the wars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 56, 59

Home at Koeur-la-Petite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 60
Edward's conversations with the Chief Justice . . . .
. . 61, 66
Agreement with Warwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 67
Description of young Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 68

CHAPTER VI

THE BATTLE OF TEWKESBURY

Margaret and Edward land at Weymouth . . . . . . . . .
. . 69
Advance to Bristol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 70
King Edward's plan of campaign . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 71
Description of the battle field . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 72
March of King Edward's army . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 73
Battle of Tewkesbury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 74, 75
Death of Edward of Lancaster on the battle field . . .
. . 75
Execution of some leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 76
Pardon of the rest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 77
Death of Henry VI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 78
Ransom of Margaret. Her death . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 79

CHAPTER VII
MARRIED LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES OF RICHARD DUKE OF GLOUCESTER

Richard's march to Sandwich . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 80
Marriage of Richard and Anne Nevill . . . . . . . . .
. . 81, 82
Richard with his brother in France . . . . . . . . . .
. . 82
Description of Middleham Castle . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 83
Home life at Middleham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82, 83, 84
Public duties. Frequent visits to York . . . . . . .
. . 84
Warden of the Marches. Scottish campaign . . . . . .
. . 84, 86
Death of Edward IV. Lady Grey. Children . . . . . .
. . 86, 87

CHAPTER VIII
ACCESSION OF RICHARD III

Conspiracy of the Woodvilles . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 88
Richard made Protector by his brother's will . . . . .
. . 89
Arrest of Rivers and his colleagues . . . . . . . . .
. . 90
Queen Dowager in sanctuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 91
Richard and his mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 92
Disclosure of Bishop Stillington . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 93

Account of Bishop Stillington . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 94-95
Foundation of the College at Acaster . . . . . . . . .
. . 96
Children of Edward IV. illegitimate . . . . . . . . .
. . 97
Hastings-Woodville conspiracy . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 98, 99
Execution of Rivers and his colleagues . . . . . . . .
. . 99, 100
Richard's title to the crown . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 101
Accession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 102

CHAPTER IX
CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE

Results of the Lancastrian usurpation . . . . . . . .
. . 103
Effects of the Wars of the Roses . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 104
No destruction of the nobility . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 105
Scenery. Country life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 106
Castles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 107
Hunting and hawking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 108
The Peerage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 109
Town residences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 110
Magnificence of the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 111
Wealth of merchants. City Companies . . . . . . . . .
. . 112
Introduction of printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 113
Caxton's works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 114, 115
Literary noblemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 115, 116
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 117
Bishops. Clergy. Monasteries. Pilgrimages . . . . .
. . 118-119
Lawlessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 120
Manor houses. Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 121
Condition of the people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 122-123
Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 123

CHAPTER X
REIGN OF RICHARD III

Description of the King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 124
Treatment of his nephews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 125
Coronation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 126-127
Claim of Buckingham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 128
Royal Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 129-130

Rebellion of Buckingham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 131-132

List of traitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 132-133
Parliament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 134
Reforms. Revenue. Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 135
Convocation. Agreement with the Queen Dowager . . . .
. . 136
Death of the Prince of Wales. His tomb . . . . . . .
. . 137
Edward Earl of Warwick made Heir-Apparent . . . . . .
. . 138
King Richard's popularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 139
Conspiracy of Henry Tudor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 140
The King assembled troops at Nottingham . . . . . . .
. . 141
Proclamation against Henry Tudor . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 143
Peerage of Richard III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 143
Ministers of Richard III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 144
Commissioners for Peace with Scotland . . . . . . . .
. . 145
Judges and Law Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 145
Bishops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 146
Knights of the Garter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 146
Knights of the Bath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 147

CHAPTER XI
THE BATTLE OF BOSWORTH

Treachery of the Stanleys explained . . . . . . . . .
. . 148, 149
King Richard's military talent . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 150

English pluck displayed by Richard . . . . . . . . . .
. . 150
Loyal men flocking to the King's standard . . . . . .
. . 151
Description of the country round Bosworth . . . . . .
. . 152
Positions of the two armies . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 153
King Richard leads his men to the encounter . . . . .
. . 154
Treachery of Lord Stanley . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 155
The King's gallant charge . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 155
Death of the King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
155-156-157
Richard buried at Leicester. Memorials . . . . . . .
. . 158
Character of King Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 159
His generosity. Arbitrations . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 160
Able administration. Building operations . . . . . .
. . 161
Literary tastes. Founded the Heralds' College . . . .
. . 162
Comparison of Richard and the Tudors . . . . . . . . .
. . 162, 163
His married life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 164
Contemporary Sovereigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 165

PART II

CHAPTER I
THE AUTHORITIES

The Plantagenet Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 166
Character and position of the accusers . . . . . . . .
. . 167
Extravagance of their caricature . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 167
Writers in the pay of the Tudors . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 168
The notorious pamphlet by Morton . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 168-171
Bernard André . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 171
Polydore Virgil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 171-172
Rous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 173
Fabyan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 174
Warkworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 175
Continuators of the Croyland Chronicle . . . . . . . .
. . 175-178
Official documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 179
Hall, Grafton, Holinshed, Stow, Buck . . . . . . . . .
. . 179
Reaction. Modern authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 181
Miss Halsted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 182
Upholders of the Tudor stories . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 182-183

CHAPTER II
EXAMINATION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RICHARD

Reckless profusion of abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 184
Deformity. Statement of Rous and Morton . . . . . . .
. . 185
The truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 186
Object of the calumny . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 187
Tewkesbury. The truth told by all contemporaries . .

. . 188-189
Fable by Fabyan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 190
Polydore Virgil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 190
Subsequent embellishments . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 190
Silence of Morton and Rous . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 191-192
Henry VI. Insinuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 193
Warkworth and Fabyan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 194-195
The Croyland Monk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 195
Polydore Virgil contradicts . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 196
All unworthy of credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 196
Evidence of the accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 197

Evidence of a contemporary writer . . . . . . . .
. . 198
The truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 199
Marriage. Richard and Anne really attached . . . . .
. . 200
Attack of Miss Strickland, a specimen of the sort
of arguments used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 201
Countess of Warwick. False statement of Rous . . . .
. . 201
The truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 202
Death of Clarence. Charge absolutely groundless . . .
. . 202
Another specimen of argument . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 203
The truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 204

CHAPTER III
FURTHER CHARGES AGAINST RICHARD III

Some account of Morton, the chief accuser . . . . . .
. . 205-207
Misrepresentation of events . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 208-210
Cunning misrepresentations respecting Hastings . . . .
. . 210-212
Falsification of dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 215-217
The accession. The true claim . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 218
Attempt of Henry VII. to destroy the evidence . .
. . 219
Polydore Virgil's version . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 220
Morton's version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 221
Fabyan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 222
Further falsification of dates . . . . . . . . . .
. . 223
Buckingham's treason. False reason given for
his discontent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 223
The truth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 224
Morton's account of conversations . . . . . . . .
. . 225, 226
Second coronation. Statement disproved . . . . . . .
. . 227
Death of the Queen. Slanders of Polydore and Rous . .
. . 228
Elizabeth of York. Absurd rumour spread . . . . . . .
. . 229
Elizabeth's letter to the Duke of Norfolk . . . .
. . 229-230
Intrigues of Henry's mother . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 231
Lord Strange. The truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 232

CHAPTER IV
THE MAIN CHARGE AGAINST RICHARD III

Rests on the truth or falsehood of previous crimes . .
. . 233

Richard's antecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 234
Nothing to fear from his nephews . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 235

Treatment of others in the same position . . . . . . .
. . 236
His nephews were probably members of his household . .
. . 236
Bill, in March 1485, for the elder nephew . . . . . .
. . 237
Conduct of the mother and sister . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 238-239
Alleged rumours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 240-242
Assertion of the French Chancellor . . . . . . . . . .
. . 242
Statements of Fabyan, Rous, Polydore, André . . . . .
. . 244
Sir William Stanley's conduct . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 244
Baseless rumours promulgated by Henry . . . . . . . .
. . 245

CHAPTER V
HENRY TUDOR IN THE DOCK

Description of Henry VII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 246
His lawless executions after Bosworth . . . . . . . .
. . 247
Responsible for the lives of royal children . . . . .
. . 248
Henry's character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 249
Necessity to strengthen his position . . . . . . . . .
. . 250
His Parliament of outlaws. Unjust attainders . . . .
. . 251
Loyal men attainted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 252
Silent about the late King's nephews. Were they
missing? 253
If alive, Henry's marriage necessitated their deaths .
. . 254

Henry's treatment of other victims in his way . . . .
. . 255
The fate of the princes, if alive, was sealed by
the marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 256
Imprisonment of the Queen Dowager . . . . . . . . . .
. . 257
Henry put forward a story, in Polydore Virgil . . . .
. . 258
A more detailed story, published by Rastell and Grafton
260-263
Rewards alleged to have been given by Richard
to murderers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 264, 265
Confession of Tyrrel and Dighton fabricated . . . . .
. . 267
Genesis of these stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 267
Some account of Sir James Tyrrel . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 268
Henry's grant to John Green. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 269
Tyrrel taken into favour. His two pardons . . . . . .
. . 269
Murder of the two Princes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 269
Relations silenced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 270-271
Hush money to 'Black Will' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 271
Reward to Dighton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 272
Rewards and employments for Tyrrel . . . . . . . . . .
. . 272
Treacherous arrest and hurried execution of Tyrrel . .
. . 273
Dighton to reside at Calais . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 274
The story put forward and generally accepted . . . . .
. . 274

Judicial murder of the Earl of Warwick . . . . . . . .
. . 275
Henry's remorse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 276
Elizabeth saw the cruel treatment of her mother and
cousin
Her death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 277
Henry's design to kill the Earl of Suffolk . . . . . .
. . 277
His death. Successful as this world counts success .
. . 278
Things unexplained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 279, 280

CHAPTER VI
MR. GAIRDNER'S RICHARD III

Mr. Gairdner's view of the alleged crimes . . . . . .
. . 281
Views stated in Mr. Gairdner's preface . . . . . . . .
. . 282
Richard's character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 283
Richard acquitted of several charges . . . . . . . . .
. . 285
Tudor fables irreconcileable with Richard's character
. . 285
Mr. Gairdner's latest view of the Tewkesbury charge .
. . 286-287
On Edward IV.'s proceedings after Tewkesbury . . . . .
. . 289-290
His view of the Henry VI. charge . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 290
His rejection of the evidence of the writer in
Fleetwood . 292
Acquits Richard of responsibility for the death of
Clarence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 294-295
Position with regard to the title to the crown . . . .
. . 296
Believes in the Duchess of York slander . . . . . . .
. . 297
His reason for the belief . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 297
Murder of the Princes. Story admitted to be full
of inaccuracies and improbabilities . . . . . . . .
. . 298
Richard could not have been a cool, calculating villain
. 298
Must have been headstrong and reckless . . . . . . . .
. . 298

Such a man might have committed the crime on a
sudden impulse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 299
The rising in Kent supposed to be the motive . . . . .
. . 299
But the murders are stated to have been in August,
the rising in October. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 299
Thus Mr. Gairdner's theory fails . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 299
Mr. Gairdner supplies proofs of the King's popularity
. . 300
Richard was the victim of the perfidy of a few traitors
. 300
Mr. Gairdner's testimony to Richard's good qualities .
. . 300
Great value of Mr. Gairdner's work . . . . . . . . . .
. . 300-301

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 303

GENEALOGICAL TABLES
SEIZE QUARTIERS OF EDWARD IV. AND RICHARD III. . . . to
face page 6

SEIZE QUARTIERS OF ANNE NEVILL . . . . . . . . . . .
" " 82

MAP
BATTLE OF BOSWORTH FIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . to
face page 328

[Transcriber's note: in the source book, the map of the Battle
of Bosworth faced page 328. In this ebook, the map has been
moved to page 152.]

LIFE OF RICHARD III

PART I

CHAPTER I

BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD

The castle of Fotheringhay[1] was the birthplace of our last Plantagenet
king. This venerable pile stood on the banks of the river Nen, in
Northamptonshire, amidst 'marvellous fair corn ground and pasture.' From
its battlements there was an extensive view, bounded to the westward by the
forest of Rockingham, while on the other side the abbey church of
Peterborough and the woods of Milton intercepted the distant expanse of fen
country. Originally built by bold Simon de St. Liz in the twelfth century, the
castle had fallen into ruin when it reverted to the crown, and was granted by
Edward III. to his son Edmund of Langley.

Edmund, who was created Duke of York by his nephew Richard II.,
rebuilt the castle and founded a college hard by. Fotheringhay was
surrounded by a double moat with drawbridges, the river Nen serving as the
outer moat on the south side, and the Mill Brook, flowing between the castle
yard and the little park, to the east. The walls were of stone, and the great
gate in the north front was adorned with the arms of England, as differenced
for Edmund of Langley, impaling the arms of Castille and Leon.[2] The
keep, built in the shape of a fetterlock, was on a mount in the north-west
angle of the castle; and below there was a great courtyard surrounded by
stately buildings, a chapel, and 'very fair lodgings,' as Leland tells us. The
great hall was seventy feet long, with a deep oriel window at one end.[3]

Here dwelt Edmund the first Duke of York, his son Edward the second
Duke, who fell at Agincourt, and his grandson Richard, the third Duke.
Edmund projected the foundation of a college near the parish church, to
consist of a master, eight clerks, and thirteen choristers. He commenced the
choir, while his son and grandson completed and richly endowed this
religious house. The church was a fine specimen of the Perpendicular
architecture of the time, and the cloisters had numerous windows filled with
stained glass.

The third Duke of York resided at Fotheringhay during part of every year
when he was in England, with his beautiful wife the Lady Cicely Nevill, the
'Rose of Raby,' and their troop of fair children. But he also held vast estates
elsewhere. In Yorkshire the castles of Sandal and Conisborough were part of
his paternal inheritance. On the Welsh borders he had succeeded to all the
possessions of the Mortimers, including Ludlow and Wigmore. For his
mother was the heiress of Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, and also of
Lionel Duke of Clarence, the second surviving son of King Edward III.
Baynard's Castle, in the City of London, was the Duke's town house.

The 'Rose of Raby' bore her husband twelve children, and they came of a
right noble English stock. In their veins flowed the blood of Plantagenet and
Holland, Mortimer and FitzAlan, Nevill and Percy, Clifford and Audley.
Five of these fair branches died in infancy. Ann, the eldest of those who
survived early childhood, was born at Fotheringhay in 1439. The three next,
Edward, Edmund and Elizabeth, first saw the light at Rouen, when their
father was making a last gallant stand for English dominion in France, from
1442 to 1444. Margaret was born at Fotheringhay. The Duke and Duchess
were ruling in Ireland when George was born at Dublin Castle. The three last
births were at Fotheringhay, but of these only Richard, the eleventh child,
survived infancy.

Richard Plantagenet was born at Fotheringhay Castle on October 2, 1452.
He probably passed the first five years of his life there with George and
Margaret. The elder sisters, Anne and Elizabeth, were married to
'Lancastrian' noblemen, the Dukes of Exeter and Suffolk, when Richard was
still in infancy. His elder brothers, Edward Earl of March and Edmund Earl
of Rutland, were separated from him by an interval of ten years, and lived
with their tutor Richard Croft at Ludlow or Wigmore. So that Richard's

childhood must have been passed with his brother George and his sister
Margaret, the future Duchess of Burgundy. But both were a few years older
than little Richard.

We obtain a glimpse of the home life of the two elder boys, Edward and
Edmund, from a letter to their father which has been preserved.[4]

'Right high and right mighty prince, our full redoubted and right noble
lord and father.

'As lowly with all our hearts as we, your true and natural sons can or may,
we recommend us unto your noble grace, humbly beseeching your noble and
worthy fatherhood daily to give us your hearty blessing; through which we
trust much the rather to increase and grow to virtue, and to speed the better
in all matters and things that we shall use, occupy, and exercise.

'Right high and right mighty prince, our full redoubted lord and father—

'We thank our blessed Lord, not only of your honourable conduct and
good speed in all your matters and business, of your gracious prevail against
the intent and malice of your evil willers, but also of the knowledge that it
pleased your nobleness to let us now late have of the same by relation of Sir
Walter Devereux Kt.[5] and John Milwater Esq.,[6] and John at Nokes,
yeoman of your honourable chamber. Also we thank your noble and good
fatherhood for our green gowns now late sent unto us to our great comfort,
beseeching your good lordship to remember our porteux,[7] and that we
might have some fine bonnets sent unto us by the next sure messenger, for
necessity so requireth. Over this, right noble lord and father, please it your
highness to wit that we have charged your servant, William Smyth, bearer of
these, for to declare unto your nobility certain things on our behalf, namely
concerning and touching the odious rule and demeaning of Richard Croft
and of his brother. Wherefore we beseech your gracious lordship and full
noble fatherhood to hear him in exposition of the same, and to his relation to
give full faith and credence. Right high and right mighty prince, our full
redoubted and right noble lord and father, we beseech Almighty Jesus give
you as good life and long, with as much continual perfect prosperity as your

princely heart can best desire. Written at your castle of Ludlow on Saturday
in Easter week.

'your humble sons
'Edward (Earl of March)
'Edmund (Earl of Rutland).'

The boys evidently did not like their tutor, declaring him to be tyrannical
and disagreeable.[8]

CHILDREN OF RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

1. Anne. Born at Fotheringhay, August 11, 1439. (Duchess of Exeter.)

2. Henry. Born at Hatfield, February 10,1441. (Died in infancy.)

3. Edward. Born at Rouen,[9] April 28, 1442. (Earl of March. King.)

4. Edmund. Born at Rouen, May 17, 1443. (Earl of Rutland.)

5. Elizabeth. Born at Rouen, April 22,1444. (Duchess of Suffolk.)

6. Margaret. Born at Fotheringhay, May 3, 1446. (Duchess of Burgundy.
Died 1503.)

7. William. Born at Fotheringhay, July 7, 1447. (Died young.)

8. John. Born at Neath, November 7, 1448. (Died in infancy.)

9. George. Born at Dublin, October 21, 1449. (Duke of Clarence.)

10. Thomas. Born at Fotheringhay, 1450. (Died in infancy.)

11. Richard. Born at Fotheringhay, October 2, 1452.[10] (Duke of
Gloucester. King.)

12. Ursula. Born at Fotheringhay, July 20,1455. (Died in infancy.)

W. WYRCESTER, Annales, 460-477.

SEIZE QUARTIERS OF EDWARD IV. AND RICHARD III.

Their father, the Duke of York, first Prince of the blood royal, was the
most powerful and wealthy, as well as one of the ablest noblemen in the
kingdom. He was moderate and prudent, and was unwillingly driven into
resistance to the misgovernment of the corrupt faction which misused the
powers they had seized, owing to the imbecility of Henry VI. His original
object was not to assert his own undoubted title to the throne, but to obtain
just and reasonable government by the removal of corrupt and incapable
ministers. 'After repeated experience of bad faith, and after fruitlessly
endeavouring to bind Henry by pledges, the Duke was at length forced into
advancing his own claim.'[11]

Disaster followed the first attempt of the Duke of York at open resistance.
He was overpowered by the Lancastrian forces at Ludlow, in October 1459,
and his followers were scattered. The Duke himself, with his son Edmund,
fled to Ireland. His eldest son, Edward Earl of March, escaped to Calais with
the Earl of Warwick. The Duchess of York, and her three young children,

Margaret, George and Richard, were taken prisoners at Wigmore. They were
sent to Tunbridge Castle in the custody of their mother's sister, the Duchess
of Buckingham, who had married a Lancastrian husband.

Little Richard was only seven years of age when he became a prisoner of
war. The detention was of short duration. His eldest brother landed in Kent
and marched to London. Troops flocked to the standard of the gallant youth,
and he advanced northwards against his enemies. The Duchess of York then
escaped from Tunbridge, and found an asylum for her little children at the
chambers of John Paston, in the Temple.[12]

Meanwhile Edward, Earl of March, won a great victory at Northampton,
and Henry VI. became his prisoner. He returned to London, but the children
had not been two days in John Paston's chambers before their mother was
summoned to meet her husband at Hereford, who was returning from
Ireland. The children were left with servants. Young Edward, however, while
busily engaged in preparing for the defence of the city, found time to visit
his little brothers and sister every day.[13]

[1] 'Fodringeia' in Domesday. 'Fodering' is part of a forest separated from the rest,
for producing hay.

[2] He married Isabella of Castille and Leon.

[3] Mary Queen of Scots was tried and beheaded in the great hall of Fotheringhay.
But it is untrue that the castle was destroyed by James I. on that account. James
granted it to Lord Mountjoy, and it was intact, though out of repair, when it was
surveyed in 1625. It began to be dismantled soon after this survey; but the work
of demolition was very gradual. The college buildings had been desecrated and
destroyed by John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, to whom they were granted
by the government of Edward VI. The last remains of the castle were demolished
in the middle of the last century. See Historic Notices in reference to
Fotheringhay, by the Rev. H. K. Bonney (Oundle, 1821).

[4] MS. Cotton, Vesp., F. iii., fol. 9. Printed in the first series of Ellis's original
letters, i. 9, letter v.

[5] This Sir Walter Devereux, son of Walter Chancellor of Ireland 1449, when the
Duke of York was Lord Deputy, was born in 1432. He married Anne, heiress of
Lord Ferrers of Chartley, and was summoned to Parliament by that title jure
uxoris. Sir Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers of Chartley, fell gloriously at Bosworth,
fighting for his King, Richard III., the younger brother of his two young friends
Edward and Edmund. He was ancestor of the Devereux, Earls of Essex.

[6] Afterwards esquire to Richard Duke of Gloucester. He fell at the battle of
Barnet, fighting by his young master's side.

[7] Breviary.

[8] Richard Croft of Croft Castle, in Herefordshire, is the odious ruler mentioned
by the young princes. He was faithful to King Edward during the Tewkesbury
campaign; but the boys had some insight into character. For Croft appears to have
been a time-server. He got made Treasurer of the Household to Henry Tudor, and
fought for him at Stoke. To please his new patron he appears to have told some
story, disparaging to Edward IV., which, in a garbled form, appeared in Hall's
Chronicle.

[9] Edwardus quartus Rothomagi natus. Rous, p. 210.

[10] Rous says that Richard was born on the feast of the eleven thousand virgins,
October 21. But this was really George's birthday, in 1449.

[11] Gairdner. The Duke's mother, Anne Mortimer, was grand-daughter of
Philippa Countess of March, the only child of Lionel Duke of Clarence, second
son of King Edward III. Henry VI. was great-grandson of John Duke of
Lancaster, third son of Edward III.

[12] Paston Letters, i. 525. Christopher Hansson to John Paston.

[13] 'And sythe y left here bothe the sunys and the dowztyr, and the Lord of
Marche comyth every day to se them.'—Paston Letters.

CHAPTER II

DEATH OF RICHARD'S FATHER AND BROTHER AT THE
BATTLE OF WAKEFIELD

In October 1460, the Duke and Duchess of York, with young Edmund
Earl of Rutland, reached London. The Duke's superior right to the crown, as
representative of the second son of Edward III. while Henry VI. only derived
from the third son, was recognised and declared by Act of Parliament. But,
in consideration of the reverence felt for his father and of his own long
tenure, it was enacted that Henry should retain the throne for life, provided
that he acknowledged the Duke as heir-apparent. This Act of Settlement
received the royal assent and became law, all opposing statutes being

repealed. On November 9, the Duke of York was solemnly declared Heir-
Apparent and Lord Protector during Henry's life.

But Queen Margaret and her partisans refused to be bound by the acts of
the King, her husband, in Parliament. She fled to Scotland, and the
Lancastrians raised a formidable army in Yorkshire. It is probable that the
Duke of York was not fully aware of the numbers opposed to him, though he
may have foreseen that the Lancastrian army would become larger if time
was allowed to slip away. There was also some danger from the
machinations of the Tudors[1] in Wales. Arrangements to counteract these
evils were promptly made. The Duke assembled a small force to advance
northwards and confront the Lancastrian army. The Duke of Norfolk, who
was warmly attached to the House of York, and the Earl of Warwick were to
remain in London until Christmas, and then to follow with reinforcements.
The young Earl of March advanced to the Welsh borders to collect forces,
disperse the Tudor rising, and then join his father in Yorkshire.

On December 1, 1460, the Duke of York was with his wife and children
at Baynard's Castle for the last time. He bade farewell to his loving Duchess
and the children; little Richard was a child of eight, Margaret and George a
few years older. The gallant young Edmund Earl of Rutland was nearly
eighteen, well able to fight by his father's side, and he accompanied the
Duke. On December 2, the Duke of York set out with his brother-in-law the
Earl of Salisbury and the Earl of Rutland. Salisbury had with him his son,
Sir Thomas Nevill, and the force, barely numbering 5,000 men, was led by
other experienced captains. Chief among them was old Sir David Hall, the
Duke's faithful friend and adviser in all military affairs. Sir John and Sir
Hugh Mortimer, illegitimate brothers of the ill-fated Earl of March, rallied to
their nephew's standard with many Yorkist knights, such as Sir Thomas Parr,
Sir Edward Bourchier, and Sir James Pickering. The force included a
company of Londoners under the command of the Warden of the Mercers'
Company, stout John Harrow.

The Duke of York advanced by easy marches, for he did not reach his
castle of Sandal, about a mile south of Wakefield, until Christmas Eve. Here
he halted while a summons was sent out to assemble his Yorkshire tenants
and adherents. It is said that Lord Nevill, a kinsman of the Duchess of York,
came to Sandal as a friend of the Duke, and induced him to grant a

commission to raise men; and that when he had raised about 8,000, he
treacherously brought them to swell the ranks of the Lancastrian army.[2]

At this time the Duke's eldest son Edward was at Shrewsbury. The poor
Duchess and her young children anxiously waited for news at Baynard's
Castle. Henry VI., with the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Warwick,
observed the festival of Christmas in the palace of the Bishop of London, in
St. Paul's Churchyard. Afterwards the King went to enjoy a few days'
hunting at Greenwich and Eltham. Queen Margaret and her son were in
Scotland. The Lancastrian leaders were assembled with a great army at
Pomfret.

Edward III. had granted Sandal and Conisborough Castles to his son
Edmund, the Duke's grandfather. The Duke himself had frequently resided at
Sandal, sometimes with his wife and family. The castle stood on a grassy
knoll, steep on one side, with a gentle slope to the south. It is a little less than
a mile from the bridge which spans the river Calder at the town of
Wakefield, the intervening space sloping gently from Sandal. It was then
partly wooded. Leland tells us the bridge was of stone, with nine arches, and
that it had on it 'a right goodly chapel of our Lady.' It led to the market place
whence two streets, called Norgate and Wrengate,[3] formed
communications with gates on the northern side of the town. The houses
were then nearly all of timber, but there was a handsome parish church
consecrated in 1322, with a tower and spire 228 feet high. From the bridge
one road went south by Sandal to Barnsley and Sheffield; another branched
off to the eastward, and divided again into two, one leading to Doncaster, the
other to Pomfret. To the westward the river Calder flanked the fields
between Sandal and Wakefield Bridge. Near the castle is the fine cruciform
church of Sandal Magna, where there was a chantry belonging to the castle.

There are scarcely any remains of Sandal Castle, which was razed by
order of the Long Parliament in 1648. But fortunately a drawing was made
in 1560 and preserved in the office of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is engraved
in the 'Vetusta Monumenta.' A lofty donjon, with flanking round towers,
stood on the verge of the steep descent to the north-east, and two smaller
square towers, connected by a wall, formed the western face. The principal
gate, protected by a barbican, was in the centre of the southern face; and on
this side the enceinte consisted merely of a wall without towers. An arcade

or cloister led from the gate to the main entrance of the donjon, and the roofs
of various buildings appear above the parapet of the southern wall. On the
north-western side of the inner courtyard a flight of steps led to a covered
archway opening on a semicircular stone pulpit supported by a single pillar.
The castle was surrounded by a moat, and the ground it covered was about
forty yards square. We gather these details from the drawing. The existing
ruins consist of part of the gatehouse, three arches of the arcade leading to
the keep, bits of wall on the west side, and the great mound covering the
ruins of the keep.

Sandal Castle was built on a natural hill of sandstone, and in those days it
must have presented an imposing appearance from Wakefield Bridge, with
its lofty towers rising over the trees. There were extensive views in every
direction from the castle walls. Northward is Wakefield and the rich valley
of the Calder. To the west were the woods stretching away until the view is
bounded by Woolley Edge. The woods and lake of Chevet are to the south,
and a wide extent of country was visible to the east, with Nostell Priory and
Walton Manor hidden among the trees. But, although Sandal commanded
extensive views, yet, owing to the wooded character of the country, an
enemy might approach without his force being fully known to the garrison.

The Duke of York kept his Christmas in Sandal Castle, with his son
Edmund Earl of Rutland, his brother-in-law the Earl of Salisbury, old Sir
David Hall his trusty military adviser, many other captains, and 5,000 men.
Sir David knew that the enemy was near in overwhelming numbers. He
anticipated a siege until relief could come from the south, and he, therefore,
sent out foraging parties to bring in supplies.

The Lancastrian chiefs at Pomfret received news of the arrival of the
Duke at Sandal on Christmas Day. They were engaged for three days in
collecting their forces. On the 30th they began their march from Pomfret, a
distance of eight miles. Lord Clifford, with his Yorkshire friends, led the
van, so as to become the right wing in forming the battle, resting on the river
Calder. The Dukes of Somerset and Exeter and Earls of Devon and
Northumberland were in the centre. The rear, which would form the left
wing in wheeling into line, was under the command of the Earl of Wiltshire.
Sir Andrew Trollope was the principal military adviser and chief of the staff.

On the last day of the year the division under Lord Clifford came in sight
of the towers of Sandal, and attacked a foraging party which appears to have
been returning from Wakefield. This was seen from the castle. The Duke
determined to come to the rescue with his whole force. He probably believed
that Clifford was considerably in advance of the main body of the enemy. Sir
David Hall thought otherwise, and strongly represented the danger of
running such a risk. But the chivalrous Duke spurned the idea of leaving his
foraging party to be destroyed without making an effort at their rescue.

The Lancastrians under Clifford were between the castle and Wakefield
Bridge, and the great gate faced to the south. It was, therefore, necessary for
the Yorkist force, barely 5,000 strong, to march out with their backs to the
enemy, and to deploy round the castle hill, before forming line to attack.
This was done, and a brilliant charge was made on the field between Sandal
and Wakefield—a Balaclava charge. The Duke himself, rightful heir to the
throne, and his trusty brother-in-law, the Earl of Salisbury, led this forlorn
hope. Near them was the gallant young Prince Edmund in the flower of his
age, about to flesh his maiden sword. There, too, was old David Hall,
knowing that all was lost, but resolved to fight for his beloved master to the
end. Success must have attended on the reckless bravery which Hall
deplored, if Clifford's force, about equal in numbers, had been unsupported.
But the main body of the Lancastrians arrived during the thick of the fight
with overwhelming numbers, while their left wing, under the Earl of
Wiltshire, cut off the retreat to the castle. There was nothing left but to die
bravely. The Duke of York fell, fighting to the last. Camden says that there
was a small space hedged round enclosing a stone cross, on the spot where
the Duke fell. His faithful knights fell around him. Among them were his
uncles John and Hugh Mortimer, Sir David Hall the tried and trusty
councillor, his wife's nephew Sir Thomas Nevill, Sir Edward Bourchier, Sir
Eustace Wentworth, Sir James Pickering, Sir John Gedding, Sir Thomas
Harington, Sir Hugh Hastings, Captains Fitzjames, Baume, Digby and
Ratford. Two gallant brothers, William and Thomas Parr, fought steadily
beside their master. William was slain, but Thomas escaped, surviving to be
the grandsire of Queen Catherine Parr. Sir Walter Lymbricke, Sir Ralph
Stanley, Captain Hanson and John Harrow, the loyal mercer of London, were
wounded and taken prisoners.

When all hope was gone young Prince Edmund, with a few followers,
perhaps with the Harry Lovedeyne whose service was 'right agreeable' to
him and his brother in the happy days of their childhood, fought his way
through the encircling foe and reached Wakefield Bridge. But they were
closely pursued by some of Clifford's men, perhaps by Clifford himself.
Leland tells us that the prince 'was overtaken a little above the bars beyond
the bridge, going up a clyming ground'; that is in the street leading up to the
market place from the bridge. He and his few followers turned at bay, and
we may be sure that young Edmund Plantagenet did not die before his
enemies had been made to pay dearly for his life.[4]

No quarter was given to the defeated soldiers by the Lancastrians, 2,000
were slaughtered in the field or during the flight, and the prisoners were all
killed. The Earl of Salisbury escaped from the battle, but was taken prisoner
the same night by a servant of Sir Andrew Trollope and conveyed to
Pomfret, where he was put to death.

The Lancastrian leaders took counsel after the battle, and decided on the
perpetration of an inhuman piece of folly. The bodies of the Duke of York
and of the Earls of Rutland and Salisbury were buried at Pomfret. But their
heads were ordered to be stuck on the gates of York. The Duke's head was
placed upon Micklegate Bar, with a paper crown on it by way of insult. The
heads of the Earls of Salisbury and Rutland, of Sir Thomas Nevill, Sir
Edward Bourchier, Sir Thomas Harington, Sir William Parr, Sir James
Pickering and John Harrow were also ordered to be stuck on the different
gates of York.

As soon as Queen Margaret received the news in Scotland, she came to
York and joined the victorious army. It was resolved to march direct to
London, and the northern soldiers were bribed by permission to pillage the
whole country. This they did for fifteen miles on either side of their track;
attacking churches, taking away vessels, books and vestments, and even the
sacramental pyx after shaking out the eucharist, and killing the priests who
resisted. Reaching St. Albans they continued the work of pillage, and
defeated the troops sent out from London to oppose them. They even
recovered the person of Henry VI. But here their successes ended. The gates
of London were closed, provisions ran short, and the Lancastrian marauders
retreated into Yorkshire.[5]

When the dreadful news of the battle of Wakefield reached London, the
Duchess of York was plunged into grief at the loss of her noble husband and
gallant young son, and she was terrified for the safety of her children. The
two little boys, George and Richard, were put on board a vessel in the
Thames and sent to Holland. There, under the protection of Philip the Good,
Duke of Burgundy, they were established at Utrecht with suitable tutors. The
Duchess of York, with her little daughter Margaret, remained in London
awaiting events.

The age of Edward Earl of March was then only eighteen years and eight
months. He was at Shrewsbury when the terrible blow fell upon him. It
spurred him into resolute action. He had collected a good force, with which
he turned upon the Tudors and crushed them at Mortimer's Cross. There was
a parhelion when the victory was decided. Edward adopted the sun in
splendour as his special cognizance. He then advanced to London by rapid
marches, and was proclaimed king as Edward IV.

Richard was thus hurried away to Holland. He was but eight years old
when he saw his father and brother Edmund mount their horses at the gate of
Baynard's Castle; and when the sad news came that they were slain, and that
he would see them no more. In after years Richard took part in the pious act
of the children of the Duke of York. They re-endowed the beautiful chapel
on Wakefield Bridge, which was built in the reign of Edward III.,[6] and
dedicated it to the memory of their brother Edmund.

[1] Owen Tudor, a Welsh squire, had three sons by Catharine, the widow of Henry
V.; Edmund and Jasper created by Henry VI. Earls of Richmond and Pembroke,
and Owen a monk at Westminster. They were half-brothers of Henry VI.

[2] Stow's Chronicle, p. 412.

[3] An abbreviation of Warenne-gate. The Earls of Warenne and Surrey were
Lords of Wakefield for more than two centuries.

[4] Of all the baseless fabrications of the Tudor chroniclers, Hall's story of the
death of Edmund Earl of Rutland is the most absurd. Hall says that the prince was
scarcely twelve years of age, that his tutor and schoolmaster, named Robert
Apsall, secretly conveyed the little boy out of the field, that they were espied and
taken by Lord Clifford, that the child knelt on his knees demanding mercy; that
the schoolmaster made a speech; that Clifford gave a truculent reply; and that
Clifford then struck the child to the heart with a dagger.

This fable rests on there being a child. If there was no child nothing of the sort
happened.

The contemporary evidence is simply that after the battle Lord Clifford killed the
Earl of Rutland on or near Wakefield Bridge. William of Worcester says:—'et in
fugiendo post campum super pontem apud Wakefelde Dominus de Clyfforde
occidit Dominum Edmondum comitem de Rutlande, filium Ducis Eborum.'
William of Worcester also gives the birthdays of all the children of the Duke of
York. Edmund was born at Rouen on May 17, 1443. He was in his eighteenth
year, and not a child. It was George, born on October 21, 1449, in Ireland, who
was in his twelfth year when the battle of Wakefield was fought; but he was left in
London with his mother, as any child of that age was sure to have been. Even if
the Duke had brought a child to Sandal, he would have been left in the castle, not
taken into the thick of a desperate battle. Edmund was old enough to accompany
his father, and doubtless acquitted himself manfully. These facts also relieve the
gallant Clifford's name from a vile calumny. Holinshed and Shakespeare follow
Hall, and all later historians have continued to repeat the absurd story without
taking the trouble to ascertain Rutland's age at the time of the battle of Wakefield.

[5] The weight of authority is decisively against the Duke of York having been
taken prisoner, and in favour of his having been killed in the battle. William of
Worcester says: 'Ubi occubuerunt in campo Dux Eborum, Thomas Nevill,' &c.
The Croyland chronicler, Fabyan, Polydore Virgil, Hall, and Stow concur. Hall
says, 'He, manfully fighting, within half an hour was slain and dead.' But
Whethamstede states that the Duke was taken prisoner and grossly insulted: that
he was set upon an ant-hill, a crown of woven grass was put on his head, and that
the soldiers bowed their heads before him, saying in derision: 'Hail, King without
a kingdom!' Whethamstede adds, 'non aliter quam Judæi coram Domino.' But this
John Bostock of Whethamstede was Abbot of St. Albans, and violently prejudiced
against the Lancastrians for their marauding and pillaging in his neighbourhood.
It is generally stated that Queen Margaret took part in the barbarities of her
adherents. Stow, for instance, says that Lord Clifford cut off the Duke's head, put
a paper crown on it, stuck it on a pole, and presented it to the Queen, who 'was
not lying far from the field.' But there is clear proof that the Queen was actually in
Scotland when the battle of Wakefield was fought. William of Worcester says:
'Dicto bello finito Regina Margareta venit ab Scotia Eboraco.' This is confirmed
by the Croyland chronicler, who says, 'Inpartibus borealibus morabatur.'
Margaret had nothing to do with the Lancastrian barbarities, except that she
allowed the heads to remain on the gates of York. She was forced to tolerate the
deeds of her savage adherents.

[6] See The Chapel of Edward III. on Wakefield Bridge, by N. Scatcherd (1843).

CHAPTER III

THE CROWNING VICTORY OF TOWTON

When the Lancastrians, after their success at St. Albans, had failed before
London, they retreated northwards with the person of Henry VI., and
proceeded to collect forces in Yorkshire for one more great effort, making
their headquarters in the city of York. Meanwhile the young Earl of March,
after his victory at Mortimer's Cross on February 2, 1461, advanced to
London with his Welsh and border tenantry. He was joined on the road by
the Earl of Warwick, whose incapacity as a military commander had been
the cause of the disaster at St. Albans on the 17th of the same month.

Edward was only in his nineteenth year when he entered London and
succeeded to his father's rights, and to the duty of avenging the cowardly
insults heaped upon that father's body. He found his mother, the widowed
Duchess, with his little sister Margaret, at Baynard's Castle.

Edward was tall and eminently handsome, with a fair complexion and
flaxen hair, 'the goodliest personage,' says Comines, 'that ever mine eyes
beheld.' His capacity for command, his fortitude, and prudence were far
beyond his years, and he had already acquired experience in two pitched
battles.

On his arrival in London Edward called together a great Council of
Lords, spiritual and temporal, and declared to them his title to the Crown.
The assembled Lords determined that, as King Henry had, contrary to the
solemn agreement made with the Duke of York and the Parliament which
met in October 1460, violated his word, and as he was useless to the
Commonwealth, he should be deprived of all sovereignty. Edward was
elected and acknowledged as King.

That night the young King was once more at home with his mother and
sister; but it was a melancholy home-coming. Two months before, the whole
family was united at Baynard's Castle, now the father was slain and his head
fixed on Micklegate Bar at York. The beloved brother, Edward's companion
from earliest infancy, also dead; the two younger brothers sent abroad for
safety; his uncle, Salisbury, killed, with Sir David Hall, the trusted friend of
the family, and many more. Yet a feeling of pride must have mingled with

the bereaved mother's grief as she gazed on the superb young warrior who
was the last hope and prop of her house.

Next day the citizens of London assembled at their muster in St. John's
Fields, just outside the city, where they were reviewed by Lord Fauconberg,
the King's uncle, an experienced warrior who had seen much service in
France. As Sir William Nevill, he was at the siege of Orleans, and since 1429
he had been summoned to Parliament jure uxoris, for he had married Joan,
the heiress of the last Baron Fauconberg. As soon as he had completed the
muster, his nephew, George Nevill, Bishop of Exeter, made a speech to the
people. He explained to them how King Henry had broken the agreement
solemnly made with the Duke of York only four short months before; he
demanded of them whether they would have a forsworn king any longer to
rule over them; and he called upon them to serve and obey the Earl of March
as their earthly sovereign lord. The multitude cried 'Yea! Yea!' with great
shouts and clapping of hands. 'I was there,' says William of Worcester, 'I
heard them, and I returned with them into the city.'

