historic doubts of the life and reign of king richard the third. by mr. horace walpole. l'histoire n'est fondee que sur le tomoignage des auteurs qui nous l'ont transmisse. il importe donc extremement, pour la scavoir, de bien connoitre quels etoient ces auteurs. rien n'est a negliger en ce point; le tems ou ils ont vecu, leur naissance, leur patrie, le part qu'ils ont eue aux affaires, les moyens par lesquels ils ont ete instruits, et l'interet qu'ils y pouvaient prendre, sont des circonstances essentielles qu'il n'est pas permis d'ignorer: dela depend le plus ou le moins d'autorite qu'ils doivent avoir: et sans cette connoissance, on courra risque tres souvent de prendre pour guide un historien de mauvaisse foi, ou du moins, mal informe. hist. de l'acad. des inscript. vol. x. london first published 1768 preface so incompetent has the generality of historians been for the province they have undertaken, that it is almost a question, whether, if the dead of past ages could revive, they would be able to reconnoitre the events of their own times, as transmitted to us by ignorance and misrepresentation. all very ancient history, except that of the illuminated jews, is a perfect fable. it was written by priests, or collected from their reports; and calculated solely to raise lofty ideas of the origin of each nation. gods and demi-gods were the principal actors; and truth is seldom to be expected where the personages are supernatural. the greek historians have no advantage over the peruvian, but in the beauty of their language, or from that language being more familiar to us. mango capac, the son of the sun, is as authentic a founder of a royal race, as the progenitor of the heraclidae. what truth indeed could be expected, when even the identity of person is uncertain? the actions of one were ascribed to many, and of many to one. it is not known whether there was a single hercules or twenty. as nations grew polished. history became better authenticated. greece itself learned to speak a little truth. rome, at the hour of its fall, had the consolation of seeing the crimes of its usurpers published. the vanquished inflicted eternal wounds on their conquerors--but who knows, if pompey had succeeded, whether julius caesar would not have been decorated as a martyr to publick liberty? at some periods the suffering criminal captivates all hearts; at others, the triumphant tyrant. augustus, drenched in the blood of his fellow-citizens, and charles stuart, falling in his own blood, are held up to admiration. truth is left out of the discussion; and odes and anniversary sermons give the law to history and credulity. but if the crimes of rome are authenticated, the case is not the same with its virtues. an able critic has shown that nothing is more problematic than the history of the three or four first ages of that city. as the confusions of the state increased, so do the confusions in its story. the empire had masters, whose names are only known from medals. it is uncertain of what princes several empresses were the wives. if the jealousy of two antiquaries intervenes, the point becomes inexplicable. oriuna, on the medals of carausius, used to pass for the moon: of late years it is become a doubt whether she was not his consort. it is of little importance whether she was moon or empress: but 'how little must we know of those times, when those land-marks to certainty, royal names, do not serve even that purpose! in the cabinet of the king of france are several coins of sovereigns, whose country cannot now be guessed at. the want of records, of letters, of printing, of critics; wars, revolutions, factions, and other causes, occasioned these defects in ancient history. chronology and astronomy are forced to tinker up and reconcile, as well as they can, those uncertainties. this satisfies the learned--but what should we think of the reign of george the second, to be calculated two thousand years hence by eclipses, lest the conquest of canada should be ascribed to james the first. at the very moment that the roman empire was resettled, nay, when a new metropolis was erected, in an age of science and arts, while letters still held up their heads in greece; consequently, when the great outlines of truth, i mean events, might be expected to be established; at that very period a new deluge of error burst upon the world. cristian monks and saints laid truth waste; and a mock sun rose at rome, when the roman sun sunk at constantinople. virtues and vices were rated by the standard of bigotry; and the militia of the church became the only historians. the best princes were represented as monsters; the worst, at least the most useless, were deified, according as they depressed or exalted turbulent and enthusiastic prelates and friars. nay, these men were so destitute of temper and common sense, that they dared to suppose that common sense would never revisit the earth: and accordingly wrote with so little judgment, and committed such palpable forgeries, that if we cannot discover what really happened in those ages, we can at least he very sure what did not. how many general persecutions does the church record, of which there is not the smallest trace? what donations and charters were forged, for which those holy persons would lose their ears, if they were in this age to present them in the most common court of judicature? yet how long were these impostors the only persons who attempted to write history! but let us lay aside their interested lies, and consider how far they were qualified in other respects to transmit faithful memoirs to posterity. in the ages i speak of, the barbarous monkish ages, the shadow of learning that existed was confined to the clergy: they generally wrote in latin, or in verse, and their compositions in both were truly barbarous. the difficulties of rhime, and the want of correspondent terms in latin, were no small impediments to the severe nvarch of truth. but there were worse obstacles to encounter. europe was in a continual state of warfare. little princes and great lords were constantly skirmishing and struggling for trifling additions of territory, or wasting each others borders. geography was very imperfect; no police existed; roads, such as they were, were dangerous; and posts were not established. events were only known by rumour, from pilgrims, or by letters carried in couriers to the parties interested: the public did not enjoy even those fallible vehicles of intelligence, newspapers. in this situation did monks, at twenty, fifty, an hundred, nay, a thousand miles distance (and under the circumstances i have mentioned even twenty miles were considerable) undertake to write history--and they wrote it accordingly. if we take a survey of our own history, and examine it with any attention, what an unsatisfactory picture does it present to us! how dry, how superficial, how void of information! how little is recorded besides battles, plagues, and religious foundations! that this should be the case, before the conquest, is not surprizing. our empire was but forming itself, or re-collecting its divided members into one mass, which, from the desertion of the romans, had split into petty kingdoms. the invasions of nations as barbarous as ourselves, interfered with every plan of policy and order that might have been formed to settle the emerging state; and swarms of foreign monks were turned loose upon us with their new faith and mysteries, to bewilder and confound the plain good sense of our ancestors. it was too much to have danes, saxons, and popes, to combat at once! our language suffered as much as our government; and not having acquired much from our roman masters, was miserably disfigured by the subsequent invaders. the unconquered parts of the island retained some purity and some precision. the welsh and erse tongues wanted not harmony: but never did exist a more barbarous jargon than the dialect, still venerated by antiquaries, and called saxon. it was so uncouth, so inflexible to all composition, that the monks, retaining the idiom, were reduced to write in what they took or meant for latin. the norman tyranny succeeded, and gave this babel of savage sounds a wrench towards their own language. such a mixture necessarily required ages to bring it to some standard: and, consequently, whatever compositions were formed during its progress, were sure of growing obsolete. however, the authors of those days were not likely to make these obvious reflections; and indeed seem to have aimed at no one perfection. from the conquest to the reign of henry the eighth it is difficult to discover any one beauty in our writers, but their simplicity. they told their tale, like story-tellers; that is, they related without art or ornament; and they related whatever they heard. no councils of princes, no motives of conduct, no remoter springs of action, did they investigate or learn. we have even little light into the characters of the actors. a king or an archbishop of canterbury are the only persons with whom we are made much acquainted. the barons are all represented as brave patriots; but we have not the satisfaction of knowing which, of them were really so; nor whether they were not all turbulent and ambitious. the probability is, that both kings and nobles wished to encroach on each other, and if any sparks of liberty were struck out in all likelihood it was contrary to the intention of either the flint or the steel. hence it has been thought necessary to give a new dress to english history. recourse has been had to records, and they are far from corroborating the testimonies of our historians. want of authentic memorials has obliged our later writers to leave the mass pretty much as they found it. perhaps all the requisite attention that might have been bestowed, has not been bestowed. it demands great industry and patience to wade into such abstruse stores as records and charters: and they being jejune and narrow in themselves, very acute criticism is necessary to strike light from their assistance. if they solemnly contradict historians in material facts, we may lose our history; but it is impossible to adhere to our historians. partiality man cannot intirely divest himself of; it is so natural, that the bent of a writer to one side or the other of a question is almost always discoverable. but there is a wide difference between favouring and lying and yet i doubt whether the whole stream of our historians, misled by their originals, have not falsified one reign in our annals in the grossest manner. the moderns are only guilty of taking-on trust what they ought to have examined more scrupulously, as the authors whom they copied were all ranked on one side in a flagrant season of party. but no excuse can be made for the original authors, who, i doubt, have violated all rules of truth. the confusions which attended the civil war between the houses of york and lancaster, threw an obscurity over that part of our annals, which it is almost impossible to dispel. we have scarce any authentic monuments of the reign of edward the fourth; and ought to read his history with much distrust, from the boundless partiality of the succeeding writers to the opposite cause. that diffidence should increase as we proceed to the reign of his brother. it occurred to me some years ago, that the picture of richard the third, as drawn by historians, was a character formed by prejudice and invention. i did not take shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation, but i did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of imagination. many of the crimes imputed to richard seemed improbable; and, what was stronger, contrary to his interest. a few incidental circumstances corroborated my opinion; an original and important instrument was pointed out to me last winter, which gave rise to the following' sheets; and as it was easy to perceive, under all the glare of encomiums which historians have heaped on the wisdom of henry the seventh, that he was a mean and unfeeling tyrant, i suspected that they had blackened his rival, till henry, by the contrast, should appear in a kind of amiable light. the more i examined their story, the more i was confirmed in my opinion: and with regard to henry, one consequence i could not help drawing; that we have either no authentic memorials of richard's crimes, or, at most, no account of them but from lancastrian historians; whereas the vices and injustice of henry are, though palliated, avowed by the concurrent testimony of his panegyrists. suspicions and calumny were fastened on richard as so many assassinations. the murders committed by henry were indeed executions and executions pass for prudence with prudent historians; for when a successful king is chief justice, historians become a voluntary jury. if i do not flatter myself, i have unravelled a considerable part of that dark period. whether satisfactory or not, my readers must decide. nor is it of any importance whether i have or not. the attempt was mere matter of curiosity and speculation. if any man, as idle as myself, should take the trouble to review and canvass my arguments i am ready to yield so indifferent a point to better reasons. should declamation alone be used to contradict me, i shall not think i am less in the right. nov. 28th, 1767. historic doubts on the life and reign of king richard iii. there is a kind of literary superstition, which men are apt to contract from habit, and which-makes them look on any attempt towards shaking their belief in any established characters, no matter whether good or bad, as a sort of prophanation. they are determined to adhere to their first impressions, and are equally offended at any innovation, whether the person, whose character is to be raised or depressed, were patriot or tyrant, saint or sinner. no indulgence is granted to those who would ascertain the truth. the more the testimonies on either side have been multiplied, the stronger is the conviction; though it generally happens that the original evidence is wonderous slender, and that the number of writers have but copied one another; or, what is worse, have only added to the original, without any new authority. attachment so groundless is not to be regarded; and in mere matters of curiosity, it were ridiculous to pay any deference to it. if time brings new materials to light, if facts and dates confute historians, what does it signify that we have been for two or three hundred years under an error? does antiquity consecrate darkness? does a lie become venerable from its age? historic justice is due to all characters. who would not vindicate henry the eighth or charles the second, if found to be falsely traduced? why then not richard the third? of what importance is it to any man living whether or not he was as bad as he is represented? no one noble family is sprung from him. however, not to disturb too much the erudition of those who have read the dismal story of his cruelties, and settled their ideas of his tyranny and usurpation, i declare i am not going to write a vindication of him. all i mean to show, is, that though he may have been as execrable as we are told he was, we have little or no reason to believe so. if the propensity of habit should still incline a single man to suppose that all he has read of richard is true, i beg no more, than that that person would be so impartial as to own that he has little or no foundation for supposing so. i will state the list of the crimes charged on richard; i will specify the authorities on which he was accused; i will give a faithful account of the historians by whom he was accused; and will then examine the circumstances of each crime and each evidence; and lastly, show that some of the crimes were contrary to richard's interest, and almost all inconsistent with probability or with dates, and some of them involved in material contradictions. supposed crimes of richard the third. 1st. his murder of edward prince of wales, son of henry the sixth. 2d. his murder of henry the sixth. 3d. the murder of his brother george duke of clarence. 4th. the execution of rivers, gray, and vaughan. 5th, the execution of lord hastings. 6th. the murder of edward the fifth and his brother. 7th. the murder of his own queen. to which may be added, as they are thrown into the list to blacken him, his intended match with his own niece elizabeth, the penance of jane shore, and his own personal deformities. i. of the murder of edward prince of wales, son of henry the sixth. edward the fourth had indubitably the hereditary right to the crown; which he pursued with singular bravery and address, and with all the arts of a politician and the cruelty of a conqueror. indeed on neither side do there seem to have been any scruples: yorkists and lancastrians, edward and margaret of anjou, entered into any engagements, took any oaths, violated them, and indulged their revenge, as often as they were depressed or victorious. after the battle of tewksbury, in which margaret and her son were made prisoners, young edward was brought to the presence of edward the fourth; "but after the king," says fabian, the oldest historian of those times, "had questioned with the said sir edwarde, and he had answered unto hym contrary his pleasure, he then strake him with his gauntlet upon the face; after which stroke, so by him received, he was by the kynges servants incontinently slaine." the chronicle of croyland of the same date says, "the prince was slain 'ultricibus quorundam manibus';" but names nobody. hall, who closes his word with the reign of henry the eighth, says, that "the prince beyinge bold of stomache and of a good courag, answered the king's question (of how he durst so presumptuously enter into his realme with banner displayed) sayinge, to recover my fater's kingdome and enheritage, &c. at which wordes kyng edward said nothing, but with his hand thrust him from him, or, as some say, stroke him with his gauntlet, whome incontinent, they that stode about, which were george duke of clarence, richard duke of gloucester, thomas marques dorset (son of queen elizabeth widville) and william lord hastinges, sodainly murthered and pitiously manquelled." thus much had the story gained from the time of fabian to that of hall. hollingshed repeats these very words, consequently is a transcriber, and no new authority. john stowe reverts to fabian's account, as the only one not grounded on hear-say, and affirms no more, than that the king cruelly smote the young prince on the face with his gauntlet, and after his servants slew him. of modern historians, rapin and carte, the only two who seem not to have swallowed implicitly all the vulgar tales propagated by the lancastrians to blacken the house of york, warn us to read with allowance the exaggerated relations of those times. the latter suspects, that at the dissolution of the monasteries all evidences were suppressed that tended to weaken the right of the prince on the throne; but as henry the eighth concentred in himself both the claim of edward the fourth and that ridiculous one of henry the seventh, he seems to have had less occasion to be anxious lest the truth should come out; and indeed his father had involved that truth in so much