On the same evening the Lords and Commons went to Baynard's Castle
to report what had taken place to young Edward, and he was persuaded to
assume the kingly office by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of
Exeter. Next day, being March 4, he rode to St. Paul's as King Edward IV.
and made an offering. After Te Deum he was conveyed to Westminster,
where he sat in the Hall while his title was declared to the people as son and
heir of Richard, Duke of York, and by authority of Parliament. Henry VI.
was deposed quod non stetisset pacto, neque paruisset senatûs consulti
decreto. Edward then entered the Abbey under a canopy in solemn
procession, and received homage from the lords, returning by water to
London, where he was lodged in the Bishop's palace. On the 5th he was
proclaimed King through the city as Edward IV; but there was to be no
coronation until he was victorious over his enemies.

No time was lost. On Saturday, March 7, the Earl of Warwick left London
for the north, with what Fabyan calls 'a great puissance of people.' Four days
afterwards the King's infantry followed, consisting of borderers from the
Welsh marches, Kentish men, and Londoners. On Friday, March 13, Edward
himself rode through Bishopsgate with a great body of men, and attended by
many lords and knights. Since the death of Sir David Hall, Edward's uncle

Fauconberg was the most able and experienced general on the Yorkist side,
and he was now the King's chief adviser. A powerful adherent was John
Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, who is so frequently mentioned in the 'Paston
Letters.' Representative of Thomas de Brotherton, the youngest son of
Edward I., the Duke had vast wealth and great influence in the eastern
counties, but he was in failing health. Sir John Ratcliffe, K.G., called Lord
Fitzwalter jure uxoris, Sir Henry Ratcliffe, Lord Scrope of Bolton, Sir Walter
Blount, Sir John Wenlock, Sir John Dynham, Sir Roger Wolferstone,
William Hastings, Robert Home of Kent, the King's cousins Humphry and
John Stafford, were the principal captains.

The marches were made in a leisurely way to give time for followers to
join from various directions, and it was a fortnight before Edward formed a
junction with the Earl of Warwick, and mustered his army between Pomfret
Castle and Ferrybridge, about forty thousand strong. Reinforcements had
flocked to him during the march, especially in Nottinghamshire. Sir John
Ratcliffe, with a young illegitimate son of the Earl of Salisbury, was
stationed with a small force at Ferrybridge, to guard the passage of the river
Aire.

Meanwhile, the nobles who had rallied round the proud Margaret of
Anjou were collecting their strength at York. The Duke of Somerset,
although he was only in his twenty-fourth year, was the chief commander in
the Queen's army. The son of her favourite, who had been slain in the first
battle of St. Albans, and the head of a powerful connection, Margaret placed
great reliance on the prowess and influence of the young Duke. His first
cousin was Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire, a lad of twenty, who
came to York with the Fulfords, Fortescues, and other west-country squires.
His sister Eleanor was married to James Butler, Earl of Ormonde and
Wiltshire, K.G., a more mature nobleman who had reached his fortieth year,
but who was more noted for running away than for fighting. His brother, Sir
John Butler, accompanied him. Next to Somerset the most influential leader
was Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, who was also in his fortieth year.
His family had fought and bled in the Lancastrian cause. His father was slain
at St. Albans, his brother, Lord Egremont, at Northampton. Another brother,
Sir Richard Percy, now rode by the Earl's side at the head of a numerous
body of retainers. Lord Clifford, Lord Dacre of Gillesland, Lord FitzHugh,
and Sir John Nevill came with a great muster of West Riding and

Westmoreland yeomen; while Lord Welles and Sir William Talboys rallied
the Lincolnshire yeomen round their standards. Lord Roos, Sir Ralph Eure,
and Sir John Bigot of Musgrave Castle, joined the army with their Yorkshire
tenantry; and the Duke of Exeter, Lord Hungerford, and Lord Beaumont
swelled the throng with their levies.

Nor were lawyers and churchmen wanting to prop the falling cause. Sir
John Fortescue, the Lord Chief Justice, was at York, for he believed the
parliamentary title of King Henry to be good, and would not desert him in
his need. There too, in attendance on poor Henry, was Dr. Morton, the
parson of Bloxworth and Master in Chancery—a treble-dyed traitor and
falsifier of history, who afterwards flourished like a green bay tree, and died
Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury at the age of ninety.

So far as experience and military training were concerned, the reliance of
the Lancastrians was on Lord Welles, Lord Hungerford, and Sir Andrew
Trollope. Lionel Lord Welles, now in his fifty-fifth year, had seen much
service in France, and had filled the important posts of Lieutenant in Ireland
and Captain of Calais. Lord Hungerford had served under the great Talbot,
and was present at the fatal battle of Chastillon, where he was taken prisoner.
At that time, during his father's life, he was known as Lord Molines, in right
of his wife. Trollope was a veteran of the French wars, and seems to have
been looked to as the officer who would marshal the army and select
positions. He had been a trusted Yorkist captain, and was long in command
of the Calais garrison. But when the two rival armies were confronted near
Ludlow, in October 1459, he had secretly deserted with a large part of the
best soldiers from Calais and gone over to Queen Margaret. This had given
her a temporary triumph; and Trollope had since been her most trusted
military adviser.

The force collected at York numbered 60,000; and the largest bodies of
men that have ever tried conclusions on English ground were thus gathered
together between York and Pomfret.

A distance of twenty-five miles separated the towers of Pomfret Castle,
under whose shadows young Edward was marshalling his avenging army,
from Micklegate Bar, over which the head of his beloved father was
withering in the chilling gales of that bitter month of March 1461. Nine of

those miles covered the distance from York to Tadcaster on the river Wharfe,
and the rest of the distance, from the Wharfe to the Aire, was the scene of the
momentous campaign.

The tract of country between the Wharfe and the Aire is a portion of that
magnesian limestone formation which extends in a narrow zone across
Yorkshire. It is crossed by the principal streams flowing to the Humber, the
Ure, the Nidd, the Wharfe, the Aire, the Went, and the Don; and they all
form picturesque gorges, with overhanging limestone cliffs and crags, before
they enter the great alluvial plain of York. This hilly limestone region,
between the Wharfe and the Aire, was once a great forest of elm trees. It was
the Elmet of remote times. When the forest was cleared the name remained,
and the people called the limestone country 'Elmet lands.' The little river
Cock rises on Bramham Moor, flows through this limestone country in a
winding course among the undulating hills, and falls into the Wharfe below
Tadcaster. Passing the village of Barwick-in-Elmet, it winds along the skirts
of 'Becca Banks,' so famous for rare wild flowers, flows under the bridge at
Aberford, and westward to Lead Hall, a farmhouse in a great meadow about
half a mile short of the village of Saxton. Thence it takes a northerly course
to its junction with the Wharfe. Here the winding little brook has hills on
either side, covered with woods, with Towton on the right bank, and
Hazlewood, the ancient seat of the Vavasours, to the left. It passes through
extensive willow garths, and by the village of Stutton, entering the Wharfe,
near Tadcaster, after a course of about ten miles.

At present the road from York to Pomfret turns south at the end of
Tadcaster Street, and goes direct to Towton and Sherburn, passing the lodge
gate at Grimston. But in those days it continued along the left bank of the
Cock to beyond Stutton, crossed the little brook by Renshaw Wood, and led
up a gentle slope to the hamlet of Towton. By this route the Lancastrian
army advanced from Tadcaster, and encamped on the fields between Towton
and Saxton. The main road leads direct from Towton to Sherburn, leaving
Saxton on the right, and Scarthingwell, with its mere and heronry, on the
left. From Sherburn to Ferrybridge the distance is six miles due south. The
distance from Ferrybridge, by Sherburn and Saxton, to the battlefield of
Towton is nine miles.

On March 26, 1461, the great army of the Lancastrians was encamped
round the hamlet of Towton. King Edward's headquarters were at Pomfret,
and he had an advanced post to defend the passage of the river Aire in his
front, at Ferrybridge, under the command of the titular Lord Fitzwalter, an
experienced veteran of the French wars. The object of the Lancastrian leader
in advancing across the Wharfe was to oppose the passage of Edward's army
over the river Aire at Ferrybridge. The deposed King and Queen, with Lord
Roos and Dr. Morton, awaited the event at York. But the Lancastrians were
too late. Lord Clifford and Sir John Nevill, however, did press forward in
advance, in hopes of surprising the outlying post of Yorkists at Ferrybridge.
In this they were successful. The guard at the bridge was taken completely
by surprise before the dawn of March 28, and slaughtered by Lord Clifford's
men. Lord Fitzwalter, hearing the noise, thought it was merely a disturbance
among his own soldiers. He jumped out of bed, ran down with a battle-axe in
his hand, and was slain as he came into the street. The brave young bastard
of Salisbury fell with him.

This unexpected onslaught caused a panic in the Yorkist camp, which was
increased by the conduct of the excitable Earl of Warwick. He lost his head,
galloped up to the King's tent, dismounted and killed his horse, crying out,
'Let him fly that will, for surely by this cross I will tarry with him who will
tarry with me, fall back fall edge!'[1] The conduct of young Edward was
very different. Perfectly cool and collected, his firmness restored order
among the soldiers. He soon saw that the attack had been made by a small
force which would as rapidly retreat. He, therefore, gave prompt orders to
his uncle, Lord Fauconberg, to cross the river Aire at Castleford, about three
miles to the left, with troops led by Sir Walter Blount and Robert Home of
Kent. His object was to intercept the retreat of Lord Clifford. This judicious
order was ably carried out by the veteran general. Fauconberg overtook the
enemy, and a complete rout of the Lancastrians followed. The chase was
continued through Sherburn to a little dell or valley called Dittingdale,[2]
between Scarthingwell and Towton. Here there was a rally, close to the
outposts of the main army of the Lancastrians. Lord Clifford, while taking
off his gorget, owing to its having chafed his neck, was struck by an arrow
and killed. Sir John Nevill was also slain, and there was a great slaughter
among the flying troops. The Yorkist pursuers fell back on their supports
without serious loss.

Lord Clifford was only in his twenty-sixth year. His father was slain at
the first battle of St. Albans, and he had naturally joined the same cause with
enthusiasm. But, as has already been pointed out, the story of his having
assassinated a defenceless little boy on Wakefield Bridge is a fiction. There
is no reason to believe that Clifford was such a base caitiff. He was evidently
an active and enterprising leader. It is the tradition of the family that he was
buried, with a heap of undistinguished dead, on the battlefield. Sir John
Nevill, a younger brother of the second Earl of Westmoreland, and father of
the third Earl, was probably buried within Saxton Church.[3] The loss of
these two gallant and influential young leaders, whose scattered fugitives
brought in the news on that Friday night, must have cast a gloom over the
Lancastrian army.

King Edward now resolved to advance with his whole force and attack
the enemy where he was encamped. He believed that the main body could
not have been very far distant when Lord Clifford was detached to make the
attack at Ferrybridge. The van division of the Yorkist army, led by Lord
Fauconberg and Sir Walter Blount, was already across the river Aire, and
orders were given to them to march northwards by Sherburn and Saxton.
The King himself, with the Earl of Warwick, was to follow at the head of the
main body. The Duke of Norfolk should have led the van, but he was taken
ill, and it was arranged that he should remain behind at Pomfret, with Sir
John Wenlock and Sir John Dynham, and follow next day with the rear
division and any reinforcements that might have arrived.[4]

During March 28, the Eve of Palm Sunday, the Yorkist army was
marching northwards in two divisions. It must have been late in the
afternoon when the division of Lord Fauconberg passed through Sherburn-
in-Elmet, a long street with the old Norman church on an isolated hill to the
westward. Two miles more brought him to Saxton late in the evening.
Saxton was a small village, with the manor house of the Hungates, and a
very old church of Norman times. Thence a steep ascent leads northward to
the battlefield. To the east is the high road from York to Pomfret, passing
over elevated ground. To the west is a ravine with sides sloping down to the
valley of the Cock. The latter brook is seen winding through the green
valley, with roads on either side. Northwards there was high undulating
ground, and the hamlet of Towton is two miles north of Saxton.

On the ground between Towton and Saxton the Lancastrian army was
encamped. The centre, led by the Earl of Northumberland and Sir Richard
Percy, with Lord Welles and Sir Andrew Trollope, was formed across the
road leading up from Saxton. To the east, forming the Lancastrian left, Lord
Dacre and his brother-in-law Lord FitzHugh were encamped on some land
called 'North Acres.' To the west, forming the right wing, were the Earls of
Devonshire and Wiltshire, and Lords Hungerford and Beaumont. The Dukes
of Somerset and Exeter commanded a reserve at Towton village.

When Lord Fauconberg arrived at Saxton he ascertained the position of
the enemy and sent intelligence to the King. Edward had probably reached
Sherburn by that time, and he at once pushed forward to the neighbourhood
of Saxton. The whole Yorkist force numbered 48,640 men, including the
reserves, which were still at Pomfret under the Duke of Norfolk.

Palm Sunday dawned and found the host of young Edward facing the
long array of Lancastrians. It was bitterly cold. The advance up the hillside
from Saxton village was made between eight and nine o'clock in the
forenoon, and when the hostile forces came in sight there was a great
shouting. At the same time snow began to fall. The wind was northerly in the
early morning, but it veered round, became fresher, and by nine o'clock it
was driving the snow full into the faces of the Lancastrian troops. The two
armies, just before they closed, were separated by an undulating depression
which marks the exact position.

Lord Fauconberg caused every archer under his standard to shoot one
flight of arrows and then halt. The enemy felt the volley, but could not judge
of distances on account of the blinding snow. Their arrows fell short. As
soon as the quivers of the enemy were nearly empty, Lord Fauconberg gave
the order for his archers to advance, shooting as they came on, and they not
only shot off their own arrows, but gathered those of the enemy and sent
many of them back whence they came. Then the Earl of Northumberland
ordered his men to close, and the battle became a fierce hand-to-hand
combat all along the line. For several hours the desperate conflict continued,
ebbing and flowing with doubtful result, the snow still falling. King Edward
was everywhere, exhorting and encouraging the men, leading them on when
they wavered, and helping the wounded out of the fray. The struggle was
obstinate and long doubtful. Men were falling fast on both sides. Lord

Scrope of Bolton was severely wounded. Robert Home, the valiant captain
of Kent, who came from Appledore on the Rother, fell dead.

Messengers had been sent in hot haste to hurry up the Duke of Norfolk
with the reserves. He arrived at about noon. With his trusty lieutenants
Wenlock and Dynham, he led his men up the road from Sherburn, keeping
well to the east of Saxton, and ailing upon the Lancastrian left flank at 'North
Acres.'

This was the turning point of the battle. The Lancastrians were
disheartened at the arrival of fresh foes. The fighting continued until late in
the afternoon, and the slaughter was prodigious, but gradually the
Lancastrian left wing was doubled up on the centre; the confusion increased,
and there was a complete rout. Lord Dacre had fallen early in the day. He
was killed by a boy who shot him from a 'bur' tree,[5] when he had
unclasped his helmet to drink a cup of wine. The lad thus avenged his
father's death, who had been slain by the northern baron. Lord Caere's
friends, Sir John and Sir Thomas Crakenthorpe, from the banks of the Eden,
fell with him. The Earl of Northumberland, Sir Richard Percy, Lord Welles,
and Sir Andrew Trollope were slain in the thick of the fight, with many
more. The retreat to the eastward being cut off by the Duke of Norfolk, the
defeated army fled down the steep slopes into the valley of the Cock closely
pursued.

The well-mounted noblemen, Somerset and Exeter, Devonshire and
Wiltshire, Beaumont, Hungerford, and FitzHugh, with many knights,
effected their escape. But the footmen were cut down by hundreds in the
pursuit. The little Cock beck is not very wide, but it is deep, and many
fugitives were drowned in it. The country people declared that the pursuers
crossed the brook on dead bodies, and that the river Wharfe was coloured
with blood. The Croyland monk relates that the blood of the slain lay caked
with snow, which then covered the ground, and that afterwards, when the
snow melted, the blood flowed along the furrows and ditches for a distance
of two or three miles. The chase continued all night and part of next day.

Fully 10,000 were stated to have been wounded or made prisoners, and
Polydore Virgil says that some were cured and some died. This disposes of
the statement of Hall, which is adopted by modern writers, that no quarter

was given. Edward always gave quarter to the men and junior officers of a
defeated army.

The fugitive nobles only had time to ride through York, calling upon
Henry and Margaret, with their child, to mount and ride as hard as their
horses would carry them. Away they went out of Bootham, and through the
dark forest of Galtres, to take refuge in Scotland.

King Edward advanced to York on Monday, March 30, 1461, where he
was received with great solemnity by the mayor and commons of the city, in
procession. They obtained grace through the intercession of Lords Montagu
and Berners. The heads of the Duke of York, the Earl of Rutland, and the
Earl of Salisbury were removed from the gates of York, and placed with the
bodies at Pomfret, preparatory to the subsequent magnificent obsequies at
Fotheringhay and Bisham.

Only four executions took place at York, of the Earl of Devonshire, Sir
Baldwin Fulford, Sir William Talboys, and Sir William Hill. The Earl of
Wiltshire was captured by William Salkeld at Cockermouth. For this
prominent actor in the barbarous deeds after Wakefield fight there could be
no forgiveness. He was beheaded at Newcastle on May 1.

The Earl of Northumberland, a first cousin of King Edward, was buried
in the north choir of St. Denis church at York, probably with his brother Sir
Richard Percy. The body of Lord Welles was taken to Methley, and buried in
the Waterton Chapel. Lord Dacre was buried, with his horse, in Saxton
churchyard, on the north side of the church, where there is a monument to
his memory. The undistinguished dead were at first buried in five great pits
on the battlefield, and in separate graves in the valley. It was a tradition that
red and white roses grew and flourished on the battlefield, and it is true that
there are many rose bushes in the meadows. Leland tells us that Master
Hungate of Saxton caused the dead bodies to be brought from the pits on the
battlefield, and buried in consecrated ground, in a trench running the whole
length of Saxton churchyard.

King Edward kept his Easter at York, which fell that year on April 5. He
then advanced as far as Durham, whence he returned southwards, leaving the
pacification of the north to the Earl of Warwick and his brother Lord

Montagu. Early in June Edward was at the manor of Sheen, and on the 26th
of that month he came from Sheen to the Tower of London. On the 27th he
created thirty Knights of the Bath, and on Sunday the 28th he was solemnly
crowned in Westminster Abbey by Cardinal Bourchier, Archbishop of
Canterbury.

The King liberally rewarded his supporters. The Duke of Norfolk died in
November 1461, and was buried before the high altar at Thetford. But Lord
Fauconberg was created Earl of Kent and Lord High Admiral. He died in
1463. Sir Walter Blount was created Lord Mountjoy and a Knight of the
Garter. Sir John Dynham, a valued adherent, was created Lord Dynham; and
Sir John Wenlock, already a Knight of the Garter, was created Lord
Wenlock. Many Yorkists were knighted, either on the field or afterwards at
the coronation. Young William Hastings, the King's most faithful follower,
was knighted on the field, and created Lord Hastings, in July 1461. Among
the Knights of the Bath were the gentlemen of Nottinghamshire who had
joined the King on the march northward, Sir Robert Clifton, Sir Nicholas
Byron, and Sir Robert and Sir John Markham.

Edward IV. was 'a King who, with many faults, was most honourably
anxious from the first to do justice even to the meanest of his subjects.'[6]
After the first heat of battle had passed he was placable and forgiving. He
had strong and justifiable cause for resentment against his opponents at
Towton. In the white heat of his indignation, with the sight of his father's
head over Micklegate Bar fresh in his recollection, he stayed his avenging
hand after four executions. The bill of attainder passed by his first
Parliament included 150 names, but many were afterwards granted full
pardons, and all who submitted received back portions of their estates. The
Duke of Somerset made his peace, and was taken into favour. The son of the
Earl of Northumberland was restored to all his father's honours. The brother
of the Earl of Wiltshire, though he was also at Towton, was restored to all his
estates, was taken into favour, and succeeded as sixth Earl of Ormond.
Similar forgiveness was extended to the Courtenays, and to the brother of
Lord Dacre. Although Lord Hungerford continued in rebellion, Edward IV.
treated his wife and young children with kindness and generosity, making an
ample provision for them out of their father's forfeited lands. The son of
Lord Welles was taken into favour, and had a grant of all his father's
forfeited property. Lord FitzHugh was forgiven and employed in positions of

importance. Mr. Thorold Rogers says:—'I entirely discredit the stories told
of the tyranny and suspiciousness of Edward IV. He never refused a petition
for pardon.'[7]

All historians unite in the statement that the old nobility of England was
nearly annihilated by the battles and executions during the Wars of the
Roses. But facts are opposed to this theory. Scarcely a single peerage
became extinct owing to the Wars of the Roses.[8]

The battles of Wakefield and Towton made a deep impression on the
mind of Prince Richard, although he was but eight years old. The fate of his
father and brother in a battle which drove him into exile, and then the
crowning victory following so rapidly, could not fail to do so. In later years
he erected a memorial chapel at Towton, where prayers were to be offered up
for the souls of the fallen. It was standing in Leland's time, but there is now
no vestige of this pious work of King Richard III.[9]

[1] Mr. Green, in his History of the English People, places the time of Warwick's
killing his horse 'at one critical moment' during the battle of Towton. But the
evidence that this act of folly was perpetrated owing to the panic after the surprise
at Ferrybridge is quite conclusive.

[2] Hall has Dintingdale, Habington spells it Dindingdale, Baker has
Dandingdale. There is no such place on the maps. But Whitaker, in his History of
Craven, says that the Rev. F. Wilkinson, Vicar of Bordsey, discovered the almost
forgotten name of Dittingdale, as that of a dell or small valley in Scarthingwell
Park.

[3] Leland says that the Earl of Westmoreland was killed, and buried within
Saxton Church. Hall also includes the Earl of Westmoreland among the slain.
They mistook him for Sir John Nevill. The Earl himself did not die until 1485.
Sharon Turner and later writers repeat the blunder. The Earl of Westmoreland was
not in the battle.

[4] Mr. Green says that 'the Duke of Norfolk came with a fresh force from the
eastern counties.' The Duke came from Pomfret, having left London with the
King. Sharon Turner says: 'We owe the remarkable fact of the battle beginning at
four o'clock in the afternoon and continuing through the night, and of Norfolk's
coming up the next clay at noon to Hearne's fragment.' This fragment was
transcribed by Hearne from an old manuscript, but not older than Hall's
Chronicle. The statement that the battle began at four on Saturday afternoon and
went on through the night, not only contradicts Hall and Stow, but is also
impossible. Edward's army could not have got over the ground in time to begin
the battle at four in the afternoon. Possibly the mistake of the anonymous writer
of Hearne's fragment arose from having been told that Lord Fauconberg came in
sight of the Lancastrian army at twilight. It was not the twilight of Saturday
afternoon, but of Palm Sunday morning, as Hall explains.

[5] Loidis and Elmete, p. 156. Dr. Whitaker says that the word 'bur' is very
distinct in Glover's manuscript. It means an alder tree, from the old Norse 'bur' or
'baurr.'

[6] Gairdner. Introduction to the Paston Letters, ii. p. xii.

[7] Work and Wages, ii. 316.

[8] The Duke of Exeter was separated from his wife, and had no children. The
Duke of Somerset, who was beheaded, had six daughters, and another was
unmarried. But the House of Somerset was perpetuated in that of Beaufort. A few
new peerages became extinct because their recipients did not marry, such as
Egremont and Wenlock. But Lord Egremont was a Percy, and the family of Percy
continued to flourish. No more peerages became extinct owing to the Wars of the
Roses than would have done so in a time of profound peace.

[9] There is a warrant for 40l. to be given for building the chapel at Towton, dated
November 28, 1483 (Harl. MSS., No. 413). In July 1488, an indulgence of forty
days was granted ad speciosam capellam in villa de Toughton (per Saxton) de

novo a fundamentis sumptuose et nobiliter erectam, super quodam loco seu fondo
ubi corpora procerum et magnatum ac aliorum hominum multitudine copiosa in
quodam bello in campis circumjacentibus inito interfectorum sepeliuntur. In
December 1502 another indulgence of forty days was granted. The exact site of
the chapel is the garden behind Mr. Kendall's house.

CHAPTER IV

THE CROWN LOST AND WON—BATTLE OF BARNET

The young princes, George and Richard, were in Holland for about six
months, under the protection of the Duke of Burgundy. They resided at
Utrecht. Then the news came of Edward's accession, and the crowning
victory of Towton. The two boys were brought home again, and were soon
under their mother's immediate care, with their sister Margaret.

Immediately after the coronation, George was created Duke of Clarence;
and Richard Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Carlisle, and Earl of Richmond,[1]
a title which had merged in the crown after the attainder of Edmund Tudor.
Richard was created a Knight of the Garter in 1465. In February 1466 his
sword and helmet were placed in St. George's Chapel, and he took
possession of his stall in the following April. His stall plate is now in the
ninth stall on the south side of the choir, in St. George's Chapel at Windsor.
The arms are France and England quarterly, with a silver label of three
points, each ermine with a canton gules. The crest is a crowned leopard gold,
on a cap of estate, with a label as in the arms, round his neck. The helm is
barred as used in the mêlée, the only one on the early plates, the rest all
being tilting helms.

The first public appearance of young Richard was on the occasion of his
father's solemn obsequies. The Duke of York's body, and that of his son
Edmund Earl of Rutland, had to be conveyed from Pomfret to Fotheringhay,
and the Duke of Gloucester, then in his fourteenth year, was appointed by the
King to be chief mourner. On July 22, 1466, the bodies of Richard Duke of
York, and of his son, Edmund Earl of Rutland, were taken from their

temporary resting place at Pomfret, and placed in a chariot covered with
black velvet, richly embroidered with cloth of gold. At the feet of the Duke
stood the figure of an angel clothed in white, bearing a crown of gold, to
signify that of right he was a king. The chariot was drawn by four horses
trapped to the ground. Every horse carried a man, and upon the foremost
rode Sir John Skipwith, who bore the Duke's banner displayed. Bishops and
abbots, in their robes, went two or three miles in front, to prepare the
churches for the reception of the bodies.'[2] The boy Duke of Gloucester
followed next after the chariot, accompanied by noblemen and heralds. In
this order they left Pomfret and rested that night at Doncaster. Thence they
proceeded by easy stages to Blythe, Tuxford, Newark, Grantham, and
Stamford. On Monday, July 27, the procession arrived at Fotheringhay. The
bodies were carried into the church by servants of the deceased, and received
by the King and his Court in deep mourning.

Edward IV. built a magnificent shrine in the choir, over the tombs of his
father and brother, and completed the works of the college, including the
cloister.[3]

There is reason to believe that the young Duke of Gloucester received his
knightly training in the use of arms from the age of fourteen, in the
household of his cousin the Earl of Warwick. There are payments to the Earl
for costs and expenses incurred by him on account of Richard, the King's
brother. Here he was the companion of Francis Lovel and Robert Percy, for
both of whom he formed a friendship which ended only with death. Here too
he was the playfellow of his cousin Anne Nevill, and an attachment was
probably then formed between them, which was destined to bear fruit in
after years. We find Richard and Anne sitting together at the installation feast
of her uncle the Archbishop of York in 1467.

Richard was short in stature, with a delicate fragile frame, the right
shoulder being slightly higher than the left. But he had been inured to
warlike exercises, and was fond of hunting and all manly sports. He had
light brown hair and a very handsome face, full of energy and decision, yet
with a gentle and even melancholy expression when the features were at rest.
[4]

While Richard was receiving a knightly education in the north, his
brother Edward was conducting his own and the country's affairs recklessly
and without wisdom. The secret marriage ceremony he went through with
the widow of Lord Grey of Groby, and her subsequent coronation, had
estranged the nobles, and their disgust was increased by the promotion and
enrichment of her Woodville relations. The Earl of Warwick, the cousin and
formerly the supporter of Edward, became the chief among the malcontents.
He married his daughter Isabella to the Duke of Clarence, without the King's
consent or knowledge, and afterwards fostered and encouraged disturbances
and insurrections. At last he went to France with Clarence, and made an
agreement with Margaret of Anjou to restore Henry VI. to the throne. Finally
he returned to England, with the Duke of Clarence, as an open enemy of
King Edward. Troops rapidly flocked to his standard, and the country was
lost and won as if by magic.

Warwick had used all his arts of persuasion to induce the younger
brothers of the King to be false to their allegiance. With Clarence he
succeeded; but Richard never wavered for a moment. His loyalty to his
brother was not to be shaken. There is something very touching in the
unalterable affection between Edward and Richard. In Edward, from the
time when he used to visit his little brother every day in Paston's chambers,
to the hour of his death, there was a loving protection and a solicitude for the
lad's welfare which was shown in many ways. On the part of Richard there
was loyalty and zeal for his elder brother's service as well as warm affection.
His motto was

'LOYAULTÉ ME LIE.'[5]
(Loyalty bindeth me.)

From the moment that Warwick became a traitor, Richard was constantly by
his brother's side, sharing his long marches,[6] his dangers and hardships.
When Warwick landed and proclaimed the restoration of Henry VI., King
Edward summoned his forces to assemble at Doncaster, particularly relying
on the Marquis Montagu, Warwick's brother, in whose loyalty he implicitly
believed. Edward related to the historian Comines the events immediately
preceding his flight from the kingdom. He was in a fortified house with his
friends, to which the only access was a bridge, and the troops were quartered
in the villages near. Suddenly news arrived that Montagu and others were

riding among his soldiers shouting for Henry. Edward hastily put on his
armour and sent a body of faithful adherents to defend the bridge. There was
nothing left but flight. Accompanied by his brother Richard and a few loyal
friends the King galloped off, leaving Lord Hastings to gain time by
defending the bridge. Hastings made some terms for his followers with
Montagu, and then followed his master. Reaching Lynn, in Norfolk, the
fugitives found two Dutch vessels on the point of sailing. They immediately
went on board without other clothes than leurs habillemens de guerre.[7]
The brothers were accompanied in their flight by Lords Hastings, Rivers,
and Saye, and a few faithful knights. Narrowly escaping capture by an
Easterling ship, they landed near Alkmaar in North Holland. A gown lined
with martens was the only thing of value wherewith King Edward could pay
his passage; and he was saved from capture by the Easterlings through the
intervention of the Sieur Louis de Bruges, Lord of Gruthuus, who received
the fugitives with generous hospitality and conducted them to The Hague.
King Edward and his host were brother Knights of the Golden Fleece, an
obligation which the lord of Gruthuus most fully recognised. He gave up his
great house at Bruges for the use of the exiled princes, who resided there
during the ensuing winter, and he also lent them his château of Oostcamp.
From Bruges, King Edward and his brother proceeded to the court of the
Duke of Burgundy at St. Pol, to seek for aid in recovering the crown of
England. Charles the Bold publicly declined to interfere, and the Lancastrian
Duke of Somerset hurried to London with the good news. But Charles had
been married, in 1468, to the Princess Margaret of York, who was devotedly
attached to her brothers. She opened a correspondence with the Duke of
Clarence in England, to induce him to return to his allegiance. Through her
influence, the aid which had been withheld publicly was given in secret. She
smoothed all difficulties, and enabled her brothers to undertake their
romantic enterprise. For Edward was resolved to recover his crown, and
Richard, from this time, was his efficient lieutenant.

Richard's services in Flanders, and especially in fitting out the expedition,
secured for him the full confidence of his brother. The ships had to be
equipped very secretly and with great care. The Duchess Margaret had
procured a grant of 15,000 florins, and permission to get ready four ships of
Flanders and thirteen hired Easterlings[8] which were to be at Edward's
service until he should land in England, and for fifteen days afterwards. The
next step was the selection of a seaport where the expedition could be

quietly fitted out. The Lord of Gruthuus again proved a friend in need. He
had married Margaret, the sister of Henry van Borselle, Lord of the island of
Walcheren. The traditions of the family of Borselle were adverse to the
House of Lancaster, for Francis van Borselle was the lover, and eventually
the husband, of that unfortunate Jacoba of Holland who was treated so
shamefully by Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. The excellent ports of Veere
and Flushing were, therefore, placed at Edward's disposal.

The expedition was fitted out in the port of Veere, under the protection of
Henry van Borselle. Besides the King and young Richard, Lords Hastings,
Rivers, and Saye were the principal leaders. The expeditionary force
consisted of 900 men, in addition to the crews of the ships. A select body of
300 Flemish gunners, armed with hand-guns, formed part of the little army;
and this is nearly the first time that these new weapons are mentioned in
English warfare. The men carried slow matches, and are called 'smoky
gunners' by Fabyan. Richard actively helped in the preparation of this daring
little expedition at Veere; for by this time the King had learned to appreciate
his brother's remarkable ability and fitness for command.

By the end of February 1471, the ships were ready. They were brought
down the Channel from Veere to Flushing and the troops were embarked.
But they had to wait nine days in Flushing Roads for a fair wind, and it was
not until Monday, March 11, that the gallant adventurers sailed for the
Norfolk coast. Edward was in one ship with Lord Hastings, while his brother
had a separate command in another vessel, each being followed by a
squadron of transports. It is probable that the exiled King shaped a course for
the coast of Norfolk in the hope that the influence of the Duke, who was
faithful to his cause, would ensure him a cordial reception. But he was
disappointed. Two knights, named Sir Robert Chamberlain and Sir Gilbert
Debenham, went on shore at Cromer and found the country occupied by
Warwick's adherents. Edward, therefore, steered for Yorkshire, and
encountered a gale of wind which lasted from March 12 to 14, scattering his
little squadron. When Edward and Hastings anchored off Ravenspur,[9] on
the Holderness coast, no other vessel was in sight. The King landed and
burnt his ship, resolved to regain his crown or perish in the attempt.

Edward stood on that dreary waste of sand with 500 followers. The look-
out was black indeed. He had seen nothing of the other ships since they were

separated by the gale off Cromer. He sent scouts to the adjacent villages, but
not a man ventured to join his standard. While hesitating what should be the
next step, horsemen appeared over the brow of a rising ground. The
adventurers stood to their arms, but a few minutes turned anxiety into joy.
The young Duke of Gloucester was seen to be at the head of a little force of
300 men. He had effected a landing at a point about four miles from
Ravenspur, and hurried to join his brother. Soon afterwards Lord Rivers,
who had reached the shore at a place called Pole, fourteen miles away, made
his appearance. Thus was the little force once more united. They marched to
Beverley and thence to York, but although armed men were seen, no one
either molested them or came to their assistance. There appears to have been
no ill-will among the people, but fear of the power of the Earl of Warwick
and a belief that Edward's cause was hopeless.

The authorities of York did not dare to receive Edward as King. It was
thought advisable that, at this stage, he should only claim his hereditary
dukedom.[10] This deceived no one, but it would enable the mayor and
aldermen of York to defend their conduct in the event of Edward's
overthrow. They received him into their town, gave him supplies, and next
day he marched southwards to Tadcaster.

The campaign by which Edward regained the crown was one of the most
brilliant that has ever been conducted by an English general. It elicited
proofs of consummate military skill from the Yorkist princes, and displays of
valour and presence of mind in action which were never surpassed by any of
their race. Edward IV. is entitled to an equal place as a military commander
with Edward III. or Henry V. His strategy and resource were superior to
those of either. He never lost a battle, though he never declined a combat. In
three short months from the time that he landed with a handful of men on the
coast of Holderness, he had outwitted and out-manoeuvred his opponents,
had won two pitched battles, and had recovered his crown. Richard deserves
scarcely less credit. He was only eighteen, yet he contributed largely to the
success of the campaign, while in battle his brother entrusted the young
prince with important separate commands.

Edward's little band of adventurers was opposed by the whole resources
of England in the hands of the Earl of Warwick. The Earl himself was posted
with a strong force at Coventry. His brother Montagu occupied an advanced

position at Pomfret to intercept the invaders on their southward march. The
Earl of Oxford was advancing from the Eastern counties, and Clarence from
London. By a masterly flank march the King passed to the westward of
Pomfret and reached Nottingham, leaving Montagu in his rear baffled and
outwitted. At Nottingham loyal men began to flock to the King's standard.
The Earl of Oxford and Duke of Exeter had advanced against him from the
Eastern counties, but the rumoured increase of his forces made them halt at
Newark. The King pressed onwards to Leicester, and marching thence to
Coventry, offered battle to the Earl of Warwick, who was behind the walls
with 7,000 men. Warwick declined. He was taken completely by surprise.
This was on March 29, only a fortnight after Edward had landed. Without
losing a moment the royal army marched on to Warwick, and on the
approach of Clarence from London, his brothers encamped in a field three
miles on the road to Banbury.

The negotiations between King Edward and Clarence were conducted
throughout by their younger brother Richard, and to him is due the credit of
the reconciliation which took place. He thus restored one brother to his
throne, and reclaimed the other from dishonour. The defection of Clarence
left no enemy between the King and his capital. Edward reached Daventry
on the night of April 6, attending divine service there on Palm Sunday. On
the 9th he was at Northampton, and on the 11th he entered London, where he
was joyfully received by the citizens.

Warwick was outwitted like his brother. There was nothing left for him
but to follow the King, who could give him battle or not as he chose. So the
baffled Earl concentrated his army, calling up Montagu from Pomfret, Vere
and Exeter from Newark, and Somerset from the west. Having united his
forces he marched towards London, reaching St. Albans on the 12th, and
encamping on Gladmore Heath to the north of Barnet, and about ten miles
from London, on the afternoon of April 13.

The King only had one full day in London, in
Battle of Barnet which to organise his little army, now increased to
9,000 men, and to rest the faithful few who had
marched with him from Ravenspur. He entered
London on the 11th, and in the forenoon of the 13th he marched out to
encounter his enemies. Advancing to Barnet his scouts drove out the scouts

of Warwick and chased them for half a mile. The King then marched through
the town, and reached Gladmore Heath when it was dusk. He encamped
much nearer the enemy than he intended, and by reason of the darkness his
line was not formed directly in front of the opposing force. The King's right
extended beyond Warwick's left, while his left was similarly overlapped by
Warwick's right. In one respect this was fortunate, for Warwick's artillery
was in his right wing, and he kept up a fire all through the night[11] without
doing any damage to his adversaries, because their left wing was not posted
in front of the rebel right wing; but somewhat to the eastward of it.

Warwick had drawn up his army with his brother Montagu and John Vere,
son of the attainted Earl of Oxford, in charge of the right wing consisting
mainly of cavalry; the Duke of Somerset in the centre with archers and bill-
men; and Warwick himself, with the Duke of Exeter, in command of the left
wing. The opposing force of the King was inferior in numbers to that of the
rebels. Edward, accompanied by Clarence and Henry VI., commanded the
centre in person. On the left was Lord Hastings, while young Richard Duke
of Gloucester, who was only eighteen years of age, had charge of the right
wing. A strong body of infantry was kept in reserve. The King ordered strict
silence to be observed throughout the night.

When the morning of Easter Sunday, April 14, at length dawned there
was a dense fog, so that the two armies could barely distinguish each other.
At half-past four the King advanced his standards, and sounded his trumpets
for battle. There were flights of arrows, and then the opposing forces closed
and encountered each other with hand strokes, in the thick mist. For a long
time it was impossible for the leaders to know what was taking place in
different parts of the field. Oxford found little to oppose him. He charged the
followers of Lord Hastings and easily routed them, continuing the chase
beyond Barnet. Then he returned to reinforce the main body; but here a fatal
mistake occurred. The cognizance of King Edward was the sun in splendour,
adopted after seeing the parhelion at Mortimer's Cross. The cognizance of
the Veres was a star with rays.[12] When the soldiers of Warwick's centre,
under Somerset, saw a fresh body of men approaching under the banner of
the star, they mistook it for the King's cognizance and thought they were
attacked in flank. A cry of treason ran through their ranks. Up to this time
they had stubbornly resisted the onslaughts of King Edward and his men, but

now they broke and fled. Somerset and Vere rode away with their men, and
made good their escape.

Meanwhile the Duke of Gloucester had led his troops to a furious attack
on the enemy's left wing which was commanded by Warwick in person. The
Duke himself plunged into the thickest of the fight. His two esquires, John
Milwater[13] and Thomas Parr, were slain by his side. At the moment when
the fate of the battle was still uncertain, and when the King heard that his
young brother was hard pressed, the reserves were brought into action, just
as Somerset's division began to waver. Victory then ceased to be doubtful,
and soon there was complete rout all along the rebel line. The Earl of
Warwick and his brother Montagu fell either in the battle or in attempting to
escape. The accounts vary. Though enemies and traitors to the royal
brothers, they were cousins, and had once been devoted friends. The King
sincerely mourned the death of Montagu, and the depth of Richard's sorrow
is proved by his subsequent intercession for Montagu's heirs. The bodies,
after being laid for two days in St. Paul's Cathedral, were honourably
interred in the burial place of their mother's family at Bisham. The losses on
the King's side included Lord Saye, who had shared Edward's exile,
Humphrey Bourchier Lord Cromwell,[14] another Sir Humphrey Bourchier,
[15] son of Lord Berners, and the son and heir of Lord Mountjoy. The losses,
on both sides, amounted to about 1,500 men.[16] King Edward and the Duke
of Gloucester returned to London the same day, while their army rested for
the night on the battlefield.

[1] Rot. Parl. vol. vi. p. 227. Halsted, i. 432.

[2] Sandford, p. 391.

[3] The tombs were desecrated in the time of Edward VI., when the college was
granted to John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. Queen Elizabeth gave orders
that they should be restored. The bones of Richard Duke of York, of the Duchess
Cicely, and of Edmund Earl of Rutland, lapped in lead, were removed into the
parish church. For the choir, where they rested under the beautiful shrine, had
been destroyed. Mean monuments of plaster were then erected over them, and
over the remains of Edward Duke of York, on either side of the altar. They are
specimens of the taste of the Elizabethan age, fluted columns supporting a frieze
and cornice, ornamented with the falcon and fetter-lock. In the inscriptions they
have forgotten the name of young Edmund Earl of Rutland.

[4] Portrait at Windsor Castle. Dr. Parr, in a letter to Roscoe, speaking of the head
of Lorenzo (the Magnificent) prefixed to Roscoe's biography, says: 'I am very
much mistaken if, by invigorating a few traits, it would not make an excellent
head of Richard III.'—Life of Roscoe, i. 178.

[5] Buck, p. 83.

[6] Paston Letters, ii. 357, 389.

[7] Comines.

[8] The ships of the towns belonging to the Hanseatic League, in the Baltic, and
on the Elbe, were known in England by the name of Easterlings.

[9] Ravenspur appears, from the description of the writer in Fleetwood, to have
been inside Spurn Head. He says: 'He landed within Humber on Holderness side,
at a place called Ravenspoure.'

[10] The Tudor chroniclers, as is their wont, grossly exaggerate and misrepresent
this incident: introducing imaginary details, including an oath before an altar,
vows of allegiance to Henry VI., and other romances. These are the offspring of
their zeal to please their Tudor paymasters, by traducing the House of York.

[11] Warkworth says that: 'each of them loosed guns at other all night.' Balls have
been dug up weighing 1-½ lbs.

[12] The second Alberic de Vere, father of the first Earl of Oxford, was a crusader.
In 1098 he was in a battle near Antioch when the infidels were defeated. During
the chase, a silver star of five points was seen to descend from heaven and light
on Alberic's shield, there shining excessively. It had ever since been borne in the
first quarter of the Vere arms. This is the old tradition. Modern heralds suspect
that the mullet was merely a mark of cadency adopted by the second brother of
the second Earl, who retained it when he became third Earl.

[13] Mentioned in the letter of Edward and Edmund to their father.

[14] Ralph Cromwell, fourth Baron Cromwell, who was Lord Treasurer for Henry
VI., and was the builder of Tattershall Castle, died childless in 1455. His sister
Maud married Sir Richard Stanhope and had a daughter Maud, whose husband
Sir Humphrey Bourchier, third son of Henry Bourchier Earl of Essex, by the
Princess Isabel Plantagenet (aunt of Edward IV.), took the title of Lord Cromwell
jure uxoris. This Lord Cromwell seems to have been a student of law as well as a
soldier. There is a manuscript copy of the statutes of Edward III. in the Hunterian
Library of Glasgow University which once belonged to him. At the beginning
there is the following entry: 'Eximii et preclari militis liber, Johannis Markham
capitalis just, de B. Regis, Liber Humfredi Bourchier dmus Cromwell ex dono
supradicti'; and at the end: 'This boke is mine Humphrey Bourchier Lord
Cromwell by the gift of the right noble and famous judge Sir John Markham Chief
Justice of the King's Bench.'

[15] Sir John Bourchier, fourth son of William Bourchier Earl of Eu, by Anne,
daughter of Thomas Duke of Gloucester, married the heiress of Sir Richard

Berners, and was summoned to Parliament as Lord Berners in 1455 to 1472. The
second Humphrey Bourchier who was slain at Barnet was his son. Fabyan and
Habington call him 'Lord Barnes.'

[16] Fabyan gives the number at 1,500. Habington says 4,600. Hall is unreliable
as usual. He says 10,000 on both sides. Although some writers say that the King's
army was superior in numbers, it is probable that, while Edward only had 9,000
men, the forces of Warwick were very much more numerous.

CHAPTER V

MARGARET OF ANJOU AND HER SON EDWARD

It is necessary to look back a few years in order to consider the lives of
the mother and son who now, for a time, come prominently into connection
with the life story of Richard Duke of Gloucester.

Margaret, second daughter of René of Anjou and Isabelle of Lorraine,
was born at Pont-à-Mousson on March 23, 1429, and baptized at Toul. As a
child she went with her mother to Capua and Naples. Provence was also one
of her homes, but she returned to Lorraine in her fifteenth year. She was only
sixteen when the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk came to Nancy to demand
her hand for Henry VI. of England, and in November 1444 she was married
by proxy amidst great rejoicings; for the event secured a lasting peace with
France. There was a great tournament in the Place de Carrière at Nancy to
celebrate the event, at which Charles VII. and many of the chief nobles of
France were present. Charles tilted with King René, bearing on his shield the
serpent of the fairy Melusina. The daisy was young Margaret's cognizance,
and Pierre de Brezé, Lord of Varenne, and Seneschal of Normandy,
maintained the pre-eminence of the 'daisye flower' against all comers in the
Place de Carrière.[1] This was no passing sentiment. Two at least in that
brilliant throng remained true to the fair princess to the bitter end, Pierre de
Brezé and the Duchess of Suffolk.

Margaret was not only very beautiful, she was endowed with rare gifts of
intellect, which had been cultivated by travel in Italy and Provence, and

through communion with her accomplished father. She set out for England
attended by the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk and a train of nobles. On her
way she supped with the Duke of York at Mantes, and reached Honfleur on
April 3, 1445. Thence she sailed across to Portsmouth, where she slept at the
Maison Dieu. She was then taken in a row-boat to Southampton, but her
marriage was delayed for some time by an illness. Henry VI., who was in his
twenty-fourth year,[2] had been waiting for his bride at Southwick. The
marriage took place at Titchfield Abbey on May 30.

Never was a young girl placed in a more wretched position. Married to a
poor feeble creature who could be neither companion nor protector,
surrounded by self-seeking intriguers, living in a foreign country with few to
sympathise with or care for her; the years that followed her marriage could
not fail to embitter the brave heart that no misfortune had power to crush.
For years she lived on, the memories of the bright and happy court of her
father gradually fading, while the cruel facts of her miserable position
hardened round her.

It was in the eighth year after her marriage that Margaret became a
mother. Her whole soul opened to the loving influence. All her pent-up
womanly feelings found a vent. She at last had something to live for. Her
brilliant intellect, her fortitude and devotion, her great powers of endurance,
all she had, her whole being, became centred in this child—the one thing she
had to love. For him she would face dangers, dare more than most men in
perils and hardships, and, if need be, would become as a tigress at bay in
defence of her young.

The prince was born at Westminster on October 13, 1453, being just one
year younger than Richard. It was at a time when Henry VI. was in one of
his fits of complete mental derangement which came upon him periodically,
as they did upon his grandfather Charles VI. of France, from whom no doubt
he inherited them. The Duke of York was administering the realm. The child
was proclaimed Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. His mother was just
twenty-four, and Henry was in his thirty-third year. The Queen had lost her
mother, to whom she was fondly attached, on the previous February 28. In
hopes that the name would endear her boy to the people, Margaret gave him
that of Edward. He was baptized by Cardinal Kemp, Archbishop of
Canterbury, assisted by Waynflete of Winchester, the Duke of Somerset and

Duchess of Buckingham[3] being sponsors. He was also created a Knight of
the Garter.

From his very cradle the child was in the midst of war and turmoil. The
misgovernment of the Beauforts had strengthened the legitimate claim of the
Duke of York, which would never have had a chance against the
parliamentary title of an able and popular king. But the Yorkists now had to
reckon with the gifted and intrepid Queen, whose whole soul, and whose
every gift of mind and body, were concentrated with fierce devotion on the
defence of her child's birthright. Nothing but death could make her desist
from efforts on his behalf.

Young Edward was only in his second year when the first battle of St.
Albans was fought, on May 22, 1455. His mother had taken him to
Greenwich, where she received the news of the death of Somerset and her
other supporters, and of the wound received by Henry. During the following
four years there were hollow reconciliations, but a death struggle was
inevitable; and in June 1459 the court left London for Warwick, virtually to
take the field. The child Edward was only five years old. He was destined
never to see London again.

Margaret strove to make the child popular with the people, and to excite a
feeling of loyalty for him. He was named Edward to remind them of the king
who added to the glory of England at Cressy and Poitiers. She adopted the
badge of Edward III. as that of the Prince, and the pretty little boy, with long
golden hair, distributed silver swans among the people wherever he went.
The Queen could not bear him out of her sight, yet her dauntless eagerness
would not allow her to be absent from scenes of strife, when her child's
future depended on the result. Mother and child looked down on the battle of
Blore Heath from the tower of Muccleston Church, and when Lord Audley
was routed they fled to Eccleshall Castle. Then there were a few months of
dawning hope, which was crushed at Northampton. Again Margaret watched
the fortunes of the day with her child. She heard of the treachery of Grey,
she saw the gallant young Edward of York leading his men over the trenches,
and that the day was lost. The King fell into the hands of her enemies.

On the evening of that July 9, 1460, she rode away with her beloved
child, a homeless fugitive. Between Eccleshall and Chester she was made

prisoner by a party led by one John Cleger, a servant of Lord Stanley. Every
instinct was on the alert when danger approached her child. She watched an
opportunity while her captors were rifling the baggage, and escaped with
little Edward in her arms. The adventures through which they passed are not
recorded, but she was eventually joined by the Duke of Somerset, who
conducted her to a safe refuge at Harlech Castle in Wales.

The Duke of York, with Henry in his power, induced the Parliament to
alter the succession, and the claims of Henry's son were ignored. Henry VI.
wrote a letter to his wife, ordering her to accept the new settlement, and to
join him in London with her child. This must have been one of the bitterest
moments of her unhappy life. But no reverse could daunt this romantic
heroine. She went by sea from Harlech to Scotland, and thence called upon
all her supporters in the north to rally round the standard of King Henry.
Margaret's appeal met with a prompt answer, and on the last day of the year
1460 the Duke of York lost his life at Wakefield, overwhelmed by superior
numbers. The road was thus open to London, and Margaret made a vigorous
effort to recover the birthright of her child. On February 17, 1461, she won
the second battle of St. Albans and recovered the person of her husband; but
she failed to induce the citizens of London to open their gates to her, and
was obliged to retreat northwards. The Queen and her child appear to have
been in the thick of the fight; and this was the third battle at which Edward
had been present before he had reached his eighth year. The royal party
retreated to York, while preparations were made for the final and decisive
struggle between the two factions. On March 4, 1461, the young Earl of
March was proclaimed King, and on the 29th he won the crowning victory
of Towton.

Queen Margaret, with her husband and child, had remained at York, and
there she received the news of the destruction of her hopes. There was
nothing left for her but instant and rapid flight. The fugitives from Towton
told her to mount at once, and the unhappy family, with a few faithful
friends, galloped out of Bootham Bar, and plunged into the forest of Galtres.
The Dukes of Somerset and Exeter and Lord Roos attended them. They
escaped to Berwick and thence to Edinburgh, where Henry found a suitable
abode with the Grey Friars. Margaret passed the following winter in
Scotland, but in the spring, seeing no present hope from her English
adherents, who appeared to be crushed, she resolved to seek help from

abroad. Taking the little prince with her, she sailed from Kirkcudbright in
April 1462, and landed in Brittany, whence she proceeded to the court of her
cousin Louis XI., who was then at Chinon. It was resolved that some
assistance should be given to the undaunted heroine in men and money. Her
old champion Pierre de Brezé now flew to the succour of the forlorn
Margaret in her distress. He organized an expedition, and in October 1462 he
sailed to the coast of Northumberland with the Queen and her son. They
landed at Tynemouth, but the foreign levies were repulsed and fled to their
ships, abandoning de Brezé and the Queen. The fugitives were afterwards
cut to pieces by troops under Sir Robert Ogle when they landed at Holy
Island. De Brezé, with Margaret and her child, escaped from Tynemouth in a
fishing boat and, after a perilous voyage, they landed safely at Berwick,
which was then a Scottish port.

In Scotland there was but a cold welcome for Queen Margaret. It was
necessary to make her way to Bamborough, which still held out for her, and
there, abandoning present hope, the Queen and her child embarked to
commence a life of exile in April 1463. They were accompanied by a band
of faithful friends who would not desert them in their extremity. Chief
among them was the Lord Chief Justice, Sir John Fortescue.

The Duke of Somerset, now a double-dyed traitor, with Sir Hugh Percy
and others then rose in rebellion, and captured the castles of Alnwick and
Bamborough. The Marquis Montagu, followed by Edward IV. in person,
advanced rapidly from the south to put down the new insurrection. On April
25, 1464, the insurgents were defeated at Hedgley Moor, and soon
afterwards the rest of Somerset's forces entrenched themselves near
Hexham. Poor Henry was brought from Edinburgh, where he was quite
contented with his Grey Friars, to the camp. The entrenchments were thrown
up on Lyvel's plain, near Dowelwater, and Somerset awaited the attack. On
May 8, 1464, Montagu came in sight, assaulted the position, and, after a
desperate resistance, carried it with great slaughter. The Duke of Somerset,
Lords Roos and Hungerford were taken and beheaded, Henry galloped off
on a swift horse in the direction of the Scottish Border. He concealed himself
in the west of Yorkshire for a year, but was captured at Bolton Hall in June
1465 and taken to the Tower.[4]

Meanwhile, Queen Margaret encountered a furious gale of wind which
lasted for twelve hours, but her vessel at length reached the Flemish port of
Sluys. Thence she proceeded by Lille and Hesdin to the Court of the Duke of
Burgundy at St. Pol. Here the exiles were hospitably received and supplied
with money, and, after some stay, they went on to the castle of Koeur-la-
Petite near St. Mihiel, on the Meuse. King René had assigned this castle as
the residence of his daughter and grandson, with their followers.

No boy who had only reached his eleventh year ever went through such
vicissitudes as Edward of Lancaster. He had been at four pitched battles, had
ridden over hundreds of miles, had been seized by robbers, had wandered in
trackless forests, had passed many nights on the bare ground, and in open
boats. He had made hairbreadth escapes, and had suffered privations and
hardships. Few children could have survived such a life. He must have had a
robust frame combined with the high courage of his race. Through all, and
protecting him at every step, he had his heroic mother as his companion;
surrounding and pervading his life with her devoted love. Such experiences
must have left a deep impression on the boy's character. It was a wild and
turbulent opening for the young life, but now at last there was to be a brief
interval of rest. For a few years he was to live more peaceably, receiving
instruction and enjoying some pleasures, before destiny hurried him to a
violent death.

St. Mihiel is a small town on the right bank of the Meuse, in the diocese
of Verdun and Duchy of Bar. Near it there are enormous rocks overhanging
the river, called Les Falaises de St. Mihiel. In the fifteenth century there was
cultivation along the river banks, while extensive forests covered the
Argonne mountains further back. Nearly opposite St. Mihiel, on the left bank
of the river, was the old castle of Koeur-la-Petite, which René gave to his
daughter Margaret[5]; and he contributed to her support as far as his narrow
means would allow. Here she dwelt for the five succeeding years, watching
the growth and education of her boy, and enjoying more happiness than she
had known since her ill-fated marriage. She was within a few miles of Pont-
à-Mousson, the place of her birth, and often saw her beloved father, and her
sister Iolanthe.

Young Edward was devoted to field sports and martial exercises. His
companions were the sons of knights and esquires who had remained faithful

to his mother; and he loved to gallop with them over the valley, and to
exercise with sword and lance. So much of his time was passed in these
outdoor exercises that, as his years increased, the graver advisers of his
mother began to think that he should give rather more of his attention to the
acquisition of learning.

Among the exiles was the most learned and accomplished lawyer who sat
on the English bench during the fifteenth century, and the young prince
enjoyed the advantage of his companionship and instruction. John Fortescue
of Ebrington was born in 1394, was educated at Exeter College, and became
Lord Chief Justice in 1442. Considering the parliamentary title of the
Lancastrian King not only good in itself, but even better than a merely
hereditary title, he became a steady adherent of Margaret of Anjou. He wrote
a treatise supporting the claim of the Lancastrians on principles of
constitutional law; while his presence in their camp gave judicial
countenance to the appeal to arms. During his exile he mainly resided at St.
Mihiel, in attendance on the little court of Koeur-la-Petite, and superintended
the education of the prince. He was anxious to impart a knowledge of
England and of English constitutional law to a prince who might some day
have to rule over freedom-loving Englishmen, but who left his country when
he was too young to recollect much about it. Fortescue has related the
occasion of these studies being commenced, and the progress that was made.

'The Prince,' says the aged Chief Justice, 'as he grew up, applied himself
wholly to martial exercises. He was often mounted on fiery and wild horses
which he did not fear to urge on with the spur. Sometimes with his lance,
sometimes with his sword, he made it his diversion to assault the young
gentlemen, his attendants, according to the rules of military discipline.' In
this Sir John Fortescue encouraged him, but he also urged him to study law,
quoting Deuteronomy xvii. 18, 19. The boy replied that, although he ought
to read the Divine law, it did not follow that he should study human laws. He
said this thoughtfully, and looking very intently at the old judge. Fortescue
answered that human laws were also sacred, that they were no other than
rules whereby the perfect notion of justice could be determined, and that this
justice must be the subject of the royal care. Quoting Wisdom i. 1, he said,
'Be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Love righteousness, ye judges of the
earth. To love justice,' he concluded, 'you must acquire a competent
knowledge of the laws.' Prince Edward was convinced by the discourse of

his venerable tutor. He said, 'You have overcome me, good Chancellor, with
your agreeable discourse, and have kindled within my breast a thirst for a
knowledge of the law.' The boy candidly confessed that he did not wish to
pass all his younger years in such studies. Then Sir John Fortescue explained
to him the amount of legal knowledge that was necessary for a prince. In one
year he could acquire sufficient acquaintance with the laws of England, and
at the same time he could continue to inure himself to those martial exercises
to which his natural inclination prompted him so much. 'Still make your
diversion as it best please you, at your leisure,' said the tutor.

After this conversation, the aged judge of seventy-five and the young
prince of fifteen devoted some hours of each day to a study of the English
Constitution. These lectures, in the form of dialogues, were afterwards
embodied by Fortescue in a treatise entitled 'De Laudibus legum Angliæ,'
which was first printed in 1537. Edward began by asking his instructor to
satisfy him that the laws of England were better adapted for the government
of that kingdom than the civil law of the Holy Roman Empire. Fortescue
proceeded to establish this point, specially dwelling on the fact that the
English statutes were not made by the will of the Kings, but were enacted by
the concurrent consent of the whole people, by their representatives in
Parliament. He then explained the territorial division of England into
counties, the duties of sheriffs, the method of empannelling juries, the
procedure in civil and criminal causes. The boy approved highly of the
system of trial by jury, the jurors being men chosen from among neighbours
who knew the country and people. 'I know of myself,' he remarked, 'more
certainly what is doing at this time in the Barrois where I reside, than what is
doing in England.'

On another day the Chief Justice illustrated the good results of the
English Constitution by comparing the condition of England with that of
France ruled by a despotism. 'In the land of England,' he said, 'there are no
wolves nor bears. The grazing lands are enclosed with hedgerows and
ditches and planted with trees which fence the herds and flocks from bleak
winds and sultry heat. There are many franklins and yeomen, of estates
sufficient to make substantial juries, not a few spending 100l. a year and
more. Other countries are not in such a happy situation, and not so well
stored with inhabitants.' The prince then remarked that he could understand
how the wealth and populousness of England had been caused by the

superior excellence of her laws. But a doubt about the number of jurors had
occurred to his youthful mind. He said, 'Although this method of sifting out
the truth highly pleases me, yet there rests this doubt with me. Our blessed
Saviour says: "It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true"
(John viii. 17), and again in Matthew xviii. 16.' Fortescue answered that our
jury law did not contradict this, for if the testimony of two be true, a fortiori
that of twelve ought to be presumed to be so. 'The more always contains in it
that which is less.' Besides in England some cases may be proved before two
only, such as facts occurring on the high seas, and proceedings before the
Lord Constable and Earl Marshal.

On another occasion, having previously shown that the prosperity of
England was due to laws agreed to by the people, Fortescue illustrated the
evils of despotic power by the condition of France. 'You will remember,' he
said, 'that you saw in France how the villages are so much oppressed by the
King's soldiers that you could scarcely be accommodated in your travels.
The troops pay for nothing, and treat the people barbarously if they are not
satisfied. Thus the poor people are exposed to great calamities. The King of
France will allow no one to use salt, but what is bought of himself at his own
arbitrary price. All growers of vines must give a fourth to the King. All the
towns pay the King great yearly sums for his men-at-arms; so that the
peasants live in great hardships and misery. They wear no woollen. Their
clothing consists of little short jerkins of sackcloth, no trowse but from the
knees upwards, and legs exposed and naked. The women all go barefoot.
The people eat not meat, except the fat of bacon in their soup. Nor are the
gentry much better off. If an accusation is brought against them, they are
examined in private, and perhaps never more heard of.

'In England it is very different. No one can abide in another man's house
without his leave, or take his goods, except the King by his purveyors at a
reasonable price. The King cannot put on taxes, nor alter the laws, nor make
new ones. The English never drink water except for penance. They eat all
sorts of flesh and fish. They are clothed throughout in good woollens; and
are provided with all sorts of household goods. An Englishman cannot be
sued except before the ordinary judge.' Having drawn this contrast between
the French and English, the old judge continued: 'These advantages are due
to the political mixed government which prevails in England. Those Kings
who have wished to change it preferred ambition, luxury, and impotent

passion to the good of the State. Remember that the king is given for the
sake of the kingdom, not the kingdom for the sake of the king.'

Edward, although he frequently intervened with pertinent questions,
showing that he was giving close attention to the subject, fully concurred in
the arguments of his tutor, and must have derived great benefit from this
course of studies. He was impressed with the duties of an English king, with
the limited character of his power, and with the importance of a
parliamentary title. Fortescue also began to occupy the young Prince in the
active transaction of affairs of State. Edward himself wrote a despatch to Sir
Thomas Butler, Earl of Ormonde, who was in Portugal representing the
cause of the House of Lancaster to King Alfonso V.,[6] and he was
acquainted with the proceedings of Sir John Fortescue when he made
journeys to the court of Louis XI.

The residence at Koeur-la-Petite lasted for five years, 1465-69. The
peaceful home was broken up through the treachery of the turbulent and self-
seeking Earl of Warwick. Exasperated with Edward IV., owing to his
marriage and connexion with the Woodville faction, Warwick had resolved
to abandon the cause with which he was connected by ties of relationship
and by life-long service. He had married his daughter Isabel to the Duke of
Clarence without the King's consent, and had alienated that vacillating
prince from his brother. He came to France with the Countess, his two
daughters Isabel and Anne, and Clarence: and proposed to King Louis to
espouse the cause of his cousin Margaret, and to restore Henry to the throne.
The fear of an alliance between Edward IV. and the Duke of Burgundy
caused Louis to entertain Warwick's scheme. But it was most distasteful to
Margaret. Much as she longed for the restoration to her child of his
birthright, she found it difficult to accept such aid. Warwick had not only
been the most inveterate enemy of her family, he had also made himself
personally odious to Margaret. He was now a double-dyed traitor. His
motives were transparently selfish, and she believed neither in his new-born
loyalty nor in his ability to help her. But the persuasions of Louis XI. and of
her own relations at length induced her to come to the French court. The
Queen and her son, attended by Sir John Fortescue and their other faithful
adherents, left the happy home in the lovely valley of the Meuse in
December 1469.

Margaret arrived at Tours, where the French court then was, accompanied
by Prince Edward, King René, her brother John of Calabria, her sister
Iolanthe, and her brother-in-law Ferry de Vaudemont. Warwick arrived soon
afterwards, and with much reluctance Margaret consented to an interview.
Negotiations were continued for several months; and on July 15 the court
moved to Angers, where the Countess of Warwick and her daughter Anne
were in attendance.

Warwick asked that Prince Edward should marry his daughter Anne, as
the reward of his assistance. At first the Queen positively refused, but she at
last gave a conditional and very unwilling assent, moved by the
importunities of Louis XI. and her relations. The marriage was not to take
place until after Henry VI. was restored to the throne and, if Warwick failed,
the agreement was at an end. 'The said marriage shall not be perfyted until
the Earl of Warwick has recovered the realm of England for King Henry.'[7]
They were never married. They were, indeed, too young, Edward being
seventeen, and Anne barely fourteen.[8] Knowing the dislike of his mother
to such a union, and strongly prejudiced against it himself, it is not likely
that Edward ever took more notice of Warwick's child than ordinary courtesy
required, if indeed he ever saw her.

Queen Margaret made preparations for a voyage to England, where her
supporters were expected to rise in the western counties and Wales. Warwick
had preceded her by several months. Margaret was in her forty-second year,
and she had lost some of her buoyancy and vigorous hopefulness with her
youth. Still as determined as ever to assert the rights of her son, she trembled
for his safety. She got ready to embark with feelings of deep anxiety and
foreboding. Edward reached his seventeenth birthday in October 1470, and
in November Queen Margaret and the Prince entered Paris, and were
honoured with a grand official reception. Edward was now a handsome lad
of seventeen, with a robust frame well seasoned by active outdoor life. He
was tall for his age, with the features of his mother, and long golden hair. He
was a good horseman and a practised man-at-arms. Well instructed in all the
literary culture of the time, and doubtless inheriting some of his
grandfather's love of poetry and romance, young Edward had also carefully
studied the constitution and laws of England. He was fully convinced of the
justice of his cause by the reasoning of one of the ablest lawyers of the time,
and the hereditary bravery of his race now filled him with martial ardour.

But he was still very young, and all these qualities of head and heart were as
yet only budding towards maturity.

[1] Barante.

[2] Born in 1421.

[3] A Nevill. Sister of the Duchess of York.

[4] See Archæologia, 47 (ii), p. 265. Margaret was not at the battle of Hexham,
and the robber story is a fabrication.

[5] Villeneuve, Vie de Roi René.

[6] Alfonso V. was a grandson of Queen Philippa, sister of Henry IV. of England,
therefore a second cousin of Henry VI.

[7] Ellis, Original Letters, Second Series, i. 132.

[8] Born June 11, 1456.

CHAPTER VI

THE BATTLE OF TEWKESBURY

There was long delay in the arrival of Queen Margaret in England with
reinforcements. She was prevented from sailing by contrary winds at
Harfleur. Three times the ships put to sea, and were forced to return. The
Countess of Warwick, with her daughter Anne, arrived first at Portsmouth
and, hearing of the death of her husband at Barnet soon afterwards, she took
sanctuary in Beaulieu Abbey. Queen Margaret with her son Edward, Sir John
Langstrother, Prior of St. John, Sir John Fortescue, and many exiled knights
landed at Weymouth on April 14, the very day of the battle of Barnet.

Weymouth was then a small seaport with no suitable accommodation for
so large a concourse. The Queen, therefore, passing through Dorchester, at
once advanced fifteen miles northward from the sea coast, to the Abbey of

Cerne. Dr. Morton, who accompanied her, had once been a monk at Cerne;
and the Abbot was his old friend. This circumstance no doubt led to the
decision of Queen Margaret to seek the hospitality of Abbot Roger
Bemynster, and here she received tidings of the battle of Barnet, a disaster
which seemed fatal to her cause. At first she was overwhelmed, and wished
her boy to return to France. But in a few days she was joined by Edmund
Beaufort, the last Duke of Somerset, and his brother John. Somerset had
commanded the archers at Barnet, but had escaped and found his way to the
Queen. Jasper Tudor,[1] the Earl of Devonshire, and Lord Wenlock followed
closely on the heels of Somerset. They entreated her to persevere, assuring
her that the west of England was ready to rise in her support, and that levies
had actually been called out, with Exeter as the rendezvous. With some
reluctance she consented, and her gallant son entered upon the last three
weeks of his young life. Tudor was despatched to raise forces in Wales.
Margaret, with the rest of her adherents, left Cerne Abbey after a stay of
about ten days, marched to Exeter and thence, by Taunton, Glastonbury and
Wells, to Bristol. Fresh levies joined and increased her forces as she
advanced.

On April 16 King Edward heard that Queen Margaret had landed. He had
returned to London two days before, after his victory at Barnet. On the 19th
he went to Windsor and waited to collect men, celebrating the feast of St.
George there on the 23rd. He saw at once that the enemy had only two
courses: either to march on London and give him battle, or to go northwards
and unite with Tudor's levies in Wales. His policy was to engage his
adversaries as soon as possible, before they could be reinforced. He was not
likely to receive more support until he had gained a decisive victory, and his
position was established. Queen Margaret's generals tried to deceive him by
sending detachments in several directions; but his final conclusion was that
they intended to take a northerly direction, by crossing the Severn and
marching into Wales. This it was his intention to prevent.

The King left Windsor on April 24, accompanied by his brothers Clarence
and Gloucester, by Lords Hastings and Dorset, and by his old tutor Richard
Croft. He had some artillery, which caused him to proceed by easy marches.
A few reinforcements had arrived. Among them were forty soldiers paid and
clothed by the city of Norwich. On the 27th Edward was at Abingdon, and
on the 29th at Cirencester. He kept a somewhat northerly line, so as to fall on

the enemy's flank if a rush was made at London. At Abingdon he heard that
the Queen was at Wells. News came to Cirencester that she would be at Bath
next day, and then advance to attack him. So he moved to meet her as far as
Malmesbury. Then the news arrived that she had gone to Bristol, and had
resolved to give him battle at Chipping Sodbury. Lancastrian parties had
even been sent to take ground on Sodbury Hill. On Thursday, May 2, the
King marched to Chipping Sodbury, but found no enemy. It was a feint. The
Lancastrians had gained a day on him, and were in full march to Gloucester.
It was now a race to the Severn. It was life and death to the Lancastrian army
to cross the river and join Tudor on the Welsh border. It was equally life and
death for King Edward to prevent it. He encamped in a valley between the
hill and Sodbury village on the night of the 2nd, anxiously waiting for
correct intelligence. At three in the next morning he heard that the enemy
was making a forced march on Gloucester. Luckily the castle was held by
Richard, son of Lord Beauchamp of Powyke, for the King. Edward sent a
trusty messenger, urging them to hold out, with the assurance that he was
following rapidly. The messenger arrived in time.

The Lancastrian army had marched all through the night from Bristol,
over the plain between the Cotswold Hills and the Severn. At ten in the
forenoon of May 3, the Queen's forces came before the gates of Gloucester
and summoned the place. Sir Richard Beauchamp manned the walls and
refused to surrender. There was no time to spare. It was thought wiser to
proceed to Tewkesbury without resting. They arrived at Tewkesbury at about
four in the afternoon of the same day. But the troops had marched, during
that day and the night before, a distance of thirty-six miles without rest. The
men were exhausted, and could go no further. Margaret wanted them to pass
over the Severn, but it was represented to her that if they could cross the
river the King could follow, and attack them when they were worn out with
fatigue. The Queen was right. It was resolved, however, that the troops
should obtain some rest, and that a strong position should be taken up and
entrenched, outside the town of Tewkesbury. There was a bridge over the
Avon in those days, but none over the Severn at Tewkesbury.

Close to the first mile-post on the turnpike road, on the west side of
Tewkesbury, there is a range of elevated ground called Holme Hill, where a
castle once stood. The present workhouse is built on part of the site. Close
behind it there is a field called 'the Gastons,'[2] and some ground laid out as

a cemetery. On the east side of the road is Gupshill farm and gardens, and a
field called 'Margaret's camp.' The Lancastrian position included the Gastons
and Gupshill, with the abbey and the houses of the town immediately in the
rear. It is described as 'a place right evil to approach.'[3] Strong
entrenchments were thrown up in the front and both flanks, strengthened by
muddy lanes and ditches.

On the same morning of May 3, at early dawn, King Edward marshalled
his forces at Chipping Sodbury in three battalions, and prepared for a long
march, with scouts in front and on the flanks. His infantry numbered 3,000
men. It was a very hot day and he took a direct line over the Cotswold Hills;
rightly judging that the enemy, having failed before Gloucester, would make
for Tewkesbury. Thither, therefore, he marched direct without a halt. The
men found neither food nor even water, except at one small brook. But the
King allowed no rest. He reached Cheltenham as the enemy got to
Tewkesbury. At Cheltenham he served out the rations that had been brought,
the men having marched 28 miles. Then he resumed the march, and at night
he encamped within two miles of the enemy's position, having marched over
thirty-four miles.

At dawn on Saturday, May 4, 1471, the army of Queen Margaret prepared
to resist the assault of the King's forces. The van was commanded by
Edmund Duke of Somerset, and his brother Sir John Beaufort. Young Prince
Edward was to lead the main battle, assisted by Lord Wenlock and the Prior
of St. John. The rear division was under the Earl of Devonshire. Queen
Margaret parted with her son that morning in deep anxiety, for the first and
alas! the last time. She retired to a small religious house at Gupshill, with the
Countess of Devonshire, the Lady Vaux and other ladies.

King Edward[4] arranged his army in three divisions. Young Richard of
Gloucester[5] commanded the van guard with the artillery. The King himself
led the centre. Hastings and Dorset conducted the rear. The King had
observed a park with much wood to the right of the enemy's position, and he
posted 300 spearmen there, to act as occasion might require. He then
displayed his banners, blew his trumpets, and marched straight on the
entrenchments.

Gloucester found so many hedges and deep dikes in front of him that he
could not break into the enemy's line so as to come hand to hand. He ordered
up the artillery and, also using arrows, opened on Somerset's division.
Galled by the fire, Somerset then led his men down some lanes on the King's
flank, which he had previously reconnoitred, and fell upon the troops of the
Yorkist centre with great fury, driving them backwards. He charged
Gloucester with the same impetuosity, and was in the full tide of success
when, just as the King was rallying his men, the select 300 spearmen from
the wood attacked Somerset's rear and caused a panic. This gave the King
time to reform and resume the fight. Somerset's men now fell back, while the
Duke of Gloucester made a desperate assault on the Lancastrian centre,
behind the entrenchments. There was a short and gallant struggle, in which
young Prince Edward fleshed his maiden sword, and then the Lancastrians
broke in all directions. The rout was complete. The abbey water mills were
in a meadow close to the town, and here many fugitives were drowned.
There was a great slaughter in the 'Bloody Meadow' to the rear of the
Lancastrian position, for it leads to a ford or ferry over the Severn called
Lower Lode. But soon the King gave orders to spare the fugitives.

The brave young Prince, who led the main battle of the Lancastrians, bore
himself valiantly, and played the man before his people in that supreme
moment of his life. Of that we need have no doubt. Borne away in the rout,
and followed closely by the victorious enemy, he was slain between Gastons
and Tewkesbury. The closing scene is dimly shown to us. The horse is
wounded and on its knees. Then the rider receives his death blow from
behind. The helmet had been struck off. The bright golden locks sink down
on the horse's mane,[6] and in another moment horse and rider fall and are
ridden over. Thus ended the life of Sir Edward Plantagenet, K.G., Prince of
Wales and Earl of Chester. His age was seventeen years and six months. He
was a boy of great promise; courageous, intelligent, and affectionate. His
short life must have embraced a large share of happiness. Even during all the
dangers and hardships of his childhood, the loving arm of the devoted
mother must have diverted those terrors which cause misery to unprotected
children. The life at Koeur-la-Petite was a period of unclouded pleasure.
Then came the excitement of the last campaign, and a glorious death on the
battlefield. The body of Prince Edward was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey
church.

The Earl of Devonshire, Lord Wenlock, Sir John Beaufort, Sir William
Vaux, Sir Edmund Hampton, Sir E. Whittingham, Sir William Melding, Sir
John Seymour, Mr. Henry, a captain of Bristol, and Sir William Roos were
among the slain. Beaufort, Hampton, Vaux, Whittingham and Roos had
shared the Queen's exile at Koeur-la-Petite.

The lords and knights who escaped from the battlefield took refuge in the
abbey church, which, however, had no special privilege of sanctuary. They
were tried for treason before the Earl Marshal and the Lord High Constable,
a court which is recognised as legal by Chief Justice Fortescue. Thirteen[7]
were condemned, and were beheaded in the market place of Tewkesbury on
May 6, 1471. It must be remembered that the treason of which most of them
were guilty was double-dyed, that is, they had been forgiven and had again
become traitors.
Duke of Somerset

Prior of St. John Sir W. Newborough
Sir Gervase Clifton Sir Walter Courtenay
Sir Humphrey Audley James Gower
Sir Hugh Carey Lewis Miles
Sir Thomas Tresham Robert Jackson
Henry Tresham John Flory, of France

Gower was the young Prince's sword-bearer. Audley and Courtenay
shared the Queen's exile. These might have been spared. Edward IV. was
generous and forgiving after the first fury of the moment had passed. All
inferior officers and soldiers were pardoned. Sir John Fortescue received
pardon and died at a good old age at his seat at Ebrington in Gloucestershire.
The intriguing Earl of Ormonde was also pardoned, as were many leading
captains of the defeated army, Sir Henry Roos, Sir John Giles, Sir William
Grimsby, Fulford, Parker, Basset, Throgmorton, Walleys and many more. Dr.
Morton and Dr. Makerel, who were with the Queen, were also pardoned.

The King conferred knighthood on forty-three officers; including his old
tutor Richard Croft, Sir John Pilkington, and Sir Thomas Strickland from
Yorkshire; Sir Terry Robsart, Sir Edward Wodehouse, and Sir William
Brandon from Norfolk; Sir John St. Lo, Sir E. Corbet and Lord Cobham.

The names of Nevill, Courtenay, Berkeley, Hastings, Harington, Grey,
Tyrrel, Pierpoint, Parr, Welby, Ratcliffe, Devereux also appear.

One turns with shuddering pity from the anguish beyond all power of
utterance, from the black despair in the religious house at Gupshill where the
Queen awaited the issue of the battle with her ladies.[8] They escaped across
the Avon, and took refuge at Payne's Place in the parish of Bushley. Next
day, continuing their journey towards Worcester, they found shelter in some
religious house near that city. There they were captured by Sir William
Stanley. It was reported that he announced the prince's death with callous
brutality. It mattered little. The blow must have stunned the unhappy mother
and nothing could add to its crushing effect. Her real life ended with that of
her beloved child. Queen Margaret was brought to Edward IV. at Coventry,
by Sir William Stanley, on May 11, and to the Tower of London on the 22nd.

Henry VI. died in the Tower on the 24th, at the comparatively early age
of forty-nine. As Margaret arrived on the 22nd, she probably attended her
husband during the last two days of his life. The Lancastrian leaning of the
family of Lord Rivers, who was then Constable of the Tower, would ensure
facilities being extended to her. Thence Margaret of Anjou was removed to
Windsor, a ransom having been demanded for her. With thoughtful kindness
King Edward finally entrusted the charge of the poor Queen to her old friend
the Dowager Duchess of Suffolk at Ewelme.[9] The Duchess had come to
Nancy for Henry's bride, and had seen the beautiful young princess at the
brilliant tournament. She now received her, after twenty-seven years, a
childless and despairing widow, crushed to the earth by grief unspeakable.
Margaret resided with the Duchess at Ewelme, and afterwards at Wallingford
Castle until the ransom was paid by old King René.

On August 29,1475, the ransom, amounting to fifty thousand crowns,
having been paid, Queen Margaret proceeded to embark at Sandwich,
attended by three ladies and seven gentlemen, and escorted by Sir John
Haute. She landed at Dieppe, and signed a renunciation of all rights derived
from her marriage, at Rouen on January 29, 1476. Thence she went to
Reculée, a league from Angers, where she lived with her old father until his
death in 1480, aged seventy-two. The last sad years were passed at the
château of Dampierre on the Loire, near Saumur, under the care of François
de Vignolle, an old and faithful servant of her family. The brave and loving

soul was at length released. Margaret of Anjou died at the age of fifty-two,
on August 25, 1482, eleven years after the light went out of her life. She was
buried in the cathedral of Angers.

[1] Jasper and Edmund Tudor were created Earls of Pembroke and Richmond by
Henry VI. They were attainted and deprived of their earldoms by Edward's first
Parliament. Subsequently Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was created Earl of
Richmond; and the son of King Edward IV. became Earl of Pembroke.

[2] Leland says: 'intravit campum nomine Gastum,' and 'nomina occisorum in
bello Gastriensis prope Theokesbury.' A place called 'the Vineyard' is mentioned.
But 'vineyards' were merely apple orchards. Where manors were held of the King,
the tenants were obliged to pay yearly a vessel of wine made of apples, or cider.

[3] 'In a close harde at the toune's end, having the toun and abbey at their backs,
and before them defended by lanes and deep ditches and hedges.'—Holinshed.

[4] Then aged twenty-nine. Born April 28, 1442.

[5] Then aged eighteen and a half. Born October 2, 1452. He was just a year older
than Prince Edward.

[6] So much is shown in a picture accompanying the narrative sent to Flanders by
an eyewitness. It is in the public library at Ghent. See also Archæologia, xxi. 11-
23.

[7] In the Pastern Letters there is a list of sixteen, Sir John Delves, Sir William
'Newbery' added, and Audley given twice, Jackson not being given (iii. 9).

[8] Speed, p. 684. See also a paper by the Rev. E. E. Dowdeswell on the
'Movements of Queen Margaret after the battle of Tewkesbury,' in the
Transactions (x. 144) of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archæological Society.

[9] 'As for Queen Margaret, I understand that she is removed from Windsor to
Wallingford nigh to Ewelme, my Lady of Suffolk's place in Oxfordshire.'—
Paston Letters, iii. 83.

Ewelme belonged to the Chaucer family, and Alice, the heiress of Geoffrey
Chaucer, married William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk. In 1424 the Duke and
Duchess of Suffolk built a palace at Ewelme, rebuilt the church, and founded a
hospital and a school there. Queen Margaret was received by the Duchess at
Ewelme, and afterwards at Wallingford Castle.

CHAPTER VII

MARRIED LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES OF RICHARD DUKE OF
GLOUCESTER

While the King was engaged at Tewkesbury, the bastard of his uncle,
Lord Fauconberg, made an attack on London Bridge, and when he was
repulsed, he retreated to Sandwich. This disturbance hastened the return of
Edward IV., who reached the Tower on May 21. To the Duke of Gloucester
was entrusted the duty of following up the bastard, and early next morning
he started for Kent. Arriving by forced marches at Sandwich, the rebel was
taken by surprise and surrendered on the 26th. He was a first cousin of the
King and of the Duke of Gloucester, though illegitimate; son of the general
to whom, next to Edward, the victory of Towton was due. Richard took him
to Middleham, and treated him kindly as a prisoner at large. But he escaped,
was taken at Southampton, tried for his original treason, and beheaded.