darkness, that it was little likely to force its way. nor was it necessary then to load the memory of richard the third, who had left no offspring. henry the eighth had no competitor to fear but the descendants of clarence, of whom he seems to have had sufficient apprehension, as appeared by his murder of the old countess of salisbury, daughter of clarence, and his endeavours to root out her posterity. this jealousy accounts for hall charging the duke of clarence, as well as the duke of gloucester, with the murder of prince edward. but in accusations of so deep a dye, it is not sufficient ground for our belief, that an historian reports them with such a frivolous palliative as that phrase, "as some say". a cotemporary names the king's servants as perpetrators of the murder: is not that more probable, than that the king's own brothers should have dipped their hands in so foul an assassination? richard, in particular, is allowed on all hands to have been a brave and martial prince: he had great share in the victory at tewksbury: some years afterwards, he commanded his brother's troops in scotland, and made himself master of edinburgh. at the battle of bosworth, where he fell, his courage was heroic: he sought richmond, and endeavoured to decide their quarrel by a personal combat, slaying sir william brandon, his rival's standard-bearer, with his own hand, and felling to the ground sir john cheney, who endeavoured to oppose his fury. such men may be carried by ambition to command the execution of those who stand in their way; but are not likely to lend their hand, in cold blood, to a base, and, to themselves, useless assassination. how did it import richard in what manner the young prince was put to death? if he had so early planned the ambitious designs ascribed to him, he might have trusted to his brother edward, so much more immediately concerned, that the young prince would not be spared. if those views did not, as is probable, take root in his heart till long afterwards, what interest had richard to murder an unhappy young prince? this crime therefore was so unnecessary, and is so far from being established by any authority, that he deserves to be entirely acquitted of it. ii. the murder of henry the sixth. this charge, no better supported than the preceding, is still more improbable. "of the death of this prince, henry the sixth," says fabian, "divers tales wer told. but the most common fame went, that he was sticken with a dagger by the handes of the duke of gloceter." the author of the continuation of the chronicle of croyland says only, that the body of king henry was found lifeless (exanime) in the tower. "parcat deus", adds he, "spatium poenitentiae ei donet, quicunque sacrilegas manus in christum domini ausus est immittere. unde et agens tyranni, patiensque gloriosi martyris titulum mereatur." the prayer for the murderer, that he may live to repent, proves that the passage was written immediately after the murder was committed. that the assassin deserved the appellation of tyrant, evinces that the historian's suspicions went high; but as he calls him quicunque, and as we are uncertain whether he wrote before the death of edward the fourth or between his death and that of richard the third, we cannot ascertain which of the brothers he meant. in strict construction he should mean edward, because as he is speaking of henry's death, richard, then only duke of gloucester, could not properly be called a tyrant. but as monks were not good grammatical critics, i shall lay no stress on this objection. i do think he alluded to richard; having treated him severely in the subsequent part of his history, and having a true monkish partiality to edward, whose cruelty and vices he slightly noticed, in favour to that monarch's severity to heretics and ecclesiastic expiations. "is princeps, licet diebus suis cupiditatibus & luxui nimis intemperanter indulsisse credatur, in fide tamen catholicus summ, hereticorum severissimus hostis sapientium & doctorum hominum clericorumque promotor amantissimus, sacramentorum ecclesiae devotissimus venerator, peccatorumque fuorum omnium paenitentissimus fuit." that monster philip the second possessed just the same virtues. still, i say, let the monk suspect whom he would, if henry was found dead, the monk was not likely to know who murdered him--and if he did, he has not told us. hall says, "poore kyng henry the sixte, a little before deprived of hys realme and imperial croune, was now in the tower of london spoyled of his life and all wordly felicite by richard duke of gloucester (as the constant fame ranne) which, to the intent that king edward his brother should be clere out of al secret suspicyon of sudden invasion, murthered the said king with a dagger." whatever richard was, it seems he was a most excellent and kind-hearted brother, and scrupled not on any occasion to be the jack ketch of the times. we shall see him soon (if the evidence were to be believed) perform the same friendly office for edward on their brother clarence. and we must admire that he, whose dagger was so fleshed in murder for the service of another, should be so put to it to find the means of making away with his nephews, whose deaths were considerably more essential to him. but can this accusation be allowed gravely? if richard aspired to the crown, whose whole conduct during edward's reign was a scene, as we are told, of plausibility and decorum, would he officiously and unnecessarily have taken on himself the odium of slaying a saint-like monarch, adored by the people? was it his interest to save edward's character at the expence of his own? did henry stand in his way, deposed, imprisoned, and now childless? the blind and indiscriminate zeal with which every crime committed in that bloody age was placed to richard's account, makes it greatly probable, that interest of party had more hand than truth in drawing his picture. other cruelties, which i shall mention, and to which we know his motives, he certainly commanded; nor am i desirous to purge him where i find him guilty: but mob-stories or lancastrian forgeries ought to be rejected from sober history; nor can they be repeated, without exposing the writer to the imputation of weakness and vulgar credulity. iii. the murder of his brother clarence. in the examination of this article, i shall set aside our historians (whose gossipping narratives, as we have seen, deserve little regard) because we have better authority to direct our inquiries: and this is, the attainder of the duke of clarence, as it is set forth in the parliamentary history (copied indeed from habington's life of edward the fourth) and by the editors of that history justly supposed to be taken from stowe, who had seen the original bill of attainder. the crimes and conspiracy of clarence are there particularly enumerated, and even his dealing with conjurers and necromancers, a charge however absurd, yet often made use of in that age. eleanor cobham, wife of humphrey duke of gloucester, had been condemned on a parallel accusation. in france it was a common charge; and i think so late as in the reign of henry the eighth edward duke of buckingham was said to have consulted astrologers and such like cattle, on the succession of the crown. whether clarence was guilty we cannot easily tell; for in those times neither the public nor the prisoner were often favoured with knowing the evidence on which sentence was passed. nor was much information of that sort given to or asked by parliament itself, previous to bills of attainder. the duke of clarence appears to have been at once a weak, volatile, injudicious, and ambitious man. he had abandoned his brother edward, had espoused the daughter of warwick, the great enemy of their house, and had even been declared successor to henry the sixth and his son prince edward. conduct so absurd must have left lasting impressions on edward's mind, not to be effaced by clarence's subsequent treachery to henry and warwick. the chronicle of croyland mentions the ill-humour and discontents of clarence; and all our authors agree, that he kept no terms with the queen and her relations.(1) habington adds, that these discontents were secretly fomented by the duke of gloucester. perhaps they were: gloucester certainly kept fair with the queen, and profited largely by the forfeiture of his brother. but where jealousies are secretly fomented in a court, they seldom come to the knowledge of an historian; and though he may have guessed right from collateral circumstances, these insinuations are mere gratis dicta and can only be treated as surmises.(2) hall, hollingshed, and stowe say not a word of richard being the person who put the sentence in execution; but, on the contrary, they all say he openly resisted the murder of clarence: all too record another circumstance, which is perfectly ridiculous that clarence was drowned in a barrel or butt of malmsey. whoever can believe that a butt of wine was the engine of his death, may believe that richard helped him into it, and kept him down till he was suffocated. but the strong evidence on which richard must be acquitted, and indeed even of having contributed to his death, was the testimony of edward himself. being some time afterward solicited to pardon a notorious criminal, the king's conscience broke forth; "unhappy brother!" cried he, "for whom no man would intercede--yet ye all can be intercessors for a villain!" if richard had been instigator or executioner, it is not likely that the king would have assumed the whole merciless criminality to himself, without bestowing a due share on his brother gloucester. is it possible to renew the charge, and not recollect this acquittal? (1) that chronicle, which now and then, though seldom, is circumstantial, gives a curious account of the marriage of richard duke of gloucester and anne nevil, which i have found in no other author; and which seems to tax the envy and rapaciousness of clarence as the causes of the dissention between the brothers. this account, and from a cotemporary, is the more remarkable, as the lady anne is positively said to have been only betrothed to edward prince of wales, son of henry the sixth, and not his widow, as she is carelessly called by all our historians, and represented in shakespeare's masterly scene. "postquam filius regis henrici, cui domina anna, minor filia comitis warwici, desponsata fuit, in prefato bello de tewkysbury occubuit," richard, duke of gloucester desired her for his wife. clarence, who had married the elder sister, was unwilling to share so rich an inheritance with his brother, and concealed the young lady. gloucester was too alert for him, and discovered the lady anne in the dress of a cookmaid in london, and removed her to the sanctuary of st. martin. the brothers pleaded each his cause in person before their elder brother in counsel; and every man, says the author, admired the strength of their respective arguments. the king composed their differences, bestowed the maiden on gloucester, and parted the estate between him and clarence; the countess of warwick, mother of the heiresses, and who had brought that vast wealth to the house of nevil, remaining the only sufferer, being reduced to a state of absolute necessity, as appears from dugdale. in such times, under such despotic dispensations, the greatest crimes were only consequences of the economy of government.--note, that sir richard baker is so absurd as to make richard espouse the lady anne after his accession, though he had a son by her ten years old at that time. (2) the chronicle above quoted asserts, that the speaker of the house of commons demanded the execution of clarence. is it credible that, on a proceeding so public, and so solemn for that age, the brother of the offended monarch and of the royal criminal should have been deputed, or would have stooped to so vile an office? on such occasions do arbitrary princes want tools? was edward's court so virtuous or so humane, that it could furnish no assassin but the first prince of the blood? when the house of commons undertook to colour the king's resentment, was every member of it too scrupulous to lend his hand to the deed? the three preceding accusations are evidently uncertain and improbable. what follows is more obscure; and it is on the ensuing transactions that i venture to pronounce, that we have little or no authority on which to form positive conclusions. i speak more particularly of the deaths of edward the fifth and his brother. it will, i think, appear very problematic whether they were murdered or not: and even if they were murdered, it is impossible to believe the account as fabricated and divulged by henry the seventh, on whose testimony the murder must rest at last; for they, who speak most positively, revert to the story which he was pleased to publish eleven years after their supposed deaths, and which is so absurd, so incoherent, and so repugnant to dates and other facts, that as it is no longer necessary to pay court to his majesty, it is no longer necessary not to treat his assertions as an impudent fiction. i come directly to this point, because the intervening articles of the executions of rivers, gray, vaughan, and hastings will naturally find their place in that disquisition. and here it will be important to examine those historians on whose relation the story first depends. previous to this, i must ascertain one or two dates, for they are stubborn evidence and cannot be rejected: they exist every where, and cannot be proscribed even from a court calendar. edward the fourth died april 9th, 1483. edward, his eldest son, was then thirteen years of age. richard duke of york, his second son, was about nine. we have but two cotemporary historians, the author of the chronicle of croyland, and john fabian. the first, who wrote in his convent, and only mentioned incidentally affairs of state, is very barren and concise: he appears indeed not to have been ill informed, and sometimes even in a situation of personally knowing the transactions of the times; for in one place we are told in a marginal note, that the doctor of the canon law, and one of the king's councellors, who was sent to calais, was the author of the continuation. whenever therefore his assertions are positive, and not merely flying reports, he ought to be admitted as fair evidence, since we have no better. and yet a monk who busies himself in recording the insignificant events of his own order or monastery, and who was at most occasionally made use of, was not likely to know the most important and most mysterious secrets of state; i mean, as he was not employed in those iniquitous transactions--if he had been, we should learn or might expect still less truth from him. john fabian was a merchant, and had been sheriff of london, and died in 1512: he consequently lived on the spot at that very interesting period. yet no sheriff was ever less qualified to write a history of england. his narrative is dry, uncircumstantial, and unimportant: he mentions the deaths of princes and revolutions of government, with the same phlegm and brevity as he would speak of the appointment of churchwardens. i say not this from any partiality, or to decry the simple man as crossing my opinion; for fabian's testimony is far from bearing hard against richard, even though he wrote under henry the seventh, who would have suffered no apology for his rival, and whose reign was employed not only in extirpating the house of york, but in forging the most atrocious calumnies to blacken their memories, and invalidate their just claim. but the great source from whence all later historians have taken their materials for the reign of richard the third, is sir thomas more. grafton, the next in order, has copied him verbatim: so does hollingshed--and we are told by the former in a marginal note, that sir thomas was under-sheriff of london when he composed his work. it is in truth a composition, and a very beautiful one. he was then in the vigour of his fancy, and fresh from the study of the greek and roman historians, whose manner he has imitated in divers imaginary orations. they serve to lengthen an unknown history of little more than two months into a pretty sizeable volume; but are no more to be received as genuine, than the facts they adduced to countenance. an under-sheriff of london, aged but twenty-eight, and recently marked with the displeasure of the crown, was not likely to be furnished with materials from any high authority, and could not receive them from the best authority, i mean the adverse party, who were proscribed, and all their chiefs banished or put to death. let us again recur to dates.