Peace was once more restored to the land, and the Duke of Gloucester's
great services were recognised by the country. The King and Parliament
were soon afterwards occupied with Richard's marriage.

The estates of the Earl and Countess of Warwick were forfeited, and the
Duke of Clarence, who had married the elder daughter, Isabella, desired to
obtain the whole for himself. The Countess of Warwick, when she returned
from France with her daughter, Anne, and received the news of her
husband's death, took sanctuary in Beaulieu Abbey on the Southampton
Water. After Tewkesbury, Clarence claimed the wardship of Anne, and tried
to get her into his power.

The Duke of Clarence was grasping and selfish. He had no stability of
character, was vacillating, and easily influenced by bad advisers. It is not
clear how his sister-in-law escaped from his clutches; but his object was to
prevent her from marrying and to seize her share of her parents' property, as
well as that of his wife. It is certain that Anne left her mother at Beaulieu and
placed herself under the protection of her uncle, George Nevill, Archbishop
of York. But the circumstances are unrecorded. There is mention of a
disguise as a cookmaid. The Archbishop placed her in sanctuary at St.

Martin's-le-Grand: where her inclinations and wishes could in no way be
influenced or overridden.

The young Duke of Gloucester sought the hand of his cousin Anne. They
had been playfellows as children, and now the cousins formed an attachment
which endured until death, Richard only surviving his wife for four months.
Anne accepted the proposal of Richard, and his suit was approved by the
King and by the Archbishop, the guardians of the two lovers. But Clarence
made unreasonable difficulties about the settlement. From the 'Paston
Letters' we learn that 'the King entreateth my Lord Clarence for my Lord
Gloucester, and he answereth that he may well have my lady, his sister-in-
law, but they shall part no livelihood.'

At length the marriage settlements were arranged by Parliament.
Middleham was included in Gloucester's share of the Warwick inheritance.
In 1472, Richard and Anne were happily married in Westminster Abbey by
the Archbishop of York. His age was nineteen, that of his wife sixteen.

Their home was at Middleham, in beautiful
Middleham Castle Wensleydale, and Anne's mother, the Countess of
Warwick, was taken from her sanctuary at Beaulieu,
to live with them. Here the Duke and Duchess passed
several years, winning golden opinions from the people of the north, and
acquiring great popularity in Yorkshire.

In 1475, the Duke of Gloucester was called from his home to accompany
the King when he invaded France. Louis XI. offered a large sum of money if
Edward IV. would abandon his ally, the Duke of Burgundy, and make peace.
He also bribed Dr. Morton and Edward's principal courtiers. Under the evil
influence of Morton and the Woodville faction, the King of England, after an
interview with Louis, acceded to the disgraceful bargain. But the Duke of
Gloucester also had an interview with King Louis and was not to be
corrupted. He objected to the arrangement, and would have no part in it. His
conduct was honourable and consistent. He maintained that faith ought to be
kept with England's ally.

Richard Duke of Gloucester lived at Middleham Castle, with his wife and
child, for ten years, from 1472 to 1482, from his twentieth to his thirtieth

year. Here he had passed his early youth, had formed his most enduring
friendships, and had first seen his cousin Anne. The ten years of peaceful
married residence at Middleham was no doubt the happiest period of
Richard's short but eventful life.

SEIZE QUARTIERS OF ANNE NEVILL

The ruins of the grand old pile, with the village and the church at their
feet, still form a conspicuous object on the southern slope of Wensleydale.
Middleham is about a mile and a half above the junction of the Ure and the
Cover. In rear of the castle are the breezy downs, and in front the river Ure
flows through rich pastures, with the town of Leybourne on the opposite
slope. The castle consisted of a lofty Norman keep surrounded by an
enceinte eighty yards long by sixty-five wide. The keep, which was built by
Robert FitzRanulph in 1190, was fifty feet high, with walls nine feet thick,
strengthened at the angles by buttresses rising into rectangular turrets. It was
divided into two large rooms on each floor, the great hall having a lofty
arched window, due to the taste of the Duke of Gloucester. In the north-east
angle there was a curious mural chamber, twelve feet long by nine, opening
on to the hall, and the east face of the keep was one side of the chapel. The
outer walls were thirty feet high with square towers at the angles, and a
gatehouse on the north face. The residential buildings stood against three
sides of the enceinte, and seem to have communicated with the great hall in
the keep by a covered passage.

The nearest neighbours of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester were the
Monks of Jervaux and Coverham, their cousin the Lord Scrope of Bolton,[1]
and the Metcalfes of Nappa Hall.[2]

The manuscript volume No. 433 of the Harleian collection in the British
Museum supplies a few glimpses of the home life at Middleham. We read of
a pack of hounds and of the wages of a jester. There is the election of a king
of rush bearing, and of a king of Middleham, evidently games for the
amusement of the Duke's little son Edward, who was born about 1473.[3]
The child's tutor was Richard Bernall, and the cost is recorded of his primer
and psalter, and of satin to cover them. There are also payments for green
cloth for my lord prince, and for a feather for my lord prince.

Though Middleham was Richard's home, his
Richard's able official residence, as Chief Seneschal of the Duchy of
administration Lancaster in the north parts, was at Pomfret Castle.
He also stayed occasionally at Sheriff Hutton,
Skipton, and Barnard Castle. He was regarded as a
trusted friend by his neighbours, and in September 1481 we find Lady
Latimer showing her confidence in his integrity by appointing him
supervisor of her will. She was a sister of his mother-in-law, the Countess of
Warwick. The Duke of Gloucester bestowed great benefits on the city of
York, where he was much beloved. During his frequent visits he was usually
the guest of the Augustine friars,[4] and in their monastery he conferred with
the authorities touching their local affairs. He was actively engaged in
administrative work, and in giving his time to settle the affairs of his
neighbours from 1472. In that year we find him writing about a robbery of
cattle at Spofforth. In 1482 he was an arbitrator in the dispute between
Robert Plumpton and his heirs-general.[5] He improved and beautified
several Yorkshire churches, building an additional chapel at Sheriff Hutton,
founding colleges at Middleham[6] and Barnard Castle, and a memorial
chapel near the battlefield of Towton. Crosby Place, in Bishopsgate, became
the town residence of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, after the death of
its wealthy founder, Sir John Crosby, in 1475.

Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had been created Great Chamberlain and
Admiral of England by his brother, and he was Lord Warden of the Cinque
Ports. His little son Edward became Earl of Salisbury in 1478.[7] In 1480,

when Richard had attained the age of twenty-eight, he was appointed
Lieutenant-General of the North and Warden of the Marches. By his skill
and energy he subdued part of the western border of Scotland for an extent
of more than thirty miles, bringing portions under obedience to the King of
England, 'to the great rest and ease of the inhabitants of the west marches.'[8]
His administration was so able that it was remembered long after as a very
model of efficiency.[9] In 1482 he received command of an army for the
invasion of Scotland. In the summer of that year he entered Edinburgh,
where he was received by the malcontent nobles rather as a friend than as an
enemy. He reconciled King James III. with his brother, enforced all the
English demands, and captured the town and castle of Berwick after an
obstinate resistance. This was a great achievement, and gave England an
important advantage in case of future hostilities. Richard's services were
cordially recognised by the Parliament which met in January, and no man
stood in higher honour throughout the kingdom.

King Edward IV. died at Westminster on April 9,
Children of Edward 1483, and was buried at Windsor. He had gone
IV. through a marriage ceremony with Elizabeth,
daughter of Sir Richard Woodville of Grafton, and
widow of Sir John Grey of Groby, on May 1, 1464.
Besides the priest and his assistant, the only witnesses were Lady Grey's
mother and two unnamed gentlewomen. Edward IV. had three sons and
seven daughters by Lady Grey, of whom two sons and five daughters
survived him.[10] He also had one son and one daughter by Elizabeth Lucy.
[11] The Duke of Clarence had left a son Edward and a daughter[12] by
Isabella, daughter of the Earl of Warwick.

[1] Lord Scrope was faithful to the end. His sister Agnes was married to Sir
Richard Ratcliffe, one of the most loyal of Richard's friends.

[2] James Metcalfe of Nappa, near Aysgarth, served at the battle of Agincourt. He
had two sons, Miles and Thomas. Immediately after his accession Richard III.
appointed Miles Metcalfe one of the Judges of the County Palatine of Lancaster,
and Thomas Metcalfe Chancellor of the Duchy (York Records, p. 58 n).

[3] According to Rous he was seven and a half in 1483, when he was made Prince
of Wales. But the date in the text is more probable. See Sandford, p. 410.

[4] York Records, p. 125 n.

[5] Plumpton Correspondence.

[6] See the History of the Collegiate Church of Middleham, by the Rev. Wm.
Atthill (Camden Society, 1847). The licence for erecting the church into a college
was granted to the Duke of Gloucester on February 21, 1478, and he issued the
Statutes on July 18, 1478. Miss Halsted, the laborious and conscientious
biographer of Richard III., had a romantic attachment for Middleham, as the
scene of the ill-fated young King's happy married life. She eventually married the
Rector, and was buried in Middleham Church.

[7] Rot. Parl. 17 Ed. iv. p. 2, m. 16.

[8] Rot. Parl. vi. 204.

[9] Gairdner, p. 48, quoting Brewer's Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., vol. i.
nos. 4518-5090, and vol. iv. no. 133.

[10] Elizabeth, born at Westminster on February 11, 1465. (Sandford says 1466,
but Nicolas gives good reason for 1465 being the year.)

Cicely. The date of her birth is not recorded; but she came next to Elizabeth.
Henry Tudor married her to his old uncle, Lord Welles, some time before
December 1487. On his death in 1499, she married one Kyme of Lincolnshire.
She died in about 1503.

Edward was born in sanctuary on November 14, 1470. On July 26, 1471, he was
created Prince of Wales, and on June 20, 1475, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of
Chester. He was also created Earl of March and Pembroke.

Richard was born at Shrewsbury in 1473, and was created Duke of York on May
28, 1474, Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Warren and Nottingham on Feb. 7, 1477.
On January 15, 1478, he was married to Anne, daughter and heiress of John
Mowbray Duke of Norfolk, she being then aged six. She died soon afterwards.

Anne was born in 1475, and in 1495 she married Thomas Howard Earl of Surrey;
but no children survived infancy. She died before 1515.

Katherine, probably born in 1479, and in about 1495 she married William
Courtenay Earl of Devon, and died in 1527.

Bridget, the youngest child, was born at Eltham on November 10, 1480. She
became a nun at Dartford, where she died in 1517.

[11] Edward IV. had two children by Elizabeth Lucy. Arthur, who was created
Viscount Lisle in 1524, and died in 1540; and Elizabeth, married to Lord Lumley.

[12] George Duke of Clarence, by his wife Isabella, daughter of Richard Nevill,
Earl of Warwick, left two children:

Edward, born at Warwick Castle on February 21, 1475, and created Earl of
Warwick by his uncle Edward IV., after his father's execution, in 1478.

Margaret, born at Farley Castle near Bath in 1473, created Countess of Salisbury
in 1514, and married to a Tudor partisan named Richard Pole.

CHAPTER VIII

ACCESSION OF RICHARD III

The Queen and her relations had acquired predominating influence in the
counsels of Edward IV. Her brother Anthony was Earl Rivers, another
brother Lionel was Bishop of Salisbury, her son Thomas Grey had been
created Marquis of Dorset. Her sisters had been married to the Duke of
Buckingham, the Earls of Kent, Arundel, Huntingdon and Lord Strange. Her
brother-in-law, Edward Grey, had been made Viscount Lisle.

This Woodville faction had the design to monopolise all the powers of the
state. The Woodvilles had received bribes from Louis XI., had caused the
death of Clarence, and had shared his inheritance. They now looked to the
minority of King Edward's son as an opportunity for still further gratifying
their ambition. But they had never succeeded in alienating the affections of
the King from his brother Richard.

At the time of the King's death his son Edward was residing at Ludlow in
charge of his uncle Lord Rivers, his half brother Sir Richard Grey, his cousin
Sir Richard Haute, Sir Thomas Vaughan and Dr. Alcock, Bishop of
Worcester. The Marquis of Dorset, another half-brother of young Edward,
was in possession of the Tower. The other chief councillors of the late King,
including Bishops Rotherham and Morton, the Duke of Buckingham, Lords
Hastings, Stanley and Howard, were in London. The Duke of Gloucester
was far away in the marches of Scotland.

By his will King Edward IV. left the care of his
Richard appointed son's person and the government of the kingdom
Protector during the minority to his brother Richard, without
any colleague.[1] Richard Duke of Gloucester was a

prince who had shown valour and generalship in the field, wisdom and
ability in his civil administration. As a councillor he had upheld the honour
of his country. He was beloved by the people of the north, and was
deservedly popular throughout the land. He proceeded to York on hearing of
his brother's death and attended the solemn obsequies in the minster. He then
caused his nephew to be proclaimed, and began the journey to London, with
600 gentlemen of the north in attendance, all in deep mourning. He came to
assume the responsibilities imposed upon him by his brother.

Very different was the conduct of the Woodvilles. They formed a
conspiracy to set aside the late King's wishes, to exclude the Duke of
Gloucester, and to retain by force the authority they had hitherto exercised
through the Queen's influence. Rivers set out from Ludlow with 2,000 men,
and a large supply of arms, on April 24.[2] Dorset seized the arms and
treasure in the Tower, and fitted out a naval force to secure command of the
Channel. Council Orders were issued in the names of Rivers—'Avunculus
Regis,' and of Dorset—'Frater regis uterinus,' while that of the Duke of
Gloucester was excluded. There can be no doubt of the treasonable designs
of the Woodville faction, which are indeed proved by these overt acts; and
which went the length of conspiring against Richard's life.[3]

The Duke of Buckingham hurried from London
Arrest of Rivers with 300 men, to warn Gloucester of his danger, and
found him at Northampton on April 29, where he had
expected to meet his nephew. They ascertained that
Rivers had arrived that very morning with young Edward, and had pushed
on to Stony Stratford, fourteen miles nearer London, to avoid a meeting
between the boy and his uncle. This made his conduct still more suspicious.
Rivers then, with Richard Grey and a portion of his force, returned to
Northampton to give some plausible explanation to the two Dukes, while
young Edward was to be hurried on to London. Gloucester acted with
prompt decision. There was not a moment to lose. A Council was
summoned, consisting of the nobles present, and it was resolved that Rivers
and his fellow-conspirators should be arrested. The combined companies of
Gloucester and Buckingham numbered 900 men. Rivers had a force of
2,000, but he had only brought a portion to Northampton, and his arrest, with
his nephew Richard Grey, was effected without resistance. Gloucester then
advanced rapidly to Stony Stratford, and was just in time. He found young

Edward and his retinue on the point of starting for London. Vaughan and
Haute were arrested; and the four prisoners were sent to Yorkshire to await
their trials. Lord Rivers was taken to Sheriff Hutton, Grey to Middleham,
Vaughan and Haute to Pomfret. Dr. Alcock was not suspected of complicity
in the plot. He was a Yorkshireman and a staunch supporter of the White
Rose. His subsequent conduct in welcoming King Richard at Oxford,
accompanying him in his progress, and giving him the aid of his diplomatic
services, proves that Bishop Alcock recognised the justice of that King's
accession.[4]

The troops of Rivers, now without a leader, submitted to the Duke of
Gloucester, who then resumed his journey, in company with his nephew.
They reached London on May 4. As soon as the Queen Dowager heard that
the plot was discovered, she went into sanctuary at Westminster[5] with her
son Richard and five daughters. Here she was joined by her other son
Dorset.

Young Edward took up his abode at the Bishop's Palace in St. Paul's
Churchyard. Gloucester went to reside with his mother, the widowed
Duchess of York, at Baynard's Castle. This edifice stood at the foot of St.
Andrew's Hill, on the banks of the Thames, a little west of St. Paul's.[6]
After the death of her noble husband at the battle of Wakefield, in 1460, the
Duchess of York took little part in public affairs, although she survived for
upwards of 33 years. A happy married life of 22 years was followed by a
long and sorrowful widowhood. The wayward and lawless conduct of her
eldest son with regard to his matrimonial affairs doubtless caused her
constant anxiety, while the death of her son George by the hand of his
brother added another pang to the widow's grief.

Richard, so far as appears, can have given his mother neither anxiety nor
sorrow. Living happily at Middleham, married to his mother's grand-niece,
and always gaining applause and approval whenever he took part in public
affairs, he must have been the son from whom his mother derived most
comfort. It was natural that, in this crisis of his fortunes, he should have
sought counsel and support under that mother's roof, and we may fairly
conclude that the subsequent proceedings, which led to Richard's assumption
of the crown, had the sanction and approval of the Duchess of York.[7] The
Duke of Gloucester had been recognised as Protector of the Realm before his

arrival in London,[8] and on May 13 he summoned a Parliament to meet on
the 25th of the following month. When the Duchess of Gloucester reached
London on June 5, the Duke left Baynard's Castle, where he had resided with
his mother for upwards of a month, and removed to Crosby Place[9] with his
wife.

Up to this time affairs had gone smoothly. On
Bishop Stillington's June 5 the Protector had given detailed orders for his
revelation nephew's coronation on the 22nd, and had even
caused letters of summons to be issued for the
attendance of forty esquires who were to receive the
knighthood of the Bath on the occasion.[10] But now there came a change.
Dr. Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, apparently on June 8,
revealed to the Council the long-concealed fact that Edward IV. was
contracted to the Lady Eleanor Butler, widow of a son of Lord Butler of
Sudeley, and daughter of the first Earl of Shrewsbury, before he went
through a secret marriage ceremony with the Lady Grey.[11]

Dr. Stillington thus becomes a very important personage in the history of
King Richard's accession; and it will be well to learn all that can be gleaned
of his life. He first saw the light in an old brick manor house, which still
stands on the right bank of the Ouse at Acaster Selby (then within the parish
of Stillingfleet), about nine miles south of York.

The family of Stillington had long been established here, renting land
from the Abbot of Selby, when two sons, Thomas and Robert, were born to
Thomas Stillington and his wife Catherine, daughter of John Halthorp.
Thomas succeeded to the paternal estate, while Robert was destined for the
priesthood. He was sent to Oxford, and eventually took the degree of Doctor
of Law with great distinction. He was a Fellow of All Souls, and became
Rector of St. Michael's, Ouse Bridge, and a Canon of York in 1448 and
1451. Stillington was ever loyal to the cause of the White Rose. At some
time in or before 1463, he witnessed the marriage contract which united
Edward IV. to the Lady Eleanor Butler; the King strictly charging him not to
reveal it. When Edward subsequently went through the same ceremony with
the Lady Grey, his mother the Duchess of York, who was in the secret,
remonstrated, but without avail. Edward was self-willed and headstrong. The

Lady Eleanor retired to a convent in Norwich, where she died on July 30,
1466, and was buried in the Church of the Carmelites.[12]

In 1466 Dr. Stillington became Bishop of Bath and Wells, and in the same
year Edward IV. made him Keeper of the Privy Seal. On June 8, 1467, he
was installed in the high office of Lord Chancellor, in succession to
Archbishop Nevill. He delivered a very eloquent and statesmanlike speech at
the opening of Parliament in May 1468, which made a deep impression.
After holding the office of Chancellor, with dignity and credit, for six years,
he resigned, owing to ill-health, in 1473. He was afterwards employed on an
embassy to Brittany.

If the Queen Dowager and her relations had any knowledge of the first
marriage, Bishop Stillington would be a source of anxiety and fear to them;
while they could never be certain who else might know the secret besides the
King's mother. We find that the Duke of Clarence was attainted on February
7, 1478, on a series of charges, most of them frivolous and none sufficiently
grave to account for his death at the hands of his own brother. There must
have been something behind. Mr. Gairdner has suggested that the execution
of Clarence was due to his having discovered the secret.[13] Certainly that
would satisfactorily account for it. The influence of the Woodvilles was
paramount, and it would then be a necessity of their continuance in power
that Clarence should cease to live. The character of Clarence made it
impossible that a secret would be safe with him. His death was the only safe
course for the Woodvilles. It is very significant that, at the very time of
Clarence's attainder, Bishop Stillington was arrested and imprisoned[14] for
'uttering words prejudicial to the King and his State.' He was pardoned in the
following June 1478. All this points clearly to the discovery of the first
contract by Clarence, and to the utterance of some imprudent speech by the
bishop, which was expiated by imprisonment followed by renewed promises
of silence.

During the years following his imprisonment, Bishop Stillington appears
to have devoted himself to the duties of his diocese. He always retained
feelings of affection for the family at Acaster, and for the home of his
childhood on the banks of the Ouse. Towards the close of his long and
honourable career he founded a collegiate chapel on his brother's land at
Acaster, dedicated to St. Andrew, for a provost and fellows, and for free

education in grammar, music and writing. The grant was confirmed by King
Richard III. in 1483. A fine collegiate church of brick, eighty-seven feet long
and twenty-one broad, rose upon the banks of the Ouse, with twenty
windows filled with stained glass. It was a memorial of the good bishop, and
members of his family in later generations left in their wills that they wished
to be buried at St. Andrew's college. The site is now marked by a few grassy
mounds.[15]

Dr. Stillington was a good and pious bishop, an able statesman, and a
most loyal and faithful adherent of the White Rose. His one fault was that he
did not ensure his own destruction by proclaiming Edward's secret before
that King's death. There was no urgent obligation to do so; but when the time
arrived, he was bound to come forward, and he was probably urged by the
Duchess of York to publish the truth. Richard had hitherto been ignorant of
the early intrigues of his brother. He was only eleven and a half when the
widow of Sir J. Grey was taken into favour, and the Butler contract was of a
still earlier date.

The announcement must have fallen on Richard and the Council like a
thunder clap. It was inevitable that the matter should be thoroughly sifted.
There was a prolonged sitting of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the
Council Chamber at Westminster, on June 9.[16] Bishop Stillington 'brought
in instruments, authentic doctors, proctors, and notaries of the law, with
depositions of divers witnesses.'[17] The majority of the Council must have
seen at once that the illegitimate son of the late King could not succeed.
Such a proceeding would inevitably be the precursor of innumerable
troubles. The case was prepared to be laid before the Parliament which was
summoned to meet on June 25.

There was, however, a small but powerful minority in the Council, led by
Lord Hastings and Bishop Morton, to whom the prospect of losing the
openings to their ambition offered by a minority was most distasteful. They
commenced opposition[18] and began to meet apart, plotting against the
Protector's government. This was soon followed by overt acts. Hitherto all
orders and grants had been issued 'by the advice of our uncle, Richard Duke
of Gloucester, Protector and Defender.' But on the 9th, and again on June 12,
the conspirators issued orders without the Protector's name. They were
preparing for open hostility. Hastings was intriguing with his former

adversaries, the Woodvilles, both at Westminster and in Yorkshire. On June
10 the Duke of Gloucester became thoroughly alarmed. He despatched a
letter to his faithful city of York, asking that troops might be sent up to
protect and support him. It was delivered on the 15th. On the 11th a similar
letter was sent to his cousin, Lord Nevill. Meanwhile, the Hastings faction
was not idle. A supersedeas was secretly issued to the towns and counties,
ordering the Parliament not to assemble.[19] It was received at York on June
21. This was done to delay or prevent the consideration of the question of
illegitimacy, and of the evidence submitted by Bishop Stillington. Finally a
plot was formed to seize the Protector and put him to death.[20]

The conspiracy was divulged to the Protector by
Conspirators Master William Catesby, who was in the confidence
thwarted of Hastings. The danger was imminent. It was
probably a question of hours. Richard acted with
characteristic promptitude and vigour. On June 13 he
proceeded in person to the Tower with a body of retainers, and arrested Lord
Hastings at the council table on a charge of treason. The conspirators were
caught, as it were, red-handed. A proclamation was then issued, giving the
details of the plot, but unfortunately no copy remains. Hastings was
condemned and executed on June 20, a week after his arrest.[21] The danger
over, Richard mourned for the loss of his old companion in arms.
'Undoubtedly the Protector loved him well, and was loth to have lost
him.'[22] A prominent feature in Richard's character was his generosity to
the relations of his political opponents. In this respect the conduct which was
habitual with him was almost unprecedented in his, and indeed in later times.
In the case of Hastings, he at once restored the children in blood, and granted
the forfeited estates to the widow. He also liberally rewarded the brother of
Hastings for past services, and granted all his requests.

The conspirators in Yorkshire would probably have been pardoned, if
they had not joined in this new treason with Hastings. But now an order was
sent, through Sir Richard Ratcliffe, for a tribunal to assemble at Pomfret, to
try Lord Rivers and his companions. The Earl of Northumberland was
president of the court. They were found guilty. The accomplished Earl
philosophically prepared for death. He had played for high stakes, had lost,
and was ready to pay the penalty. He showed his confidence in the integrity
and kindly feeling of the Duke of Gloucester by appointing him supervisor

to the will which he made at Sheriff Hutton on June 23.[23] The trust was
not misplaced. On the 25th, Rivers, Grey, Haute, and Vaughan were
beheaded. Those arrested in London, with Hastings, were treated with
unwise leniency. The treacherous Stanley was not only pardoned, but
rewarded. Bishop Morton was merely taken into custody, and placed in
charge of the Duke of Buckingham. Archbishop Rotherham, a weak tool in
the hands of the others, after a brief detention, was allowed to return to his
diocese.

Jane Shore, the mistress of Dorset, had been the medium of
communication between Hastings and the Woodville faction. A penance was
imposed upon her by the Church for her vicious life. But she was treated
with considerate forbearance by Richard, whom she had tried to injure. He
ordered her to be released, and consented, though reluctantly, to her marriage
with his Solicitor-General.

The formidable coalition of the two malcontent parties was thus
completely broken. The Woodvilles gave up all further resistance to the
Protector's government. The Bishop of Salisbury, brother of the Queen-
Dowager, and her brother-in-law, Viscount Lisle, came over to his side.[24]
Elizabeth also, at the intercession of the Archbishop of Canterbury, sent her
younger son Richard to join his brother Edward on June 16.[25] She herself
remained in sanctuary with her daughters for a time, in order to make better
terms.

In spite of the supersedeas which was
Title to the crown treacherously sent out by the conspirators to prevent
the meeting of Parliament,[26] the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal and the Commons had assembled in
London on the day appointed, June 25, and formed what in later times would
have been called a Convention Parliament. The proofs of the previous
contract of Edward IV. with Lady Eleanor Butler were laid before this
assembly by Bishop Stillington and his witnesses, and it was decided by the
three Estates of the Realm that the illegitimate son could not succeed to the
throne. Owing to the attainder of the Duke of Clarence, his children were not
in the succession. The Duke of Gloucester was, therefore, the legal heir: and
it was resolved that he should be called upon to accept the high office of
King. A statement of the royal title, styled 'Titulus Regius,' was prepared, in

which it was set forth that the children of Edward IV. by the Lady Grey were
illegitimate owing to that King's previous contract with the Lady Eleanor
Butler, that in consequence of the attainder of the Duke of Clarence, his two
children were incapacitated; and that Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was the
only true and rightful heir to the throne.

The children of Edward IV. being illegitimate, Richard was certainly the
legal heir, because the children of Clarence were disabled by law. But their
disability could be set aside at any time by a reversal of their father's
attainder, or by the removal of any corruption in blood inherited in
consequence of that attainder. Edward Earl of Warwick, son of George Duke
of Clarence, was the rightful heir to the throne, when the children of Edward
were proved to be illegitimate. He was born at Warwick Castle on February
21, 1475, and at this time his age was eight years and four months. But even
if Richard had attempted to substitute this child for the son of the late King,
it is very unlikely that the assembled notables would have consented. They
dreaded, above all things, a long minority. When his own son died
prematurely, King Richard showed his sense of the strong claim of his
nephew by declaring young Warwick to be his heir.

It is alleged that on Sunday, June 22, 1483, an eminent preacher named
Dr. Shaw had delivered a sermon at Paul's Cross, in which he explained the
royal title to the people; and that a speech was made to the same effect, by
the Duke of Buckingham, at the Guildhall on the 24th. This is not
improbable.

On June 26,[27] the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons
proceeded to Baynard's Castle with the Titulus Regius, to submit their
resolution and to petition Richard to assume the crown. He consented. He
was then aged thirty years and eight months. On the 27th he delivered the
Great Seal to Dr. Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, a prelate celebrated for
learning, piety, and wisdom.[28] On the 28th a letter was despatched to Lord
Mountjoy at Calais, with instructions to acquaint the garrison of the new
King's accession, and to secure their allegiance. Richard III. then organised
his Council, and surrounded himself with able and upright advisers. There
were only two false friends among them—the traitors Buckingham and
Stanley.

[1] Bernard André, 23. Polydore Virgil, 530 (171, 173 Eng. trans.)

[2] Rous, 212. Croyland, 564.

[3] Rous says they had contrived the Duke's death, 213. Also the Croyland Monk,
565: 'Conspiratum est contra eos, quod ipsi contrivissent mortem ducis Protectoris
Angliæ.'

[4] John Alcock was the son of a burgess of Hull, and was educated at the
grammar school of Beverley. He graduated at Cambridge in 1461. He was Dean
of St. Stephen's, Westminster, and one of the King's Council in 1470, and Bishop
of Rochester in 1472. In 1476 he was translated to Worcester, and in 1483 was
tutor to young Edward. He was at Oxford to welcome Richard III. after his
coronation, and accompanied him on his progress to Warwick. In 1484 he was
one of the Commissioners delegated to treat with the Scottish Ambassadors. In
1486 he was translated to Ely, where he built a tower of the Bishop's palace, and a
beautiful chapel for his interment. His attachment to the house of York is shown
by the ornaments in the vaulting of the basement of the tower, and in the chapel.
The rebus on his name (two cocks with their feet on a globe) occurs alternately
with the 'rose en soleil,' the badge of Edward IV. Bishop Alcock founded Jesus
College at Cambridge. He died at Wisbeach in 1500.

[5] Croyland 565. Rous, 213.

[6] Baynard's Castle was so called from Baynard, one of the companions of the
Conqueror, who had license to fortify his house on Thames bank within the city. It
was fortified by his descendant in 1110 A.D. In 1428 it had become the property
of the crown and, having been destroyed by fire, it was rebuilt by Humphrey
Duke of Gloucester. On his attainder it again reverted to the crown, and was
granted to Richard Duke of York. It was long the residence of his widow, and here
both Edward IV. and Richard III. accepted the crown. Baynard's Castle was gutted
in the Great Fire of 1666. It had long been rented by the Earls of Pembroke, but
seems to have been in a ruinous condition. It was probably pulled down during
the clearance operations after the fire.

[7] One letter has been preserved from Richard III. to his mother, after his
accession. It is written in most affectionate terms, and shows deference to her
wishes. After her last surviving son's death at Bosworth the Duchess retired from
the world entirely, living at her castle of Berkhampstead, under the rules of one of
the monastic orders. She died in 1493, and was buried by the side of her husband
at Fotheringhay.

[8] Mr. Gairdner has pointed out that he was styled Protector in two documents
upon the Patent Rolls, dated April 21 and May 2.

[9] Crosby Place, in Bishopsgate Street, was built by Alderman Sir John Crosby,
who died in 1475. The Duke of Gloucester had a lease of it from Sir John's
widow. It must have been a princely residence, and the hall is still one of the
finest examples of Perpendicular domestic architecture of the fifteenth century.

[10] Rymer, vol. xii. p. 186; Anstis, Obs.; Sir Harris Nicolas, History of the
Orders of Knighthood, iii. ix.; Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd series.

[11] Comines says that the contract was made by the Bishop of Bath and Wells,
who told Comines that he afterwards married Edward and Lady Eleanor. The
King charged him strictly not to reveal it. (Phil. de Comines, ii. 157.)

[12] Weever's Funeral Monuments.

[13] Gairdner's Richard III., p. 91.

[14] Rymer, xii. 66. In the papers of the Stonor family there is a letter from
Elizabeth Stonor to her husband, dated March 6, 1478, in which she said that the
Bishop of Bath had been brought into the Tower since her husband departed.

[15] All was destroyed and sold in the reign of Edward VI. (1552). But a view of
the ruins, and of a monument of the founder of Acaster College, with a ground
plot, is mentioned in Gough's Topography of Yorkshire, 1804, p. 469. Rents at the
dissolution 27l. 13s. 4d. Worth 553l. 6s. 8d. Granted in 1552 to John Hulse and
William Pendred.

The family of Stillington continued to flourish at Acaster and Kelfield, in the
parish of Stillingfleet; greatly improving their estate by a marriage with the
heiress of FitzHenry. In 1520 stained glass with the arms of Stillington impaling
Bigod, was placed in one of the windows of Stillingfleet church. At that time Dr.
Thomas Stillington was a man of great learning, and became Professor of
Divinity at the University of Louvain. The Stillingtons continued to flourish at
Kelfield Hall throughout the seventeenth century. The last male of the race was
young in the days of Queen Anne. There is a portrait of him as a boy, in a
classical costume, which was painted by Parmentier in 1708. It is now in the
dining room at Moreby Hall. This Joseph Stillington of Kelfield died in 1742. His
daughter Dorothy married William Peirse of Hutton Bonville.

[16] Stallworthe's letter to Sir W. Stonor. (Excerpt. Hist. p. 16.)

[17] Morton, in his account of a conversation with the Duke of Buckingham
(Grafton, p. 126).

[18] Polydore Virgil, p. 540.

[19] Davies, York Records, p. 154. That this supersedeas was issued by the
conspirators and not by the Protector's Council is proved by Dr. Russell having
actually prepared a speech for the opening of Parliament on June 24. This speech
has been preserved. The date of the supersedeas was probably before June 13.

[20] Rastell, p. 80,

[21] Stallworthe to Sir W. Stonor.

[22] Morton, p. 69, in Rastell. This is the evidence of a bitter enemy.

[23] The will is given in the Excerpta Historica, pp. 246-248. He also appointed
William Catesby, another meritorious but shamefully maligned public servant, to

be his executor.

[24] 'My Lord Lyle has come to my Lord Protector and waits on him.'
Stallworthe's second letter (Excerpt. Hist. p. 16).

[25] Croyland, p. 566.

[26] Davies, York Records, p. 134.

[27] The date of Richard's accession is fixed by the Year Book. 'Les Reports des
Cases.' See Davies, York Records, p. 157 n.

[28] 'A wise man and a good, and of much experience.'—Morton, in Rastell.

CHAPTER IX

CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE

At Richard's accession we may pause to glance at the condition of the
people of England 420 years ago, not in any minute detail, not probing the
matter to any depth, but with the object of having the general surroundings
in our minds, while contemplating the brief reign of our last Plantagenet.

The Lancastrian usurpation, effected by Henry of Bolingbroke (Duke of
Lancaster), caused much ruthless slaughter, and led to the atrocious Act De
heretico comburendo, passed to secure the support of the clergy for the
usurper. His son, Henry of Monmouth, was a fanatic, but otherwise a man of
a far nobler nature than his father. He secured his position by a popular but
most unjust war with France, and by his own fascinating personality. From
his landing at Havre to the death of Talbot at Châtillon, this war covered a
period of thirty-eight years, from 1415 to 1453. It did not, however, exhaust
the wealth of the country, nor did the other more odious policy of the
Lancastrians in passing an Act for the burning of heretics, destroy all
freedom of thought. But the war filled the country with lawless military
adventurers, and the persecution unsettled men's minds.

The cause of the War of the Roses was the misgovernment of the faction
which ruled in the name of Henry of Windsor, the feeble-minded grandson
of Charles VI. of France, whose malady he inherited. Recognition during
half a century had made the parliamentary title of the usurpers secure.
Owing to the absence of an hereditary title, the House of Commons had
never been more powerful. The Speakers were practically Chancellors of the
Exchequer, and prepared the budgets. Speaker Tresham, who was murdered
in 1450 by Lord Grey de Ruthyn, was the first to propose a graduated
income tax, and was a great statesman. But the House was not strong enough
to control an unprincipled executive. The usurpation would never have been
challenged, after a Parliamentary recognition of sixty years, if the
administration of the usurping faction had not been intolerably bad. The
Duke of York was the rightful hereditary heir to the throne. His grandfather
had been recognised as heir by a Parliament of Richard II. The Duke was a
just and moderate statesman. Until a month before the battle of Wakefield
his sole purpose had been the reform of abuses.

The war, however, was not a war of the people. Although London warmly
supported the house of York, it was a war fought out by two parties of the
nobles and their retainers, including some old veterans of the French war.
The struggle did not in the least degree affect the ordinary life of England.
Mr. Thorold Rogers tells us that, though he has read hundreds of documents
compiled for private inspection only, chiefly manorial accounts, covering the
whole period of the war, he has never met a single allusion to the troubles.
'The people,' he adds, 'were absolutely indifferent. Except the outrages of
Margaret's army in 1461, no injury was done to neutrals. The war was as
little injurious to the great mass of the people, in its immediate effects, as
summer lightning. It had no bearing on work or wages.'

It is also a mistake, though a frequently reiterated
The Peerage one, that the English nobility, as a class, was almost
destroyed by the War of the Roses. Nothing of the
sort happened. Several noblemen fell in battle, others
lost their lives on the scaffold. There are long lists of traitors in the bills of
attainder. But the death of a nobleman did not include the deaths of his heirs;
and most of those who were attainted eventually received pardons. After the
heat of battle was over, Edward IV. was placable and good-natured. He never
refused a petition for pardon.[1] Only two peerages became extinct from

causes connected with the war. The Beauforts came to an end, and the
Tiptoft peerage lapsed, the accomplished Earl of Worcester being childless.
The lay peerage, including peers temporarily under attainder, numbered
fifty-four on the accession of Richard III., quite as numerous as it was before
the war.

We have not, therefore, to contemplate a devastated country and a
decimated peerage at the time when our last Plantagenet King ascended the
throne. England was fairly prosperous, and the numbers and wealth of the
nobility had not been reduced. But how different was the whole face of the
country! The outlines of the hills are alone the same. There were immense
areas of forest and swamp where now the landscape consists of enclosed
fields like a green chessboard. There were few enclosures,[2] but tracts of
common land for each manor, and cultivation in long strips near the villages
and manor houses. The beaten tracks, some following the lines of the old
Roman roads leading to the towns and castles, were often almost impassable
in winter. King Richard was the first to establish any kind of post. The
scenery was very beautiful on the hills and in the forests, in the quiet valleys,
and in the swampy fens. Wild animals, many now extinct, were then
abundant, hunted occasionally, but, to a great extent, left in peace over vast
areas of absolute solitude. It was a very beautiful England, but how utterly
different from the England of the twentieth century!

The noble and gentle families passed most of their time in their counties,
hawking and hunting, mustering their armed retainers, often disputing about
their respective rights, sometimes trying to settle disputes by force regardless
of law. Yet many were law-abiding and maintainers of the King's peace, and
a few were giving some attention to the new learning to which Caxton was
now opening the door. Some of the elders had seen service in the French war
which came to an end thirty years before. Only a great noble could raise or
command a military force, but reliance was placed on the experience of
some veteran, such as Hall or Trollope, to organise and direct as chief of the
staff. In those troublous days the King might, at any time, have to send forth
commissions of array.

Castles then studded the country, and the ruins of some of them still give
a correct idea of their accommodation and general plan. Old Norman keeps
reared their massive fronts, surrounded by lodgings and outworks of later

construction. The keeps contained stately halls, guard
Castles rooms, and chapels. The more modern and more
comfortable lodgings followed the lines of the outer
defences, generally having covered communication
with the keep. Such were King Richard's home at Middleham, the royal
castles of Richmond, Conisborough and Tickhill. Hedingham, the home of
the Veres in Essex, Rochester, the Tower of London, and a few others are
still standing. Lord Bourchier, the Treasurer, had quite recently built a castle
of brick at Tattershall in Lincolnshire, with a lofty keep still intact. The
Treasurer's device of a purse frequently recurs there.

The castles of the later period were, however, generally built without the
central keep. They consisted of square angle towers connected by curtains,
one of which usually formed the great hall, as at Lumley. These were more
numerous and probably more commodious. Bolton and Lumley are good
examples. There was already a tendency to increase the conveniences and
amenities of the old castles by the enlargement of windows and in other
ways, as is shown by the fine oriel window at Barnard Castle, the work of
Richard himself. The royal residences at Eltham, Sheen, and Windsor are
believed to have been designed more for comfort and pleasure than for
defence; although Windsor is a place of strength, with circular keep, and
means to resist an enemy both in the upper and lower wards. The general
tendency, during the last half of the fifteenth century, was to build for
comfort rather than for defence.

In the courts and at the gates of the castles of noblemen there were guards
wearing more or less of defensive armour, morions or bacinets on their
heads, and brigandines of quilted linen or leather with small plates of iron
sewn on them. Glaives or bills, crossbows with quarrels or darts, and bows
and arrows were in the guard rooms.

The sons of the surrounding gentry were brought up and taught martial
exercises and the other accomplishments of a gentleman of the time, at the
castles of the lords their patrons, a custom which bound the nobility and
lesser gentry together by common interests and common pursuits.

Much time was occupied in hunting and hawking, and the adherents of
the House of York were more especially the votaries of the noble art of

venery. The first English book of sport had the second Duke of York for its
author, and was entitled 'The Master of Game.' The Duke declares that
'hunters live more joyfully than any other men,' and his work shows that he
was a keen observer with a wonderfully accurate knowledge of natural
history. With such a master and guide in their family the scions of the royal
House of York were the leading sportsmen in the country, closely followed
by their friends and numerous cousins among the nobility and gentry. The
'Book of St. Albans' by Juliana Berners the Prioress of Sopwell, treating of
hawking, hunting, fishing, and the laws of arms, was also a work of that
period, and was first printed at St. Albans Abbey, by John Insomuch, the
Schoolmaster, in 1481.[3] Juliana divides the wild animals into beasts of
venery—the wolf, wild boar, stag, hart and hare; beasts of the chase of the
sweet foot—buck and doe and the roe—and of the stinking foot, wild cat,
badger, fox, weasel, marten, squirrel, and others. She is particular in
explaining the terms to be used in venery, that one must say a covey of
partridges but a bevy of quails, and so forth. Closely allied to the arts of war
and of venery was the law of arms, of which every gentleman of that day had
some knowledge. Charges on shields and standards, on surcoats and liveries
were regulated by the heralds, and after the ordinance of Henry V. were
granted by the Sovereign. But in the most flourishing days of chivalry, those
of Edward III., this was not essential. There was no Heralds' College,[4] and
the only really interesting armorial bearings are those used in the days of the
Plantagenets. With Tudors and Stuarts heraldry lost its chivalric significance,
and coats of arms subsequently granted are unmeaning and vulgar.

Peerage of Richard
III

PEERS

Relations of the Sovereign

* Duke of Suffolk (brother-in-law), K.G.
*+Earl of Lincoln (nephew), K.B.
*+Viscount Lovell (dearest friend),
Lord Chamberlain, K.G.
*+Earl of Northumberland (1st cousin), K.G.
* Lord Greystoke (1st cousin).

* Lord Abergavenny, K.B. }(cousins).
Earl of Westmoreland (sick) }

Minors

Duke of Buckingham } (cousins)
Earl of Essex }
Earl of Salisbury (son).
* Earl of Warwick (nephew).
Earl of Pembroke (nephew).

Staunch and true

*+Duke of Norfolk, Ld. Admiral, K.G.
*+Earl of Surrey, K.G.
* Lord Audley, Ld. Treasurer.
*+Lord Zouch, K.B.
*+Lord Ferrers.

Marching to join the King
* Earl of Kent, K.B.
* Lord Dacre.
* Lord FitzHugh.
* Lord Lumley.
* Lord Ogle in the Marches,
* 2 Lords Scrope.

Other Peers

* Earl of Arundel, K.G.
* Lord Maltravers, K.G.
* Earl of Nottingham.
* Earl of Huntingdon.
* Earl of Wiltshire.
* Lord Grey of Wilton.
* Lord Grey of Codnor.
* Lord Grey of Powys.
* Lord Beauchamp.
* Lord Morley.
* Lord Stourton.
* Lord Cobham.
Lord Mountjoy (at Calais).
Lord de la Warre (abroad).
Lord Dudley (very old).

Minors

Earl of Shrewsbury.

Lord Clifford.
Lord Hastings.
Lord Hungerford.

Peers 42
Minors 9
--
33
--

Traitors

#John Vere, Earl of Oxford (under attainder).
Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire.
Grey, Marquis of Dorset.
Woodville, Earl Rivers.
Lord Beaumont.
Lord Welles.
* Lord Lisle.
Lord Dynham.
#Jasper Tudor (late Earl of Pembroke).
#Henry Tudor (calling himself Earl of Richmond).
*#Lord Stanley (turned traitor at the end).
*#Lord Strange.

* At the coronation.
+ At Bosworth for the King.
# At Bosworth for H. Tudor.

Attendance at the court or the Parliament led to a demand for lodgings in
London. Baynard's Castle was the town residence of the Duke and Duchess
of York. Crosby Place, which is still standing, was the home of the Duke and
Duchess of Gloucester during the short protectorate. Cold Harbour, in
Thames Street, alternately lodged the Earl of Salisbury (1453), Anne
Duchess of Exeter, and her brother the Duke of Clarence. There were other
houses of the nobility within the city, including Ely Place in Holborn, with
large gardens behind them; and some of the richer citizens had handsome
residences of which Crosby Place was an example. It was on the occasion of
visits to the capital that opportunities were offered for those extravagant
displays which were the fashion of that age, especially at the great
tournaments.

The House of York was closely knit to the nobility by ties of kindred. Of
the three Dukes, Suffolk was King Richard's brother-in-law, Buckingham
and Norfolk were his cousins, as were the Earls of Northumberland,
Westmoreland and Essex, and Lords Abergavenny and Greystoke. Lincoln
was his nephew. Richard, moreover, had four first and several second
cousins among the Barons; and the Archbishop of Canterbury was also his
cousin. There must have been a feeling of kinship as well as of loyalty when
the nobles gathered round the sovereign on state occasions.

Magnificence in dress was not a sign of
Magnificence of the ostentation and vanity, but of what was felt to be due
court to high rank and to ceremonial functions of state; and
it was undoubtedly good for trade. Long gowns with
high collars were the indoor and civil dresses, and
they lent themselves to displays of great splendour. Thus, in the wardrobe
accounts, we find among the materials for doublets and gowns, black velvet,
crimson velvet, blue velvet figured with tawny, white velvet, white damask
with flowers of divers colours, chequered motley velvet, cloth of gold, silks
and satins, sarsenet, as well as embroidered shoes, and ostrich feathers. We
find green, scarlet and white cloth, ermines, sables, fringes, gowns of blue
velvet lined with white satin, golden aiglettes, and various furs. The keeper
of the King's wardrobe also had in charge feather beds and bolsters, bed
clothes, cushions, table cloths and napkins, and the King's carriage. Presents
from the wardrobe are recorded as being given to the Duke of Norfolk, Lord
Grey, Lord Stanley, Sir W. Parr, Sir J. Borough, Lord Audley and the College
of Windsor. When the Duchess of Burgundy came to visit her brother, all her
attendants were ordered to be clothed in cloth jackets of murrey and blue,
while the knights appointed to attend upon her received gowns of velvet.
The velvet was ten shillings a yard, the ostrich feathers ten shillings each.
These wardrobe accounts of the last years of Edward IV. bear silent
testimony to the lavish splendour of the court, and of court ceremonial in
those days.

Increasing wealth resulted to the merchants and traders of the City, the
Guilds flourished and increased in numbers, and there were periodical fairs
in the country. At the Stourbridge fair, which was the chief mart of Lombard
Exchange, glass, silks and velvets were sold by the Venetian and Genoese
merchants, linen of Liège and Ghent by the Flemish weavers, hardware by

Spaniards, tar and pitch by Norwegians, wine by Gascons, furs and amber by
the Hanse Towns. Millstones came from Paris. Our own products were hides
and woolpacks, the produce of the tin mines, and iron from Sussex. At
Abingdon there was a cattle fair, at Winchester a wool and cloth fair. King
Richard's Parliament gave much attention to the advancement of trade.

In London the wealthy merchants lived in handsome houses with gardens.
The lawyers lived in the Inns of Court, and there were not wanting good inns
and hostelries for passing travellers. We hear of the 'White Hart' in
Southwark, the 'George' at Paul's Wharf, and several others.

The City Companies were acquiring great influence. The Skinners'
Company founded the 'Brethren of the fraternity of Corpus Christi' of which
the Duke of York and his sons Edward IV. and the Dukes of Clarence and
Gloucester were members. Disputes between City Companies were amicably
settled. There was one between the Skinners' and Merchant Taylors' with
reference to precedence in City processions. In the reign of Richard III., 10
April, 1484, the two companies agreed to abide by the judgment of the Lord
Mayor and Aldermen.

The award was that the Skinners should invite the Merchant Taylors to
dinner every year, on the Vigil of Corpus Christi, and that the Merchant
Taylors should invite the Skinners on the Feast of the Nativity of John the
Baptist. On the first year after the arbitration the Skinners were to walk in all
processions before the Merchant Taylors, on the next year the Merchant
Taylors before the Skinners, and so on. Thus was arbitration established in
the City during Richard's reign, a course always favoured and practised by
the King himself.

The great glory of the Yorkist kings was the
Introduction of introduction of printing into England, in which their
printing sister of Burgundy also took a liberal and enlightened
part. Caxton tells us he was born in the Weald of
Kent in 1422, and was apprenticed to Robert Large, a
mercer of London and Lord Mayor in 1439. His house was in the north end
of the Old Jewry, and here young Caxton lived until his master died in 1441,
leaving him twenty marks. Caxton went to Bruges in 1441, and in 1453 he
was admitted to the livery of the Mercers' Company. The Merchant

Adventurers were an association of merchants trading to foreign countries,
chiefly mercers. They had a 'domus Angliæ' at Bruges, and in 1464 Caxton
was chosen 'Governor beyond seas.' In 1468 he attended the marriage of the
young English Princess Margaret with Duke Charles of Burgundy, which
was celebrated with great pomp. Caxton was not only a leading merchant at
Bruges, he also took a great interest in literature and in the new art of
printing. In 1469 he began the translation of 'Le Recueil des Histoires de
Troyes,' and in the following year, when Duke Charles was invested with the
Garter, Caxton made his first essay at printing, with the oration of Dr.
Russell on that occasion. When, in October 1470, Edward IV. and his young
brother Richard took refuge in Flanders, they received active assistance from
the loyal merchant and printer, and in the same year Caxton entered the
service of the Duchess Margaret and managed her trading in English wool
for her. He was surrounded hy literary influences at Bruges, where there was
a printing press encouraged by the Duchess.

In 1476 Caxton came to England, and in November 1477 he had
established a printing press in his house at Westminster, under the shadow of
the Abbey. It was in the Almonry near the old chapel of St. Anne, at the gate
leading into Tothill Street. Caxton's house was the sign of the red pale.[5]
John Esteney was then Abbot of Westminster (1474-98), but it is not
recorded that Caxton received help or patronage from him. The first book
printed in England was the 'Dictes and Sayings of Philosophes,' by Lord
Rivers, in 1477. Then followed 'Cordyale' in 1479, and 'Chronicles of
England' in 1480, 'Description of Britain' also in 1480. In that year the
Duchess of Burgundy came to London to visit her brothers, and no doubt she
then paid a visit to the printing press of her old friend Caxton. Five books
came from that active press in 1481. 'The Mirrour of the World' was
translated and printed for a citizen named Hugh Brice as a present to Lord
Hastings. 'Reynard the Fox' was translated by Caxton himself. The 'de
senectute,' 'de amicitiâ,' and 'declamatio' of Cicero were translated by the ill-
fated Earl of Worcester; as well as 'Godefroy de Boulogne.' A second edition
of 'The game and play of Chess' completed the publications for 1481. During
the whole of King Richard's reign, and under his enlightened patronage,
Caxton's printing press showed great activity. The publications were
'Pilgrimage of the Soul' 'Liber Festivalis,' 'Quatuor Sermones,' the 'Confessio
Amantis' of Gower, the 'Golden Legend,' 'Caton,' 'Knight of the Tower,'
'Æsop,' 'Paris and Vienna,' 'Life of Charles the Great,' the 'Canterbury Tales'

of Chaucer, 'Life of our Lady,' 'King Arthur,' by Sir T. Mallory, who finished
his work in 1470, and the 'Order of Chivalry' translated by Caxton and
dedicated to his redoubted Lord King Richard.

Literature was beginning to receive attention from
Literary noblemen several members of the nobility, and the printing
press gave this tendency very great encouragement.
Among the books in the Wardrobe Account of
Edward IV. which were ordered to be bound, were the 'Book of the Holy
Trinity,' the Bible, 'Government of Kings and Princes,' 'Froissart,' Titus
Livius, Josephus, 'Bible Historial,' 'La Forteresse de Foy'; and to this royal
library his brother Richard added several books including the 'Romaunt of
Tristram.'

Lord Rivers was an accomplished nobleman whose translations and
original compositions are well known. But John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester,
was the most studious and learned, as well as the most accomplished, author
and statesman of Yorkist times. Born at Everton, Cambridgeshire, Tiptoft
was at Balliol College, and completed his education by a residence of three
years in Italy. He was twice Lord High Treasurer, was Lord Deputy of
Ireland, and was created Earl of Worcester. But he fell a victim to
Lancastrian rancour during Warwick's brief usurpation. He was beheaded in
1470, and Caxton eloquently mourned his untimely death.

'This book,' Caxton wrote, 'was translated by the virtuous and noble Earl
of Worcester into our English tongue, son and heir to the Lord Tiptoft, which
in his time flowered in virtue and cunning, to whom I know none like among
the lords of the temporality in science and moral virtue. I beseech Almighty
God to have mercy on his soul, and pray all them that shall read this little
treatise, likewise of your charity to remember his soul among your prayers.
The right virtuous and noble Earl of Worcester, which late piteously lost his
life, whose soul I recommend to your special prayers, also in his time made
many other virtuous works which I have heard of. O God, blessed Lord,
what great loss was it of that noble, virtuous and well disposed lord, when I
remember and advertise his life, his science and his virtue. Methinketh God
displeased over so great a loss of such a man, considering his estate and
cunning, and also the exercise of the same with the great labours in going on
pilgrimage unto Jerusalem, visiting there the holy places, and what worship

had he in Rome in the presence of our holy father the Pope, and so in all
other places until his death, at which death every man that was there might
learn to die, and take his death patiently.'

Rivers and Worcester were not the only men of
Education their day with literary tastes. The colleges at Oxford
and Cambridge numbered among their alumni
laymen as well as churchmen. The three great public
schools of England already existed. The grammar school of Westminster,
afterwards to become St. Peter's College under Queen Elizabeth, had a
continuous existence from the time of Edward I. Winchester College had
been founded by William of Wykeham. Eton College was a foundation due
to Henry of Windsor. All three were flourishing. Boys went very young to
the universities, and parents showed anxiety for their advancement in
learning as well as for their due supply of clothing. Mrs. Paston desired a
tutor named Grenefeld to send her word how her son Clement is doing his
duty as regards his lessons. If he does not do well, and will not amend,
Grenefeld is to lash him until he does amend, as his former tutor did, who
was the best that ever he had at Cambridge. She is no less particular about
his clothes, which were to be looked to. Clement had a short green gown, a
short musterdevelers (gown of grey woollen cloth), a short blue gown, and a
russet gown furred with beaver: a pretty good supply.

Later there was a Paston boy at Eton, one of whose letters has come down
to us (1478). He desires hose clothes to be sent to him, one pair of some
colour for holidays, and one for working days. It does not matter how coarse
the one for common use is. He also asks for a stomacher, two shirts, and a
pair of slippers. 'But,' adds the Eton boy, 'if it lyke you that I may come by
water, and sport me with you in London a day or two this term time, then
you may let all this be till the time that I come; and then I shall tell you when
I shall be ready to come from Eton.' He wanted a holiday in the middle of
term time, and he wanted the fun of boating down the river. So it was with
many hundreds of other boys then as it is now; liking play better than work,
but still learning, with or without the lash which Mrs. Agnes Paston believed
to be so efficacious. The Etonian was about ten years younger than King
Richard.

The Church, in the Yorkist days, had deteriorated. The devil's compact
between Archbishop Arundel and Henry of Bolingbroke, by which Bishops
were to be allowed to burn heretics on condition that the usurpation was
upheld by the Church, had alienated the people. The Act De heretico
comburendo was not a dead letter. There were many innocent sufferers.
Henry of Monmouth was a fanatic. He argued with heretics and would
gladly pardon on recantation, but if his victim did not recant he was actually
present at executions and witnessed the cruel tortures. Caxton, some years
after Henry's death (1439), saw with horror the burning on Tower Hill of the
good Vicar of Deptford, whose love and charity had endeared him to the
poor. Such scenes would not endear the Bishops to the people. The prelates
were self-seeking politicians for the most part, and occasionally the people
made short work of them. When Bishop de Moleyns, then Lord Privy Seal,
came down to Portsmouth to pay the sailors and kept back some of their
dues, he was seized by the mob and hanged in front of God's House. Bishop
Ayscough of Salisbury met a similar fate. Mr. Thorold Rogers formed a very
bad opinion of the clergy of the fifteenth century. He says 'the Bishops were
on the whole bad men, parochial clergy not much better, monks worst of all.
People deserted them for the secret but stirring exhortations of the Bible
men.' But there were exceptions. Dr. Russell of Lincoln, King Richard's
Chancellor, was a prelate and statesman of the highest integrity, so were
Stillington of Bath and Wells, Alcock of Worcester, and Langton of St.
David's.

The great monasteries still stood, in all their glorious architectural beauty,
among the woodlands and by the trout streams; and charity was dispensed by
their inmates. Religious foundations like Middleham College by King
Richard, and Acaster College by Bishop Stillington, attest the piety of the
age; and religious buildings proceeded apace. The beautiful chapel of St.
George at Windsor was approaching completion in King Richard's time, and
many fine church towers, especially in Suffolk, date from this period.

There were superstitious pilgrimages to shrines such as those of St.
Thomas at Canterbury and of Our Lady at Walsingham, while obits and
saints' days were scrupulously observed. Letters were almost always referred
to saints' days, scarcely ever to the days of the month. In the 'Paston Letters'
we have 'Monday next after St. Edmund the King,' 'the day next after St.
Kateryn,' 'St. Pernall,' 'St. Leonard's Eve,' 'St. Erkenwald's,' and so on: even,

in one instance, the date is fixed by the collect of the preceding Sunday.
'Wednesday next after Deus qui errantibus.' This seems to show that
religion, or at least its rites and ceremonies, was really part of the actual life
of the people. Miracle plays, such as those performed by the Corpus Christi
guild at York, served to keep alive an interest in religion. There were also
allegorical plays, and it seems that 'Every Man,' which has interested so
many in these modern times, may have been acted before, and have
impressed audiences in the days of the Yorkist kings.

The law was presided over by conscientious and
The Church and the learned judges. Old Fuller says of Markham and
law Fortescue that they were the 'Chief Justices of the
Chief Justices.' Markham boldly resisted any attempt
to intimidate him, and by his firm stand against King
Edward established an important maxim in constitutional law. He did not
confine his judgments to the bench, but upbraided evil-doers when he met
them in the street. John Heydon, Recorder of Norwich, was stopped by the
judge and brought to book in public, for putting away his wife and living
with another; and also for his unjust conduct towards John Paston, in
enforcing the doubtful claim of Lord Moleyns.

But the country was in a lawless state. Upright
Condition of the judgments were pronounced, but they could not
people always be enforced. Noblemen, like Lord Moleyns,
occasionally acted in defiance of the law, and often
there was no redress. We hear of 'a great multitude of
misruled people at the house of Robert Ledeham who issue at their pleasure,
sometimes thirty and more, armed in steel caps and jackets, with bows and
bills, overriding the country, oppressing the people, and doing many horrible
and abominable deeds.' There is a letter from Paston's wife reporting that
'they have made bars to bar the doors crossways, and wickets at every corner
of the house to shoot out at, both with bows and hand guns.' This sounds like
an expected siege. For she adds—'My worshipful husband, I pray you to get
some cross bows and wyndacs with quarrels, for your holes have been made
so low that my men cannot shoot out with a long bow, though we had ever
so much need. Also get two or three short pole axes to keep the doors.' Then
we are told of Robert Letham killing John Wilson's bullocks for arrears of
rent, eating them, and then beating Wilson himself in Plumstead churchyard

until he was in doubt of his life, besides beating John Coke's mother. When
Sir Philip Wentford wants to settle a dispute, instead of going to law, he rides
to Colchester with a hundred armed men. These were not altogether peaceful
times. They were exciting, full of adventure, and there was much fun to be
got out of them. Different, more eventful, perhaps less safe, than our days of
policemen and penitentiaries, but far from unendurable.

These were trifles, and on the whole the country gentry of the fifteenth
century lived in comfort on their manors. These manors included the lord's
domain cultivated by his bailiff, the small estates of freeholders paying quit
rents, the tenements and lands of the labourers held for services, and the
waste or common on which all tenants had right of pasture. The manor house
was usually built of stone, though brick was beginning to come into use. The
house was generally divided into three principal rooms: the hall, the
dormitories, and the solar or parlour with a southern aspect. In the hall the
family and household dined. It was also used for the manor courts, for
levying fines, and passing judicial sentences. The table was on trestles, there
were a few stools and benches, and some chests for linen. Here would also
be seen a pot of brass, several dishes, platters, and trenchers, iron or lateen
candlesticks, a brass ewer and basin, and a box of salt. The walls were hung
with mattocks, scythes, reaping hooks, buckets and corn measures. In the
dairy were the pails, pans, churn, and cheese press. In the grange were the
sacks of corn.

The manor land was ploughed twice, but half the arable remained fallow.
When harvest was over pigs and geese were turned into the stubble. The
means of supporting the stock in winter depended upon the supply of hay,
for there were no root crops. The rest of the stock had to be killed down for
salting on St. Martin's day (November 11). In the garden and orchard were
apples and pears, damsons, cherries, currants, strawberries, kitchen herbs,
onions and leeks, mustard, peas and beans, and cabbage. Crab apples were
collected to make verjuice.

We are informed of the commissions John Paston received from his wife,
in her numerous letters. Besides weapons of offence and defence she writes
for ginger and almonds and sugar, also for frieze for their growing child with
a note of the best and cheapest shop. Next she wants two dozen trenchers,
syrup, quince preserve, oil for salads. As regards luggage John Paston writes

to his brother, who was at an inn—the sign of the 'George' in Paul's Wharf—
to put up in the mail his tawny gown furred with black, the doublet of purple
satin, the doublet of black satin, and his writing box of cypress. These
commissions give a little insight into the domestic arrangements of the time.
But for a complete outfit of one of the lesser gentry equipped for war we
must read over the contents of Mr. Payn's luggage, robbed from him by Jack
Cade and his rabble at the sign of the 'White Hart' near London Bridge.

There was a fine gown of mixed grey woollen cloth trimmed with fine
beavers. A pair of 'bregandyns,' which were coats of leather or cotton quilted,
having small iron plates sewn over them; also leg harness. A bluish grey
gown furred with martens. Two gowns furred with budge (lamb skin).
Lastly, a gown lined with frieze. But the greatest loss was a set of Milan
harness (armour). They forced Mr. Payn into the battle on London Bridge,
where he was wounded; and robbed his wife in Kent of all but kirtle and
smock. Those were exciting times, and luggage was not always safe, but on
the whole they were times of plenty.

The fifteenth century was the golden age of the labourer. At no time were
wages relatively so high. The people ate wheaten bread, drank barley beer,
and had plenty of cheap, though perhaps coarse, meat at a farthing a pound
(equal to 3d. now). If a labourer had to undertake a journey, there were
houses as well as monasteries where doles were given to all wayfarers. The
cottages of the poor were built of wattle and daub, but skilled labourers were
fed at the table of the lord of the manor below the salt; and some of them
lodged in the out-buildings. It is said that scurvy, in a virulent form, was a
common disorder; as all the poor, except the numerous class of poachers,
had to live on salt meat for six months, onions and cabbages being the only
esculents. But the prevalence of this disorder has been exaggerated.

We have the evidence of Chief Justice Fortescue that the labouring class
in England was far better off as regards lodging, clothing, and food than the
peasantry of France and other countries of Europe.

PRICES--1484

Wheat, 5s. 3-¾d. the quarter. | Hen, 2d.

Barley, 4s. 1-¼d. | Swan, 2s. 6d.
Oats, 2s. 2-½d. | Duck, 2d.
Beans, 3s. 8d. | Charcoal, 6s. 5d. the load.
Oatmeal, 7d. | Firewood, 1s. 10-½d. the
load.
Malt, 3s. 10-¼d. | Hurdles, 2s. the dozen.
Hay, 2s. 2d. the load. | Salt, 4s. 8d. the quarter.
Wool, 5s. 4d. the ton. | Tiles, 6s. 10d. the 1,000.
Ox, 10s. | Bricks, 6s. 8d. the 1,000.
Calf, 3s. | Gascony wine, 9s. 8-½d. the
dozen
Sheep, 1s. 4d. | gallons.
Pig, 5s. 4d. | Sugar, 19s. the dozen
pounds.
Horse, 60s. | Pepper, 15s. " "
Capon, 3d. | Currants, 2s. 4d. " "
Goose, 1d. |

Wages--Carpenter 6d. per day, 3s. a week, £9 2s. 6d. a year.
Tiler 6d. "
Unskilled 4d. " 2s. "

[1] Thorold Rogers.

[2] The enclosure grievance was just beginning to be felt.

[3] The second edition was brought out by Wynkyn de Worde in 1496.

[4] It was created by Richard III. in 1484.

[5] The 'pale' in heraldry.

CHAPTER X

REIGN OF KING RICHARD III

King Richard was a young man in his thirtieth year when he came to the
throne. During the previous ten years he had acquired considerable
administrative experience, and had shown himself to possess ability, powers

of application, and resolution. He was extremely popular in the north of
England, where he had generally resided.

Young Richard was not tall, of slight build, with one shoulder a little
higher than the other, but not so much as to be noticeable or to cause
weakness. He was a formidable adversary in battle. The portrait at Windsor
is so remarkable that it must have been taken from life. The eyes are a little
closed, and give a thoughtful, almost dreamy look. The other features are
regular. The lips thin and firm, the chin prominent. The whole expression is
that of a thoughtful and earnest man, firm, resolute, and fearless. Dr. Parr
remarked on the strong likeness between Richard III. and Lorenzo de'
Medici, the Magnificent. His wife Anne inherited great beauty from the
Nevills and Beauchamps, but she was fragile and delicate.

On July 4, 1483, King Richard III. and Queen
The young nephews Anne removed to the royal lodgings in the Tower,
where their nephews Edward and Richard were
residing. Owing to his illegitimacy the eldest boy,
who had been proclaimed King and soon afterwards set aside, could not
retain the titles of Wales and Cornwall, nor could the younger one continue
to have the royal title of York. The younger boy had also lost his claim to the
Mowbray titles of Norfolk and Nottingham by the death of the little
Mowbray heiress to whom he had been betrothed. Those titles justly passed
to the representatives of the aunts who succeeded Anne Mowbray as the
heirs of that family, the Ladies Howard and Berkeley. Their sons were
created Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Nottingham respectively, on June 28.
But Edward, the eldest boy, retained the earldoms separately conferred on
him by his father, of Pembroke and March.

It was the King's intention to bring his nephews up and provide for them
as became their rank and their near relationship to himself. 'He promised that
he would so provide for them, and so maintain them in honourable estate, as
that all the realm ought and should be content.'[1] The allegation that they
never left the Tower is derived from the insinuations of very unscrupulous
enemies.

It is much more likely that they resided in the royal household, and were
the companions of the King's other nephew, the Earl of Warwick; at least

until it became necessary to place them in safe keeping on the invasion of
the realm by Henry Tudor. In the regulations for King Richard's household,
dated July 23, 1484, it is ordained that 'the children are to be together at one
breakfast.' Who were these children, if not the King's nephews? They were
evidently children of high rank,[2] and Richard's little son Edward had died
in the previous April.

Before the coronation, the King created eighteen Knights of the Bath,
four of them sons or brothers of peers.

The coronation of King Richard III. and Queen Anne took place on
Sunday, July 6, 1483. Its splendour was greater than had ever been known
before. The Cardinal Archbishop placed the crowns on the heads of the new
sovereign and his consort. He was surrounded by bishops, and nearly the
whole peerage was present. Never was accession received with such
unanimous consent by all ranks of the people. The attendance of a Woodville
bishop and a Grey viscount gave grounds for the hope that even faction was
at an end. On scarcely any other occasion was the aristocracy of England so
fully represented. The Duchess of Suffolk, as sister of the King, walked
alone in state, in the procession. The intriguing wife of Stanley, mother of
Henry Tudor, had the privilege of bearing the Queen's train.

CORONATION PROCESSION OF KING RICHARD III.
Serjeants of Arms
Heralds
Trumpets and Clarions
The Cross
Priests in grey amices
Bishops, with mitres and croziers
Abbots, with mitres

BISHOP OF ROCHESTER, bearing a cross

THE CARDINAL ARCHBISHOP

THE EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND, bearing the pointless sword of
mercy

LORD STANLEY, DUKE OF SUFFOLK, EARL OF
LINCOLN
bearing the mace of bearing the sceptre bearing the
orb
Constable

DUKE OF NORFOLK, bearing the crown

EARL OF SURREY, bearing the sword of state in scabbard

VISCOUNT LOVELL, B C B C EARL OF KENT
bearing the sword a i a i bearing the
sword
(civil) of justice r n r n
(ecclesiastical)
o q o q of justice
n u n u
s e s e
THE KING
o P o P
f o f o
r r
BISHOP OF BATH AND t t BISHOP OF
DURHAM
WELLS s s

DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM, bearing the King's train

Earls
Barons

EARL OF HUNTINGDON, EARL OF WILTSHIRE, VISCOUNT LYLE,
bearing the Queen's bearing the Queen's bearing the
rod
sceptre crown with dove

BISHOP OF EXETER THE QUEEN BISHOP OF
NORWICH

LADY STANLEY, bearing the Queen's train

DUCHESS OF SUFFOLK (King's sister), in state, alone

Twenty peeresses

The Duke of Buckingham put forward an important claim, soon after the
coronation, and its success was an example of the lavish generosity of
Richard III. Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, died in the
year 1372, leaving his two daughters co-heiresses of his vast estates.
Alianore, the eldest, married Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, the
youngest son of Edward III. Their daughter and eventual heiress Anne
married Edmund Earl of Stafford, great-grandfather of the Duke of
Buckingham. Mary, the second daughter, married Henry of Bolingbroke,
Earl of Derby, who became Earl of Hereford by right of his wife, and
eventually usurped the crown as Henry IV. His male descendants ended with
his grandson Henry VI. The Duke of Buckingham claimed that the moiety of
the Bohun estates which Mary brought to Henry IV. and which had merged
in the crown, should now revert to him as the male heir of both sisters.
Legally, the claim was untenable, and it had been rejected by Edward IV.
Richard, however, generously conceded all that Buckingham asked, making
a formal grant of the lands in question under his own sign manual.

On his accession the generous young King was anxious to be reconciled
with all his subjects with whom he had ever had differences. Among these
was a certain Sir John Fogge, a low intriguer, with whom the King
condescended to shake hands. This treacherous fellow soon afterwards
joined in Buckingham's rebellion. Like Louis XII. of France King Richard
forgot and forgave all offences against the Duke of Gloucester.

The King set out on a progress through England,
The Royal Progress [3] a fortnight after the coronation, accompanied by
the Duke of Buckingham and a large retinue. The
young Earl of Warwick, Richard's nephew, was also
with him, having been liberated from durance in the Tower, where he had
been kept by the Marquis of Dorset as his ward, ever since the death of his
father Clarence. Young Warwick was also at his uncle's coronation.

The King left Windsor for Reading on the 23rd, arriving at Oxford on
July 24, where he was received by old Dr. Waynflete, Bishop of Winchester,
and the Bishops of Worcester, St. Asaph, and St. David's. He was lodged in
Magdalen College, and on his departure the aged Dr. Waynflete caused to be
entered in the College register—

VIVAT REX IN AETERNUM.

On August 1 the King was at Gloucester, and here the Duke of
Buckingham took his leave and proceeded to his estates in Wales,
accompanied by his intriguing prisoner Bishop Morton. Passing on to
Tewkesbury on August 4, Richard arrived at Warwick on the 8th, where he
was joined by the Queen, who came direct from Windsor.[4] The court
remained a week at Warwick, and comprised the young Earl of Warwick,
five Bishops,[5] the Earls of Lincoln, Surrey, and Huntingdon, Lords
Stanley, Dudley, Morley, Scrope, and Lovell, the Chief Justice, the Scottish
Duke of Albany, and the Spanish Ambassador. On the 10th the royal party
was at Coventry, on the 17th at Leicester, on the 22nd at Nottingham. The
King and Queen arrived at Pomfret on the 27th, where they were met by
their little son Edward, who had travelled from Middleham to be with them.
On the 30th they entered the city of York.

The people of York vied with each other in the loyalty and cordiality of
their welcome. Richard III. was a most popular sovereign, and with good
reason. Bishop Langton,[6] who accompanied him on this progress, thus
wrote: 'He contents the people where he goes best that ever did Prince, for
many a poor man that hath suffered wrong many days has been relieved and
helped by him and his commands in his progress. And in many great cities
and towns were great sums of money given him which he hath refused.[7]
On my truth I never liked the conditions of any Prince so well as his. God
hath sent him to us for the weal of us all.'[8] On September 8 King Richard
and Queen Anne walked in solemn procession with the crowns on their
heads, on the occasion of the creation of their son Edward as Prince of
Wales.[9] The young Prince, his cousin the Earl of Warwick, and Galfridus
de Sasiola, the Spanish Ambassador, were knighted. The royal party left
York on the 20th, and proceeded by Gainsborough towards Lincoln, which
city was entered on October 12.

Suddenly the news reached the King that the Duke of Buckingham had
broken out in rebellion. Never was there an act so unprovoked and
treacherous. The Duke seems to have been a weak unprincipled man, full of
vanity and self-importance, and his worst qualities were worked upon by the

insidious old intriguer Morton, who had been entrusted to his custody.
Buckingham's ambition was to seize the crown. In accordance with the
'Titulus Regius,' only two persons stood in his way. These were King
Richard III. and his delicate little son. The traitor's scheme was to strike
them down and seize the coveted prize. The rebellion was carefully planned.
All the Lancastrian and Woodville malcontents were invited to join, and
there were to have been several simultaneous risings in the south of England,
on October 18. On that day Buckingham unfurled his standard at Brecknock,
while Dorset and Sir Thomas St. Leger rose in the west; and even the
cautious Henry Tudor sailed across from Brittany, but feared to land. His
mother, the wife of Stanley, intrigued actively with the Queen Dowager and
the Woodville faction.

The energy and decision with which the King met the danger baffled the
policy of the rebels. As Buckingham was Constable of England, it became
necessary to appoint a Vice-Constable to try rebels in conjunction with the
Earl Marshal, and Sir Ralph Ashton was selected for the post.[10] Owing to
a great flood in the Severn the forces of Buckingham were unable to cross
the river, their provisions failed, and they disbanded. The wretched traitor
put on a disguise and fled; but he was betrayed and apprehended by the
Sheriff of Shropshire. Meanwhile, the King had organised a sufficient force,
and advanced rapidly to Salisbury, whither Buckingham was brought a
prisoner. The traitor sought an interview with his injured sovereign, with the
intention of assassinating him.[11] Fortunately the request was refused. He
had been caught red-handed, and the Earl Marshal's court condemned him to
death.[12] He was beheaded at Salisbury on November 2. Richard treated
the Duke's widow, who was a Woodville, with his habitual generosity;
granting her a pension out of the lordship of Tunbridge.

The other rebels fled. Dorset and old Morton escaped abroad. Sir Thomas
St. Leger was caught and beheaded at Exeter, with Thomas Ramme and one
other delinquent. Seven rebels suffered in London. There are a hundred
names in the bill of attainder against the rebels; but most of them were
subsequently pardoned, including Stanley's intriguing wife, who was merely
given into the custody of her perfidious husband, an act of unwise leniency
which amounted to recklessness.[13]

Richard had destroyed all opposition, and he now entered upon the
serious business of government. Although his administration was profusely
liberal, he checked corruption, reformed the public offices, and promoted
economy in the service of the state. Parliament met on January 23, 1484, and
Master William Catesby was chosen Speaker. Its first business was to give
full validity to the 'Titulus Regius' by embodying it in an Act of Parliament.
The public acts of Richard's parliament are noted for their wisdom and
beneficial effects. One of them gave security to purchasers of land against
secret feoffments, another conferred power on magistrates to accept bail
from persons accused of felony, another was intended to prevent the
intimidation of juries. The abolition of benevolences was a most beneficent
measure, designed to put an end to an oppressive system of extorting money.
An elaborate statute was also passed to check malpractices in the
manufacture of woollen goods. The statutes of Richard III. were the first that
were published in English. The distinction between public and private acts
was also first made in this parliament. The latter included the reversal of the
attainder of the Percys, several other restitutions, and grants for
endowments, including a grant for the endowment of Bishop Stillington's
college at Acaster.

Lord Bacon, no friendly critic, said of Richard III. that he was 'a prince in
military virtue approved, jealous of the honour of the English nation, and
likewise a good law maker for the ease and solace of the common
people.'[14] In speaking of the parliament of Richard III. Lord Campbell
says: 'We have no difficulty in pronouncing Richard's parliament the most
meritorious national assembly for protecting the liberty of the subject, and
putting down abuses in the administration of justice that had sat in England
since the reign of Henry III.'[15]

King Richard III. introduced reforms in the
The revenue revenue departments, which were prepared under his
own eye. He ordered the Auditor of the Exchequer to
submit an annual return of all revenues, issues, and
profits; while the Lord Treasurer was to make a return of all money received
and disbursed in his office. Formerly the Pell Issue and Receipt Rolls only
showed net sums paid into the Exchequer, 'reprises' and direct payments
being ignored.

The principal source of revenue was from the customs. The 'antiqua
costuma' consisted of 6s. 8d. on the sack of wool, and 13s. 4d. on the last of
leather. The 'parva costuma' included 3s. 4d. on a sack of wool, a small tax
on cloth and other imports and exports, and an ad valorem duty of 2d. in the
pound, and 3d. from foreigners, on general merchandise. Tonnage and
poundage was 1s. in the pound on the value of most goods, except wool and
leather, and 3d. on each tun of wine. The 'antiqua costuma' and 'parva
costuma' were hereditary, but tonnage and poundage had to be voted by
parliament at the beginning of each reign. Customs duties brought in
18,629l. in the first, and 20,743l. in the second year of King Richard's reign.
The old crown revenues yielded 17,900l., Hanaper 2,930l., and other receipts
5,297l. The total annual revenue was 50,356l. in the first, and 57,122l. in the
second year.

The navy in those days was small, indeed it had
The navy ceased to exist during the wretched misrule of Henry
VI. Richard had, as Lord Admiral during his brother's
reign, been gradually restoring the navy to efficiency,
and in 1480 his brother appointed a 'Keeper of the Ships,' the officer who
had control of naval organisation. Thomas Rogers, a merchant and
fishmonger of London, was continued as 'Keeper of the Ships' during King
Richard's reign, the navy consisting of seven ships, the 'Nicholas,'
'Governor,' 'Grace Dieu,' 'Mary of the Tower,' 'Martin Garcia,' 'Falcon,' and
'Trinity.'

While parliament was sitting the Convocation also assembled. The
bishops and clergy presented an adulatory address to the King, praying that
he would redress their grievances, 'seeing your most noble and blessed
disposition in all things.' In reply Richard granted a charter to the clergy,
confirming their liberties and immunities; and he took the opportunity of
enjoining a closer attention to their spiritual duties. With this object he
issued a Royal Letter calling upon Churchmen to enforce discipline and
promote morality among the people. The Convocation voted the King three-
tenths, which yielded 5,600l.

Before the prorogation the King took measures to induce the Queen
Dowager to come out of sanctuary with her daughters. He promised that, if
they would be guided and ruled by him, he would treat them kindly and

honourably as his kinswomen, marry them to gentlemen born, and give them
suitable allowances. Elizabeth agreed to these terms, which were faithfully
observed; and the King also undertook to grant a pension of 700 marks a
year for her own maintenance. She not only came out of sanctuary with her
daughters, but showed so much confidence in Richard's good faith that she
sent to her son, the Marquis of Dorset, to return to England and submit
himself to the King.

In March, 1484, the King and Queen left London,
Death of the Prince and proceeded northwards by way of Cambridge,
of Wales reaching Nottingham on April 20. Here they received
intelligence of the death of the young Prince of
Wales, which took place at Middleham on the 9th of
the same month. The unhappy parents were distracted with the most violent
grief. 'You might have seen his father and mother in a state almost bordering
on madness by reason of their sudden grief.'[16] The child was interred in
the chapel built by Richard himself, on the north side of Sheriff Hutton
church. The King had placed 'the sun in splendour,' the favourite device of
his brother Edward, in one of the windows. An alabaster effigy of the young
Prince of Wales, habited in a loose gown with a coronet on his head, was
fixed on an altar tomb. The south side of the tomb is divided into
compartments. In the centre one the heart-broken father is represented in
armour, offering up prayer to the Almighty, who is supporting a crucifix. On
each side, in other compartments, there are shields now quite plain, probably
once painted, supported by angels; and on the window jamb there is a shield
charged with a cross of St. George in bold relief, the badge of the garter. The
charges on the other shields have probably been wilfully defaced, as well as
any crowns or ensigns of royalty, to conceal the identity of the monument.
This was perhaps done to avoid complete desecration at Tudor hands. Some
months after the child's death, when Richard had to sign a warrant for the
last expenses connected with the funeral of his 'most dear son,' he touchingly
added, in his own handwriting, 'whom God pardon.'[17] This prayer may
have suggested the subject of the sculptured panel on the tomb, where the
petition is made to pass, in form of a scroll, from the suppliant's lips to the
ear of God.

King Richard, after the death of his own son, declared his nephew
Edward, Earl of Warwick, son of his brother Clarence, to be heir to the

throne. It was no doubt intended to reverse the attainder in due time.
Meanwhile young Warwick was given precedence before all other peers. He
resided sometimes at Sheriff Hutton, sometimes with his aunt, as a member
of the King's household.[18]

It is asserted by Rous that the King changed his mind soon afterwards,
and declared his nephew the Earl of Lincoln to be his heir, closely
imprisoning young Warwick.[19] Rous was a dishonest and unscrupulous
writer, and this particular statement is disproved by documentary evidence.
For on May 13, 1485, the Mayor and Corporation of York determined to
address a letter to the Lords of Warwick and Lincoln and other of the
Council at Sheriff Hutton.[20] The precedence here given to young Warwick
above Lincoln, and the fact of his being addressed as one of the Council,
prove the statement of Rous to be false. It shows also that Warwick had not
been superseded, and that he was still heir to the throne, just before the battle
of Bosworth.[21] He was probably a member of the King's household, and
one of the children mentioned in the Royal Ordinance of July 23, 1484.

Richard III. made a progress in the north of England during the summer
of 1484, superintending the coast defences, and in August he was again at
Nottingham receiving an embassy from Scotland. The King gave audience to
the Scottish envoys in the great hall of Nottingham Castle on September 16,
seated under a royal canopy and surrounded by the chief officers of state. A
truce was established for three years, and a marriage was agreed upon
between the eldest son of James III. and the Lady Anne de la Pole,[22] niece
of the King of England. At about the same time a friendly treaty was ratified
between Richard and the Duke of Brittany.