(3) sir thomas more was born in 1480: he was appointed under-sheriff in 1508, and three years before had offended henry the seventh in the tender point of opposing a subsidy. buck, the apologist of richard the third, ascribes the authorities of sir thomas to the information of archbishop morton; and it is true that he had been brought up under that prelate; but morton died in 1500, when sir thomas was but twenty years old, and when he had scarce thought of writing history. what materials he had gathered from his master were probably nothing more than a general narrative of the preceding times in discourse at dinner or in a winter's evening, if so raw a youth can be supposed to have been admitted to familiarity with a prelate of that rank and prime minister. but granting that such pregnant parts as more's had leaped the barrier of dignity, and insinuated himself into the archbishop's favour; could he have drawn from a more corrupted source? morton had not only violated his allegiance to richard; but had been the chief engine to dethrone him, and to plant a bastard scyon in the throne. of all men living there could not be more suspicious testimony than the prelate's, except the king's: and had the archbishop selected more for the historian of those dark scenes, who had so much, interest to blacken richard, as the man who had risen to be prime minister to his rival? take it therefore either way; that the archbishop did or did not pitch on a young man of twenty to write that history, his authority was as suspicious as could be. (3) vide biog. britannica, p. 3159. it may be said, on the other hand, that sir thomas, who had smarted for his boldness (for his father, a judge of the king's bench, had been imprisoned and fined for his son's offence) had had little inducement to flatter the lancastrian cause. it is very true; nor am i inclined to impute adulation to one of the honestest statesmen and brightest names in our annals. he who scorned to save his life by bending to the will of the son, was not likely to canvas the favour of the father, by prostituting his pen to the humour of the court. i take the truth to be, that sir thomas wrote his reign of edward the fifth as he wrote his utopia; to amuse his leisure and exercise his fancy. he took up a paltry canvas and embroidered it with a flowing design as his imagination suggested the colours. i should deal more severely with his respected memory on any other hypothesis. he has been guilty of such palpable and material falshoods, as, while they destroy his credit as an historian, would reproach his veracity as a man, if we could impute them to premeditated perversion of truth, and not to youthful levity and inaccuracy. standing as they do, the sole groundwork of that reign's history, i am authorized to pronounce the work, invention and romance. polidore virgil, a foreigner, and author of a light latin history, was here during the reigns of henry the seventh and eighth. i may quote him now-and-then, and the chronicle of croyland; but neither furnish us with much light. there was another writer in that age of far greater authority, whose negligent simplicity and' veracity are unquestionable; who had great opportunities of knowing our story, and whose testimony is corroborated by our records: i mean philip de comines. he and buck agree with one another, and with the rolls of parliament; sir thomas more with none of them. buck, so long exploded as a lover of paradoxes, and as an advocate for a monster, gains new credit the deeper this dark scene is fathomed. undoubtedly buck has gone too far; nor are his style or method to be admired. with every intention of vindicating richard, he does but authenticate his crimes, by searching in other story for parallel instances of what he calls policy. no doubt politicians will acquit richard, if confession of his crimes be pleaded in defence of them. policy will justify his taking off opponents. policy will maintain him in removing those who would have barred his obtaining the crown, whether he thought he had a right to it, or was determined to obtain it. morality, especially in the latter case, cannot take his part. i shall speak more to this immediately. kapin conceived doubts; but instead of pursuing them, wandered after judgments; and they will lead a man where-ever he has a mind to be led. carte, with more manly shrewdness, has sifted many parts of richard's story, and guessed happily. my part has less penetration; but the parliamentary history, the comparison of dates, and the authentic monument lately come to light, and from which i shall give extracts, have convinced me, that, if buck is too favourable, all our other historians are blind guides, and have not made out a twentieth part of their assertions. the story of edward the fifth is thus related by sir thomas more, and copied from him by all our historians. when the king his father died, the prince kept his court at ludlow, under the tuition of his maternal uncle anthony earl rivers. richard duke of gloucester was in the north, returning from his successful expedition against the scots. the queen wrote instantly to her brother to bring up the young king to london, with a train of two thousand horse: a fact allowed by historians, and which, whether a prudent caution or not, was the first overt-act of the new reign; and likely to strike, as it did strike, the duke of gloucester and the antient nobility with a jealousy, that the queen intended to exclude them from the administration, and to govern in concert with her own family. it is not improper to observe that no precedent authorized her to assume such power. joan, princess dowager of wales, and widow of the black prince, had no share in the government during the minority of her son richard the second. catherine of valois, widow of henry the fifth was alike excluded from the regency, though her son was but a year old. and if isabella governed on the deposition of edward the second, it was by an usurped power, by the same power that had contributed to dethrone her husband; a power sanctified by no title, and confirmed by no act of parliament.(4) the first step to a female regency(5) enacted, though it never took place, was many years afterwards, in the reign of henry the eighth. (4) twelve guardians were appointed by parliament, and the earl of lancaster was entrusted with the care of the king's person. the latter, being excluded from exercising his charge by the queen and mortimer, gave that as a reason for not obeying a summons to parliament. vide parliam. hist. vol. i. p. 208. 215. (5) vide the act of succession in parliam. hist. vol. iii. p. 127. edward, on his death-bed, had patched up a reconciliation between his wife's kindred and the great lords of the court; particularly between the marquis dorset, the queen's son, and the lord chamberlain hastings. yet whether the disgusted lords had only seemed to yield, to satisfy the dying king, or whether the steps taken by the queen gave them new cause of umbrage it appears that the duke of buckingham, was the first to communicate his suspicions to gloucester, and to dedicate himself to his service. lord hastings was scarce less forward to join in like measures, and all three, it is pretended, were so alert, that they contrived to have it insinuated to the queen, that it would give much offence if the young king should be brought to london with so great a force as she had ordered; on which suggestions she wrote to lord rivers to countermand her first directions. it is difficult not to suspect, that our historians have imagined more plotting in this transaction than could easily be compassed in so short a period, and in an age when no communication could be carried on but by special messengers, in bad roads, and with no relays of post-horses. edward the fourth died april 9th, and his son made his entrance into london may 4th.(6) it is not probable, that the queen communicated her directions for bringing up her son with an armed force to the lords of the council, and her newly reconciled enemies. but she might be betrayed. still it required some time for buckingham to send his servant percival (though sir thomas more vaunts his expedition) to york, where the duke of gloucester then lay;(7) for percival's return (it must be observed too that the duke of buckingham was in wales, consequently did not learn the queen's orders on the spot, but either received the account from london, or learnt it from ludlow); for the two dukes to send instructions to their confederates in london; for the impression to be made on the queen, and for her dispatching her counter-orders; for percival to post back and meet gloucester at nottingham, and for returning thence and bringing his master buckingham to meet richard at northampton, at the very time of the king's arrival there. all this might happen, undoubtedly; and yet who will believe, that such mysterious and rapid negociations came to the knowledge of sir thomas more twenty-five years afterwards, when, as it will appear, he knew nothing of very material and public facts that happened at the same period? (6) fabian. (7) it should be remarked too, that the duke of gloucester is positively said to be celebrating his brother's obsequies there. it not only strikes off part of the term by allowing the necessary time for the news of king edward's death to reach york, and for the preparation to be made there to solemnize a funeral for him; but this very circumstance takes off from the probability of richard having as yett laid any plan for dispossessing his nephew. would he have loitered at york at such a crisis, if he had intended to step into the throne? but whether the circumstances are true, or whether artfully imagined, it is certain that the king, with a small force, arrived at northampton, and thence proceeded to stony stratford. earl rivers remained at northampton, where he was cajoled by the two dukes till the time of rest, when the gates of the inn were suddenly locked, and the earl made prisoner. early in the morning the two dukes hastened to stony stratford, where, in the king's presence, they picked a quarrel with his other half-brother, the lord richard grey, accusing him, the marquis dorset, and their uncle rivers, of ambitious and hostile designs, to which ends the marquis had entered the tower, taken treasure thence, and sent a force to sea. "these things," says sir thomas, "the dukes knew, were done for good and necessary purposes, and by appointment of the council; but somewhat they must say," &c. as sir thomas has not been pleased to specify those purposes, and as in those times at least privy counsellors were exceedingly complaisant to the ruling powers, he must allow us to doubt whether the purposes of the queen's relations were quite so innocent as he would make us believe; and whether the princes of the blood and the antient nobility had not some reasons to be jealous that the queen was usurping more power than the laws had given her. the catastrophe of her whole family so truly deserves commiseration, that we are apt to shut our eyes to all her weakness and ill-judged policy; and yet at every step we find how much she contributed to draw ruin on their heads and her own, by the confession even of her apologists. the duke of gloucester was the first prince of the blood, the constitution pointed him out as regent; no will, no disposition of the late king was even alleged to bar his pretensions; he had served the state with bravery, success, and fidelity; and the queen herself, who had been insulted by clarence, had had no cause to complain of gloucester. yet all her conduct intimated designs of governing by force in the name of her son.(8) if these facts are impartially stated, and grounded on the confession of those who inveigh most bitterly against richard's memory, let us allow that at least thus far he acted as most princes would have done in his situation, in a lawless and barbarous age, and rather instigated by others, than from any before-conceived ambition and system. if the journeys of percival are true, buckingham was the devil that tempted richard; and if richard still wanted instigation, then it must follow, that he had not murdered henry the sixth, his son, and clarence, to pave his own way to the crown. if this fine story of buckingham and percival is not true, what becomes of sir thomas more's credit, on which the whole fabric leans? lord richard, sir thomas vaughan, and sir richard hawte, were arrested, and with lord rivers sent prisoners to pomfret, while the dukes conducted the king by easy stages to london. the queen, hearing what had happened took sanctuary at westminster, with her other son the duke of york, and the princesses her daughters. rotheram, archbishop of york and lord chancellor, repaired to her with the great seal, and endeavoured to comfort her dismay with the friendly message he had received from hastings, who was with the confederate lords on the road. "a woe worth him!" quoth the queen, "for it is he that goeth about to destroy me and my blood!" not a word is said of her suspecting the duke of gloucester. the archbishop seems to have been the first who entertained any suspicion; and yet, if all that our historian says of him is true, rotheram was far from being a shrewd man: witness the indiscreet answer which he is said to have made on this occasion. "madam," quoth he, "be of good comfort, and assure you, if they crown any other king than your son whom they now have we shall on the morrow crown his brother, whom you have here with you." did the silly prelate think that it would be much consolation to a mother, whose eldest son might be murthered, that her younger son would be crowned in prison, or was she to be satisfied with seeing one son entitled to the crown, and the other enjoying it nominally? he then delivered the seal to the queen, and as lightly sent for it back immediately after. the dukes continued their march, declaring they were bringing the king to his coronation, hastings, who seems to have preceded them, endeavoured to pacify the apprehensions which had been raised in the people, acquainting them that the arrested lords had been imprisoned for plotting against the dukes of gloucester and buckingham. as both those princes were of the blood royal,(9) this accusation was not ill founded, it having evidently been the intention, as i have shewn, to bar them from any share in the administration, to which, by the custom of the realm, they were intitled. so much depends on this foundation, that i shall be excused from enforcing it. the queen's party were the aggressors; and though that alone would not justify all the following excesses, yet we must not judge of those times by the present. neither the crown nor the great men were restrained by sober established forms and proceedings as they are at present; and from the death of edward the third, force alone had dictated. henry the fourth had stepped into the throne contrary to all justice. a title so defective had opened a door to attempts as violent; and the various innovations introduced in the latter years of henry the sixth had annihilated all ideas of order. richard duke of york had been declared successor to the crown during the life of henry and of his son prince edward, and, as appears by the parliamentary history, though not noticed by our careless historians was even appointed prince of wales. the duke of clarence had received much such another declaration in his favour during the short restoration of henry. what temptations were these precedents to an affronted prince! we shall see soon what encouragement they gave him to examine closely into his nephew's pretensions; and how imprudent it was in the queen to provoke gloucester, when her very existence as queen was liable to strong objections. nor ought the subsequent executions of lord rivers, lord richard grey, and of lord hastings himself, to be considered in so very strong a light, as they would appear in, if acted in modern times. during the wars of york and lancaster, no forms of trial had been observed. not only peers taken in battle had been put to death without process; but whoever, though not in arms, was made prisoner by the victorious party, underwent the same fate; as was the case of tiptoft earl of worcester, who had fled and was taken in disguise. trials had never been used with any degree of strictness, as at present; and though richard was pursued and killed as an usurper, the solomon that succeeded him, was not a jot-less a tyrant. henry the eighth was still less of a temper to give greater latitude to the laws. in fact, little ceremony or judicial proceeding was observed on trials, till the reign of elizabeth, who, though decried of late for her despotism, in order to give some shadow of countenance to the tyranny of the stuarts, was the first of our princes, under whom any gravity or equity was allowed in cases of treason. to judge impartially therefore, we ought to recall the temper and manners of the times we read of. it is shocking to eat our enemies: but it is not so shocking in an iroquois, as it would be in the king of prussia. and this is all i contend for, that the crimes of richard, which he really committed, at least which we have reason to believe he committed, were more the crimes of the age than of the man; and except these executions of rivers, grey, and hastings, i defy any body to prove one other of those charged to his account, from any good authority. (8) grafton says, "and in effect every one as he was neerest of kinne unto the queene, so was he planted nere about the prince," p. 761; and again, p. 762, "the duke of gloucester understanding that the lordes, which were about the king, entended to bring him up to his coronation, accompanied with such power of their friendes, that it should be hard for him, to bring his purpose to passe, without gatherying and assemble of people, and in maner of open war," &c. in the same place it appears, that the argument used to dissuade the queen from employing force, was, that it would be a breach of the accommodation made by the late king between her relations and the great lords; and so undoubtedly it was; and though they are accused of violating the peace, it is plain that the queen's insincerity had been at least equal to theirs, and that the infringement of the reconciliation commenced on her side. (9) henry duke of buckingham was the immediate descendant and heir of thomas of woodstock duke of gloucester, the youngest son of edward the third, as will appear by this table: thomas duke of gloucester anne sole daughter and heiress. --edmund earl of stafford. humphrey duke of bucks. humphrey lord stafford henry duke of bucks. it is plain, that buckingham was influenced by this nearness to the crown, for it made him overlook his own alliance with the queen, whose sister he had married. henry the eighth did not overlook the proximity of blood, when he afterwards put to death the son of this duke. it is alleged that the partizans of gloucester strictly guarded the sanctuary, to prevent farther resort thither; but sir thomas confesses too, that divers lords, knights, and gentlemen, either for favour of the queen, or for fear of themselves, assembled companies and went flocking together in harness. let us strip this paragraph of its historic buskins, and it is plain that the queen's party took up arms.