In the autumn of 1484 the body of Henry VI. was, by the King's order,
removed from Chertsey and interred in St. George's Chapel at Windsor, on
the south side of the high altar, the tomb of Edward IV. being on the north
side. The chapel was then nearly finished.

Richard III. returned to London on November 9.
Popularity of the He was met by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen with
King upwards of four hundred citizens, who escorted him
to his residence at the Wardrobe in Blackfriars.
Christmas was kept at Westminster with all gaiety

and splendour, the young niece Elizabeth being richly attired in a dress
similar to that of the Queen, according to the gossiping old monk of
Croyland. But the beloved consort of so many years, the playfellow of
Richard's early days, who had shared all his joys and sorrows, the mother of
his lost child, was passing away. Like her sister Isabella, Queen Anne was
delicate, and she was now in a rapid decline. She died on March 16, 1485,
[23] and was buried in Westminster Abbey; her sorrowing husband shedding
tears over her grave.[24] As an aggravation of the King's grief, an odious
report, probably originating in the wishes of the Queen Dowager and her
daughter, was spread abroad that he meditated a marriage with his
illegitimate niece. As soon as it came to Richard's ears, he gave it formal and
public contradiction.[25]

As the spring of 1485 advanced it became known that, encouraged and
aided by the French court, the Lancastrian malcontents intended to attempt
an invasion of England, and that, probably at the suggestion of Bishop
Morton, they had put forward a pretender as a claimant of the crown. This
was Henry Tudor, who was born at Pembroke Castle on January 28, 1457.
His father, Edmund Tudor, was the son of a Welsh esquire with whom the
widow of Henry V. had formed a clandestine connection. Thus Edmund was
a half-brother of Henry VI., who created him Earl of Richmond, and his
brother Jasper Earl of Pembroke. Henry Tudor was born two months after
his father's death, when the widow was only in her fifteenth year. She was
daughter of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, and at this time was the wife
of Lord Stanley, her third husband. In 1471 Jasper Tudor fled into Brittany
with his nephew Henry. Both Edmund and Jasper Tudor had been attainted
and deprived of their earldoms. Edward IV. had created his brother Richard
Earl of Richmond,[26] and the title had since merged in the crown. The
earldom of Pembroke had been conferred on King Edward's son Edward.
Henry Tudor, who was never Earl of Richmond, had lived in Brittany for
many years, but in 1484 he had gone to France, where the desire to injure
her English neighbours induced the Lady of Beaujeu, daughter of Louis XI.
and Regent for her young brother Charles VIII., to encourage the
conspirators. Henry's claim to relationship with the Kings of the House of
Lancaster was derived from his mother's descent from an illegitimate son of
John of Gaunt.[27] It was afterwards considered unadvisable to put this
untenable claim forward, except in vague terms, and Henry's title was based
on conquest.

The King, in anticipation of the threatened
Threatened invasion invasion, took up a central position at Nottingham
Castle in the spring of 1485, and issued commissions
of array. In the early part of the year he had found the
treasury nearly exhausted, and had been obliged to resort to a loan, in order
to raise funds for the defence of the country. His parliament had abolished
the system of 'benevolences,' or forced contributions, which had often been
resorted to by former kings and were very oppressive. Richard, in his
difficulties, would not sanction this illegal practice, but he appealed to the
people for a loan, delivering 'good and sufficient pledges' for its repayment.
[28] Full payment was to be made in eighteen months, in two instalments.
By Good Friday, April 1, about 20,000l. had been received, out of 30,000l.
that had been asked for.

On June 23 a royal proclamation was issued declaring Henry Tydder alias
Tudor and his followers to be traitors and outlaws, and announcing that this
Henry, son of Edmund, son of Owen Tydder, actually pretended to have a
title to the crown. The Earl of Warwick and the King's niece Elizabeth were
sent to Sheriff Hutton for safety. Edward and Richard, the young sons of
Edward IV., must have been sent to the Tower with the same object.

Meanwhile the French Regent, although there was no war and no pretext
for hostilities with England, furnished the necessary funds to enable an
expedition to be fitted out at Harfleur, and allowed French troops to be
embarked under the command of a French officer named Philibert de
Shaundé. Thus supported and accompanied, Henry Tudor landed at Milford
Haven on August 8, 1485. He had with him a few Lancastrian exiles.

PEERAGE OF RICHARD III.

(Those printed in italic type were present at the Coronation.)
DUKES

1. Duke of Buckingham, K.G. (Stafford),[1] held the train.
2. Duke of Suffolk, K.G. (Pole), bore the sceptre.
3. Duke of Norfolk, K.G (Howard), bore the crown.

ROYAL MINORS

4. Earl of Salisbury (Plantagenet),[2] son of the King.
5. Earl of Warwick " son of Clarence.
6. Earl of March and Pembroke, K.G. (Plantagenet),
illegitimate
son of Edward IV.

EARLS

7. Earl of Lincoln (Pole),[2] bore the orb.
8. Earl of Surrey, K.G. (Howard),[2] bore the sword of
state.
9. Earl of Arundel, K.G. (FitzAlan).[1]
10. Earl of Northumberland, K.G. (Percy),[1] bore the sword
of mercy.
11. Earl of Westmoreland (Nevill), sick.
12. Earl of Wiltshire (Herbert), bore the queen's crown.
13. Earl of Kent (Grey), bore the ecclesiastical sword of
justice.
14. Earl of Nottingham (Berkeley).
15. Earl of Huntingdon, bore the queen's sceptre.
16. Earl of Shrewsbury (Talbot) } minors
17. Earl of Essex (Bourchier) }

VISCOUNTS

18. Viscount Lovell, K.G., bore the civil sword of justice.
19. Viscount Lisle (Grey),[1] bore the rod with dove.

BARONS

20. Lord Abergavenny (Nevill).
21. Lord Maltravers, K.G. (Fitz-Alan).[2]
22. Lord Grey of Codnor.
23. Lord Grey of Wilton.
24. Lord Grey of Powys.
25. Lord Morley.
26. Lord Scrope of Bolton, K.G.
27. Lord Scrope of Masham.
28. Lord Beauchamp.
29. Lord Lumley.
30. Lord Audley.
31. Lord Stourton.
32. Lord FitzHugh.
33. Lord Zouch.
34. Lord Dacre.

35. Lord Ferrers, K.G.
36. Lord Cobham.
37. Lord Stanley, K.G.,[1] bore the mace of constable.

[1] Turned traitors.
[2] Eldest sons raised to the Upper House.

BARONS--Continued

38. Lord Strange.[2]
39. Lord Welles.[1]
40. Lord Greystoke, in the marches.
41. Lord Mountjoy, at Calais.
42. Lord Dudley, K.G., very old.
43. Lord Hungerford,[2] a minor.
44. Lord Ogle, in the marches.
45. Lord de la Warre, abroad.

PRELATES

1. Archbishop of Canterbury (Bourchier).
2. Bishop of Durham (Dudley).
3. " " Rochester (Audley).
4. " " Exeter (Courtenay).
5. " " Norwich (Goldwell).
6. " " Wells (Stillington).
7. " " Salisbury (Woodville).
8. " " Lincoln (Russell).

UNDER ATTAINDER

1. Earl of Oxford, Lancastrian.
2. Earl of Devonshire, "
3. Lord Rivers, "
4. Lord Dynham, "
5. Lord Beaumont, "
6. Lord Clifford (minor) "
7. Marquis of Dorset, Woodville faction.
8. Jasper Tudor, late Earl of Pembroke.[3]
9. Henry Tudor, calling himself Earl of Richmond.[4]

MINISTERS OF RICHARD III.

Earl Marshal--The Duke of Norfolk.
Lord Chancellor--Dr. John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln.
Lord Chamberlain--Viscount Lovell, K.G. (at Bosworth). Slain
at Stoke.
Lord Steward--Lord Stanley (traitor).
Lord Constable--Duke of Buckingham (traitor), then Sir Ralph
Ashton.
Lord Admiral--Duke of Norfolk, K.G. (at Bosworth). Slain in
battle.
'Keeper of the Ships'--Thomas Rogers.
Lord Privy Seal--John Gunthorpe, Dean of Wells.
Lord Treasurer--Lord Audley (died 1491).
Chancellor of the Exchequer--William Catesby (at Bosworth).
Killed
by Henry VII.

[1] Turned traitors.
[2] Eldest sons raised to the Upper House.
[3] The earldom of Pembroke belonged to young Edward, eldest
illegitimate son of Edward IV.
[4] The earldom of Richmond had merged in the crown, having
been
granted to the Duke of Gloucester.

Chancellor of the Duchy--Thomas Metcalfe.
Secretary of State--John Kendall (at Bosworth). Slain in
battle.
Lord Deputy of Ireland--Earl of Kildare (ob. 1513).
Clerk of the Council--James Harington (at Bosworth). Slain in
battle.
Treasurer of the Household--Walter Hopton (at Bosworth).
Slain
in battle.
Comptrollers of the Household--Sir Robert Percy (of Scotton,
near
Knaresborough), (at Bosworth). Slain in battle. And Sir
John
Buck (at Bosworth). Killed by Henry VII.
Keeper of the Great Wardrobe--Pierce Courteys.

COMMISSIONERS FOR PEACE WITH SCOTLAND, 1484.

John Bishop of Lincoln

Richard of St. Asaph
Duke of Norfolk
Earl of Northumberland
Lord Privy Seal
Sir W. Stanley
Lord Stanley
Lord Strange
Lord Powys
Lord FitzHugh
Lord Dacre
Master of the Rolls
Sir Richard Ratcliffe
William Catesby
Richard Salkeld.

JUDGES AND LAW OFFICERS OF RICHARD III.

Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench . . William Hussey.
Lord Chief Justice of Common Pleas . . . . Thomas Brian.
Chief Baron of the Exchequer . . . . . . . Sir Humphrey
Starbury.
Master of the Rolls . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas Barrow.
Judges--King's Bench . . . . . . . . . . . Roger Townshend.
" . . . . . . . . . . . Guy Fairfax.
Common Pleas . . . . . . . . . . . William Jenney.
" . . . . . . . . . . . Richard Neele.
Exchequer . . . . . . . . . . . Brian Roucliffe.
" . . . . . . . . . . . Ralph Wolseley.
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morgan Kidwelly.
[1]
Solicitor-General . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas Lymon.[2]

[1] Morgan Kidwelly, King Richard's Attorney-General, was
supposed,
even by Miss Halsted, to have turned traitor and joined
Henry
Tudor. But Mr. Gairdner has cleared his character, and
shown
that the idea was due to a resemblance of names. The
Attorney-General was true and loyal to the end.

[2] The Solicitor-General married Jane Shore, with the consent
of
King Richard.

King's Serjeants . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas Tremayne.
" . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roger Townshend.
" . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Vavasour.
Recorder of London . . . . . . . . . . . . Nicholas
Fitzwilliam.

KING RICHARD'S BISHOPS

1454-86. Thomas Bourchier,[1][4] Cardinal Archbishop of
Canterbury.
1480-1501. Thomas Rotherham,[4] Archbishop of York.
1448-89. Thomas Kempe[4] (then aged 79), Bishop of London.
1447-87. William de Waynflete,[2] Bishop of Winchester.
1476-85. William Dudley,[1][2][3] Bishop of Durham.
1465-92. Robert Stillington,[1] Bishop of Bath and Wells.
1478-1504. Edward Story,[4] Bishop of Chichester.
1478-86. John Morton (traitor),[4] Bishop of Ely.
1478-86. Peter Courtenay (traitor),[1][4] Bishop of Exeter.
1474-92. Thomas Milling (Abbot of Westminster), Bishop of
Hereford.
1459-92. William Smith,[3] Bishop of Lichfield.
1480-95. John Russell,[1] Bishop of Lincoln.
1472-99. James Goldwell,[1][4] Bishop of Norwich.
1480-92. Edmund Audley,[1][4] Bishop of Rochester.
1482-85. Lionel Woodville (traitor),[1] Bishop of
Salisbury.
1476-86. John Alcock,[2][3] Bishop of Worcester.
1478-95. Richard Bell,[4] Bishop of Carlisle.
1464-96. Thomas Ednam,[4] Bishop of Bangor.
1478-96. John Marshall,[4] Bishop of Llandaff.
1472-95. Richard Redman,[2][3] Bishop of St. Asaph.
1483. Thomas Langton,[2] Bishop of St. David's.
1480-87. Richard Oldham, Bishop of Sodor and Man.
1474-98. John Esteney,[1] Abbot of Westminster.

KNIGHTS OF THE GARTER, CREATED BY RICHARD III.

1. Sir John Conyers (at Bosworth). Escaped.
2. The Earl of Surrey (at Bosworth). Taken prisoner.
3. Viscount Lovell (at Bosworth). Escaped. Slain at Stoke.
The
King's dearest friend.

[1] At the coronation.
[2] Received the King at Oxford.

[3] With the King at Warwick
[4] At Henry Tudor's first Parliament.

4. Sir Richard Ratcliffe (at Bosworth). Slain in the
battle.
5. Sir Thomas Burgh.
6. Lord Stanley (traitor).
7. Sir Richard Tunstall.

KNIGHTS

Sir Robert Dymoke (the champion) was knighted on July 5,
1483.
Sir Robert Percy . . . . . . . . . " " "
Sir Walter Hopton . . . . . . . . " " "
Sir William Jenney (Judge) . . . . " " "
Sir Robert Brackenbury . . . . . . " " "
1485.

KNIGHTS OF THE BATH, CREATED AT THE CORONATION OF RICHARD III.
[1]

1. Sir Edmund de la Pole (son of the Duke of Suffolk).
2. Sir John Grey (son of the Earl of Kent).
3. Sir William Zouch (brother of Lord Zouch).
4. Sir George Neville (son of Lord Abergavenny).
5. Sir Christopher Willoughby.
6. Sir William Berkeley, of Beverston (traitor).
7. Sir Henry Babington. (Buck has Bainton.)
8. Sir Thomas Arundell.
9. Sir Thomas Boleyn. (Buck has Bullen.)
10. Sir Edmund Bedingfield.
11. Sir Gervase Clifton. Wounded at Bosworth.
12. Sir William Saye (son of Lord Saye, who fell at Barnet).
13. Sir William Enderby.
14. Sir Thomas Lewknor (traitor).
15. Sir Thomas Ormonde.
16. Sir John Browne.
17. Sir William Berkeley, of Wyldy.
18. Sir Edmund Cornwall, Baron of Burford.

[1] From Grafton, p. 799, and Holinshed, p. 733; Harl. MS.

293,
fol. 208b, and 2115, fol. 152; Buck, p. 26.

[1] Morton in Grafton, p. 127.

[2] Harl MSS. 433, fol. 269. Their high rank is shown by the order that no livery
is to exceed the allowance, 'but only to my Lord (Lincoln?) and the children.' See
Davies, York Records, p. 212 n., who also makes the suggestion that these
children were the offspring of Edward IV. and the young Earl of Warwick.

[3] King Richard's progress:
Windsor 22 July, 1483 | Gloucester 1 Aug. 1483
Reading 23 " " | Tewkesbury 4 " "
Oxford 24 " " | Worcester 6 " "
Warwick* 8 Aug. " | Doncaster 25 " "
Coventry 15 " " | Pontefract 27 " "
Leicester 17 " " | York 30 " "
Nottingham+ 22 " "

* A week.
+ Letter of Secretary Kendal to Mayor of York, Aug. 23; Drake, p. 116.

[4] Rous.

[5] Worcester, Lichfield, Durham, St. Asaph, and Bangor (Rous, 217).

[6] Of St. David's.

[7] See also Rous, p. 216.

[8] Sheppard's Christ Church Letters, 46, quoted by Gairdner, p. 115.

[9] Rymer, xii. 200, quoted by Gairdner, p.

[10] Buck, p. 31, who gives the Letters Patent.

[11] Confession of his son.

[12] It is generally alleged that there was no trial. The appointment of Sir Ralph
Ashton proves that there was.

[13] King Richard's Traitors, Oct. 1483

In the bill of attainder (Rot. Part. v. p. 294) there are 100 persons. Of these were
executed

The Duke of Buckingham at Salisbury.
Sir Thomas St. Leger at Exeter.

A person named Ramme at Exeter.
Some executed after trial at Torrington by Lord Scrope.

Wm. Collingbourne had offered another man 8l. to go to Hy. Tudor in Brittany
and urge him to invade England. If they would land at Poole, he would get people
to rise. Executed in London, and 6 others, 2 taken in Kent, 4 in Southwark.
Courtenay, Bishop of Exeter }
Woodville, Bishop of Salisbury }
Morton, Bishop of Ely }
Marquis of Dorset } escaped abroad.
(son of the Queen Dowager) }
Lord Welles }
(uncle of Henry Tudor) }

Proclaimed Traitors—
Henry Tudor, calling himself Earl of Richmond.*
Jasper Tudor, late Earl of Pembroke.*
Sir E. Courtenay.
Margaret, wife of Lord Stanley.
Sir William Cheney, to induce the Duke of Brittany to help.
John Cheney at Salisbury, and others.
Wm. Noreys, of Yachendon }
Sir Wm. Berkeley, of Beverton }
Sir Roger Tocotes, of Bromham, pardoned } 44 at Newbury and in
Sir Wm. Stonor, in Berks. } Berks.
Sir John Fogge, with 26 others }
Richard Beauchamp, of St. Amand }
William Knyvett, of Bodenham } with Buckingham at
John Hush, merchant of London } Bechurch
Thomas Nandike, necromancer of Cambridge }
Sir George Brown, of Bletchworth, and others executed at
Maidstone (Oct. 18), Rochester (Oct. 20), Gravesend (Oct. 22).
Sir John Gifford.
Sir Thomas Lewknor.
Sir Richard Gilford.
Reynald Pympe.
Sir Edward Poynings.
Sir William Brandon.
Sir John Wingfield.
Arthur Keane.
Sir William Hunter, pardoned.
Sir Thomas Ferveys, "
Nicholas Gaynsford, "

One hundred named in the Bill, a considerable number afterwards
pardoned.

Harl. MSS. No. 433, p. 128; Halsted, ii. 276 n.; Sharon Turner.

* Henry Tudor had never been Earl of Richmond. His father was attainted, and
the title was given to Richard Duke of Gloucester, with whom it merged in the
crown. Jasper Tudor had been Earl of Pembroke before his attainder. Hence
Henry Tudor is named as 'calling himself Earl of Richmond,' while Jasper is 'late
Earl of Pembroke.' After the attainder the Earldom of Pembroke was conferred by
Edward IV. on his son Edward.

[14] Life of Henry VII.

[15] Lives of the Lord Chancellors, i. p. 407.

[16] 'Vidisses tantisper patrem et matrem, iis novis apud Nothinghaniam ubi tunc
residebant, auditis præ subitis doloribus pene insanire'—Croyland, p. 571.

[17] Harl. MS. No. 433, fol. 183.

[18] Rous, pp. 217-218. 'Non multo post principe, ut dicitur, mortuo, juvenis
comes Warwici Edwardus, filius primogenitus Georgii ducis Clarenciæ,
proclamatus est apparens Angliæ in curia regali, et in serviciis ad mensam et
cameram post regem et reginam primo ei serviebatur.'

[19] 'Postea sub arta custodia positus, conies Lincolniensis ei præferrebatur
nomine Johannes Pole, filius et heres Johannis Pole ducis Suffolchiæ.'—Rous, p.
218.

[20] Davies, York Records, p. 210.

[21] Moreover, Lincoln fell at Stoke, fighting for the Earl of Warwick as rightful
king, not for himself.

[22] This marriage never took place, and the Lady Anne became a nun at Sion.

[23] It is said by the Croyland monk (572) that there was an eclipse of the sun on
the day of her death. This would make it March 16. Some authorities have the
11th.

[24] Buck, p. 129. 'Non cum minore honore quam sicut reginam decuit
sepeliri.'—Croyland, i. 572.

[25] Croyland, York Records, pp. 208, 210.

[26] Rot. Parl. vi. 227.

[27] John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the third son of Edward III., who lived to
marry, had for his first wife Blanche, heiress of Henry Duke of Lancaster, through
whom he acquired the title. By her he had Henry IV., who usurped the crown,
Edward and John, who died young, Philippa, married to Joam I., King of
Portugal, and Elizabeth Duchess of Exeter. He married secondly Constanza,
heiress of Pedro King of Castille and Leon, and had a daughter Catalina, wife of
Enrique III., King of Castille and Leon. A governess was engaged for the
daughters of the Duke of Lancaster. This was Catharine, daughter of a herald of
Hainault, named Payn Roet, who had married Sir Hugh Swynford in 1367. The
Duke had four children by this woman, named John, Henry, Thomas, and Joan,
surnamed Beaufort from the castle in France where they were born. All were born
during the lifetime not only of the Duke's wife, but also of the governess's
husband. The Duchess died in 1394, and the realm was scandalised by the
marriage of the Duke of Lancaster with this woman on January 13, 1396. The
Duke died in February 1399, Catharine Swynford on May 10, 1403. Their
children were granted letters of legitimation by Richard II. in February 1397,
confirmed by Henry IV. on February 10, 1407, 'excepta dignitate regali.' Henry
Tudor's mother was granddaughter of John, the eldest of the Beauforts.

[28] Every act of Richard III. has been persistently misrepresented. This loan is
usually alleged to have been a return to the illegal system of 'benevolences,'
which Richard had himself abolished a year before, by Act of Parliament. Even
Miss Halsted is led into this error. But Mr. Gairdner has completely disposed of
the accusation. See Croyland, p. 572, and Lingard's remarks, iv. 255. Gairdner, p.
198.

CHAPTER XI

THE BATTLE OF BOSWORTH

Richard's headquarters were at Nottingham Castle, the 'Castle of Care' as
he had called it, since he received the news of his son's death there. With the
aid of the loan a force had been raised and armed; while reinforcements were
on their way from several directions. Here the news arrived that Henry
Tudor[1] had landed at Milford Haven with 2,000 mercenaries. He would
never have run this risk unless he had previously received distinct promises
of adherence from the Talbots and Stanleys. His mother, the wife of Stanley,
was an inveterate intriguer. She had already been detected in treasonable
practices and contemptuously forgiven by the King. Now she had persuaded
her treacherous husband that it would be more for his interests to be step-
father to a new King owing everything to his treason, than to continue loyal
to his generous and forgiving master. This explains the conduct of the
Stanleys, which emboldened the invader to venture upon such an enterprise.
The insurgents advanced by Cardigan and Welshpool to Shrewsbury. They
were joined by several Welsh chiefs, and by Sir Gilbert Talbot with 2,000
men. Henry Tudor was accompanied by his uncle Jasper, and by John Vere,
son of the attainted Earl of Oxford. Reginald Bray,[2] his mother's steward,
was in attendance on him, and Dr. Richard Fox[3] acted as his secretary.
Most of the leaders of his troops were exiles who had been concerned in
Buckingham's abortive treason. William Brandon,[4] Sir John Cheney, Sir
Giles Daubeny, Sir Robert Willoughby, Sir John Byron, Richard Edgcombe,
[5] and Sir Thomas Bourchier, all come under this category. Sir John Savage
and Simon Digby[6] joined the invaders after they had landed, and Walter

Hungerford[7] deserted just before the battle. No peer, except Stanley, joined
the rebels.

Lord Stanley and his brother Sir William had raised forces in Lancashire
and Cheshire, with the base intention of turning traitors to their King if a
good opportunity offered, but of being on the winning side in any
circumstances. With this object their design was to hold aloof until the last
moment. Sir William Stanley had a secret interview with Henry at Stafford.
On August 20 the insurgents, about 8,000 strong, arrived at Atherstone, nine
miles beyond Tamworth. Here the Stanleys again met Henry secretly. They
pretended to the King that they were retreating before the invaders.

Richard was undoubtedly a man endowed with great military talent. He
had shown remarkable generalship, when quite a boy, at Barnet and
Tewkesbury. He had conducted the Scottish campaign with signal success.
He had promptly stamped out the Buckingham revolt. He was now to
encounter the rebels. There can be no doubt that if he had waited for the
reinforcements which were on their way, especially from the north, the result
would never have been doubtful. But alas! he despised his enemy, and his
open and generous nature prevented him from harbouring a suspicion of the
foul treachery of the Stanleys until it was too late.

English pluck has been a motive power which has helped to place the
English-speaking race in the forefront of the world's history. That dogged
courage facing overwhelming odds rather than wait for help or give ground
is the secret of England's success. Often leading to decisive victory it has
sometimes resulted in disaster. Never more conspicuous than in the
audacious campaigns of Crecy and Agincourt, when fortune was on the side
of reckless valour, it was equally present on the fatal field of Beaugé, when
Thomas Duke of Clarence lost his life. We find it again at Wakefield, a battle
which resembles Bosworth in several respects. The brave and chivalrous
father lost his life on the former, the gallant son on the latter field. Both
Richards were full of English pluck. Both scorned to wait for succour; and
preferred, like the men of Zutphen and of Balaclava, to charge into the midst
of countless odds. Both were betrayed—the Duke of York by Nevill, the
King by the Stanleys. These Plantagenets were fitting leaders of the people
of England. While their dogged English pluck led some of them to

destruction, the very same quality has secured decisive victory for England
on a hundred fields.

On August 14 King Richard was hunting in Beskwood Park. He was an
ardent sportsman, and this was fated to be his last day's sport. Monday the
15th was the Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin, and he devoutly kept it,
as we learn from the Duke of Norfolk.[8] He commenced his march from
Nottingham on Wednesday morning. He was surrounded by loyal and
devoted friends. Viscount Lovell and Sir Robert Percy, the companions of
his childhood, rode by his side. The veteran Duke of Norfolk, who had
fought with the great Talbot at Châtillon, was hurrying up with a contingent
from the eastern counties. His son, the gallant Earl of Surrey, was with him.
Lords Ferrers and Zouch had arrived from the Midlands. The loyal old
Constable, Sir Robert Brackenbury, had come by forced marches from
London. The Earl of Northumberland, who owed much to his royal cousin,
[9] was bringing a first instalment of troops from the north. The faithful city
of York was represented by eighty of her citizens, stout-hearted and well
equipped.[10] Other troops were on their way, and if the King had waited for
them his victory was certain. All the loyal gentry of the north were in arms,
but Richard did not give them time to reach his camp. Among them were the
two Lords Scrope, Lords Dacre and Ogle, Lord Greystoke of Hinderskelf,
the King's cousin,[11] who 'brought a mighty many,' and among the
Yorkshire names of those loyal to King Richard were Gascoigne and
Conyers, Strickland and Constable, Mauleverer and Plumpton, Tempest and
Pudsey, Pilkington and Musgrave.

The King formed his army in two divisions, marching five abreast, with
the cavalry on the flanks. Richard himself was on a white horse richly
caparisoned, and he wore a golden circlet on his helmet. He entered
Leicester in the evening of August 19, and lodged at the 'White Boar'[12] in
North Gate Street. In the morning of Sunday the 21st the army marched out
of Leicester, reaching the little village of Stapleton, a distance of eight miles,
in the afternoon. A camp had already been prepared in a field near Stapleton,
called 'the Bradshaws,' which is on a slight eminence.

The Battle of

Bosworth

Map: Battle of Bosworth

This part of Leicestershire consists of a succession of hills and dales, with
streams flowing westward, and uniting to form the Anker, a tributary of the
Trent. The 'Bradshaws' is on the brow of a gentle slope, at the base of which
flows a rivulet called the Tweed. The Duke of Norfolk's camp was at
Cadeby, about two miles to the north, but he only arrived at Stapleton the
day before the battle. Stanley, still pretending to retreat, marched with 2,000
men, by Stoke Golding, to a field now called 'Gamble's Close,' facing the
'Bradshaws,' with the Tweed flowing between the two positions. Sir William
Stanley had a similar force encamped on the northern side of the field, in
front of the town of Market Bosworth, and near the Duke of Norfolk.
Between, but to the west of Stapleton and Cadeby, there is a ridge known as
Sutton Fields, in front of the village of Sutton Cheney. A gentle slope sinks
thence to Redmore Plain[13] and Ambien Leys, between which is the hill
called Ambien. Further west, across the stream, there are some fields called
the White Moors, with the village of Shenton to the north, and those of
Dadlington and Stoke Golding to the south-east.

Henry had arrived at Atherstone on August 20, and lodged at the 'Three
Tuns,' while the rebel troops and their French allies under Philibert de
Shaundé encamped in the meadows north of the church. Tudor was here

joined by another traitor, Robert Hardwicke of Lindley. Next day the
insurgents advanced nearly due east, crossed the bridge over the river Anker
at Witherley, and then turned up the Fenn Lanes, encamping on White
Moors. Hardwicke of Lindley acted as their guide. They were a mile from
Ambien Hill, with Lord Stanley in advance of their right flank, and Sir
William Stanley between their camp and Bosworth, on their left flank.

The King had thrown up a breastwork to protect his camp, 300 yards
long, with flanks of fifty yards, facing Lord Stanley. At length the suspicious
conduct of Stanley forced him to entertain the idea of treachery. But it was
too late. He had about 8,000 men, while Norfolk's contingent numbered
4,000. The Stanleys had about 8,000 men, and the insurgent army was
composed of 2,000 French mercenaries, 2,000 retainers of Sir Gilbert Talbot,
and 4,000 Welsh and English traitors, in all 8,000 men. Including the Stanley
contingents, the enemy largely outnumbered the royal army.

During the night Sir Simon Digby got into the royal camp as a spy, and
returned with the report that the troops were in motion. The rebel leaders,
therefore, sounded to arms. This must have been at dawn of Monday, August
22, 1485. The sun rose that day at a quarter after five.[14] King Richard
marched north-eastward for two miles to effect a junction with the Duke of
Norfolk. The royal army was then formed in two lines, along the ridge of
Sutton Fields. The archers were in the front line, with a few small pieces of
artillery, under the Duke of Norfolk. The bill-men formed the rear line, and
the horse were on the flanks. Stanley marched at the same time as the King,
and halted to the rear of his left flank. The Earl of Northumberland arrived
the same morning, but he seems to have thought that his men needed rest. He
took no part in the battle. This slackness and want of zeal were punished in
after years by the loyal people of Yorkshire.[15]

King Richard was dressed in the same suit of polished steel that he had
worn at Tewkesbury, with a golden circlet round his helmet. He rode to a
knoll, since called 'Dickon's Nook,' and addressed the army in a spirit-
stirring speech, calling on all true Englishmen to resist the foreign invaders,
and appealing to their loyalty and patriotism. He then led them down the
slope, placing his right towards Ambien Leys. In front of his centre there
was a well, since known as King Richard's Well.

Philibert de Shaundé had formed the insurgents across Redmore Plain,
with a morass on their right flank. In their first line was John Vere in the
centre, Sir Gilbert Talbot on the right, and Sir John Savage on the left wing.
Jasper Tudor commanded the second line, and his nephew Henry kept well
in the rear. John Vere ordered his men not to advance more than ten paces in
front of their standard; for he knew of the contemplated treachery, and that
the royal troops would be attacked in the rear.

As soon as the King saw that the insurgents had left their camp and
advanced round the morass, he gave the order for the attack at about 10 A.M.
A volley of arrows was discharged on either side: probably a few shots from
some small pieces of ordnance were fired by the rebels.[16] Then the traitor
Stanley threw off the mask and fell upon the left rear of the royal army,
throwing it into confusion. The Duke of Norfolk fought gallantly and fell in
the thickest of the battle.

The young King beheld this treason, and at once made up his mind. He
saw that a desperate charge of cavalry was the only remaining chance. He
received a report that Henry Tudor was skulking in the rear, and resolved to
attack him. It was a well-concerted plan, though made on the spur of the
moment. Richard was surrounded by loyal and devoted knights. It is said
that he stopped to quench his thirst at the well. Then, putting spurs to his
horse, he galloped forward, followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
the Secretary of State, the Clerk of the Council, the Constable of the Tower,
Lords Lovell, K.G., Ferrers, and Zouch; Sir Bryan Stapleton, Sir Thomas
and Humphrey Stafford, Sir Richard Clarendon, Sir Gervase Clifton, Sir
Robert Percy,[17] Sir Richard Ratcliffe, K.G.,[18] the flower of England's
loyal chivalry. Sir William Parker was the standard-bearer. Never was the
valour of the kingly race of Plantagenet more gloriously displayed. Sir
Robert Brackenbury was encountered by the traitor Hungerford, who slew
the grey-headed old warrior, loyal to the last. Sir Gervase Clifton was
overthrown and badly wounded, but he was shielded from further harm by
Sir John Byron, his old friend and neighbour in Nottinghamshire, who
eventually obtained his pardon from the usurper.[19] The King himself
felled William Brandon to the ground. He was the adventurer's standard-
bearer, and the red dragon worked on white and green sarcenet was hurled
into the mud. The lions of England still waved over their defenders. The
King then unhorsed Sir John Cheney, a French pensioner, and was on the

point of reaching Henry Tudor himself, when the last and foulest act of
treachery was perpetrated. Sir William Stanley suddenly attacked the right
flank of the royal army with 3,000 men. King Richard was surrounded. He
was urged to fly by the loyal knights who stood by him to the last. 'Never,'
exclaimed the young hero, 'I will not budge a foot; I will die King of
England,' and he dashed into the thickest of the fight. Like a sturdy oak
sinking under a thousand blows, at length King Richard fell, fighting an
army and covered with wounds. 'Fighting manfully in the thickest press of
his enemies,' confessed one of the most unscrupulous among them.[20] He
fell at the foot of the hill in Ambien Leys. Lord Ferrers, Lord Zouch, Sir
Richard Ratcliffe, the Secretary of State, and the Clerk of the Council fell
fighting by his side. Sir William Conyers and Sir Richard Clarendon were
also among the slain, with many other loyal knights and gentlemen. Sir
William Parker (or Thurleball?), the King's standard-bearer, is said to have
kept the lions of England on high until both his legs were cut from under
him, nor, when on the ground, would he let go while breath was left in his
body.[21]

The royal charge commenced at 11 A.M. and lasted about half an hour.
Each side lost a hundred men in battle, but the treason of the Stanleys was
followed by the flight of the royal army towards Stoke Golding, and during
the pursuit, which continued for fifty minutes, there was considerable
slaughter.

Henry then came to the front, and was at Stoke Golding when Sir William
Stanley brought him the golden circlet off the late King's helmet, saluting
him as King. The place is called 'Crown Hill.' Stanley was made Lord
Chamberlain by the usurper; but such a traitor could not be trusted. Henry
was conscious that 'though Stanley came in time to save his life, he delayed
long enough to endanger it.' The astute and patient King, brought up in the
school of Louis XI., bided his time. Before many years his saviour was
beheaded.

Shameful indignities are said to have been perpetrated on the lifeless
body of King Richard. They could have been prevented by a word from
Henry, but that word was not spoken. 'Insults offered by the victor to the
corpse of a soldier slain in battle evince a great degree of meanness or
cowardice on the part of the former.'[22]

Richard III. was buried in the church of St. Mary, belonging to the Grey
Friars, at Leicester, and a tomb was erected over his grave. Not only has the
tomb long since disappeared, but the church also. In 1808 a stone pyramid
was built over the well on the battlefield, with a suitable inscription by the
learned Dr. Parr, to commemorate the gallant death of the King:

AQUA EX HOC PUTEO HAUSTA
SITIM SEDAVIT
RICABDUS TERTIUS REX ANGLIAE
CUM HENRICO COMITE DE RICHMONDIA
ACERRIME ATQUE INFENSISSIME PRAELIANS
ET VITA PARITEB AC SCEPTRO
ANTE NOCTEM CARITURUS
II KAL. SEPT. A.D. MCCCCLXXXV

In 1871 the arms of King Richard III., impaling those of Queen Anne,
were placed on an abutment of the new bridge at Nottingham, as a memorial.
Richard III., the last of our Plantagenet kings, is the only one since the
Norman Conquest who has fallen on the field of battle. He was also the
youngest of our actual reigning sovereigns when he died.[23]

Richard passed through the first thirty years of his life, before his
accession, with honour and repute. He displayed brilliant courage as a
knight, and remarkable ability as a general. In France he upheld the honour
of England against the corrupt faction which surrounded his sovereign. In
Scotland he did admirable service by the capture of Berwick. He was an
efficient and energetic administrator of the Northern Marches, and was the
first to establish postal communication by means of relays of horses. He was
justly popular throughout the country, and was beloved in Yorkshire, where
he was best known. When the news of his death reached York, the people
were plunged in grief. The following entry was made in the City Register:
'He was piteously slain and murdered to the great heaviness of this city.'[24]

On his accession to the throne his character did not alter. He loved his
country, and was a King of great administrative ability. He was prompt and
vigorous in suppressing insurrections, and baffling the schemes of

conspirators; but he was lenient, often unwisely so, when the immediate
danger was over. No other King would have spared such mischievous
traitors as Stanley and Morton. His generosity to the families of attainted
rebels will not find any parallel in our history. Not only did he show liberal
clemency to the wives of Rivers, Hastings, Buckingham and others: but he
actually pensioned the wives of men who were plotting against him in
foreign countries, like John Vere, Lord Dynham, and Alexander Cheney. His
uprightness and good faith were relied upon by enemies and friends alike.
Lord Rivers appointed him supervisor of his last will, well knowing him to
be an honourable and magnanimous foe. Lady Latimer sought the same
service from him, as a kind and trusty friend. As an arbitrator in family
disputes, like that between Sir Robert Plumpton and his relations, Richard,
by his impartial justice, established peace and concord where there had been
ill-will and litigation.[25] There was nothing mean or sordid in his nature; he
was liberal, open-handed, and generous.

Richard's Parliament was the best that had met
Administration of since the time of Edward I. His administration was
King Richard patriotic. He checked corruption in the public service,
refused large sums of money that were offered to him
as gifts by several towns,[26] and anxiously sought
the welfare of his people. He took great interest in the administration of
justice, and it is recorded that in Michaelmas term of 1484 he personally
attended in the Star Chamber and propounded questions of law to the judges.
He encouraged trade, and especially voyages to Iceland and the northern
fisheries. In Ireland he was very popular and his government was successful.
His foreign policy was wise and judicious. He made peace with Scotland,
established friendly relations with Brittany and Spain, observed strict
neutrality between Maximilian and the Flemish towns, while promoting
commercial intercourse, and watched the treacherous regency of France with
well-founded suspicion.

King Richard was a great builder.[27] He founded collegiate churches at
Middleham, Barnard Castle, and All Hallows Barking, built a memorial
chapel at Towton, another at Sheriff Hutton, endowed Queens' College,
Cambridge,[28] and erected a handsome tower at Westminster. He pushed
forward the works at St. George's Chapel, Windsor, begun by his brother,
and repaired the castles of Skipton, Carlisle, Nottingham, and Warwick. His

cognizance of the white boar is still to be seen on the stonework of an oriel
window at Barnard Castle. Richard was a prince of literary tastes, and
among his books a manuscript copy of the romance of Tristan de Leonnais
and a Wickliffe Bible have been preserved. He was the friend and patron of
Caxton, who dedicated a book 'Of the Ordre of Chyvalry and Knyghthode' to
'his redoubted Lord King Richard.' By letters patent, dated March 21, 1484,
he gave the Heralds a charter of incorporation, and was thus the founder of
the College of Arms. He also granted them 'a right fayre and stately
house,'[29] called Pulteney's Inn. He was devout and religious, striving to
promote greater activity among the clergy in improving the morals of the
people. Richard was a keen sportsman, devoted to the chase both with hawk
and hound. He kept large hunting establishments at Westminster and in
Yorkshire.

King Richard was probably conscious of the political change that was
impending in the world, for he was a vigilant observer of the signs of the
times, and was well versed in the political questions which were engaging
the attention of European statesmen. He had witnessed the fall of his
brother-in-law, Charles the Bold, and the collapse of the system he upheld.
He must have seen that feudalism was giving way to a new era, in the age of
the Renaissance. The young Plantagenet was well fitted by nature to rule the
destinies of England during this period of change. He had received an
excellent training. For years he had been accustomed to confer with the
authorities at York on their local affairs, he had often been in consultation
with clerical advisers when framing statutes for his collegiate churches, and
from early youth he had had unusual opportunities of acquiring a knowledge
of the needs and wishes of the people. He desired to reign in the hearts of his
countrymen. His proclamations and letters show that he wished to take his
people into his counsels, to consult public opinion, and to be guided by it.
He was an administrator of no mean ability, and although he was bold even
to recklessness in facing the consequences of his acts, he always showed
anxiety to have the public feeling with him. He would, in all probability,
have respected the rights and liberties of his subjects while leading them into
new ways.

In all respects Richard was better fitted to reign
Richard and the over England in the days of change that were
inevitable than the two tyrants who succeeded him.

Tudors Henry Tudor caused a beautiful chapel to be built at
Westminster for his own tomb, but his son robbed
and destroyed scores of far more beautiful tombs and
churches in all parts of England. There might have been an age of English
Renaissance under Richard. There actually was an age of Vandalic
destruction under the Tudors. The father was a miserly foreigner, the son a
rapacious and remorseless tyrant,[30] both despots by nature, and haters of
constitutional freedom. The battle of Bosworth was a calamity from which
England did not soon recover. But after seventy-three years of tyranny the
Great Queen began to reign. Though a Tudor by name her high qualities
were derived from her mother's English ancestors. She was a true
Englishwoman at heart. Descendant of the brave and loyal Norfolk who fell
fighting for King Richard at Bosworth, the grand-niece of Richard III. was
by blood even more truly English than were her Yorkist great-uncles.

Richard was most agreeable and ingratiating in his manners, and where
he was best known he was most liked.[31] He formed friendships which
endured the test of time. Those who knew and loved him in boyhood fought
by his side on the fatal field at Bosworth.[32] Richard III. was the only one
of our kings who made a true love match. His cousin Anne, the playmate of
his childhood, was his first love. United before they were twenty, they
passed ten years of happy married life together at Middleham. Their love is
proved by their constant companionship. When the Protector was surrounded
by perils and difficulties, his wife hurried up to London to share them with
him. Together they were crowned, together they sat at public banquets, made
progresses and walked in royal processions. Together they mourned over the
death of their beloved child, and sought comfort in mutual sympathy.
Richard only survived his wife's death for five short months; having shared
with her their joys and sorrows for fourteen years.

The true picture of our last Plantagenet King is
Contemporary not unpleasant to look upon, when the accumulated
sovereigns garbage and filth of centuries of calumny have been
cleared off its surface.

CONTEMPORARY SOVEREIGNS

Scotland James III.
1460-1488
France Anne of Beaujeu (Regent for
1483
Charles VIII.)
Brittany Francis II.
1458-1488
Low Countries Mary and Maximilian
1477-1493
Germany Emperor Frederick III.
1440-1493
Denmark, Sweden, Hans
1481-1513
and Norway
Bohemia Vladislaus
1471-1510
Hungary Matthias Corvinus
1458-1490
Poland Casimir IV.
1445-1492
Castille Isabella
1474-1504
Aragon Ferdinand
1479-1516
Portugal Joam II.
1481-1495
Naples Ferdinand of Aragon
1458-1494
Pope Sixtus IV. (delle Rovere)
1471-1484
" Innocent VIII. (Cibo)
1484-1492
Tuscany Lorenzo de' Medici
1469-1492
Milan Gian Galeazzo Sforza
1476-1494
Grand Seigneur Bayazid II.
1481-1512

[1] Henry Tudor was not, and never had been, Earl of Richmond. His father had
been deprived by attainder and outlawry. Richard Duke of Gloucester was
created Earl of Richmond by King Edward IV., and when Richard succeeded, the
title merged in the crown.

[2] Sir Reginald Bray was made a K.B. at Henry's coronation, and afterwards a
Knight of the Garter. He was an architect, and has the credit of having finished
St. George's Chapel at Windsor and built Henry VII.'s Chapel at Westminster.

[3] Fox was a priestly conspirator who had been acting as one of Morton's
agents. He was rewarded with the Bishopric of Winchester.

[4] Henry's standard-bearer.

[5] Knighted after the battle.

[6] Made Lieutenant of the forests of Sherwood, Beskwood, and Clipston, on
Sept. 22, 1485.

[7] Knighted after the battle.

[8] Paston Letters, ii. p. 334.

[9] Their mothers were sisters. Richard III. had passed an Act restoring all their
rights and possessions to the Percys.

[10] Davies, York Records, p. 216.

[11] Their mothers were sisters.

[12] Afterwards the 'Blue Boar.'

[13] The battle was sometimes called Redmore, 'apud Rodemore juxta Leicestre'
(York Records, p. 217). See also Drayton's Polyolbion, xxii.

'O Redmore then it seemed thy name was not in vain,
When with a thousand's blood the earth was coloured red.'

[14] Thirty-first of Gregorian era. Sun rises at 5.15 A.M.

[15] They killed him near Thirsk, on April 28, 1488, when he was engaged in
enforcing the payment of extortionate taxes levied by his new master (Dugdale's
Baronage, p. 282).

[16] Four cannon balls were found on Ambien Hill in the last century. They are
now in possession of Mrs. Park Yates, of Sandiway, near Northwich, who
allowed Mr. Gairdner to examine them. One is of lead, weighing 14-¾ lbs.,
another 8-½ lbs., another 4 lbs., and the fourth is of stone and larger. Mr.
Gairdner suggests that the guns may have been brought by the rebels from
Tamworth Castle, which was on their line of march.

[17] Son of Robert Percy of Scotton, near Knaresborough.

[18] Eldest son of Sir Thomas Ratcliffe of Derwentwater. Sir Richard married
Agnes, daughter of Lord Scrope of Bolton.

[19] Sir Gervase Clifton of Clifton lived until 1493. His tomb is in Clifton
Church.

[20] Polydore Virgil, p. 224. 'Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut
nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum
modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, sæpius se proditum clamans et dicans
"Treason! Treason! Treason!" et sic gustans quod aliis sæpius propinaverat
miserrime vitam finivit.'—Rous, p. 218. 'Nam inter pugnandum et non in fuga,
dictus Rex Richardus, multis vulneribus ictus, quasi princeps animosus et
audentissimus in campo occubuit.'—Croyland Chron., Gale, i. p. 574.

[21] Hutton's Bosworth. The only detailed account of the battle is in the history
of the Italian Polydore Virgil, who came to England in about 1503. Hall, Grafton,
and Holinshed copied from Polydore, or from each other. Hutton visited the
ground in 1788, and again in 1807, and wrote a history of the battle. Mr.
Gairdner also went over the ground and wrote an account of the battle in the
Archæologia, lv. pt. vii. p. 159 (1896), read Jan. 24, 1895. The present writer has
twice been over every part of the ground, and examined it carefully with
Polydore Virgil and Hutton as his guides, the first time accompanied by an
accomplished antiquary, the present Earl of Liverpool.

[22] Brooke, Visits to Battle Fields in England, p. 170.

[23] Mary II. was two months younger, but she was only a joint sovereign.
Edward VI. never actually reigned.

[24] Davies, York Records, p. 218.

[25] The history of this Plumpton arbitration illustrates the difference between
Richard III. and Henry VII. The former appears as a just and upright king,
studying the good of his subjects; the latter, as a pettifogging tyrant, seeking
pretexts and excuses for robbery and spoliation.

The dispute was between Sir Robert Plumpton and his heirs general as to rights
of succession. At last there was an agreement to abide the award of the King's
Majesty. Richard III. gave the matter his careful attention, and decided on the
merits, solely actuated by the desire of doing substantial justice. His judgment
was given on September 16, 1483. Impartial justice was actually done by
Richard's award, and its conditions were peacefully acquiesced in by both
parties, for several years.

'But,' as the Editor remarks, 'it was the misfortune of Sir Robert Plumpton to
have lived on into the days of Henry VII., who, under the pretence of a rigid
enforcement of the law, sought only the means to gratify his avarice.' Every
defect of title, which might furnish the pretext for a suit or fine, was eagerly
caught at in order to swell the revenue. In this manner the claim of the Plumpton
heirs general was re-opened by the infamous Empson, the tool of Henry; and

after years of persecution, Sir Robert was reduced to beggary and a debtors'
prison.' Plumpton Correspondence, pp. xc. to cxviii. (Camden Society, 1839).

[26] London, Gloucester, and Worcester.

[27] 'Erat iste Rex Ricardus in edificiis laudandus, ut Westmonasteriensi,
Notinghamiæ, Warwici, Eboraci et apud Midlam, multisque aliis locis, ut ad
oculum manifesta evidet.'—Rous, p. 215.

[28] Rous, p. 216.

[29] Stow. Henry Tudor, when he usurped the crown, seized upon this property,
and turned out the Heralds. They remained houseless until 1555, when the Earl
Marshal purchased a house on St. Benet's Hill for them, the site of the present
Heralds' College.

[30] Henry VIII. was never known to exercise the prerogative of mercy. Even
poor young Lord Dacre was among his victims, for a trivial offence.

[31] 'Richard was bold in conceiving and reckless in facing the consequences of
his acts, of high and brilliant courage, and seductive manners.'—W. Campbell,
Introduction to Materials for the History of the Reign of Henry VII., p. xiv.

[32] Lord Lovell and Sir Robert Percy.

PART II

CHAPTER I

THE AUTHORITIES

The dynasty of the Plantagenets had reigned over England for more than
three centuries, when the last King of that royal race fell at the battle of
Bosworth. Under the Plantagenets, Normans and Saxons were welded into
one nation. The House of Commons became a firmly established institution.
The cherished liberties of England took form and shape. The victories of the
Plantagenet kings are the most glorious traditions of the English people. No
other dynasty became so thoroughly national, and the Yorkist kings were
almost pure Englishmen in blood.[1] A halo of romance would naturally
have gathered round our last Plantagenet, our youngest reigning sovereign,
[2] and the only English monarch since the Conquest who fell in battle,
fighting valiantly for his crown and country.

Instead of this being the case, the accusations of his enemies have
received full credence. He was charged 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.

Yet there are obvious reasons for closely
Rooted prejudice 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 and
arguments will be embodied in the detailed discussions which follow.

Bernard André, 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.

By far the most important of the original
Morton's pamphlet 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 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 '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. 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.

Henry VII. began the business of vilifying his
Bernard André 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 André, whom he
appointed his poet laureate and historiographer. André 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.

But the Italian who arrived some years later in
Polydore Virgil 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 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 protégé 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 important document, which Henry ordered to be
destroyed, has been preserved through a fortunate accident.[10]

These three writers, André, 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]

The authors who wrote during the reign of Henry
Rous 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 Angliæ,' 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 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. 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.

Morton, Polydore Virgil, Rous, and Fabyan will
The monks of be found to be dishonest and untrustworthy
Croyland 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) 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 ten
days, and finished in the time of Henry VII., on April 30, 1486. Though
generally trustworthy it contains several errors. It follows Morton, Polydore
Virgil, and Fabyan in stating that Hastings was beheaded on the day of his
arrest. It will be seen in Chapter III. that this is disproved by an
investigation of dates given by those writers, and by Stallworthe. It follows
Morton in the statement that Lord Rivers and his companions were
beheaded without trial. This is disproved by Rous. It asserts that, after King
Richard's coronation, there was a rumour that his nephews had been put to
death. There is no other contemporaneous mention of this rumour, and
reasons will presently be given for believing that there was no such rumour.
It also states that Richard was crowned a second time at York. Mr. Davies,
in his 'York Records,' has shown that no such coronation ever took place.

The interesting question arises how the monk was misled on these four
points, when his information was so accurate, and so directly contradicts
Morton, Polydore Virgil, and Fabyan, as regards the dates of events
immediately preceding Richard's accession, and as regards the nature of his
claim to the throne. Could Morton have been at his elbow? If he was, these
errors would be explained, for they are the most telling points in Morton's
case. We know that Morton was sent to Brecknock Castle, in the custody of
the Duke of Buckingham, in August 1483. Later in the autumn he escaped,
crossed England in disguise, and was concealed for some time in the fen
country near Ely, before taking ship for Flanders. He even mentions his
object in going there. 'If he were in the Isle of Ely,' he told Buckingham, 'he
could make many 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 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.

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
Later chroniclers 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 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.

There was a reaction against the acceptance of all
Modern authors 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 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 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.

On the other hand, there have been a few
Tudor fables historians who have approached the questions at
discredited 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
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 Cantabrigiæ (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 Poplinière, 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. (Oxoniæ, 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.

CHAPTER II

EXAMINATION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RICHARD III

1. The Deformity.
2. Murder of Edward of Lancaster.
3. Murder of Henry VI.
4. Marriage with Anne Nevill.
5. Treatment of the Countess of Warwick.
6. Death of Clarence.

An indictment, in many counts, was brought against Richard III. after his
death, by the authors who wrote during the reign of his successor, and in the
interests of that successor's dynasty. It will be seen, in the course of the
discussion, with what object these accusations were made, and why a belief
in them was considered to be so important to the success of the Tudor
usurpation. The reckless profusion of abuse was due to the complete license
of the traducers. No one could appear for the accused. The brave young
King was dead, his body subjected to cowardly insults, his friends
proscribed, his people silenced. Calumny was triumphant and unchecked.
Yet there was method and system in the scheme of the Tudor writers. Their
accusations were all intended to lead up to a belief in the dead King's guilt
with regard to one central crime. If he was to be deformed, if he was to be
an assassin at the age of eighteen, the murderer of his brother and his wife,
a ruthless usurper and tyrant, it was because such a monster would be more
likely to commit a crime of which he must be thought to be guilty in the
interests of his wily successor. It will now be our business to examine these
charges one by one. The first concerns Richard's personal appearance.

It is stated that he was two years in his mother's
Deformity womb,[1] that he was born feet foremost,[2] with a
complete set of teeth,[3] and with hair down to the
shoulders,[4] that he was hump-backed, that his right

shoulder was higher than his left,[5] that his left shoulder was much higher
than his right,[6] and that one of his arms was withered.[7]

Passing over the obvious fables with the remark that they throw just
suspicion on other statements from the same sources, we come to the hump-
back. We do not find this deformity mentioned by any contemporary except
Morton. If it had existed it is certain that so conspicuous a blemish would
have been dwelt upon by all contemporary detractors. Stow, the most honest
of the later chroniclers, told Sir George Buck that he had talked to old men
who had seen and known Richard, and who said that he was in bodily shape
comely enough.[8] In the two portraits drawn by Rous no inequality is
visible. Richard here has a handsome youthful face, slight build and good
figure. The portrait at Windsor shows a face full of energy and decision, yet
gentle and melancholy. The shoulders are quite even.

Rous, Polydore Virgil, and Morton are the authorities for the unequal
shoulders. Rous says that the right shoulder was higher. Morton makes the
left shoulder much higher. Their contradictory testimony shows the
worthless character of both these authorities. Polydore Virgil merely
mentions an inequality. Fabyan and the Croyland monk do not say a word
against Richard's personal appearance. A curious piece of evidence was
discovered by Mr. Davies of York, which bears on the question.[9] From the
'York Records' it appears that, six years after King Richard's death, a man
named Burton was brought before the Lord Mayor accused of calling that
prince, whose memory was so beloved in the north, 'a crouchback.' One
John Poynter, who heard this remark, told Burton that he lied, and struck at
him with a little rod he had in his hand. It would seem, therefore, that if
there was any defect in Richard's figure, it was so slight that its very
existence was matter of dispute among those who could well remember the
King, while it was imperceptible to Stow's informants. On the whole, we
may accept the conclusion of Miss Halsted that Richard was of slight and
delicate build, and that the severe martial exercises in which his youth had
been spent had caused the shoulder of his sword-arm to be very slightly
higher than the other.

The story of the withered arm comes from Morton. That astute prelate
always had an object in making his statements. This particular tale was

invented to draw off attention from the real charge made by the Protector
against the Woodvilles. It served its turn, and may be dismissed as false
without any hesitation. For it is not mentioned by a single other authority.
The victor of Barnet and Tewkesbury, the leader of the brilliant charge at
Bosworth, who unhorsed Sir John Cheney[10] and William Brandon, must
have had serviceable arms.

The object of the Tudor historians in commencing their grotesque
caricature of an imaginary monster with these stories of his personal
deformity is transparent. They intended to make him detestable from the
outset. They calculated that improbable crimes would be more readily
believed if the alleged perpetrator was a deformed hunchback born with
teeth. They were right. Nothing has more conduced to an unreasoning
prejudice against Richard, and to a firm belief in his alleged crimes, than
the impression of his personal repulsiveness.

Modern writers have also understood this method of treatment. Lord
Macaulay was careful to prepare the minds of his readers for the alleged
judicial crimes of Sir Elijah by telling them that little Impey was in the
habit of stealing cakes at school.[11] The great essayist, as well as the Tudor
historians, knew their public. The one invented the pilfering story and the
others the deformity with the same motive. If a judge had been a juvenile
thief, or if a king had been a deformed little monster, the charges against
them in after life would be more readily accepted as true. It is illogical, but
it is human nature.

Richard was described as a venomous hunchback[12] and made to
commit several atrocious crimes in order to prepare men's minds to receive,
without incredulity, the story of the murder of his nephews. It was evidently
anticipated that this final draft on their powers of belief would be
dishonoured unless the alleged murderer had been steeped in crime from his
infancy.

At the early age of eighteen Richard is accordingly accused of having
committed a cowardly and inhuman murder in cold blood after the battle of
Tewkesbury, on evidence which would be insufficient to hang a dog.[13]

The battle took place on May 4, 1471. The young
Young Edward's Duke of Gloucester had displayed valour and
death generalship, and had won for himself a name in
chivalry. On the other side, Prince Edward of
Lancaster, who was exactly one year younger than
Richard, led the main battle of his army, and bore himself manfully. Carried
away in the rout and closely followed by his victorious enemies, he was
slain on the field of battle. There was one eye-witness who wrote an
account of the battle of Tewkesbury. He said that young Edward of
Lancaster 'was taken fleeing to the townwards and slain in the field.'[14] A
drawing accompanies this writer's report, in which we see a horse on its
knees, the rider receiving his deathblow, the helmet struck off, and the
bright golden locks sinking on the horse's mane.[15] This was the plain
truth. He fell, fighting bravely, on the battle-field. All contemporaries,
without an exception, corroborate this evidence. The next writer was
Warkworth, but he was not present. He wrote 'There was slain on the field
Prince Edward, which cried for succour to the Duke of Clarence.'[16]
Bernard André, the paid historian of Henry VII., says the same, 'Is enim
ante Bernardi campum Theoxberye proelio belligerens ceciderat.' The
Croyland monk says that some of the Lancastrian leaders fell in the battle,
others 'by the revengeful hands of certain persons afterwards,'[17] referring
to the fact that some were executed after trial before the Earl Marshal and
Constable. There is no hint here of the alleged assassination of Edward.
Comines tells the same story, 'et fut le Prince de Galles tué sur le champ et
plusieurs autres grans seigneurs.' Such is the unanimous testimony of
contemporaries.

We now come to the other Tudor writers and their versions of young
Edward's death. Fabyan, writing to please Henry VII., is the first who said
that the Prince was captured and brought before Edward IV., and he added
the following tale: 'The King strake him with his gauntlet in the face, on
which the Prince was by the King's servants incontinently slain.'[18]
Fabyan's baseless gossip came before Polydore Virgil, and the protégé of
Pope Alexander VI. conceived the idea of giving it a lurid Borgian
colouring, better suited to the latitude of Urbino than to that of Tewkesbury
and calculated to make our flesh creep. It was thus that his ideas found
words: 'King Edward gave no answer, only thrusting the young man from

him with his hand, whom forthwith those that were present, who were
George Duke of Clarence, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and William Lord
Hastings, crewelly murderyd.'[19] This story was improved upon by
Grafton, Hall, Holinshed and other Tudor chroniclers. Dorset was added to
the list of alleged assassins by Habington, Grafton, and Hall. Gloucester is
made to strike the first blow by Holinshed. Here we have a striking example
of the gradual growth of a legend which has eventually become embedded
in history.[20] Its original conception was due to an Italian, not to an
English brain. It is thus that the fable has become a part of the history of
England. Honest John Stow is alone in rejecting the Italian's embellishment.
He discredits the version of Polydore Virgil as a palpable fraud, and merely
repeats Fabyan's statement.

It is very remarkable that three authorities patronised by Henry VII. give
no countenance to the fable of Polydore Virgil. Bernard André is in perfect
agreement with the contemporaries, simply because Virgil's story had not
been invented when he wrote. Rous is silent for the same reason. He was
the originator of the birth with teeth and with hair to the shoulders. He
heaped calumny on calumny, and would have eagerly repeated the
Tewkesbury story if it had existed in his time. Morton's silence is still more
singular except on the hypothesis that the slander was not then in existence.

Dr. Morton was actually present at Tewkesbury. If young Edward was
murdered he must have known it. Yet in a work prepared for the express
purpose of enumerating the alleged crimes of Richard he said nothing. He
had no scruples. He repeats all he can think of, with the object of heaping
opprobrium on Richard's memory. But there is not a hint about
assassinating Edward of Lancaster. Morton's silence, under these
circumstances, amounts to a proof that the story was a fabrication of later
times. André, Rous, and Morton wrote before Polydore Virgil, and when the
Italian's calumny had not yet been invented. It cannot be that Virgil found
out what the less vigilant André, Rous, and Morton overlooked. If anyone
knew all the details of the battle of Tewkesbury at first hand, it was Morton.
He was there. His silence explodes the fable. It also convicts Polydore
Virgil of having fabricated an exceptionally foul slander, with a rank scent
of its Borgian origin:—

'Virgilii duo sunt: alter Maro: tu Polydore
Alter: Tu Mendax: ille Poeta fuit.'[21]

Unless the testimony of those who were absent, and for the most part
unborn, is to be preferred to that of eye-witnesses, and that of future
generations to contemporaries, the fable of young Edward's murder ought
never again to find a place in serious history.

The charge against the Duke of Gloucester that he
Death of Henry VI murdered Henry VI. is an insinuation rather than an
accusation. None of his traducers state it as a fact.
One says 'as men constantly say,' another, 'it was the
continual report,' another, 'as many believe.' We must, therefore, first treat
this alleged 'continual report' as a rumour only, and judge of it from
probabilities.

We are asked to believe that young Richard, a boy of eighteen, who had
just won great military renown, arrived at the Tower in the evening of one
day with orders to proceed on active service very early the next morning;
that, although fully occupied with preparations for his departure, he found
time to induce Lord Rivers, the Constable of the Tower, and his political
enemy, to deliver up charge to him in order that he might assassinate a
defenceless and feeble invalid with his own hand, a deed which might just
as well have been perpetrated by any hired jailer; that it was done without
his brother Edward's knowledge, and that, although the deed must have
been done with the knowledge of Lord Rivers and his officials, of Henry's
ten servants and three readers, yet there was never any certainty about the
matter. Rivers, be it remembered, was not Richard's friend.

This grossly improbable rumour bears the evidence of its origin clearly
marked. It was put forward in the reign and in the interests of Henry VII. It
was a rumour manufactured by his paid writers and their followers. We can
examine the process.

Morton says: 'He slew with his own hand King Henry VI. as men
constantly say, and that without knowledge or commandment of the King.'

Polydore Virgil has the following version: 'King Edward, to the intent
that there should be no new insurrections, travelled not long after through
Kent, which business being despatched, to the intent that every man might
conceive a perfect peace to be attained, Henry VI. being not long before
deprived of his diadem, was put to death in the Tower of London. The
continual report is that Richard Duke of Gloucester killed him with a sword,
whereby his brother might be delivered from all hostility.'

Dr. Warkworth tells us that 'the same night that King Edward came to
London, King Harry being in ward in prison in the Tower of London, was
put to death on the 21st of May on a Tuesday night between eleven and
twelve of the clock, being then at the Tower the Duke of Gloucester, brother
to King Edward, and many others. On the morrow he was chested, and
brought to Paul's and his face was open that every man might see him. And
in his lying he bled on the pavement there, and afterwards at the Blackfriars
was brought, and there bled afresh.' This Dr. Warkworth was Master of St.
Peter's College, Cambridge, from 1473 to 1500. He kept a private diary,
receiving his facts from informants he saw at Cambridge. His account of
Henry's death shows that he was superstitious and credulous. His second-
hand report of the time and manner of the death cannot be received as of
any authority. His mention of Gloucester's presence has been assumed to be
intended, by the writer, to imply that the Duke was concerned in the crime.
This does not follow and, in a mere private diary, such innuendo would be
out of place and improbable. The date of the 21st, given by Warkworth and
Fabyan, would be approved by Henry VII. as throwing suspicion on his
predecessor, and would be fixed as the obit of Henry VI. Any subsequent
repetition of that date gives it no additional authority. Such repetition has as
much or as little authority as is given to it by the assertions of Warkworth
and Fabyan.[22]

Fabyan gives the same date as Warkworth, and adds, 'of the death of
Henry divers tales were told, but the most common fame went that he was
stikked with a dagger, by the hands of Richard of Gloucester.'[23]

Rous says, 'He killed by others or, as many believe, with his own hand,
that most sacred man Henry VI.'[24]

The continuator of the Croyland Chronicle insinuates nothing against
Richard. His words are: 'The body of King Henry was found lifeless in the
Tower; may God pardon and give time for repentance to that man, whoever
he was, that dared to lay his sacrilegious hand upon the Lord's anointed.
The doer may obtain the name of a tyrant, the sufferer of a glorious
martyr.'[25] The antithesis of tyrant and martyr shows that the monk alluded
to King Edward and King Henry. The prayer that 'the doer' may have time
for repentance is a proof that the passage was written during Edward's
lifetime, and that there was then a rumour that Henry had met with foul
play. But it also furnishes a proof that rumour had not then imputed the
supposed act to Richard.

Of these authorities, Warkworth's informant and the City Chronicler are
the only two who perceived that in order to give any plausibility to the
alleged 'continual report,' Henry's death must be made to tally with young
Richard's presence in the Tower. They, therefore, fixed upon May 21, the
single day when Richard was there. Their fabrication is exposed by the
evidence of the accounts for Henry's maintenance, as will be seen directly;
and also by the contradiction of Polydore Virgil. That author, who had
access to all official sources of information, places Henry's death in the end
of May, after King Edward's progress through Kent. Thus these authorities
do not agree, and are quite unworthy of credit.

We are not altogether without the means of
True date of ascertaining the truth. Henry VI. was not an old man.
Henry's death His age was 47. But he was feeble and half-witted.
His health was very precarious, his constitution
having been weakened by long illnesses. He
inherited the mental and physical imbecility of his grandfather Charles VI.
of France. Shortly before his liberation by the Earl of Warwick in 1470,
some ruffian had stabbed him[26] and then fled. Henry was said to have
been convalescent, but, with his feeble hold on life, it is not likely that his
recovery was permanent. He gradually sank, and died on May 24, or
perhaps in the night of the 23rd. Queen Margaret of Anjou arrived at the
Tower as a prisoner on the 21st, just in time to soothe her husband's last
moments, and to be with him when he died. The Lancastrian leanings of the
family of Lord Rivers, who was Constable of the Tower, make it likely that

the unhappy queen was granted access to her dying husband. We know that
Margaret was treated with consideration, and allowed to reside with her
most intimate English friend, the old Duchess of Suffolk, at Wallingford,
until her ransom was paid.

The date of Henry's death is fixed by the evidence of his household
accounts, which are given by Rymer.

'Accounts of the costs and expenses for the custody of King Henry, The
Wednesday after the feast of Holy Trinity, June 12.'

'To the same William Sayer for money to his own hand delivered for the
expenses and diet of the said Henry and of ten persons his attendants within
the tower, for the custody of the said Henry, namely, for fourteen days the
first beginning on the 11th of May last, as per account delivered 14l. 5s.'

'To William Sayer for money delivered at times, namely at one time, 7s.
for the hire of three hired readers for the said William and other attendants
within the tower in charge of the King for xiv days and for the board of the
same for the same time, and on another time 3s. 10d. for the board of said
Henry within the said tower as per account delivered 10s. 10d.'[27]

It is clear from these entries that Henry's accounts were made up on May
11, and that they were again made up when he died, fourteen days after
May 11, that is, on May 24.[28] We also gather that he was maintained in
becoming state, at a cost of 400l. a year, equivalent to upwards of 2,000l. of
our money, and that he had ten servants, and three readers to read aloud to
him. Mr. Thorold Rogers says: 'I make no doubt that Henry was used well
during the nine years of his residence in the Tower: nor do I believe that he
was done to death after Tewkesbury. The story of his assassination in the
Tower is, I am persuaded, a Tudor calumny.'[29] 'I conclude that nature
which had hid his misfortunes from him more than once by a lethargy
which seemed almost like death, at last released him in the same merciful
fashion from the recurrent sorrows of his life.'[30]

The only contemporary writer was the author of a letter to the citizens of
Bruges, giving an account of the events which led to the restoration of
Edward IV. Speaking from personal knowledge he reported that Henry VI.
died on May 23, and his accuracy is established by the evidence of the
accounts.

These are the plain facts connected with Henry's death. They are fatal to
the story of the murder. Warkworth and Fabyan give the 21st for the date of
Henry's death, because Gloucester was in the Tower on that day only. Their
assertions are disproved by Polydore Virgil, by the writer of the letter at
Bruges, and by the accounts which show the date of Henry's death to have
been May 23 or 24. On those days Gloucester was at Sandwich, upwards of
seventy miles from the Tower. The tale of Henry's assassination by the
Duke of Gloucester is a Tudor calumny, and was invented many years
afterwards to please Henry VII. It is possible that a false rumour of foul
play may have been spread by the enemies of Edward IV., and this seems
likely from the words of the Croyland Chronicle. But the absurd accusation
against the King's young brother was concocted after Richard III. had fallen
at Bosworth, and when any calumny against the dead was welcomed and
rewarded by a successor, who believed that his security depended upon a
belief in his predecessor's infamy. Habington, in his life of Edward IV., has
pointed out the absurdity of charging Richard with the alleged murder.[31]

The next charge against the Duke of Gloucester is that he forced the
Lady Anne Nevill to marry him, immediately after he had murdered young
Edward of Lancaster, who was her husband.[32] The answers to this are
that Edward was not her husband,[33] that Richard did not murder him, and
that Richard did not force Anne's inclinations. No marriage between
Edward and Anne ever took place. The Croyland monk always speaks of
Anne, at this time, as the 'maiden' and the 'damsel.'

But there is more to be said. The two young
Anne Nevill and her cousins, Richard and Anne, were brought up
mother together, and their union was most natural. Miss
Halsted has well remarked that Richard showed
peculiar delicacy towards Anne, in placing her in
sanctuary at St. Martin's before the marriage, where her inclinations could

in no way be forced. Anne was her husband's constant companion at every
important crisis of his life, and there is good reason to believe that the
marriage was a happy one.

A very bitter enemy of Richard's memory, in later times, has attempted
to draw conclusions to his disadvantage from the marriage settlements.
There had been no time to obtain the usual dispensations, and it therefore
became advisable that the trustees, for the sake of the offspring, should
guard against any possible informality in the marriage. A protecting clause
was inserted, in case the property could not be held without a renewal of the
marriage ceremony; arising from any alleged informality in the nuptials.
This clause, framed by the lawyers, was to the effect that if the Duke of
Gloucester and the Lady Anne Nevill should be divorced, and afterwards
marry again, the Act for the partition of property should nevertheless be
valid, and that in case of a divorce, and if the Duke shall do his continual
diligence and effectual devoir by all lawful means to be lawfully married to
the said Anne, he shall have as much of the premises as pertained to her
during her lifetime. It was merely a formal clause inserted by the lawyers,
and probably never even read by Richard or Anne.

Miss Strickland calls this 'an ominous clause relating to a wedlock of a
few months; proving Anne meditated availing herself of some informality
in her abhorred marriage; but if she had done so her husband would have
remained in possession of her property. The absence of the dispensation is a
negative proof that Anne never consented to her second marriage, and that it
was never legalised may be guessed by the rumours of a subsequent period
when the venomous hunchback meditated in his turn divorcing her.'

This is a good example of the sort of stuff which rooted and unreasoning
prejudice allows to pass for argument.

The next charge is made by only one of the Tudor writers. Rous alleged
that 'Richard imprisoned for life the Countess of Warwick who had fled to
him for refuge.'[34] This is untrue. The Countess of Warwick heard of the
defeat and death of her husband at Barnet, when she landed in England. She
took sanctuary at Beaulieu in Hampshire, was attainted, and all her property
passed to her daughters Isabella and Anne, who married the Dukes of
Clarence and Gloucester. The Countess remained at Beaulieu for two years,

from 1471 to 1473. We next hear of her in a letter from Sir John Paston
dated June 3, 1473. 'The Countess of Warwick is now out of Beaulieu, and
Sir James Tyrrel conveyeth her northward, men say by the King's assent,
whereto some men say that the Duke of Clarence is not agreed.'[35]
Evidently the King had given his assent to a request of Gloucester that his
wife's mother might be allowed to come and live with her daughter at
Middleham. There was no prison but a home with her child. Tyrrel, who
was then an officer of Edward's Court, was sent to escort her from Beaulieu
to Middleham.[36]

There is evidence of Richard's kindly feeling towards his wife's family.
He interceded for the heirs of the Marquis Montagu, Warwick's brother, and
it was at the request of Gloucester that the King allowed them to inherit part
of their father's property.[37] Another indication of the Duke's friendliness,
as regards his mother-in-law and her relations, is afforded by their
confidence in him. Lady Latimer, a sister of the Countess of Warwick,
appointed Richard the supervisor of her will, which was a position of great
trust in those days. Such kindly offices performed for those who were near
and dear to the Countess of Warwick are cogent, though indirect, proofs that
the statement of Rous is a calumny.

Shakespeare and others have further accused
Death of Clarence Richard of having abetted and aided in the death of
his brother George Duke of Clarence. No serious
historian, except Sandford, has ventured to bring
forward the charge directly. The Croyland monk, Polydore Virgil, André,
Rous, Fabyan are all silent on the subject.[38] But Morton is equal to the
occasion. The passage in which he insinuates suspicion is a good specimen
of the style of this unscrupulous slanderer:

'Some wise men also ween that his drift, covertly conveyed, lacked not
in helping forth his brother of Clarence to his death; which he resisted
openly, howbeit somewhat, as men deemed, more faintly than he that were
heartily minded to his wealth. And they who thus deem think that he, long
time in King Edward's life, forethought to be King in case that the King his
brother (whose life he looked that evil diet should shorten) should happen
to decease (as indeed he did) while his children were young. And they deem

that for this intent he was glad of his brother's death, the Duke of Clarence,
whose life must needs have hindered him so intending whether the same
Clarence had kept him true to his nephew the young King, or enterprised to
be King himself. But of all this point there is no certainty, and whoso
divineth upon conjectures may as well shoot too far as too short.'

The object of this involved passage is to leave a sort of general
impression that Richard had something or other to do with the death of
Clarence.[39] By throwing up a dust cloud of verbiage the central fact that
Richard intervened in his brother's favour is obscured and thrown into the
background.

The guilt of the death of Clarence rests with Rivers and the Woodville
faction. He was a great danger to them, as will be seen in the next chapter,
while they benefited by his attainder and got the wardship of his son. All
Richard did was to protest against the execution of his brother.

[1] Rous, 214. 'Biennio matris utero tentus, exiens cum dentibus et capillis ad
humeros.' This is false, for Richard was born three years after his brother
George, and there was another child, named Thomas, between them.

[2] Morton.

[3] Rous.

[4] Rous.

[5] Rous.

[6] Morton.

[7] Morton.

[8] Buck, p. 79.

[9] Davies, York Records, May 14, 1190, p. 220.

[10] 'A man of much fortitude, and exceeding the common sort.'—Polydore
Virgil, p. 224.

[11] In Macaulay's review of Gleig's Life of Warren Hastings.

[12] Miss Strickland.

[13] Mr. Gairdner gives the evidence. 'Each crime rests on slender testimony
enough, though any one of them being admitted, lends greater credit to the
others. From this point of view it is not at all improbable that Richard was a
murderer at nineteen' (p. 13). Richard killed his nephews, consequently he
assassinated a prisoner when he was nineteen. It thus having been shown that he
was a murderer when he was nineteen, what more probable than that he killed
his nephews? This method of arguing has been perfectly satisfactory to
generations of historical students, and appears to be so still.

[14] Fleetwood Chron. p. 30. This is the narrative of the recovery of his kingdom
by Edward IV., in Harl. MS. no. 543, printed by the Camden Society.

[15] The drawing is in the abridgment sent to Bruges, reproduced in the
Archæologia, xxi. p. ii.

[16] Warkworth Chronicle, Camden Society, p. 18.

[17] The Croyland monk wrote: 'As well in the field as afterwards by the
revengeful hands of certain persons, Prince Edward, Devon, Somerset,' &c.: that
is Prince Edward and Devon on the field, Somerset by 'the revengeful hands': by
which phrase he is pleased to refer to the Earl Marshal's Court which was a
constitutional tribunal (Chron. Croyland, p. 555). 'Tum in campo tum postea
ultricibus quorundam manibus, ipso Principe Edwardo unigenito Regis Henrici,
victo Duce Somersetiæ, Comiteque Devoniæ ac aliis dominis omnibus et
singulis memoratis' (p. 555).

[18] Fabyan, p. 662.

[19] Polydore Virgil, p. 336.

[20] Hall is notorious for the embellishment of fables that were passed on to him
by Polydore Virgil, by adding names and incidents of his own invention. In the
case of the death of the young Earl of Rutland, he first took several years off his
age and made a little child of him, then gave him a tutor and supplied the tutor's
name. With these properties he got up a very effective scene on Wakefield
Bridge. When Rutland's real age is known, Hall's story becomes absurd, and he
is convicted of intentional inaccuracy. Again when he described the burial of
Henry VI., he said that the corpse was conveyed to Chertsey 'without priest or
clerk, torch or taper, singing or saying.' This is something worse than
embellishment, it is absolutely false. The payments are recorded (and the records
are still preserved), for obsequies and masses said by four orders of brethren, for
linen cloth, spices, and for wages of men carrying torches. The statements of
Hall are certainly unreliable. In retailing Polydore Virgil's calumny about the
assassination of Prince Edward at Tewkesbury, Hall cannot refrain from similar
inventions and embellishments. He adds that Edward was taken prisoner by Sir
Richard Croft and delivered up to the King in consequence of a proclamation
offering a reward of 100l. a year to whosoever should yield up the Prince dead or
alive: accompanied by an assurance that his life should be spared (Hall, p. 301).
Habington repeats this and adds, as his own contribution, that 'the good knight
repented what he had done, and openly professed his service abused and his faith
deluded' (Life of Edward IV. p. 96). This statement is confuted by the fact that it

was on the battle-field of Tewkesbury that Richard Croft received his knighthood
from King Edward. This would not have been so if he had 'openly declared his
service abused.' He afterwards received benefits from King Richard (Paston
Letters). The fable of Fabyan was embellished and added to by various hands,
until it became a very elaborate and highly finished lie circumstantial.

[21] The name of Virgil borne by two,
One Maro and one Polydore.
The first a Poet wise and true,
The last a lying slanderer.

[22] Mr. Gairdner mentions that there is a MS. City Chronicle among the
Cottonian MSS. (Vitell. A. xvi. f. 133), which states that Henry's body was
brought to St. Paul's on Ascension Eve (May 22), 'who was slain, as it was said,
by the Duke of Gloucester.' In MS. Arundel, 28, in the British Museum, there is
an old Chronicle, on a fly-leaf of which, at the end, there are some jottings
relating to Edward IV.'s time in a contemporary hand, and among others
—'eodem die decessit Henricus sextus,' meaning the day of Edward's arrival in
London. A MS. in Heralds' College (printed by Mr. Gairdner) dates the death 'in
vigilia Ascencionis Dominicæ'; a MS. at Oxford (Laud, 674) gives the same date;
a MS. in the Royal Library at the British Museum says: 'Obitus Regis Henriei
Sexti, gui obiit inter vicesimum primum diem Maii et xxiim diem Maii.' Henry's
obit is set down May 22. None of these documents have any date. Their
statements about May 21 are the same as those of Warkworth or Fabyan, from
whom they must have been derived. But Warkworth and Fabyan are proved to be
wrong by the evidence of the accounts for Henry's maintenance: and by the
evidence of Polydore Virgil, as well as by the letter at Bruges.

[23] Fabyan, p. 662.

[24] Rous, p. 215. 'Ipsum sanctissimum virum Henricum Sextum per alios vel
multis credentibus manu pocius propria interfecit.'

[25] Croyland Chron. p. 557.

[26] 'Collectarum et mansuetudinum et bonorum morum regis Henrici VI., et ex
collectione magistri Joannis Blakman bacchalaurii theologiæ et post Cartusiæ
monachi Londini.'—Hearne, p. 202.

[27] Rymer's Foedera, xi. pp. 712, 713.

[28] Laing, in his continuation of Henry's History of Great Britain, in referring
to the accounts for the maintenance of Henry VI. in Rymer's Foedera, mistook
the day on which they were audited and passed, namely June 12, for the day on
which the expenses were incurred; and concluded that Henry was alive on June
12. This is triumphantly pointed out by Dr. Lingard. But the triumph is
imaginary. Dr. Lingard ought to have seen that the date of auditing does not
affect the question. The fact remains that Henry's board was paid, and that he
was consequently alive, for fourteen days after May 11, that is until May 24,
which is fatal to the story of the murder.

This is shown by Bayley, who quotes the accounts in his History of the Tower of
London, and points out that they furnish satisfactory evidence of Henry having
been alive at least until May 24 (second ed. p. 323). Mr. Gairdner has suggested
that the payments up to the 24th were to Henry's servants who were not
discharged until then, and do not prove that Henry was alive. But this is
untenable, for they are for Henry's keep as well.

[29] Work and Wages, ii. 312.

[30] Ibid. ii. 313.

[31] 'I cannot believe a man so cunning in declining envy and winning honour to
his name, would have undertaken such a business and executed it with his own
hand. Nor did this concern the Duke of Gloucester so particularly as to engage
him alone in the cruelty.'—Habington, in Kennet, p. 455.

[32] Gairdner, p. 22.

[33] Sharon Turner, iii. p. 323. Anne had been contracted to Edward of Lancaster
in July 1470, she being only fourteen, and he sixteen; but she was never married
to him. The marriage was not to take place unless certain conditions were
complied with by Anne's father, the Earl of Warwick. The conditions were not
fulfilled, and the contract, ipso facto, was null and void.

[34] Rous, p. 215. 'Durante vita sua incarceravit.' The Countess out-lived
Richard III.

[35] Paston Letters, iii. p. 92.

[36] Mr. Gairdner quotes a letter from William Dengayn to William Calthorp
(Third Report of Hist. MSS. Commission, p. 272), from which it appears that the
Countess of Warwick was actually with the Duke of Gloucester in June 1473.—
Gairdner's Richard III. p. 27 (n).

[37] Rot. Parl. vi. 124.

[38] Gloucester was in London at the opening of Parliament on January 16,
1478; but there is no evidence where he was in February, the month of Clarence's
death. He was certainly at Middleham in March. Mr. Gairdner pronounces
Gloucester 'guiltless of his brother's death' (p. 40).

[39] Morton did this so successfully that his imitators soon began to make a
direct accusation. The slander grew and prospered until at last we find the
following passage in Sandford: 'He was drowned in a butt of malmsey, his
brother the Duke of Gloucester assisting thereat with his own proper hands!' He
refers to Hall, p. 246.—Genealogical History (London, 1707), p. 438.