(10) this is no indifferent circumstance. she had plotted to keep possession of the king, and to govern in his name by force, but had been outwitted, and her family had been imprisoned for the attempt. conscious that she was discovered, perhaps reasonably alarmed at gloucester's designs, she had secured herself and her young children in sanctuary. necessity rather than law justified her proceedings, but what excuse can be made for her faction having recourse to arms? who was authorized, by the tenour of former reigns, to guard the king's person, till parliament should declare a regency, but his uncle and the princes of the blood? endeavouring to establish the queen's authority by force was rebellion against the laws. i state this minutely, because the fact has never been attended to; and later historians pass it over, as if richard had hurried on the deposition of his nephews without any colour of decency, and without the least provocation to any of his proceedings. hastings is even said to have warned the citizens that matters were likely to come to a field (to a battle) from the opposition of the adverse party, though as yet no symptom had appeared of designs against the king, whom the two dukes were bringing to his coronation. nay, it is not probable that gloucester had as yet meditated more than securing the regency; for had he had designs on the crown, would he have weakened his own claim by assuming the protectorate, which he could not accept but by acknowledging the title of his nephew? this in truth seems to me to have been the case. the ambition of the queen and her family alarmed the princes and the nobility: gloucester, buckingham, hastings, and many more had checked those attempts. the next step was to secure the regency: but none of these acts could be done without grievous provocation to the queen. as soon as her son should come of age, she might regain her power and the means of revenge. self-security prompted the princes and lords to guard against this reverse, and what was equally dangerous to the queen, the depression of her fortune called forth and revived all the hatred of her enemies. her marriage had given universal offence to the nobility, and been the source of all the late disturbances and bloodshed. the great earl of warwick, provoked at the contempt shewn to him by king edward while negotiating a match for him in france, had abandoned him for henry the sixth, whom he had again set on the throne. these calamities were still fresh in every mind, and no doubt contributed to raise gloucester to the throne, which he could not have attained without almost general concurrence yet if we are to believe historians, he, buckingham, the mayor of london, and one dr. shaw, operated this revolution by a sermon and a speech to the people, though the people would not even give a huzza to the proposal. the change of government in the rehearsal is not effected more easily by the physician and gentleman usher, "do you take this, and i'll seize t'other chair." (10) this is confirmed by the chronicle of croyland, p. 566. in what manner richard assumed or was invested with the protectorate does not appear. sir thomas more, speaking of him by that title, says "the protector which always you must take for the duke of gloucester." fabian after mentioning the solemn (11) arrival of the king in london, adds, "than provisyon was made for the kinge's coronation; in which pastime (interval) the duke being admitted for lord protectour." as the parliament was not sitting, this dignity was no doubt conferred on him by the assent of the lords and privy council; and as we hear of no opposition, none was probably made. he was the only person to whom that rank was due; his right could not and does not seem to have been questioned. the chronicle of croyland corroborates my opinion, saying, "accepitque dictus ricardus dux glocestriae ilium solennem magistratum, qui duci humfrido glocestriae, stante minore aetate regis henrici, ut regni protector appellaretur, olim contingebat. ea igitur auctoritate usus est, de consensu & beneplacito omnium dominorum." p. 556. (11) he was probably eye-witness of that ceremony; for he says, "the king was of the maior and his citizens met at harnesey parke, the maior and his brethren being clothed in scarlet, and the citizens in violet, to the number of v.c. horses, and than from thence conveyed unto the citie, the king beynge in blewe velvet, and all his lords and servauntes in blacke cloth." p. 513. thus far therefore it must be allowed that richard acted no illegal part, nor discovered more ambition than became him. he had defeated the queen's innovations, and secured her accomplices. to draw off our attention from such regular steps, sir thomas more has exhausted all his eloquence and imagination to work up a piteous scene, in which the queen is made to excite our compassion in the highest degree, and is furnished by that able pen with strains of pathetic oratory, which no part of her conduct affords us reason to believe she possessed. this scene is occasioned by the demand of delivering up her second son. cardinal bourchier archbishop of canterbury is the instrument employed by the protector to effect this purpose. the fact is confirmed by fabian in his rude and brief manner, and by the chronicle of croyland, and therefore cannot be disputed. but though the latter author affirms, that force was used to oblige the cardinal to take that step, he by no means agrees with sir thomas more in the repugnance of the queen to comply, nor in that idle discussion on the privileges of sanctuaries, on which sir thomas has wasted so many words. on the contrary, the chronicle declares, that the queen "verbis gratanter annues, dimisit puerum." the king, who had been lodged in the palace of the bishop of london, was now removed with his brother to the tower. this last circumstance has not a little contributed to raise horror in vulgar minds, who of late years have been accustomed to see no persons of rank lodged in the tower but state criminals. but in that age the case was widely different. it not only appears by a map engraven so late as the reign of queen elizabeth, that the tower was a royal palace, in which were ranges of buildings called the king's and queen's apartments, now demolished; but it is a known fact, that they did often lodge there, especially previous to their coronations. the queen of henry the seventh lay in there: queen elizabeth went thither after her triumphant entry into the city; and many other instances might be produced, but for brevity i omit them, to come to one of the principal transactions of this dark period: i mean richard's assumption of the crown. sir thomas more's account of this extraordinary event is totally improbable, and positively false in the groundwork of that revolution. he tells us, that richard meditating usurpation, divided the lords into two separate councils, assembling the king's or queen's party at baynard's castle, but holding his own private junto at crosby place. from the latter he began with spreading murmurs, whispers, and reports against the legality of the late king's marriage. thus far we may credit him-but what man of common sense can believe, that richard went so far as publicly to asperse the honor of his own mother? that mother, cecily duchess dowager of york, a princess of a spotless character, was then living: so were two of her daughters, the duchesses of suffolk and burgundy, richard's own sisters: one of them, the duchess of suffolk walked at his ensuing coronation, and her son the earl of lincoln was by richard himself, after the death of his own son, declared heir apparent to the crown. is it, can it be credible, that richard actuated a venal preacher(12) to declare to the people from the pulpit at paul's cross, that his mother had been an adultress, and that her two eldest sons,(13) edward the fourth and the duke of clarence(14) were spurious; and that the good lady had not given a legitimate child to her husband, but the protector, and i suppose the duchess of suffolk, though no mention is said to be made of her in the sermon? for as the duchess of suffolk was older than richard, and consequently would have been involved in the charge of bastardy, could he have declared her son his heir, he who set aside his brother edward's children for their illegitimacy? ladies of the least disputable gallantry generally suffer their husbands to beget his heir; and if doubts arise on the legitimacy of their issue, the younger branches seem most liable to suspicion--but a tale so gross could not have passed even on the mob--no proof, no presumption of the fact was pretended. were the duchess(15) and her daughters silent on so scandalous an insinuation? agrippina would scarce have heard it with patience. moriar modo imperet! said that empress, in her wild wish of crowning her son: but had he, unprovoked, aspersed her honour in the open forum, would the mother have submitted to so unnatural an insult? in richard's case the imputation was beyond measure atrocious and absurd. what! taint the fame of his mother to pave his way to the crown! who had heard of her guilt? and if guilty, how came she to stop the career of her intrigues? but richard had better pretensions, and had no occasion to start doubts even on his own legitimacy, which was too much connected with that of his brothers to be tossed and bandied about before the multitude. clarence had been solemnly attainted by act of parliament, and his children were out of the question. the doubts on the validity of edward's marriage were better grounds for richard's proceedings than aspersion of his mother's honour. on that invalidity he claimed the crown, and obtained it; and with such universal concurrence, that the nation undoubtedly was on his side --but as he could not deprive his nephews, on that foundation, without bastardizing their sisters too, no wonder, the historians, who wrote under the lancastrian domination, have used all their art and industry to misrepresent the fact. if the marriage of edward the fourth with the widow grey was bigamy, and consequently null, what became of the title of elizabeth of york, wife of henry the seventh? what became of it? why a bastard branch of lancaster, matched with a bastard of york, were obtruded on the nation as the right heirs of the crown! and, as far as two negatives can make an affirmative, they were so. (12) what should we think of a modern historian, who should sink all mention of the convention parliament, and only tell us that one dr. burnet got up into the pulpit, and assured the people that henrietta maria (a little more suspected of gallantry than duchess cecily) produced charles the second, and james the second in adultry, and gave no legitimate issue to charles the first, but mary princess of orange, mother of king william; that the people laughed at him, and so the prince of orange became king? (13) the earl of rutland, another son, elder than richard, had been murdered at the battle of wakefield and so was omitted in that imaginary accusation. (14) clarence is the first who is said to have propogated this slandour, and it was much more consonant to his levity and indigested politics, than to the good sense of richard. we can believe that richard renewed this story, especially as he must have altered the dates of his mother's amours, and made them continue to her conception of him, as clarence had made them stop in his own favor? (15) it appears from rymer's foedera, that the very first act of richard's reign is dated from quadam altera camera juxta capellam in hospitio dominae ceciliae ducissae eborum. it does not look much as if he had publicly accused his mother of adultry, when he held his first council at her house. among the harleian mss. in the museum, no. 2236. art. 6. is the following letter from richard to this very princess his mother, which is an additional proof of the good terms on which they lived: "madam, i recomaunde me to you as hertely as is to me possible, beseeching you in my most humble and affectuouse wise of your daly blessing to my synguler comfort and defence in my nede; and, madam, i hertoly beseche you, that i may often here from you to my comfort; and suche newes as be here, my servaunt thomas bryan this berer shall showe you, to whom please it you to yeve credence unto. and, madam, i beseche you to be good and graciouse lady to my lord my chamberlayn to be your officer in wiltshire in suche as colinbourne had. i trust he shall therein do you good servyce; and that it plese you, that by this barer i may understande your pleasur in this behalve. and i praye god send you th' accomplishement of your noble desires. written at pomfret, the thirde day of juyn, with the hande of your most humble son, richardus rex." buck, whose integrity will more and more appear, affirms that, before edward had espoused the lady grey, he had been contracted to the lady eleanor butler, and married to her by the bishop of bath. sir thomas more, on the contrary (and here it is that i am unwillingly obliged to charge that great man with wilful falsehood) pretends that the duchess of york, his mother, endeavouring to dissuade him from so disproportionate an alliance, urged him with a pre-contract to one elizabeth lucy, who however, being pressed, confessed herself his concubine; but denied any marriage. dr. shaw too, the preacher, we are told by the same authority, pleaded from the pulpit the king's former marriage with elizabeth lucy, and the duke of buckingham is said to have harangued the people to the same effect. but now let us see how the case really stood: elizabeth lucy was the daughter of one wyat of southampton, a mean gentleman, says buck, and the wife of one lucy, as mean a man as wyat. the mistress of edward she notoriously was; but what if, in richard's pursuit of the crown, no question at all was made of this elizabeth lucy? we have the best and most undoubted authorities to assure us, that edward's pre-contract or marriage, urged to invalidate his match with the lady grey, was with the lady eleanor talbot, widow of the lord butler of sudeley, and sister of the earl shrewsbury, one of the greatest peers in the kingdom; her mother was the lady katherine stafford, daughter of humphrey duke of buckingham, prince of the blood: an alliance in that age never reckoned unsuitable. hear the evidence. honest philip de comines says(16) "that the bishop of bath informed richard, that he had married king edward to an english lady; and dit cet evesque qu'il les avoit espouses, & que n'y avoit que luy & ceux deux." this is not positive, and yet the description marks out the lady butler, and not elizabeth lucy. but the chronicle of croyland is more express. "color autem introitus & captae possessionis hujusmodi is erat. ostendebatur per modum supplicationis in quodam rotulo pergameni quod filii regis edwardi erant bastardi, supponendo ilium precontraxisse cum quadam domina alienora boteler, antequam reginam elizabeth duxisset uxorem; atque insuper, quod sanguis alterius fratris sui, georgii ducis clarentiae, fuisset attinctus; ita quod hodie nullus certus & incorruptus sanguis linealis ex parte richardi ducis eboraci poterat inveniri, nisi in persona dicti richardi ducis glocestriae. quo circa supplicabatur ei in fine ejusdem rotuli, ex parte dominorum & communitatis regni, ut jus suum in se assumeret." is this full? is this evidence? (16) liv. 5, p. 151. in the 6th book, comines insinuates that the bishop acted out of revenge for having been imprisoned by edward: it might be so; but as comines had before alledged that the bishop had actually said he had married them, it might be the truth that the prelate told out of revenge, and not a lie; nor is it probable that his tale would have had any weight, if false, and unsupported by other circumstances. here we see the origin of the tale relating to the duchess of york; nullus certus & incorruptus sangnis: from these mistaken or perverted words flowed the report of richard's aspersing his mother's honour. but as if truth was doomed to emerge, though stifled for near three hundred years, the roll of parliament is at length come to light (with other wonderful discoveries) and sets forth, "that though the three estates which petitioned richard to assume the crown were not assembled in form of parliament;" yet it rehearses the supplication (recorded by the chronicle above) and declares, "that king eduard was and stood married and troth plight to one dame eleanor butler, daughter to the earl of shrewsbury, with whom the said king edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony, long before he made his pretended marriage with elizabeth grey." could sir thomas more be ignorant of this fact? or, if ignorant, where is his competence as an historian? and how egregiously absurd is his romance of richard's assuming the crown inconsequence of dr. shaw's sermon and buckingham's harangue, to neither of which he pretends the people assented! dr. shaw no doubt tapped the matter to the people; for fabian asserts that he durst never shew his face afterwards; and as henry the seventh succeeded so soon, and as the slanders against richard increased, that might happen; but it is evident that the nobility were disposed to call the validity of the queen's marriage in question, and that richard was solemnly invited by the three estates to accept the regal dignity; and that is farther confirmed by the chronicle of croyland, which says, that richard having brought together a great force from the north, from wales, and other parts, did on the twenty-sixth of june claim the crown, "seque eodem die apud magnam aulam westmonasterii in cathedram marmoream ibi intrusit;" but the supplication afore-mentioned had first been presented to him. this will no doubt be called violence and a force laid on the three estates; and yet that appears by no means to have been the case; for sir thomas more, partial as he was against richard, says, "that to be sure of all enemies, he sent for five thousand men out of the north against his coronation, which came up evil apparelled and worse harnessed, in rusty harnesse, neither defensable nor scoured to the sale, which mustured in finsbury field, to the great disdain of all lookers on." these rusty companions, despised by the citizens, were not likely to intimidate a warlike nobility; and had force been used to extort their assent, sir thomas would have been the first to have told us so. but he suppressed an election that appears to have been voluntary, and invented a scene, in which, by his own account, richard met with nothing but backwardness and silence, that amounted to a refusal. the probability therefore remains, that the nobility met richard's claim at least half-way, from their hatred and jealousy of the queen's family, and many of them from the conviction of edward's pre-contract. many might concur from provocation at the attempts that had been made to disturb the due course of law, and some from apprehension of a minority. this last will appear highly probable from three striking circumstances that i shall mention hereafter. the great regularity with which the coronation was prepared and conducted, and the extraordinary concourse of the nobility at it, have not all the air of an unwelcome revolution, accomplished merely by violence. on the contrary, it bore great resemblance to a much later event, which, being the last of the kind, we term the revolution. the three estates of nobility, clergy, and people, which called richard to the crown, and whose act was confirmed by the subsequent parliament, trod the same steps as the convention did which elected the prince of orange; both setting aside an illegal pretender, the legitimacy of whose birth was called in question. and though the partizans of the stuarts may exult at my comparing king william to richard the third, it wil be no matter of triumph, since it appears that richard's cause was as good as king william's, and that in both instances it was a free election. the art used by sir thomas more (when he could not deny a pre-contract) in endeavouring to shift that objection on elizabeth lucy, a married woman, contrary to the specific words of the act of parliament, betrays the badness of the lancastrian cause, which would make us doubt or wonder at the consent of the nobility in giving way to the act for bastardizing the children of edward the fourth. but reinstate the claim of the lady butler, which probably was well known, and conceive the interest that her great relations must have made to set aside the queen's marriage, nothing appears more natural than richard's succession. his usurpation vanishes, and in a few pages more, i shall shew that his consequential cruelty vanishes too, or at most is very, problematic: but first i must revert to some intervening circumstances. in this whole story nothing is less known to us than the grounds on which lord hastings was put to death. he had lived in open enmity with the queen and her family, and had been but newly reconciled to her son the marquis dorset; yet sir thomas owns that lord hastings was one of the first to abet richard's proceedings against her, and concurred in all the protector's measures. we are amazed therefore to find this lord the first sacrifice under the new government. sir thomas more supposes (and he could only suppose; for whatever archbishop morton might tell him of the plots of henry of richmond, morton was certainly not entrusted with the secrets of richard) sir thomas, i say, supposes, that hastings either withstood the deposition of edward the fifth, or was accused of such a design by catesby, who was deeply in his confidence; and he owns that the protector undoubtedly loved him well, and loth he was to have him lost. what then is the presumption? is it not, that hastings really was plotting to defeat the new settlement contrary to the intention of the three estates? and who can tell whether the suddenness of the execution was not the effect of necessity? the gates of the tower were shut during that rapid scene; the protector and his adherents appeared in the first rusty armour that was at hand: but this circumstance is alledged against them, as an incident contrived to gain belief, as if they had been in danger of their lives. the argument is gratis dictum: and as richard loved hastings and had used his ministry, the probability lies on the other side: and it is more reasonable to believe that richard acted in self-defence, than that he exercised a wanton, unnecessary, and disgusting cruelty. the collateral circumstances introduced by more do but weaken(17) his account, and take from its probability. i do not mean the silly recapitulation of silly omens which forewarned hastings of his fate, and as omens generally do, to no manner of purpose; but i speak of the idle accusations put into the mouth of richard, such as his baring his withered arm, and imputing it to sorcery, and to his blending the queen and jane shore in the same plot. cruel or not, richard was no fool; and therefore it is highly improbable that he should lay the withering of his arm on recent witchcraft, if it was true, as sir thomas more pretends, that it never had been otherwise --but of the blemishes and deformity of his person, i shall have occasion to speak hereafter. for the other accusation of a league between elizabeth and jane shore, sir thomas more ridicules it himself, and treats it as highly unlikely. but being unlikely, was it not more natural for him to think, that it never was urged by richard? and though sir thomas again draws aside our attention by the penance of jane, which she certainly underwent, it is no kind of proof that the protector accused the queen of having plotted(18) with mistress shore. what relates to that unhappy fair one i shall examine at the end of this work. except the proclamation which, sir thomas says, appeared to have been prepared before hand. the death of hastings, i allow, is the fact of which we are most sure, without knowing the immediate motives: we must conclude it was determined on his opposing richard's claim: farther we do not know, nor whether that opposition was made in a legal or hostile manner. it is impossible to believe that, an hour before his death, he should have exulted in the deaths of their common enemies, and vaunted, as sir thomas more asserts, his connection with richard, if he was then actually at variance with him; nor that richard should, without provocation, have massacred so excellent an accomplice. this story, therefore, must be left in the dark, as we find it. (18) so far from it, that as mr. hume remarks, there is in rymer's foedera a proclamation of richard, in which he accuses, not the lord hastings, but the marquis dorset, of connexion with jane shore. mr. hume thinks so authentic a paper not sufficient to overbalance the credit due to sir thomas more. what little credit was due to him appears from the course of this work in various and indubitable instances. the proclamation against the lord dorset and jane shore is not dated till the 23rd. of october following. is it credible that richard would have made use of this woman's name again, if he had employed it heretofore to blacken hastings? it is not probable that, immediately on the death of the king, she had been taken into keeping by lord hastings; but near seven months had elapsed between that death and her connection with the marquis. the very day on which hastings was executed, were beheaded earl rivers, lord richard grey, vaughan, and haute. these executions are indubitable; were consonant to the manners and violence of the age; and perhaps justifiable by that wicked code, state necessity. i have never pretended to deny them, because i find them fully authenticated. i have in another(19) place done justice to the virtues and excellent qualities of earl rivers: let therefore my impartiality be believed, when i reject other facts, for which i can discover no good authority. i can have no interest in richard's guilt or innocence; but as henry the seventh was so much interested to represent him as guilty, i cannot help imputing to the greater usurper, and to the worse tyrant of the two, all that appears to me to have been calumny and misrepresentation. (19) in the catalogue of royal and noble authors, vol. 1. all obstacles thus removed, and richard being solemnly instated in the throne by the concurrent voice of the three estates, "he openly," says sir thomas more, "took upon him to be king the ninth(20) day of june, and' the morrow after was proclaimed, riding to westminster with great state; and calling the judges before him, straightly commanded them to execute the laws without favor or delay, with many good exhortations, of the which he followed not one." this is an invidious and false accusation. richard, in his regal capacity, was an excellent king, and for the short time of his reign enacted many wise and wholesome laws. i doubt even whether one of the best proofs of his usurpation was not the goodness of his government, according to a common remark, that princes of doubtful titles make the best masters, as it is more necessary for them to conciliate the favour of the people: the natural corollary from which observation need not be drawn. certain it is that in many parts of the kingdom not poisoned by faction, he was much beloved; and even after his death the northern counties gave open testimony of their affection to his memory. (20) though i have copied our historian, as the rest have copied him, in this date i must desire the reader to take notice, that this very date is another of sir t. more's errors; for in the public acts is a deed of edward the fifth, dated june 17th. on the 6th of july richard was crowned, and soon after set out on a progress to york, on his way visiting gloucester, the seat of his former duchy. and now it is that i must call up the attention of the reader, the capital and bloody scene of richard's life being dated from this progress. the narrative teems with improbabilities and notorious falshoods, and is flatly contradicted by so many unquestionable facts, that if we have no other reason to believe the murder of edward the fifth and his brother, than the account transmitted to us, we shall very much doubt whether they ever were murdered at all. i will state the account, examine it, and produce evidence to confute it, and then the reader will form his own judgment on the matter of fact. richard before he left london, had taken no measures to accomplish the assassination; but on the road "his mind misgave him,(21) that while his nephews lived, he should not possess the crown with security. upon this reflection he dispatched one richard greene to sir robert brakenbury, lieutenant of the tower, with a letter and credence also, that the same sir robert in any wise should put the two children to death. this john greene did his errand to brakenbury, kneeling before our lady in the tower, who plainly answered 'that he never would put them to death, to dye therefore.' green returned with this answer to the king who was then at warwick, wherewith he took such displeasure and thought, that the same night he said unto a secret page of his, 'ah! whom shall a man trust? they that i have brought up myself, they that i thought would have most surely served me, even those faile me, and at my commandment will do nothing for me.' 'sir,' quoth the page 'there lieth one in the palet chamber without, that i dare say will doe your grace pleasure; the thing were right hard that he would refuse;' meaning this by james tirrel, whom," says sir thomas a few pages afterwards, "as men say, he there made a knight. the man" continues more, "had an high heart, and sore longed upwards, not rising yet so fast as he had hoped, being hindered and kept under by sir richard ratcliffe and sir william catesby, who by secret drifts kept him out of all secret trust." to be short, tirrel voluntarily accepted the commission, received warrant to authorise brakenbury to deliver to him the keys of the tower for one night; and having selected two other villains called miles forest and john dighton, the two latter smothered the innocent princes in their beds, and then called tirrel to be witness of the execution. (21) sir t. more. it is difficult to croud more improbabilities and lies together than are comprehended in this short narrative. who can believe if richard meditated the murder, that he took no care to sift brakenbury before he left london? who can believe that he would trust so atrocious a commission to a letter? and who can imagine, that on brakenbury's(22) non-compliance richard would have ordered him to cede the government of the tower to tirrel for one night only, the purpose of which had been so plainly pointed out by the preceding message? and had such weak step been taken, could the murder itself have remained a problem? and yet sir thomas more himself is forced to confess at the outset of this very narration, "that the deaths and final fortunes of the two young princes have nevertheless so far come in question, that some remained long in doubt, whether they were in his days destroyed(23) or no." very memorable words, and sufficient to balance more's own testimony with the most sanguine believers. he adds, "these doubts not only arose from the uncertainty men were in, whether perkin warbeck was the true duke of york, but for that also all things were so covertly demeaned, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved, but that yet men had it ever inwardly suspect." sir thomas goes on to affirm, "that he does not relate the story after every way that he had heard, but after that way that he had heard it by such men and such meanes as he thought it hard but it should be true." this affirmation rests on the credibility of certain reporters, we do not know whom, but who we shall find were no credible reporters at all: for to proceed to the confutation. james tirrel, a man in no secret trust with the king, and kept down by catesby and ratcliffe, is recommended as a proper person by a nameless page. in the first place richard was crowned at york (after this transaction) september 8th. edward the fourth had not been dead four months, and richard in possession of any power not above two months, and those very bustling and active: tirrel must have been impatient indeed, if the page had had time to observe his discontent at the superior confidence of ratcliffe and catesby. it happens unluckily too, that great part of the time ratcliffe was absent, sir thomas more himself telling us that sir richard ratcliffe had the custody of the prisoners at pontefract, and presided at their execution there. but a much more unlucky circumstance is, that james tirrel, said to be knighted for this horrid service, was not only a knight before, but a great or very considerable officer of the crown; and in that situation had walked at richard's preceding coronation. should i be told that sir thomas moore did not mean to confine the ill offices done to tirrel by ratcliffe and catesby solely to the time of richard's protectorate and regal power, but being all three attached to him when duke of gloucester, the other two might have lessened tirrel's credit with the duke even in the preceding reign; then i answer, that richard's appointing him master of the horse on his accession had removed those disgusts, and left the page no room to represent him as ready through ambition and despondency to lend his ministry to assassination. nor indeed was the master, of the horse likely to be sent to supercede the constable of the tower for one night only. that very act was sufficient to point out what richard desired to, and did, it seems, transact so covertly. (22) it appears from the foedera that brakenbury was appointed constable of the tower july 7th; that he surrendered his patent march 9th of the following year, and had one more ample granted to him. if it is supposed that richard renewed this patent to sir robert brakenbury, to prevent his disclosing what he knew of a murder, in which he had refused to be concerned, i then ask if it is probable that a man too virtuous or too cautious to embark in an assassination, and of whom the supposed tyrant stood in awe, would have laid down his life in that usurper's cause, as sir robert did, being killed on richard's side at bosworth, when many other of his adherents betrayed him? (23) this is confirmed by lord bacon: "neither wanted there even at that time secret rumours and whisperings (which afterwards gathered strength, and turned to great trouble) that the two young sons of king edward the fourth, or one of them (which were said to be destroyed in the tower) were not indeed murthered, but conveyed secretly away, and were yet living." reign of henry the seventh, p. 4. again, p. 19. "and all this time it was still whispered every where that at least one of the children of edward the fourth was living." that sir james tirrel was and did walk as master of the horse at richard's coronation cannot be contested. a most curious, invaluable, and authentic monument has lately been discovered, the coronation-roll of richard the third. two several deliveries of parcels of stuff are there expressly entered, as made to "sir james tirrel, knyght, maister of the hors of our sayd soverayn lorde the kynge." what now becomes of sir thomas more's informers, and of their narrative, which he thought hard but must be true? i will go a step farther, and consider the evidence of this murder, as produced by henry the seventh some years afterwards, when, instead of lamenting it, it was necessary for his majesty to hope it had been true; at least to hope the people would think so. on the appearance of perkin warbeck, who gave himself out for the second of the brothers, who was believed so by most people, and at least feared by the king to be so, he bestirred himself to prove that both the princes had been murdered by his predecessor. there had been but three actors, besides richard who had commanded the execution, and was dead. these were sir james tirrel, dighton, and forrest; and these were all the persons whose depositions henry pretended to produce; at least of two of them, for forrest it seems had rotted piece-meal away; a kind of death unknown at present to the college. but there were some others, of whom no notice was taken; as the nameless page, greene, one black will or will slaughter who guarded the princes, the friar who buried them, and sir robert brakenbury, who could not be quite ignorant of what had happened: the latter was killed at bosworth, and the friar was dead too. but why was no enquiry made after greene and the page? still this silence was not so impudent as the pretended confession of dighton and sir james tyrrel. the former certainly did avow the fact, and was suffered to go unpunished wherever he pleased--undoubtedly that he might spread the tale. and observe these remarkable words of lord bacon, "john dighton, who it seemeth spake best the king, was forewith set at liberty." in truth, every step of this pretended discovery, as it stands in lord bacon, warns us to give no heed to it. dighton and tirrel agreed both in a tale, as the king gave out. their confession therefore was not publickly made, and as sir james tirrel was suffered to live;(24) but was shut up in the tower, and put to death afterwards for we know not what reason. what can we believe, but that dighton was some low mercenary wretch hired to assume the guilt of a crime he had not committed, and that sir james tirrel never did, never would confess what he had not done; and was therefore put out of the way on a fictitious imputation? it must be observed too, that no inquiry was made into the murder on the accession of henry the seventh, the natural time for it, when the passions of men were heated, and when the duke of norfolk, lord lovel, catesby, ratcliffe, and the real abettors or accomplices of richard, were attainted and executed. no mention of such a murder (25)was made in the very act of parliament that attainted richard himself, and which would have been the most heinous aggravation of his crimes. and no prosecution of the supposed assassins was even thought of till eleven years afterwards, on the appearance of perkin warbeck. tirrel is not named in the act of attainder to which i have had recourse; and such omissions cannot but induce us to surmise that henry had never been certain of the deaths of the princes, nor ever interested himself to prove that both were dead, till he had great reason to believe that one of them was alive. let me add, that if the confessions of dighton and tirrel were true, sir thomas more had no occasion to recur to the information of his unknown credible informers. if those confessions were not true, his informers were not credible. (24) it appears by hall, that sir james tirrel had even enjoyed the favor of henry; for tirrel is named as captain of guards in a list of valiant officers that were sent by henry, in his fifth year, on an expedition into flanders. does this look as if tirrel was so much as suspected of the murder. and who can believe his pretended confession afterwards? sir james was not executed till henry's seventeenth year, on suspicion of treason, which suspicion arose on the flight of the earl of suffolk. vide hall's chronicle, fol. 18 & 55. (25) there is a heap of general accusations alledged to have been committed by richard against henry, in particular of his having shed infant's blood. was this sufficient specification of the murder of a king? is it not rather a base way of insinuating a slander, of which no proof could be given? was not it consonant to all henry's policy of involving every thing in obscure and general terms? having thus disproved the account of the murder, let us now examine whether we can be sure that the murder was committed. of all men it was most incumbent on cardinal bourchier, archbishop of canterbury, to ascertain the fact. to him had the queen entrusted her younger son, and the prelate had pledged himself for his security--unless every step of this history is involved in falshood. yet what was the behaviour of the archbishop? he appears not to have made the least inquiry into the reports of the murder of both children; nay, not even after richard's death: on the contrary, bourchier was the very man who placed the crown on the head of the latter;(26) and yet not one historian censures this conduct. threats and fear could not have dictated this shameless negligence. every body knows what was the authority of priests in that age; an archbishop was sacred, a cardinal inviolable. as bourchier survived richard, was it not incumbant on him to show, that the duke of york had been assassinated in spite of all his endeavours to save him? what can be argued from this inactivity of bourchier,(27) but that he did not believe the children were murdered. (26) as cardinal bourchier set the crown on richard's head at westminster, so did archbishop rotheram at york. these prelates either did not believe richard had murdered his nephews, or were shamefully complaisant themselves. yet their characters stand unimpeached in history. could richard be guilty, and the archbishops be blameless? could both be ignorant what was become of the young princes, when both had negotiated with the queen dowager? as neither is accused of being the creature of richard, it is probable that neither of them believed he had taken off his nephews. in the foedera there is a pardon passed to the archbishop, which at first made me suspect that he had taken some part in behalf of the royal children, as he is pardoned for all murders, treasons, concealments, misprisons, riots, routs, &c. but this pardon is not only dated dec. 13, some months after he had crowned richard; but, on looking farther, i find such pardons frequently granted to the most eminent of the clergy. in the next reign walter, archbishop of dublin, is pardoned all murders, rapes, treasons, felonies, misprisons, riots, routs, extortions, &c. (27) lord bacon tells us, that "on simon's and jude's even, the king (henry the seventh) dined with thomas bourchier, archbishop of canterburie, and cardinal: and from lambeth went by land over the bridge to the tower." has not this the appearance of some curiosity in the king on the subject of the princes, of whose fate he was uncertain? richard's conduct in a parallel case is a strong presumption that this barbarity was falsely laid to his charge. edward earl of warwick, his nephew, and son of the duke of clarence, was in his power too, and no indifferent rival, if king edward's children were bastards. clarence had been attainted; but so had almost every prince who had aspired to the crown after richard the second. richard duke of york, the father of edward the fourth and richard the third, was son of richard earl of cambridge, beheaded for treason; yet that duke of york held his father's attainder no bar to his succession. yet how did richard the third treat his nephew and competitor, the young warwick? john rous, a zealous lancastrian and contemporary shall inform us: and will at the same time tell us an important anecdote, maliciously suppressed or ignorantly omitted by all our historians. richard actually proclaimed him heir to the crown after the death of his own son, and ordered him to be served next to himself and the queen, though he afterwards set him aside, and confined him to the castle of sheriff-hutton.