CHAPTER III

FURTHER CHARGES AGAINST RICHARD III

7. Execution of Hastings.
8. Execution of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey, and Haute.
9. The 'Usurpation.'
10. Refusal of Buckingham's petition.
11. Second coronation at York.
12. Poisoning of his wife.
13. Intended marriage with Elizabeth of York.
14. Intended execution of Lord Strange.

The most elaborate and detailed part of the indictment against Richard
III. refers to the so-called 'usurpation,' including the period from his arrival
in London to his coronation. The events of the interregnum had to be
represented in such a way as that it should appear that Henry Tudor was
righteously superseding an unscrupulous usurper. This was a matter of vital
importance to the intruding dynasty. Accordingly much art was devoted to
the preparation of a plausible story, while careful but not always effectual
efforts were made to destroy all documents that would contradict it.

The portion of the history published by Grafton
Archbishop Morton 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 was. He was born at Beer Regis in Dorsetshire, but the year is very
uncertain, and he received his first instruction at Cerne Abbey. Thence he
proceeded to Oxford, and began life as a lawyer, practising in the Court of
Arches. He became a Master in Chancery, increasing his income by taking
orders, and was Parson of Bloxworth in Dorsetshire. He took the
Lancastrian side, and was at York when the battle of Towton was fought. In
1462 he fled to the Continent with Queen Margaret. His fortunes were then
at a low ebb, but they brightened when the Earl of Warwick came to France
to betray the cause of Edward IV. Morton attached himself to Warwick at

Angers, went with him to England in August 1470, escaped from Barnet to
join Queen Margaret at Weymouth, and was with her at Tewkesbury.
Nothing but ill luck had attended his fortunes since he had joined the
Lancastrian party. So he changed sides, obtained a pardon from Edward IV.
and wormed himself into that good-natured monarch's confidence. He
became one of the greatest pluralists on record. 'He was avaricious and
grasping.'[1] He received a bribe from Louis XI. for inducing his own
sovereign to accept dishonourable terms of peace, and was further bribed
with a pension of 2,000 crowns a year.[2] The contrast between the upright
conduct of the Duke of Gloucester and his own corrupt practices on that
occasion explains the wily priest's malignant hostility to Richard. Morton
was made Bishop of Ely in 1479. On the death of Edward he saw a wide
opening for his ambition in the chances of a long minority. The facts
revealed to the Council by Bishop Stillington were, consequently,
distasteful to him. He was the heart and soul of the conspiracy of Hastings
and the Woodville faction against the Protector. He brought Hastings to his
death, but escaped himself. The incorrigible plotter was entrusted to the
custody of the Duke of Buckingham. By his cunning artifices he induced
that weak nobleman to become a traitor, and claim the crown for himself.
He led Buckingham to his death; but secured his own safety. He then joined
Henry Tudor's conspiracy, and it was doubtless through Morton's advice
that the Welsh adventurer put forward a claim to the crown. Success at
length attended the intriguer's schemes. Henry VII. made him Chancellor in
1486, Archbishop of Canterbury in 1487, and, after much importunity, a
cardinal's hat was obtained for him, from the Borgian Pope.[3] He became
enormously rich. He revealed to Henry VII. 'the confessions of as many
lords as his grace listed.'[4] He was one of the most odious instruments of
Henry's extortions. The argument that those who spent little must have
saved much, and that those who spent much must have much, was called
'Morton's fork.'[5] He died in 1500, hated and execrated by all ranks of the
people.

This is the man from whom history derives the narrative of Richard's
accession. We must remember the circumstances in which he wrote or
dictated his version. He was then Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry
VII. He had to traduce Richard in the interests of his master, and at the same

time he had to conceal from Henry himself certain parts of his own
proceedings, especially as regards his intrigue with Buckingham.

Morton was most unscrupulous in fabricating his
Morton's story, throwing out misleading insinuations, garbling
misrepresentations and suppressing facts, making false statements, and
altering dates. He was a leading actor in, and an
eyewitness of what he described, he was an able and
clever man, and he was intimately acquainted with the facts as they really
happened. Moreover, we are informed by Sir Thomas More, who knew him,
that he had an extraordinary memory.[6] Consequently every mistake that is
detected in his narrative, every date that is altered, must have been inserted
with a special object. It is fortunate for the cause of truth that he was more
careless, and wrote in greater detail, than he certainly would have done, if
there had been any chance of an answer being put forward by one equally
conversant with the facts. But he knew that he was safe—power
unscrupulously enforced was on his side.

Morton opens his case with the assumption that the Duke of Gloucester
had always intended to supplant his nephew. He asserts that the Duke
concerted plans with Buckingham and Hastings against the Queen and her
relations; that he then, secretly, and by divers means, caused the Queen to
be persuaded to advise her son not to come with a large force to London;
and that he and other lords wrote to the Queen's friends so lovingly that
they, nothing mistrusting, brought the young prince up in good speed with
sober company. Gloucester and Buckingham then went to Northampton and
met Rivers there. For all that appears in this part of the narrative, Gloucester
was in London, and came thence with Buckingham to Northampton.
Gloucester was really in the marches of Scotland, and he could not possibly
have carried on all these intrigues at that distance, between April 9 when
King Edward died and the 23rd when Rivers left Ludlow. He could not
even have heard of the King's death for several days. It is true that, towards
the end of his lampoon, when telling his story about an alleged quarrel
between Gloucester and Buckingham, Morton does mention the Duke being
at York, and Buckingham having sent a messenger to him who met him at
Nottingham.[7] But this messenger could not have been the channel of all
the intrigues he describes. There was no time.

The Duke may have received some hasty notice from a messenger, but
the first real news of what had been going on in London came from
Buckingham at Northampton.

Morton's story about Gloucester's intrigues at this time is therefore a
fabrication. The truth is exactly the reverse of Morton's version. Richard's
conduct was straightforward and loyal. After attending solemn obsequies of
his brother in York Minster, he called on the nobility and gentry of
Yorkshire to swear allegiance to his young nephew. When he arrived in
London, he ordered preparations to be made for his nephew's coronation,
and he sent summonses to forty esquires to receive knighthood of the Bath
on the occasion.[8] He also caused the dresses to be worn by his nephew at
his coronation to be got ready.[9] These acts were well known to Morton,
who passed them over in silence, because they would tend to give a true
impression, where he wanted to leave a false one.

Having thus raised a prejudice against the Protector, Morton's next
object was to instil a belief that Hastings worked against the Woodvilles
throughout in concert with Richard. In order to create this impression he
gives two false dates. He makes young Richard leave sanctuary on June 9.
The true date was the 16th.[10] He asserts that Lord Rivers was beheaded
on June 13, the very day of the arrest of Hastings, and he makes a great
point of it, observing as a striking coincidence that Hastings suffered death
on the self-same day and about the self-same hour as Rivers whose
execution he had approved.[11] He knew this to be false. Rivers made his
will on the 23rd, and was not beheaded until the 25th.[12] Morton had a
motive for falsifying the dates, and it is obvious. He wanted it to appear that
Hastings was an enemy of the Woodville faction to the end, that he was a
party to the removal of young Richard from sanctuary and to the execution
of Rivers. But why? Clearly because Hastings was not an enemy of the
Woodvilles to the end, because he had, with Morton and others, formed a
coalition with them, and entered into a conspiracy with them against the
Protector. It was important to conceal this, because it justified the
Protector's action against Hastings; and Morton did so by resorting to a
falsification of dates. He then proceeds to enter into minute details, in
describing the scene when Hastings was arrested on Friday, June 13.

Morton makes the Protector ask him for a mess of strawberries from his
garden at Holborn. He then alleges that Gloucester suddenly altered his
tone, accused the Queen-Dowager of witchcraft, displayed a withered arm
as having been injured by sorcery, upbraided Hastings for having Jane
Shore as a mistress, and ordered Hastings to be beheaded on a log of wood
before dinner. We are also informed that Master William Catesby made the
mischief between the Protector and the Lord Chamberlain, and that a
proclamation was issued setting forth the cause of the execution of
Hastings.

These details enable us to obtain some glimmering of the truth. We have
the reminiscences of an eyewitness, who was also a schemer so dealing
with the facts as to leave false impressions clothed in the similitude of
veracious recollections. The tale of the strawberries is doubtless true, and is
a masterly touch designed to give an air of reality to the scene. The
withered arm is a fabrication intended to conceal the real charge made by
the Protector. That charge was contained in the proclamation which Morton
mentions as having been well indited and written on parchment. He
professes to give the substance of it. The seeker after truth would very much
prefer the original text. But it was destroyed. Its destruction is a strong
presumption in favour of the Protector, and justifies the conclusion that the
real charge was a serious one. It is incredible that Catesby merely revealed
the nonsense about Jane Shore's sorcery. Morton has inserted this rubbish in
order to conceal the real charge made by the Protector. Morton further tells
us that 'Shore's wife was of all women the one the Queen most hated,' and
that she was the mistress of Hastings. She was really the mistress of Dorset,
[13] the Queen's son, and the motive for bringing in the Queen's alleged
hatred, in this place, is to conceal the real position of Jane Shore, which was
that of a secret agent between the party of the Woodvilles and Hastings.

The fullness of Morton's details defeats his object. He draws attention to
the truth which he elaborately endeavours to hide. We are thus enabled to
deduce from the garrulity of the designing priest the facts that, probably
through his prompting, Hastings had formed a coalition with the Queen-
Dowager and her party against the Protector, and that the negotiation had
been conducted through Jane Shore as intermediary. We learn that Catesby

revealed the plot to the Protector, who promptly arrested Hastings, and
brought a charge of treason against him.

Morton would have us believe that Hastings was
Falsification of beheaded on the spot without trial. This version of
dates the story is also told by Fabyan, and adopted by
Polydore Virgil. It was told to the second Croyland
monk, who wrote that Hastings was beheaded on
June 13.[14] It was a version industriously spread by Morton, as a charge of
lawless cruelty and indecent haste against the Protector. It can be proved to
be false.

Morton's story is that Hastings was hurried out of the council room and
beheaded on a log of wood in the court of the Tower, that the Protector and
Buckingham appeared to the citizens in rusty armour, pretending that they
had been in mortal danger from Hastings, and that the Protector swore he
would have the head of Hastings before he dined.

This is a grossly improbable story on the face of it; but Bishop Morton,
on the accession of Henry VII., was evidently very anxious that it should be
accepted, for he must have given it publicity at a very early date. It was
supplied to the credulous old Croyland monk, and was accepted by Fabyan,
who must have known it to be false, with such zeal that he added a few
extra touches to the story. Fabyan was a citizen of London and knew the
truth. Yet he clearly implies that the delivery of young Richard and the
execution of Rivers took place before the arrest of Hastings, adopting the
falsifications of Morton. He also falsified dates in order to reconcile the
alleged date of the execution of Hastings with other events, following
Morton in this also. This justifies the conclusion that Fabyan and Morton
were in collusion; for they both were aware of the truth from personal
knowledge, and they both perverted it in the same way.[15]

There is other testimony on this point which is quite above suspicion.
Simon Stallworthe, a prebendary of Lincoln, wrote a letter from London to
Sir William Stonor, a gentleman of Oxfordshire, on Saturday June 21, 1483,
[16] in which he said that 'on Friday last was the Lord Chambleyn
[Hastings] hedded sone after noon.' As Saturday was the 21st, Friday last
was the 20th. We here have evidence that Lord Hastings was not beheaded

until a week after his arrest and, as there was no indecent haste, we may
assume that there was a trial and sentence by a proper tribunal. The story of
Morton about the hurried execution on the 13th, and the log of wood, is
therefore false. It has been suggested that when Stallworthe wrote 'Friday
last,' he did not mean Friday last, but the Friday before Friday last. This
theory is exploded by the very next line in Stallworthe's letter. He there says
that 'on Monday last' young Richard came out of sanctuary. This is certainly
the correct date. But it contradicts both Morton and Fabyan, though it is
corroborated by the Croyland Chronicle. If 'Monday last' meant 'Monday
last,' 'Friday last' must be taken to mean 'Friday last' in Stallworthe's letter,
and not any other date that the exigencies of calumniators may require.

The evidence that the story of the hasty execution of Hastings is false
does not rest solely on Stallworthe's letter. Morton and Fabyan are
convicted out of their own mouths.

This is a point which should be clearly understood. It must be borne in
mind that we have certain fixed dates. Hastings was certainly arrested on
June 13. It is also certain that Thursday, June 26, was the date of Richard's
accession: it is fixed by the year book. Dr. Shaw's sermon was preached on
the previous Sunday, that is June 22. Fabyan, as well as Stallworthe, tells us
that the execution of Hastings took place on the previous Friday. These are
fixed beacons, and will lead us to the truth. They will also enable us to
detect the false lights thrown out by Morton and Fabyan. They both knew
the truth well, but they had to manipulate the dates so as to make it appear
that Hastings was executed on the 13th. It must be borne in mind that, on
Fabyan's own showing, the execution took place on the Friday before
Shaw's sermon was preached.

In order to give a plausible appearance to the assertion that Hastings was
beheaded on the 13th, Fabyan tried to get rid of the week between the 13th
and the 20th. He thought he was bound to recognise the fact that the
execution was on the Friday before Shaw's sermon, so he brought the
sermon back a week too. But Shaw's sermon was well known to have been
preached on the Sunday before the accession. So he had to move back the
accession also, and he placed it on June 20. Here Fabyan's dishonesty is

detected, for the 20th was not a Thursday, and that the 26th was the date of
the accession is beyond dispute.

Morton was, of course, in the same difficulty as regards his dates. But he
was far better practised in the manipulation of evidence. Such an old hand
would commit himself to dates as little as possible. He would fear them as a
thief fears a detective. He gives only one, and he selects the right day of the
week, which Fabyan did not. But this is quite enough to convict him. He
chose the 19th for the day of Richard's accession with the very same object
as Fabyan, to get rid of the gap between the 13th and the 20th; well
knowing that the right date for the accession was the 26th.

We can now perceive the truth, both through the direct testimony of
Stallworthe and through the detection of the dishonesty of Morton and
Fabyan. Lord Hastings was arrested on June 13 on a charge of treason, tried
and sentenced. He was executed, after a decent interval, on Friday, June 20.
The admission of Morton that a proclamation was issued, announcing the
details of the Hastings-Woodville conspiracy, is important. This document,
and all others relating to the business, were destroyed in the same way as
the Act of Parliament recording Richard's title was destroyed. The object of
making away with the Act was to conceal the truth. The disappearance of all
documents relating to the execution of Hastings can only be explained in
the same way.

But what must we think of Morton and Fabyan, who are thus proved to
have been guilty of such a fraud? Their evidence against Richard, on all
other points, must be held to be utterly worthless.

The trial of Lord Rivers, with Grey, Vaughan and
Trial of Rivers Haute, followed on that of Hastings. They had been
charged with treasonable designs, immediately after
the death of King Edward, on the very clearest
evidence. But the long delay in bringing them to trial justifies the belief that
their capital punishment was not intended, if fresh charges had not been
brought against them, arising out of the Hastings conspiracy. Morton brings
forward the same accusation in their case, and he gives a false date for their
execution. He would have us believe that Rivers and his companions were
also put to death 'without so much as the formality of a trial.' So he appears

to have told the second Croyland monk. But his untruthfulness is exposed
by the evidence of another Tudor witness. Rous inadvertently let out the
truth, not knowing there was any reason for concealing it. He certainly did
not do so out of any good will for King Richard. There was a trial and the
Earl of Northumberland presided at it. He was not the sole judge, but the
President acting with other judges.[17] He probably sat as a Commissioner
to execute the office of Lord Steward, with a jury of northern Peers, to try
Rivers. Morton falsified the date of the executions, making them earlier by
twelve days. One object of this falsification has already been pointed out. It
also served to indicate such haste in the executions as would make the
absence of any trial appear probable.

The overt acts of Rivers and his associates show that their condemnation
was just; and their punishment was necessary for the safety and tranquillity
of the country. It was a righteous retribution for the death of Clarence, by
whose fall the Woodvilles had so largely profited.

Morton next proceeds to falsify the title of King Richard III. to the
crown. This point is of great importance and merits close attention. The
statement of Richard's title to the crown was drawn up, and adopted by the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, after considering all the
evidence between June 8 and 25. The document was afterwards embodied
in an Act of Parliament entitled the 'Titulus Regius,' with which the writers
employed by Henry VII. must have been well acquainted. When Henry
came to the throne, he ordered this Act to be repealed without quoting the
preamble, with a view to its purport being concealed. He caused it to be
destroyed, and threatened any one who kept a copy with fine and
imprisonment during his pleasure. The reason he gave for this was that 'all
things in the said Act may be forgot.' In spite of this threat the truth was told
by the Croyland monk, but his chronicle remained in manuscript, and he
was not found out. Henry's conduct affords a strong presumption that the
title was valid. But he did more. He granted an illusory pardon to Bishop
Stillington, who was the principal witness to the truth of the main statement
in the 'Titulus Regius.' This was done with the object of keeping silence on
the subject of his real offence, which was telling the truth. Henry then
arrested him on another trumped up charge, and kept him in close and
solitary imprisonment in Windsor Castle until his death in June 1491.

These proceedings show the immense importance attached by Henry
VII. to a suppression of the truth relating to Richard's title to the crown. It is
certain that if the alleged previous contract with Lady Eleanor Butler was
false, the falsehood would have been eagerly exposed, and there would
have been no occasion to invent any other story. On the other hand, if the
alleged previous contract was true, the evidence would have been
suppressed and another story would have been invented and promulgated.
The evidence was suppressed, and a different tale was put forward. The
conclusion is inevitable that the previous contract of Edward IV. with Lady
Eleanor Butler was a fact.

By a mere accident the original draft of the
The true claim to 'Titulus Regius' was not destroyed. It was discovered
the Crown long afterwards among the Tower records. Its tenor
was given in the continuation of the Croyland
Chronicle.[18] Richard's title rested on the statement
that Edward IV. was already married to Lady Eleanor Butler, a daughter of
the first Earl of Shrewsbury,[19] when he went through the ceremony with
Lady Grey. It is certain, therefore, that this and this only was the statement
made in inspired sermons and speeches at the time; for it was the official
case of those who advocated Richard's accession. It is impossible that one
ground for the claim should have been put forward officially, and another
which was not only different but contradictory, in the sermons and speeches
directed to be made at the same time.

Now all this was well known to Morton, and to Polydore Virgil, when
they concocted their stories. They had free access to all official sources of
information. But they clearly believed that the evidence had been so
effectually placed out of reach, that it was safe for them to adopt what tale
they chose. They, therefore, stated that Dr. Shaw preached a sermon at
Paul's Cross on June 22, in which he calumniated the Duchess of York by
maintaining that Edward IV. and Clarence were her children by some other
man, and that Gloucester was the only legitimate son of the Duke her
husband. The object was to throw the reader off the scent respecting
Edward's own connubial proceedings, by bringing an infamous and very
absurd charge against his mother. This is clearly the line that Polydore
Virgil was instructed to take, for he alludes to the common report that

Edward's children were called bastards, and declares it to be 'void of all
truth,' that there was such a report. He goes further, alleging that the
Duchess of York complained of the injury done her, and that Dr. Shaw died
of sorrow for having uttered the slander.[20] With the 'Titulus Regius'
before us, it will be allowed that this witness did not stick at trifles.

But Morton was not to be outdone by the Italian.
Morton's He puts the slander about the Duchess of York into
fabrications Dr. Shaw's mouth, and he also makes the preacher
tell another tale which would make bastards of
Edward's children. According to Polydore Virgil the
report that the preacher made bastards of Edward's children was 'voyd of all
truthe.' According to Morton the preacher said that Edward was previously
married to a woman named Lucy. It will be seen that these authorities
contradict each other. Morton proceeds to knock down his own ninepin, by
telling us that Lucy confessed she was never married to the King. No one
but Morton ever said she was.

Morton farther alleged that when Edward IV. proposed to marry the
widow of Sir J. Grey he was opposed by his mother, who represented that
he was already contracted before God to Elizabeth Lucy. Morton knew
perfectly well that this never happened, and that Edward went through a
marriage ceremony with Lady Grey without the knowledge of his mother or
any one else. He has only introduced the name of Elizabeth Lucy as a
herring drawn across the scent. His great object was to conceal the name of
Lady Eleanor Butler.

The absurdity of Morton's fabrications respecting the woman Lucy will
be appreciated when we remember that she actually had two children by
Edward IV.[21] We are asked to believe that Dr. Shaw, in preaching a
sermon in support of Richard's right to the throne, put forward a statement
which, if true, would make two children legitimate, whose legitimacy
would at once bar any claim on the part of Richard.

These misrepresentations discredit the authority of Polydore Virgil and
Morton. Of course there can be no doubt that Dr. Shaw in his sermon, if
indeed he ever preached it, and the Duke of Buckingham if he ever made a
speech at the Guildhall, simply explained to the people the contents of the

petition stating Richard's title, which was about to be presented to him:
namely that Edward IV. was previously contracted to the Lady Eleanor
Butler, and that the children by Lady Grey were consequently illegitimate.
The invention of the infamous slander against the Duchess of York by
Morton and Polydore Virgil, the careful exclusion of Lady Eleanor's name
and of any allusion to her, and the elaborate efforts of Henry VII. to destroy
all traces of the evidence are very significant. They amount to a proof that
the Butler contract was a reality, and that (if the children of Clarence were
incapacitated by their father's attainder) King Richard's title was sound and
just.

The Croyland monk and Rous do not mention Dr. Shaw's sermon.
Fabyan tells us that the preacher stated that King Edward's children were
not legitimate, thus contradicting Polydore Virgil, who declares that the
preacher never made any such allegation. But Fabyan does not mention the
slander against the Duchess of York. This is a further proof that it was
invented by Morton. Virgil, in adopting it, had, however, been instructed to
avoid all allusion to Edward's own matrimonial affairs.

Having misrepresented Dr. Shaw's sermon on Sunday the 22nd, Morton
goes on to say that on the following Tuesday the Duke of Buckingham went
to the Guildhall and made a speech to the people. On Wednesday, according
to Morton, the Lord Mayor and aldermen came to Baynard's Castle, with
Buckingham and divers noblemen, besides many knights and gentlemen.

This is another falsification of dates made as usual with a purpose.
Nothing really happened on Wednesday. On Thursday the 26th, Morton
says that Richard III. went to Westminster Hall in royal state. What Morton
has done is to transfer the events of Thursday to Wednesday, and to make as
little as possible of them, in order to draw off attention from a very
momentous event. No one would gather from Morton's narrative that on
Thursday, June 26, the Convention Parliament, as it would have been called
in later days, consisting of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the
Commons, which had been summoned for the 25th and actually met,
proceeded to Crosby Place with the petition embodying Richard's title, and
urged him to accept the crown.[22] Morton ignores all this, in order that his
readers may be kept in ignorance of the solemn and deliberate proceedings

which accompanied Richard's acceptance of the crown. Polydore Virgil
does the same.

We next come to the treason of the Duke of
Buckingham's Buckingham. Its motive was misrepresented by
treason Morton, with the object of creating a belief that the
Duke advocated the cause of Henry Tudor. A long
conversation between Buckingham and Morton at
Brecknock is recorded by Grafton. It is very characteristic, and is no doubt
authentic, so far as that it was written or communicated by Morton. But
whether it ever took place as narrated is quite another matter. This
conversation sets forth the arguments by which the mischievous old
intriguer alleged that he induced Buckingham to rebel, and the pretended
object of the insurrection.

It is asserted by Morton and Polydore Virgil that the cause of
Buckingham's discontent was the refusal of Richard III. to grant him the
moiety of the Bohun lands. It is added that Buckingham's suit was rejected
by the King, with many spiteful words, and that there was ever afterwards
hatred and distrust between them. This can be proved to be false. Richard
granted Buckingham's petition, and made him a grant[23] of the lands under
the royal sign manual, giving him the profits from the date of signature,
until the formality was completed by authority of Parliament.

This story must have been fabricated to conceal
Buckingham and the true motive of Buckingham's treason. He
Morton probably aspired to the throne as the next heir of the
Plantagenets after Richard and his son, in
accordance with the 'Titulus Regius.' He had himself
concurred in declaring the children of Edward IV. to be illegitimate, and
those of Clarence to be incapacitated. Next came Richard III. and his
delicate son, of whom he would dispose if the rebellion was successful. He
ignored the sisters of the King and their children.[24] This completed the
descendants of the second son of Edward III. The legitimate descendants of
the third son came to an end with Henry VI. Buckingham himself
represented the fifth son of Edward III.

Assailed by the insidious flattery of Morton, he was prematurely hurried
into a rash attempt which cost him his life. When Morton recorded the
conversation with his victim many years afterwards, he was Archbishop of
Canterbury, Henry VII. was King, and it was advisable, in order to gratify
the new sovereign, that Richard should be accused of murdering his
nephews, and that Buckingham should be made to give up the scheme for
his own aggrandisement, in order to risk his life for the sake of an unknown
adventurer in Brittany. It will be admitted that this is a grossly improbable
story.

It is certainly astounding that the childish nonsense which Morton puts
into Buckingham's mouth should have been gravely accepted as true by
subsequent historians. We are first told that when Buckingham heard of the
murder of the two innocents, to which he never agreed, he abhorred the
sight of the King and could no longer abide with the Court. So he took his
leave at Gloucester with a merry countenance but a despiteful heart.
According to this, the murders took place in July, for Buckingham left
Gloucester on August 1. The more detailed story directly contradicts
Morton, and places the murders in the end of August. Both are false, but
this is one out of many instances of the utter recklessness of these
slanderers. Buckingham is then made to say that he stopped at Tewkesbury
for two days to think. The result was that he came to the conclusion that he
ought to be King, not on the ground of his descent from the fifth son of
Edward III., but because his mother was a daughter of Edmund, Duke of
Somerset. His mother was the fourth daughter of that Duke, who had not
the remotest right to the throne, and never put forward a claim. If there had
been such a claim, Buckingham would not have first found it out, by
thinking for two days at Tewkesbury. After this mental effort he continued
his journey towards Shrewsbury, and met Margaret Lady Stanley, the
mother of Henry Tudor, on the road. She told him that she was the daughter
of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, Edmund's elder brother. This, we are
asked to believe, was quite a new idea to Buckingham. We are to suppose
that he knew nothing about his relations before his cogitations at
Tewkesbury and his chat with Lady Stanley, and that the receipt of the
information made him give up his own ambitious plans altogether. He is
made to propose to his fellow-traveller that her son should be king and that
he should marry the eldest daughter of Edward IV. Buckingham, after

examining the evidence, had just concurred in a solemn declaration that this
daughter was illegitimate. But he now evolved from his inner consciousness
the discovery that the evidence was derived from suborned witnesses. The
Duke then took his leave of Margaret, and proceeded with Morton to
Brecknock Castle. Margaret's steward, Reginald Bray, conveyed messages
between the conspirators, and an insurrection was arranged. Morton
acknowledges that he originally advised Buckingham himself to claim the
crown at Brecknock, on which the Duke related the above wonderful story.
To complete the absurdity of this childish romance, it must be remembered
that Morton was travelling with Buckingham, all the way from Gloucester
to Brecknock.

A man who could be guilty of fabricating such a fable is wholly
unworthy of credit in his reckless accusations against King Richard, though
his minute knowledge of the real facts renders any inadvertent admissions
most important. Such are the statements that witnesses and other evidence
were produced to establish the illegitimacy of King Edward's children,[25]
and that Richard intended to treat his nephews with kindness and
consideration.[26] But it is incredible that Buckingham should have
contemplated the idea of setting his own claim aside for the sake of an
obscure adventurer in Brittany who had no claim at all; while the pretence
that Buckingham was horrified at the murder of the young princes
contradicts Henry's own clumsy fable. The whole pretended conversation
must have been an afterthought to please the Tudor usurper.

The next accusation against Richard refers to his
The second conduct at York, and is derived from the second
coronation Croyland monk, who too readily accepted the gossip
that was current when he wrote, and which was
pleasing to the Tudor Government. It is alleged that
Richard appropriated to his own use the treasure which his brother had
amassed, and had committed to the care of his executors after his death.
This statement, as Mr. Gairdner has shown,[27] is contrary to the fact. The
whole property had been placed under ecclesiastical sequestration by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, because the executors had declined to act, and
no further steps had been taken. It was also stated, on the authority of the
same Croyland monk, that Richard went through the ceremony of a second

coronation at York.[28] The deduction intended to be drawn, and which
often has been drawn, was that his title was so doubtful that he hoped a
double coronation might strengthen it. But there was no second coronation
at York. Nothing of the kind ever took place.

One is loth to refer to the malignant slander involved in the insinuation
that King Richard poisoned his wife. Polydore Virgil says: 'But the Queen,
whether she was despatched with sorrowfulness or poison, died within a
few days after.' The wretched wasp of Guy's Cliff adds his sting: 'Dominam
Annam reginam suam intoxicavit.'[29]

Richard and Anne were cousins, and companions from childhood. Their
union had been a happy one in their hospitable Yorkshire home. In all the
important events of his life Richard had always had the companionship of
his wife. They had been together in sorrow and in joy. Anne's illness was a
lingering decline, during which she was assiduously watched and cared for
by her physicians, and by her sorrowing husband, who deeply mourned her
loss. She was buried, as a Queen, in Westminster Abbey. It is true that no
writer has done more than insinuate this calumny. But most of the Tudor
slanders take the form of insinuations. 'It is a charge,' wrote Sir Harris
Nicolas, 'which is deserving of attention for no other reason than as it
affords a remarkable example of the manner in which ignorance and
prejudice sometimes render what is called history more contemptible than a
romance.' The same may be said of most of the Tudor stories about Richard
III.

The rumour that King Richard had an intention of
Elizabeth of York marrying his illegitimate niece Elizabeth is
unsustained by any evidence,[30] and is contrary to
all probability. Such a project would have stultified
the Act of Parliament on which his title to the crown was based. The King
was a politician and was not entirely deprived of his senses. He could not
have entertained an idea so absurd. But there is evidence that the scheme
was favoured by the girl herself and her mother, and this fully accounts for
the existence of the rumour. Their ages were suitable, the King being thirty-
two and his niece in her twenty-first year; and in a letter to the Duke of
Norfolk Elizabeth expressed a strong wish to become the wife of her uncle.

[31] The Church of Rome granted, and still grants, dispensations for such
marriages. But, be this how it may, Richard himself can never have
contemplated a marriage with his niece. 'The whole tale,' says Sir Harris
Nicolas, 'was invented with the view of blackening Richard's character, to
gratify the monarch in whose reign all the contemporary writers who relate
it flourished.' As soon as the rumour came to Richard's ears he publicly and
emphatically denied its truth.

The Tudor writers tell various stories about
Intrigues of Lady Henry, while in Brittany, having promised to marry
Stanley Elizabeth; and this is used as an argument that he
must have believed her brothers to be dead, for if
they were alive, there would be less object in the
marriage. Looking at the source whence these stories come, there is no
reason whatever for accepting them as true. They are derived from the
apocryphal conversation between the Duke of Buckingham and the Bishop
of Ely at Brecknock. In order to conceal the real object of Buckingham and
his own duplicity, Morton, as has been seen, fabricated a story about his
dupe having conspired with Henry Tudor's mother to set him up as a
claimant to the crown, and a suitor for the hand of Elizabeth of York. It is
likely enough that the intriguing wife of Stanley did conspire with
Buckingham in the hope of advancing her son's interests, and that she
opened negotiations with the Queen Dowager. Her design in the latter
intrigue would be to secure the Woodville interest for supporting the
contemplated rising. She despatched her steward Reginald Bray to
Brecknock, her confessor Urswick to Brittany, and her doctor Lewis to
Westminster Sanctuary. Her treacherous husband was feigning loyalty all
the time, and was in zealous attendance on the King. She was found out and
contemptuously forgiven by Richard. But the story of a contemplated
marriage at that time between Henry Tudor and Elizabeth was an
afterthought of Morton, at a time when Henry and Elizabeth were actually
married. The story was repeated by Polydore Virgil, and retailed, with the
customary embellishments, by Hall and Grafton.

It is scarcely necessary to notice the imputed intention of King Richard
to avenge the treachery of Lord Stanley on his son Lord Strange, who was
in the royal camp at the time of the battle of Bosworth. He remained

unharmed. This is the fact. We are asked to believe that the King intended
to behead him, but could not spare the time before the battle began. There
was plenty of time, but no intention of using it for such a purpose. The
proof of this is that Lord Strange was not injured. The evidence for the
alleged intention to behead him rests solely on the assertions of men who
wrote long afterwards, and the value of whose testimony we are now pretty
well able to estimate.

[1] Hook, v. p. 409.

[2] He was then Master of the Rolls.

[3] Alexander VI., 1492-1503.

[4] Tyndale, The Practice of Prelates, p. 305. Parker Society.

[5] Lord Bacon, Henry VII.

[6] Utopia, p. 20.

[7] Morton was intimately acquainted with the real facts. He makes no mistakes.
His mis-statements are all prepared designedly and with an object. He even knew
the name of Buckingham's messenger, and that of Gloucester's servant to whom
he applied for a secret interview with his master.—P. 134, ed. 1821.

[8] Ellis's Original Letters, second series, i. p. 147.

[9] Wardrobe Accounts.

[10] Stallworthe's letter of June 21 (Exc. Hist. pp. 14-10). The Croyland monk
also gives the surrender of young Richard after the arrest of Hastings (p. 566).

[11] He misled Horace Walpole (p. 49), and Dr. Lingard (iv. p. 227) on this point.
But Dr. Lingard was quite ready to continue in his error. His account is as
follows:—'On the same day that Hastings suffered (and the time should be
noticed) Ratcliffe entered Pomfret Castle at the head of a numerous body of
armed men, seized Rivers, Grey and Vaughan, observed no judicial forms, and
struck off the heads of the victims.' He calls the Yorkshire troops that came to
London 'the ruffians who had murdered the prisoners at Pontefract.' This is not
very temperate language. Dr. Lingard afterwards found that this was all wrong.
But he would not alter his erroneous text. He merely added a note in a later
edition, showing that he knew Rivers to have been still alive on the 23rd, and
that Rous named the Earl of Northumberland as presiding at the trial. Yet he
retains the assertion in the text that there were no judicial forms!

[12] Croyland, p. 567. Polydore Virgil gives the correct date; and the Croyland
monk also places the execution of Rivers after the arrest of Hastings.

[13] Rymer, xii. p. 204.

[14] 13 die mensis Junii veniens in Turrim ad consilium, jussu Protectoris capite
truncatus est.—Croyland Chron. Gale, i. 566.

[15] The Croyland Chronicler is quite free from suspicion of intentional
falsification. He was informed that Hastings had been beheaded on the 13th, the
day of his arrest, and he stated what he believed to be the fact. He, therefore,
made no attempt to make this fit in with other events by falsifying dates, as was
the course taken by Morton and Fabyan. The monk places the delivery of young

Richard and the execution of Rivers in proper order of time, and gives the correct
date for Richard's accession.

[16] Excerpt. Hist. p. 16.

[17] 'Eorum principalis judex.'—Rous, p. 213.

[18] Sir George Buck ascertained the truth through having access to the
manuscript of the Croyland Chronicle. The writer simply mentions the pre-
contract with Lady Eleanor Butler; but the Chronicle was not printed until 1084.
Speed was the first to print the full text of the 'Titulus Regius' in his History of
Great Britain, 1611.

[19] The first Earl of Shrewsbury had a large family by two wives, but the names
of all his daughters have not been recorded. Dugdale mentions none. Collins
gives Jane married to James Lord Berkeley. There were also Elizabeth wife of
John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and others, including Eleanor. Buck is
mistaken in supposing that Eleanor's first husband was Sir Ralph Butler, Lord
Sudeley. His wife was Alice Deincourt, and he was too old. Eleanor's husband
may have been an unrecorded son of Ralph Butler, Lord Sudeley, who died when
a young man before his father. She must have married Edward IV., when a
widow, in or before 1464. She died at Norwich, and was buried in the church of
the White Friars Carmelites.—Weever's Funeral Monuments, p. 805.

[20] Morton says that 'within few days after he withered and consumed away' (p.
103).

[21] I. Arthur was married to a daughter and heiress of Edward Grey, Viscount
Lisle, the brother-in-law of Lady Grey. She was the widow of Edmund Dudley.
In 1533 Arthur was created Viscount Lisle. He had three daughters, and from the
second, Frances wife of John Basset of Umberleigh, co. Devon, General Monk
was descended. Arthur Viscount Lisle died, without male heirs, in 1541.

II. Elizabeth wife of Thomas, eldest son of George Lord Lumley, who died
before his father. From her descends the present Earl of Scarborough.

[22] Letter from King Richard to Lord Mountjoy.

[23] The text of the grant is given by Dugdale, with the King's signet and sign
manual, given at his manor at Greenwich on July 13, 1483. A list of the manors
follows.—Dugdale's Baronage, i. 168.

Mr. Gairdner argues that, in spite of this grant, the Duke had reason to doubt the
fulfilment of the promise when Parliament met. I am unable to follow him. The
King had done all that he possibly could do until Parliament met, and he had put
his good faith and sincerity beyond doubt by giving Buckingham the profits
beforehand, in anticipation of the approval of Parliament. What could he
possibly do more? There was no shadow of a pretext for any such doubt on the
part of Buckingham.—Gairdner's Richard III., p. 136.

[24] He also had to ignore the children of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex, by the
Princess Isabel, a sister of Richard Duke of York.

[25] Morton, in Grafton, p. 126.

[26] Ibid. p. 127.

[27] Richard III. p. 146, quoting from Royal Wills, pp. 345-347.

[28] Rous, p. 217. Drake's Eborac. p. 117. The fable is fully exposed by Mr.
Davies in his York Records.

[29] Rous.

[30] This rumour never reached Fabyan or Rous. It is mentioned by the Croyland
monk.

[31] On the authority of Sir George Buck. His words are as follows:—'When
February was past, the Lady Elizabeth, being more impatient and jealous of the
success than every one knew or conceived, writes a letter to the Duke of Norfolk
intimating first that he was the man in whom she most affied, in respect of that
love her Father had ever borne him. Then she congratulates his many courtesies,
in continuance of which she desires him to be a mediator for her to the King in
the behalf of the marriage propounded between them, who, as she wrote, was her
only joy and maker in the world, and that she was his in heart and thought,
withal insinuating that the better part of February was past, and that she feared
the Queen would never die. All these be her own words written with her own
hand, and this is the sum of her letter, which remaineth in the autograph or
original draft under her own hand, in the magnificent cabinet of Thomas Earl of
Arundel and Surrey.' (Buck, p. 128.)

Sir Harris Nicolas (Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York, p. 1), as an
admirer of Elizabeth of York, was much troubled by this letter. He attacked Sir
George Buck as 'one whose violent prejudices do not sufficiently account for the
mendacity for which his work is remarkable.' But this is unjust. Buck no doubt
was prejudiced, but not more so than the Tudor chroniclers. He blunders and is
uncritical, yet there is no reason to impugn his good faith. Nor did Sir Harris
Nicolas himself think that the case was sufficiently disposed of by abusing Sir
George Buck. He made various attempts to explain away the letter, but none
satisfactory or even plausible. Dr. Lingard did not doubt the authenticity of the
letter (v. pp. 355-359, ed. 1823, iv. p. 252, ed. 1849). It is not now known to
exist, but that proves nothing if Buck wrote in good faith.

Mr. Gairdner approaches the subject more calmly. 'Positive testimony like this,'
he says, 'is not to be lightly set aside as incredible. Yet Buck, if not altogether
dishonest (and I see no reason to think him so), was certainly by no means an
impartial historian. At the same time Buck's abstract of the letter is very minute,
and such as would seem to follow pretty closely the turns of expression in a
genuine original, and he expressly declares the manuscript to be an autograph or
original draft. If it be not a forgery palmed off upon Buck himself, I am inclined
to think it was written, not by Elizabeth, but by her mother who bore the same
Christian name. Every word might just as well have come from her, except the
mention of the father, which may be a mistake; and there is nothing
inconceivable in her anxiety that Richard should marry her daughter.' He adds

'that Elizabeth could have been eager to obtain the hand of her brother's murderer
is really too monstrous to be believed.' Why then is it not 'too monstrous to be
believed' that the mother should have been eager to obtain the hand of her son's
murderer for her daughter? It is clear that the grounds for accepting the letter are
too strong for Mr. Gairdner to be able to reject them. Yet that Elizabeth should
wish to marry her brother's murderer appears incredible to him. The conclusion
is inevitable. Richard was not her brother's murderer, if the letter was authentic
(see Gairdner's Life of Richard III. pp. 256-257, and note p. 257).

CHAPTER IV

THE MAIN CHARGE AGAINST RICHARD III

15. Murder of the Princes in the Tower. Acquittal.

In attempting an impartial consideration of the question of the fate of
King Edward's sons, it must always be remembered that the main argument
against their uncle is made to rest upon the truth of his previous alleged
crimes. This argument is destroyed if Richard was not a venomous
hunchback born with teeth, if he was not a cold scheming and calculating
villain who had already committed two atrocious murders, drowned his
brother in a butt of malmsey, poisoned his wife, and waded through the
blood of innocent men to an usurped throne. A careful study of the evidence
establishes the fact that these accusations are false, and that they were put
forward by the writers under a new dynasty in order to blacken the
character of the last Plantagenet King, and to make the accusation that he
murdered his nephews more plausible. For it was a matter of the most vital
importance to Henry VII., not only that the boys should have been
murdered, but that it should be believed that the crime was perpetrated
before his accession.

We have to deal with a different man altogether. The real Richard, who is
accused of the murder of his nephews, was not previously steeped in crime.
The accusation must now be considered as being brought against an