(28) the very day after the battle of bosworth, the usurper richmond was so far from being led aside from attention to his interest by the glare of his new-acquired crown, that he sent for the earl of warwick from sheriff-hutton and committed him to the tower, from whence he never stirred more, falling a sacrifice to the inhuman jealousy of henry, as his sister, the venerable countess of salisbury, did afterwards to that of henri the eight. richard, on the contrary, was very affectionate to his family: instances appear in his treatment of the earls of warwick and lincoln. the lady ann poole, sister of the latter, richard had agreed to marry to the prince of scotland. (28) p. 218. rous is the more to be credited for this fact, as he saw the earl of warwick in company with richard at warwick the year before on the progress to york, which shows that the king treated his nephew with kindness, and did not confine him till the plots of his enemies thickening, richard found it necessary to secure such as had any pretensions to the crown. this will account for his preferring the earl of lincoln, who, being his sister's son, could have no prior claim before himself. the more generous behaviour of richard to the same young prince (warwick) ought to be applied to the case of edward the fifth, if no proof exists of the murder. but what suspicious words are those of sir thomas more, quoted above, and unobserved by all our historians. "some remained long in doubt," says he, "whether they (the children) were in his (richard's) days destroyed or no." if they were not destroyed in his days, in whose days were they murdered? who will tell me that henry the seventh did not find, the eldest at least, prisoner in the tower; and if he did, what was there in henry's nature or character to prevent our surmizes going farther. and here let me lament that two of the greatest men in our annals have prostituted their admirable pens, the one to blacken a great prince, the other to varnish a pitiful tyrant. i mean the two (29) chancellors, sir thomas more and lord bacon. the most senseless stories of the mob are converted to history by the former; the latter is still more culpable; he has held up to the admiration of posterity, and what is worse, to the imitation of succeeding princes, a man whose nearest approach to wisdom was mean cunning; and has raised into a legislator, a sanguinary, sordid, and trembling usurper. henry was a tyrannic husband, and ungrateful master; he cheated as well as oppressed his subjects,(30) bartered the honour of the nation for foreign gold, and cut off every branch of the royal family, to ensure possession to his no title. had he had any title, he could claim it but from his mother, and her he set aside. but of all titles he preferred that of conquest, which, if allowable in a foreign prince, can never be valid in a native, but ought to make him the execration of his countrymen. (29) it is unfortunate, that another great chancellor should have written a history with the same propensity to misrepresentation, i mean lord clarendon. it is hoped no more chancellors will write our story, till they can divest themselves of that habit of their profession, apologizing for a bad cause. (30) "he had no purpose to go through with any warre upon france; but the truth was, that he did but traffique with that warre to make his returne in money." lord bacon's reign of henry the seventh, p. 99. there is nothing strained in the supposition of richard's sparing his nephew. at least it is certain now, that though he dispossessed, he undoubtedly treated him at first with indulgence, attention, and respect; and though the proof i am going to give must have mortified the friends of the dethroned young prince, yet it shewed great aversion to cruelty, and was an indication that richard rather assumed the crown for a season, than as meaning to detain it always from his brother's posterity. it is well known that in the saxon times nothingwas more common in cases of minority than, for the uncle to be preferred to the nephew; and though bastardizing his brother's children was, on this supposition, double dealing; yet i have no doubt but richard went so far as to insinuate an intention of restoring the crown when young edward should be of full age. i have three strong proofs of this hypothesis. in the first place sir thomas more reports that the duke of buckingham in his conversations with morton, after his defection from richard, told the bishop that the protector's first proposal had been to take the crown, till edward his nephew should attain the age of twenty four years. morton was certainly competent evidences of these discourses, and therefore a credible one; and the idea is confirmed by the two other proofs i alluded to; the second of which was, that richard's son did not walk at his father's coronation. sir thomas more indeed says that richard created him prince of wales on assuming the crown; but this is one of sir thomas's misrepresentations, and is contradicted by fact, for richard did not create his son prince of wales till he arrived at york; a circumstance that might lead the people to believe that in the interval of the two coronations, the latter of which was celebrated at york, september 8th, the princes were murdered. but though richard's son did not walk at his father's coronation, edward the fifth probably did, and this is my third proof. i conceive all the astonishment of my readers at this assertion, and yet it is founded on strongly presumptive evidence. in the coronation roll itself(31) is this amazing entry; "to lord edward, son of late king edward the fourth, for his apparel and array, that is to say, a short gowne made of two yards and three-quarters of crymsy clothe of gold, lyned with two yards of blac velvet, a long gowne made of vi yards of crymsyn cloth of gold lynned with six yards of green damask, a shorte gowne made of two yards of purpell velvett lyned with two yards of green damask, a doublet and a stomacher made of two yards of black satin, &c. besides two foot cloths, a bonnet of purple velvet, nine horse harness, and nine saddle houses (housings) of blue velvet, gilt spurs, with many other rich articles, and magnificent apparel for his henchmen or pages." (31) this singular curiosity was first mentioned to me by the lord bishop of carlisle. mr. astle lent me an extract of it, with other usual assistances; and mr. chamberlain of the great wardrobe obliged me with the perusal of the original; favours which i take this opportunity of gratefully acknowledging. let no body tell me that these robes, this magnificence, these trappings for a cavalcade, were for the use of a prisoner. marvellous as the fact is, there can no longer be any doubt but the deposed young king walked, or it was intended should walk, at his uncle's coronation. this precious monument, a terrible reproach to sir thomas more and his copyists, who have been silent on so public an event, exists in the great wardrobe; and is in the highest preservation; it is written on vellum, and is bound with the coronation rolls of henry the seventh and eighth. these are written on paper, and are in worse condition; but that of king richard is uncommonly fair, accurate, and ample. it is the account of peter courteys keeper of the great wardrobe, and dates from the day of king edward the fourth his death, to the feast of the purification in the february of the following year. peter courteys specifies what stuff he found in the wardrobe, what contracts he made for the ensuing coronation, and the deliveries in consequence. the whole is couched in the most minute and regular manner, and is preferable to a thousand vague and interested histories. the concourse of nobility at that ceremony was extraordinarily great: there were present no fewer than three duchesses of norfolk. has this the air of a forced and precipitate election? or does it not indicate a voluntary concurrence of the nobility? no mention being made in the roll of the young duke of york, no robes being ordered for him, it looks extremely as if he was not in richard's custody; and strengthens the probability that will appear hereafter, of his having been conveyed away. there is another article, rather curious than decisive of any point of history. one entry is thus; "to the lady brygitt, oon of the daughters of k. edward ivth, being seeke (sick) in the said wardrobe for to have for her use two long pillows of fustian stuffed with downe, and two pillow beres of holland cloth." the only conjecture that can be formed from this passage is, that the lady bridget, being lodged in the great wardrobe, was not then in sanctuary. can it be doubted now but that richard meant to have it thought that his assumption of the crown was only temporary? but when he proceeded to bastardize his nephew by act of parliament, then it became necessary to set him entirely aside: stronger proofs of the hastardy might have come out; and it is reasonable to infer this, for on the death of his own son, when richard had no longer any reason of family to bar his brother edward's children, instead of again calling them to the succession, as he at first projected or gave out he would, he settled the crown on the issue of his sister, suffolk, declaring her eldest son the earl of lincoln his successor. that young prince was slain in the battle of stoke against henry the seventh, and his younger brother the earl of suffolk, who had fled to flanders, was extorted from the archduke philip, who by contrary winds had been driven into england. henry took a solemn oath not to put him to death; but copying david rather than solomon he, on his death bed, recommended it to his son henry the eighth to execute suffolk; and henry the eighth was too pions not to obey so scriptural an injunction. strange as the fact was of edward the fifth walking at his successor's coronation, i have found an event exactly parallel which happened some years before. it is well known that the famous joan of naples was dethroned and murdered by the man she had chosen for her heir, charles durazzo. ingratitude and cruelty were the characteristics of that wretch. he had been brought up and formed by his uncle louis king of hungary, who left only two daughters. mary the eldest succeeded and was declared king; for that warlike nation, who regarded the sex of a word, more than of a person, would not suffer themselves to be governed by the term queen. durazzo quitted naples in pursuit of new ingratitude; dethroned king mary, and obliged her to walk at his coronation; an insult she and her mother soon revenged by having him assassinated. i do not doubt but the wickedness of durazzo will be thought a proper parallel to richard's. but parallels prove nothing: and a man must be a very poor reasoner who thinks he has an advantage over me, because i dare produce a circumstance that resembles my subject in the case to which it is applied, and leaves my argument just as strong as it was before in every other point. they who the most firmly believe the murder of the two princes, and from what i have said it is plain that they believe it more strongly than the age did in which it was pretended to be committed; urge the disappearance(32) of the princes as a proof of the murder, but that argument vanishes entirely, at least with regard to one of them, if perkin warbeck was the true duke of york, as i shall show that it is greatly probable he was. (32) polidore virgil says, "in vulgas fama valuit filios edwardi regis aliquo terrarum partem migrasse, atque ita superstates esse." and the prior of croyland, not his continuator, whom i shall quote in the next note but one, and who was still better informed, "vulgatum est regis edwardi pueros concessisse in fata, sed quo genere intentus ignoratur." with regard to the elder, his disappearance is no kind of proof that he was murdered: he might die in the tower. the queen pleaded to the archbishop of york that both princes were weak and unhealthy. i have insinuated that it is not impossible but henry the seventh might find him alive in the tower.(33) i mention that as a bare possibility--but we may be very sure that if he did find edward alive there, he would not have notified his existence, to acquit richard and hazard his own crown. the circumstances of the murder were evidently false, and invented by henry to discredit perkin; and the time of the murder is absolutely a fiction, for it appears by the roll of parliament which bastardized edward the fifth, that he was then alive, which was seven months after the time assigned by more for his murder, if richard spared him seven months, what could suggest a reason for his murder afterwards? to take him off then was strengthening the plan of the earl of richmond, who aimed at the crown by marrying elizabeth, eldest daughter of edward the fourth. as the house of york never rose again, as the reverse of richard's fortune deprived him of any friend, and as no contemporaries but fabian and the author of the chronicle have written a word on that period, and they, too slightly to inform us, it is impossible to know whether richard ever took any steps to refute the calumny. but we do know that fabian only mentions the deaths of the princes as reports, which is proof that richard never declared their deaths, or the death of either, as he would probably have done if he had removed them for his own security. the confessions of sir thomas more and lord bacon that many doubted of the murder, amount to a violent presumption that they were not murdered: and to a proof that their deaths were never declared. no man has ever doubted that edward the second, richard the second, and henry the sixth perished at the times that were given out. nor henry the fourth, nor edward the fourth thought it would much help their titles to leave it doubtful whether their competitors existed or not. observe too, that the chronicle of croyland, after relating richard's second coronation at york, says, it was advised by some in the sanctuary at westminster to convey abroad some of king edward's daughters, "ut si quid dictis masculis humanitus in turri contingerat, nihilominus per salvandas personas filiarum, regnum aliquando ad veros rediret haeredes." he says not a word of the princes being murdered, only urges the fears of their friends that it might happen. this was a living witness, very bitter against richard, who still never accuses him of destroying his nephews, and who speaks of them as living, after the time in which sir thomas more, who was not then five years old, declared they were dead. thus the parliament roll and the chronicle agree, and both contradict more. "interim & dum haec agerentur (the coronation at york) remanserunt duo predicti edwardi regis filii sub certa deputata, custodia infra turrim londoniarum." these are the express words of the chronicle, p. 567. (33) buck asserts this from the parliament roll. the annotator in kennett's collection says, "this author would have done much towards the credit he drives at in his history, to have specified the place of the roll and the words thereof, whence such arguments might be gathered: for," adds he, "all histories relate the murders to be committed before this time." i have shown that all histories are reduced to one history, sir thomas moore's; for the rest copy him verbatim; and i have shown that his account is false and improbable. as the roll itself is now printed, in the parliamentary history, vol. 2. i will point out the words that imply edward the fifth being alive when the act was passed. "also it appeareth that all the issue of the said king edward be bastards and unable to inherit or claim any thing by inheritance, by the law and custom of england." had edward the fifth been dead, would not the act indubitably have run thus, were and be bastards. no, says the act, all the issue are bastards. who were rendered uncapable to inherit but edward the fifth, his brother and sisters? would not the act have specified the daughters of edward the fourth if the sons had been dead? it was to bastardise the brothers, that the act was calculated and passed; and as the words all the issue comprehend male and females, it is clear that both were intended to be bastardized. i must however, impartially observe that philip de comines says, richard having murdered his nephews, degraded their two sisters in full parliament. i will not dwell on his mistake of mentioning two sisters instead of five; but it must be remarked, that neither brothers or sisters being specified in the act, but under the general term of king edward's issue, it would naturally strike those who were uncertain what was become of the sons, that this act was levelled against the daughters. and as comines did not write till some years after the event, he could not help falling into that mistake. for my own part i know not how to believe that richard would have passed that act, if he had murdered the two princes. it was recalling a shocking crime, and to little purpose; for as no< woman had at that time ever sat on the english throne in her own right, richard had little reason to apprehend the claim of his nieces. as richard gained the crown by the illegitimacy of his nephews, his causing them to be murdered, would not only have shown that he did not trust to that plea, but would have transferred their claim to their sisters. and i must not be told that his intended marriage with his neice is an answer to my argument; for were that imputation true, which is very problematic, it had nothing to do with the murder of her brothers. and here the comparison and irrefragability of dates puts this matter out of all doubt. it was not till the very close of his reign that richard is even supposed to have thought of marrying his neice. the deaths of his nephews are dated in july or august 1483. his own son did not die till april 1484, nor his queen till march 1485. he certainly therefore did not mean to strengthen his title by marrying his neice to the disinherison of his own son; and having on the loss of that son, declared his nephew the earl of lincoln his successor, it is plain that he still trusted to the illegitimacy of his brother's children: and in no case possibly to be put, can it be thought that he wished to give strength to the claim of the princess elizabeth. let us now examine the accusation of his intending to marry that neice: one of the consequences of which intention is a vague suspicion of poisoning his wife. buck says that the queen was in a languishing condition, and that the physicians declared she could not hold out till april; and he affirms having seen in the earl of arundel's library a letter written in passionate strains of love for her uncle by elizabeth to the duke of norfolk, in which she expressed doubts that the month of april would never arrive. what is there in this account that looks like poison; does it not prove that richard would not hasten the death of his queen? the tales of poisoning for a time certain are now exploded; nor is it in nature to believe that the princess could be impatient to marry him, if she knew or thought he had murdered her brothers. historians tell us that the queen took much to heart the death of her son, and never got over it. had richard been eager to ned his niece, and had his character been as impetuously wicked as it is represented, he would not have let the forward princess wait for the slow decay of her rival: nor did he think of it till nine months after the death of his son; which shows it was only to prevent richmond's marrying her. his declaring his nephew his successor, implies at the same time no thought of getting rid of the queen, though he did not expect more issue from her: and little as buck's authority is regarded, a contemporary writer confirms the probability of this story. the chronicle of croyland says, that at the christmas festival,(34) men were scandalized at seeing the queen and the lady elizabeth dressed in robes similar and equally royal. i should suppose that richard learning the projected marriage of elizabeth and the earl of richmond, amused the young princess with the hopes of making her his queen; and that richard feared that alliance, is plain from his sending her to the castle of sheriff-hutton on the landing of richmond. (34) "per haec festa natalia choreis aut tripudiis, variisque mutatoriis vestium annae reginae atque dominae elizabeth, primogenitae defuncti regis, eisdem colore & forma distributis nimis intentum est: dictumque a multis est, ipsum regem aut expectata morte reginae aut per divortium, matrimonio cum dicta elizabeth contrahendo mentem omnibus modis applicare," p. 572. if richard projected this match at christmas, he was not likely to let these intentions be perceived so early, nor to wait till march, if he did not know that the queen was incurably ill. the chronicle says, she died of a languishing distemper. did that look like poison? it is scarce necessary to say that a dispensation from the pope was in that age held so clear a solution of all obstacles to the marriage of near relations, and was so easily to be obtained or purchased by a great prince, that richard would not have been thought by his contemporaries to have incurred any guilt, even if he had proposed to wed his neice, which however is far from being clear to have been his intention. the behaviour of the queen dowager must also be noticed. she was stripped by her son-in-law henry of all her possessions, and confined to a monastery, for delivering up her daughters to richard. historians too are lavish in their censures on her for consenting to bestow her daughter on the murderer of her sons and brother. but if the murder of her sons, is, as we have seen, most uncertain, this solemn charge falls to the ground: and for the deaths of her brothers and lord richard grey, one of her elder sons, it has already appeared that she imputed them to hastings. it is much more likely that richard convinced her he had not murdered her sons, than that she delivered up her daughters to him believing it. the rigour exercised on her by henry the seventh on her countenancing lambert simnel, evidently set up to try the temper of the nation in favour of some prince of the house of york, is a violent presumption that the queen dowager believed her second son living: and notwithstanding all the endeavours of henry to discredit perkin warbeck, it will remain highly probable that many more who ought to know the truth, believed so likewise; and that fact i shall examine next. it was in the second year of henry the seventh that lambert simnel appeared. this youth first personated richard duke of york, then edward earl of warwick; and was undoubtedly an impostor. lord bacon owns that it was whispered every-where, that at least one of the children of edward the fourth was living. such whispers prove two things; one, that the murder was very uncertain: the second, that it would have been very dangerous to disprove the murder; henry being at least as much interested as richard had been to have the children dead. richard had set them aside as bastards, and thence had a title to the crown; but henry was himself the issue of a bastard line, and had no title at all. faction had set him on the throne, and his match with the supposed heiress of york induced the nation to wink at the defect in his own blood. the children of clarence and of the duchess of suffolk were living; so was the young duke of buckingham, legitimately sprung from the youngest son of edward the third; whereas henry came of the spurious stock of john of gaunt, lambert simnel appeared before henry had had time to disgust the nation, as he did afterwards, by his tyranny, cruelty, and exactions. but what was most remarkable, the queen dowager tampered in this plot. is it to be believed, that mere turbulence and a restless spirit could in a year's time influence that woman to throw the nation again into a civil war, and attempt to dethrone her own daughter? and in favour of whom? of the issue of clarence, whom she had contributed to have put to death, or in favour of an impostor? there is not common sense in the supposition. no; she certainly knew or believed that richard, her second son, had escaped and was living, and was glad to overturn the usurper without risking her child. the plot failed, and the queen dowager was shut up, where she remained till her death, "in prison, poverty, and solitude."(35) the king trumped up a silly accusation of her having delivered her daughters out of sanctuary to king richard, "which proceeding," says the noble historian, "being even at the time taxed for rigorous and undue, makes it very probable there was some greater matter against her, which the king, upon reason of policie, and to avoid envy, would not publish." how truth sometimes escapes fiom the most courtly pens! what interpretation can be put on these words, but that the king found the queen dowager was privy to the escape at least or existence of her second son, and secured her, lest she should bear testimony to the truth, and foment insurrections in his favour? lord bacon adds, "it is likewise no small argument that there was some secret in it; for that the priest simon himself (who set lambert to work) after he was taken, was never brought to execution; no, not so much as to publicke triall, but was only shut up close in a dungeon. adde to this, that after the earl of lincoln (a principal person of the house of york) was slaine in stokefield, the king opened himself to some of his councell, that he was sorie for the earl's death, because by him (he said) he might have known the bottom of his danger." (35) lord bacon. the earl of lincoln had been declared heir to the crown by richard, and therefore certainly did not mean to advance simnel, an impostor, to it. it will be insinuated, and lord bacon attributes that motive to him, that the earl of lincoln hoped to open a way to the crown for himself. it might be so; still that will not account for henry's wish, that the earl had been saved. on the contrary, one dangerous competitor was removed by his death; and therefore when henry wanted to have learned the bottom of his danger, it is plain he referred to richard duke of york, of whose fate he was still in doubt.(36) he certainly was; why else was it thought dangerous to visit or see the queen dowager after her imprisonment, as lord bacon owns it was; "for that act," continues he, "the king sustained great obliquie; which nevertheless (besides the reason of state) was somewhat sweetened to him in a great confiscation." excellent prince! this is the man in whose favour richard the third is represented as a monster. "for lambert, the king would not take his life," continues henry's biographer, "both out of magnanimitie" (a most proper picture of so mean a prince) "and likewise out of wisdom, thinking that if he suffered death he would be forgotten too soon; but being kept alive, he would be a continual spectacle, and a kind of remedy against the like inchantments of people in time to come." what! do lawful princes live in dread of a possibility of phantoms!(37) oh! no; but henry knew what he had to fear; and he hoped by keeping up the memory of simnel's imposture, to discredit the true duke of york, as another puppet, when ever he should really appear. (36) the earl of lincoln assuredly did not mean to blacken his uncle richard by whom he had been declared heir to the crown. one should therefore be glad to know what account he gave of the escape of the young duke of york. is it probable that the earl of lincoln gave out, that the elder had been murdered? it is more reasonable to suppose, that the earl asserted that the child had been conveyed away by means of the queen dowager or some other friend; and before i conclude this examination, that i think will appear most probably to have been the case. (37) henry had so great a distrust of his right to the crown in that in his second year he obtained a bull from pope innocent to qualify the privilege of sanctuaries, in which was this remarkable clause, "that if any took sancturie for case of treason, the king might appoint him keepers to look to him in sanctuarie." lord bacon, p. 39. that appearance did not happen till some years afterwards, and in henry's eleventh year. lord bacon has taken infinite pains to prove a second imposture; and yet owns, "that the king's manner of shewing things by pieces and by darke lights, hath so muffled it, that it hath left it almost a mysterie to this day." what has he left a mystery? and what did he try to muffle? not the imposture, but the truth. had so politic a man any interest to leave the matter doubtful? did he try to leave it so? on the contrary, his diligence to detect the imposture was prodigious. did he publish his narrative to obscure or elucidate the transaction? was it his matter to muffle any point that he could clear up, especially when it behoved him to have it cleared? when lambert simnel first personated the earl of warwick, did not henry exhibit that poor prince one sunday throughout all the principal streets of london? was he not conducted to paul's cross, and openly examined by the nobility? "which did in effect marre the pageant in ireland." was not lambert himself taken into henry's service, and kept in his court for the same purpose? in short, what did henry ever muffle and disguise but the truth? and why was his whole conduct so different in the cases of lambert and perkin, if their cases were not totally different? no doubt remains in the former; the gross falshoods and contradictions in which henry's account of the latter is involved, make it evident that he himself could never detect the imposture of the latter, if it was one. dates, which every historian has neglected, again come to our aid, and cannot be controverted. richard duke of york was born in 1474. perkin warbeck was not heard of before 1495, when duke richard would have been twenty-one. margaret of york, duchess dowager of burgundy, and sister of edward the fourth, is said by lord bacon to have been the juno who persecuted the pious aeneas, henry, and set up this phantom against him. she it was, say the historians, and says lord bacon, p, 115, "who informed perkin of all the circumstances and particulars that concerned the person of richard duke of york, which he was to act, describing unto him the personages, lineaments, and features of the king and queen, his pretended parents, and of his brother and sisters, and divers others that were nearest him in his childhood; together with all passages, some secret, some common that were fit for a child's memory, until the death of king edward. then she added the particulars of the time, from the king's death; until he and his brother were committed to the tower, as well during the time he was abroad, as while he was in sanctuary. as for the times while he was in the tower, and the manner of his brother's death, and his own escape, she knew they were things that were few could controle: and therefore she taught him only to tell a smooth and likely tale of those matters, warning him not to vary from it." indeed! margaret must in truth have been a juno, a divine power, if she could give all these instructions to purpose. this passage is, so very important, the whole story depends so much upon it, that if i can show the utter impossibility of its being true, perkin will remain the true duke of york for any thing we can prove to the contrary; and for henry, sir thomas more, lord bacon, and their copyists, it will be impossible to give any longer credit to their narratives. i have said that duke richard was born in 1474. unfortunately his aunt margaret was married out of england in 1467, seven years before he was born, and never returned thither. was not she singularly capable of describing to perkin, her nephew, whom she had never seen? how well informed was she of the times of his childhood, and of all passages relating to his brother and sisters! oh! but she had english refugees about her. she must have had many, and those of most intimate connection with the court, if she and they together could compose a tolerable story for perkin, that was to take in the most minute passages of so many years.(38) who informed margaret, that she might inform perkin, of what passed in sanctuary? ay; and who told her what passed in the tower? let the warmest asserter of the imposture answer that question, and i will give up all i have said in this work; yes, all. forest was dead, and the supposed priest; sir james tirrel, and dighton, were in henry's hands. had they trumpeted about the story of their own guilt and infamy, till henry, after perkin's appearance, found it necessary to publish it? sir james tirrel and dighton had certainly never gone to the court of burgundy to make a merit with margaret of having murdered her nephews. how came she to know accurately and authentically a tale which no mortal else knew? did perkin or did he not correspond in his narrative with tirrel and dighton? if he did how was it possible for him to know it? if he did not, is it morally credible that henry would not have made those variations public? if edward the fifth was murdered, and the duke of york saved, perkin could know it but by being the latter. if he did not know it, what was so obvious as his detection? we must allow perkin to be the true duke of york, or give up the whole story of tirrel and dighton. when henry had perkin, tirrel, and dighton, in his power, he had nothing to do but to confront them, and the imposture was detected. it would not have been sufficient that margaret had enjoined him to tell a smooth and likely tale of those matters, a man does not tell a likely tale, nor was a likely tale enough, of matters of which he is totally ignorant. (38) it would have required half the court of edward the fourth to frame a consistent legend let us state this in a manner that must strike our apprehension. the late princess royal was married out of england, before any of the children of the late prince of wales were born. she lived no farther than the hague; and yet who thinks that she could have instructed a dutch lad in so many passages of the courts of her father and brother, that he would not have been detected in an hour's time. twenty-seven years at least had elapsed since margaret had been in the court of england. the marquis of dorset, the earl of richmond himself, and most of the fugitives had taken refuge in bretagne, not with margaret; and yet was she so informed of every trifling story, even those of the nursery, that she was able to pose henry himself, and reduce him to invent a tale that had not a shadow of probability in it. why did he not convict perkin out of his own mouth? was it ever pretended that perkin failed in his part? that was the surest and best proof of his being an impostor. could not the whole court, the whole kingdom of england, so cross-examine this flemish youth, as to catch him in one lie? so; lord bacon's juno had inspired him with full knowledge of all that had passed in the last twenty years. if margaret was juno, he who shall answer these questions satisfactorily, "erit mihi magnus apollo." still farther: why was perkin never confronted with the queen dowager, with henry's own queen, and with the princesses, her sisters? why were they never asked, is this your son? is this your brother? was henry afraid to trust to their natural emotions?--yet "he himself," says lord bacon, p. 186, "saw him sometimes out of a window, or in passage." this implies that the queens and princesses never did see him; and yet they surely were the persons who could best detect the counterfeit, if he had been one. had the young man made a voluntary, coherent, and credible confession, no other evidence of his imposture would be wanted; but failing that, we cannot help asking, why the obvious means of detection were not employed? those means having been omitted, our suspicions remain in full force. henry, who thus neglected every means of confounding the impostor, took every step he would have done, if convinced that perkin was the true duke of york. his utmost industry was exerted in sifting to the bottom of the plot, in learning who was engaged in the conspiracy, and in detaching the chief supporters. it is said, though not affirmatively that to procure confidence to his spies, he caused them to be solemnly cursed at paul's cross. certain it is, that, by their information, he came to the knowledge, not of the imposture, but of what rather tended to prove that perkin was a genuine plantagenet: i mean, such a list of great men actually in his court and in trust about his person, that no wonder he was seriously alarmed. sir robert clifford,(39) who had fled to margaret, wrote to england, that he was positive that the claimant was the very identical duke of york, son of edward the fourth, whom he had so often seen, and was perfectly acquainted with. this man, clifford, was bribed back to henry's service; and what was the consequence? he accused sir william stanley, lord chamberlain, the very man who had set the crown on henry's head in bosworth field, and own brother to earl of derby, the then actual husband of henry's mother, of being in the conspiracy? this was indeed essential to henry to know; but what did it proclaim to the nation? what could stagger the allegiance of such trust and such connexions, but the firm persuation that perkin was the true duke of york? a spirit of faction and disgust has even in later times hurried men into treasonable combinations; but however sir william stanley might be dissatisfied, as not thinking himself adequately rewarded, yet is it credible that he should risk such favour, such riches, as lord bacon allows he possessed, on the wild bottom of a flemish counterfeit? the lord fitzwalter and the other great men suffered in the same cause; and which is remarkable, the first was executed at calais --another presumption that henry would not venture to have his evidence made public. and the strongest presumption of all is, that not one of the sufferers is pretended to have recanted; they all died then in the persuasion that they had engaged in a righteous cause. when peers, knights of the garter, privy councellors, suffer death, from conviction of a matter of which they were proper judges, (for which of them but must know their late master's son?) it would be rash indeed in us to affirm that they laid down their lives for an imposture, and died with a lie in their mouths. (39) a gentleman of fame and family, says lord bacon. what can be said against king james of scotland, who bestowed a lady of his own blood in marriage on perkin? at war with henry, james would naturally support his rival, whether genuine or suppositious. he and charles the eighth both gave him aid and both gave him up, as the wind of their interest shifted about. recent instances of such conduct have been seen; but what prince has gone so far as to stake his belief in a doubtful cause, by sacrificing a princess of his own blood in confirmation of it? but it is needless to multiply presumptions. henry's conduct and the narrative (40) he published, are sufficient to stagger every impartial reader. lord bacon confesses the king did himself no good by the publication of that narrative, and that mankind was astonished to find no mention in it of the duchess margaret's machinations. but how could lord bacon stop there? why did he not conjecture that there was no proof of that tale? what interest had henry to manage a widow of burgundy? he had applied to the archduke philip to banish perkin: philip replied, he had no power over the lands of the duchess's dowry. it is therefore most credible that the duchess has supported perkin, on the persuasion he was her nephew; and henry not being able to prove the reports he had spread of her having trained up an impostor, chose to drop all mention of margaret, because nothing was so natural as her supporting the heir of her house. on the contrary, in perkin's confession, as it was called, and which though preserved by grafton, was suppressed by lord bacon, not only as repugnant to his lordship's account, but to common sense, perkin affirms, that "having sailed to lisbon in a ship with the lady brampton, who, lord bacon says, was sent by margaret to conduct him thither, and from thence have resorted to ireland, it was at cork that they of the town first threaped upon him that he was son of the duke of clarence; and others afterwards, that he was the duke of york." but the contradictions both in lord bacon's account, and in henry's narrative, are irreconcileable and unsurmountable: the former solves the likeness,(41) which is allowing the likeness of perkin to edward the fourth, by supposing that the king had an intrigue with his mother, of which he gives this silly relation: that perkin warbeck, whose surname it seems was peter osbeck, was son of a flemish converted jew (of which hebrew extraction,(42) perkin says not a word in his confession) who with his wife katherine de faro come to london on business; and she producing a son, king edward, in consideration of the conversion, or intrigue, stood godfather to the child and gave him the name of peter, can one help laughing at being told that a king called edward gave the name of peter to his godson? but of this transfretation and christening perkin, in his supposed confession, says not a word, nor pretends to have ever set foot in england, till he landed there in pursuit of the crown; and yet an english birth and some stay, though in his very childhood, was a better way of accounting for the purity of his accent, than either of the preposterous tales produced by lord bacon or by henry. the former says, that perkin, roving up and down between antwerp and tournay and other towns, and living much in english company, had the english tongue perfect. henry was so afraid of not ascertaining a good foundation of perkin's english accent, that he makes him learn the language twice over.(43) "being sent with a merchant of turney, called berlo, to the mart of antwerp, the said berlo set me," says perkin, "to borde in a skinner's house, that dwelled beside the house of the english nation. and after this the said berlo set me with a merchant of middleborough to service for to learne the language,(44) with whom i dwelled from christmas to easter, and then, i went into portugale." one does not learn any language very perfectly and with a good, nay, undistinguishable accent, between christmas and easter; but here let us pause. if this account was true, the other relating to the duchess margaret was false; and then how came perkin by so accurate a knowledge of the english court, that he did not faulter, nor could be detected in his tale? if the confession was not true, it remains that it was trumped up by henry, and then perkin must be allowed the true duke of york. (40) to what degree arbitrary power dares to trifle with the common sense of mankind has been seen in portuguese and russian manifestos. (41) as this solution of the likeness is not authorized by the youth's supposed narrative, the likeness remains uncontrovertable, and consequently another argument for his being king edward's son. (42) on the contrary, perkins calls his grandfather diryck osbeck; diryck every body knows is theodoric, and theodoric is certainly no jewish appellation. perkin too mentions several of his relations and their employments at tournay, without any hint of a hebrew connection. (43) grafton's chronicle, p 930. (44) i take this to mean the english language, for these reasons; he had just before named the english nation, and the name of his master was john strewe, which seems to be an english appellation: but there is a stronger reason for believing it means the english language, which is, that a flemish lad is not set to learn his own language; though even this absurdity is advanced in this same pretended confession, perkin, affirming that his mother, after he had dwelled some time in tournay, sent him to antwerp to learn flemish. if i am told by a very improbable supposition, that french was his native language at tournay, that he learned flemish at antwerp, and dutch at middleburg, i will desire the objector to cast his eye on the map, and consider the small distance between tournay, middleburg, and antwerp, and to reflect that the present united provinces were not then divided from the rest of flanders; and then to decide whether the dialects spoken at tournay, antwerp, and middleburg were so different in that age, that it was necessary to be set to learn them all separately. if this cannot be answered satisfactorily, it will remain, that perkin learned flemish or english twice over. i am indifferent which, for still there will remain a contradiction in the confession. and if english is not meant in the passage above, it will only produce a greater difficulty, which is, that perkin, at the age of twenty learned to speak english in ireland with so good an accent, that all england could not discover the cheat. i must be answered too, why lord bacon rejects the youth's own confession and substitutes another in its place, which makes perkin born in england, though in his pretended confession perkin affirms the contrary. lord bacon too confirms my interpretation of the passage in question, by saying that perkin roved up and down between antwerp and other towns in flanders, living much in english company, and having the english tongue perfect, p. 115. but the gross contradiction of all follows: "it was in ireland," says perkin, in this very narrative and confession, "that against my will they made me to learne english, and taught me what i should do and say." amazing! what forced him to learn english, after, as he says himself in the very same page, he had learnt it at antwerp! what an impudence was there in royal power to dare to obtrude such stuff on the world! yet this confession, as it is called, was the poor young man forced to read at his execution--no doubt in dread of worse torture. mr. hume, though he questions it, owns that it was believed by torture to have been drawn from him. what matters how it was obtained, or whether ever obtained; it could not be true: and as henry could put together no more plausible account, coommiseration will shed a tear over a hapless youth, sacrificed to the fury and jealousy of an usurper, and in all probability the victim of a tyrant, who has made the world believe that the duke of york, executed by his own orders, had been previously murdered by his predecessor.(45) (45) mr. hume, to whose doubts all respect is due, tells me he thinks no mention being made of perkin's title in the cornish rebellion under the lord audeley, is a strong presumption that the nation was not persuaded of his being the true duke of york. this argument, which at most is negative, seems to me to lose its weight, when it is remembered, that this was an insurrection occasioned by a poll-tax: that the rage of the people was directed against archbishop morton and sir reginald bray, the supposed authors of the grievance. an insurrection against a tax in a southern county, in which no mention is made of a pretender to the crown, is surely not so forcible a presumption against him, as the persuasion of the northern counties that he was the true heir, is an argument in his favour. much less can it avail against such powerful evidence as i have shown exists to overturn all that henry can produce against perkin. i have thus, i flatter myself, from the discovery of new authorities, from the comparison of dates, from fair consequences and arguments, and without straining or wresting probability, proved all i pretended to prove; not an hypothesis of richard's universal innocence, but this assertion with which i set out, that we have no reasons, no authority for believing by far the greater part of the crimes charged on him. i have convicted historians of partiality, absurdities, contradictions, and falshoods; and though i have destroyed their credit, i have ventured to establish no peremptory conclusion of my own. what did really happen in so dark a period, it would be rash to affirm. the coronation and parliament rolls have ascertained a few facts, either totally unknown, or misrepresented by historians. time may bring other monuments to light(46) but one thing is sure, that should any man hereafter presume to repeat the same improbable tale on no better grounds that it has been hitherto urged, he must shut his eyes against conviction, and prefer ridiculous tradition to the scepticism due to most points of history, and to none more than to that in question. (46) if diligent search was to be made in the public offices and convents of the flemish towns in which the duchess margaret resided, i should not despair of new lights being gained to that part of our history. i have little more to say, and only on what regards the person of richard, and the story of jane shore; but having run counter to a very valuable modern historian and friend of my own, i must both make some apology for him, and for myself for disagreeing with him. when mr. hume published his reigns of edward the fifth, richard the third, and henry the seventh, the coronation roll had not come to light. the stream of historians concurred to make him take this portion of our story for granted. buck had been given up as an advancer of paradoxes, and nobody but carte had dared to controvert the popular belief. mr. hume treats carte's doubts as whimsical: i wonder, he did; he, who having so closely examined our history, had discovered how very fallible many of its authorities are. mr. hume himself had ventured to contest both the flattering picture drawn of edward the first, and those ignominious portraits of edward the second, and richard the second. he had discovered from foedera, that edward the fourth, while said universally to be prisoner to archbishop nevil, was at full liberty and doing acts of royal power. why was it whimsical in carte to exercise the same spirit of criticism? mr. hume could not but know how much the characters of princes are liable to be flattered or misrepresented. it is of little importance to the world, to mr. hume, or to me, whether richard's story is fairly told or not: and in this amicable discussion i have no fear of offending him by disagreeing with him. his abilities and sagacity do not rest on the shortest reign in our annals. i shall therefore attempt to give answers to the questions on which he pins the credibility due to the history of richard. the questions are these, 1. had not the queen-mother and the other heads of the york party been fully assured of the death of both the young princes, would they have agreed to call over the earl of richmond, the head of the lancastrian party, and marry him to the princess elizabeth?--i answer, that when the queen-mother could recall that consent, and send to her son the marquis dorset to quit richmond, assuring him of king richard's favour to him and her house, it is impossible to' say what so weak and ambitious a woman would not do. she wanted to have some one of her children on the throne, in order to recover her own power. she first engaged her daughter to richmond and then to richard. she might not know what was become of her sons: and yet that is no proof they were murdered. they were out of her power, whatever was become of them;-and she was impatient to rule. if she was fully assured of their deaths, could henry, after he came to the crown and had married her daughter, be uncertain of it? i have shown that both sir thomas more and lord bacon own it remained uncertain, and that henry's account could not be true. as to the heads of the yorkists;(47) how does it appear they concurred in the projected match? indeed who were the heads of that party? margaret, duchess of burgundy, elizabeth duchess of suffolk, and her children; did they ever concur in that match? did not they to the end endeavour to defeat and overturn it? i hope mr. hume will not call bishop morton, the duke of buckingham, and margaret countess of richmond, chiefs of the yorkists. 2 the story told constantly by perkin of his escape is utterly incredible, that those who were sent to murder his brother, took pity on him and granted him his liberty.--answer. we do not know but from henry's narrative and the lancastrian historians that perkin gave this account.(48) i am not authorized to believe he did, because i find no authority for the murder of the elder brother; and if there was, why is it utterly incredible that the younger should have been spared? 3. what became of him during the course of seven years from his supposed death till his appearance in 1491?--answer. does uncertainty of where a man has been, prove his non-identity when he appears again? when mr. hume will answer half the questions in this work, i will tell him where perkin was during those seven years. 4. why was not the queen-mother, the duchess of burgundy, and the other friends of the family applied to, during that time, for his support and education?--answer. who knows that they were not applied to? the probability is, that they were. the queen's dabbling in the affair of simnel indicates that she knew her son was alive. and when the duchess of burgundy is accused of setting perkin to work, it is amazing that she should be quoted as knowing nothing about him. 5. though the duchess of burgundy at last acknowledged him for her nephew, she had lost all pretence to authority by her former acknowledgment and support of lambert simnel, an avowed impostor. --answer. mr. hume here makes an unwary confession by distinguishing between lambert simnel, an avowed impostor, and perkin, whose impostnre was problematic. but if he was a true prince, the duchess could only forfeit credit for herself, not for him: nor would her preparing the way for her nephew, by first playing off and feeling the ground by a counterfeit, be an imputation on her, but rather a proof of her wisdom and tenderness. impostors are easily detected; as simnel was. all henry's art and power could never verify the cheat of perkin; and if the latter was astonishingly adroit, the king was ridiculously clumsy. 6. perkin himself confessed his imposture more than once, and read his confession to the people, and renewed his confession at the foot of the gibbet on which he was executed.--answer. i have shown that this confession was such an aukward forgery that lord bacon did not dare to quote or adhere to it, but invented a new story, more specious, but equally inconsistent with, probability. 7. after henry the eighth's accession, the titles of the houses of york and lancaster were fully confounded, and there was no longer any necessity for defending henry the seventh and his title; yet all the historians of that time, when the events were recent, some of these historians, such as sir thomas more, of the highest authority, agree in treating perkin as an impostor.--answer. when sir thomas more wrote, henry the seventh was still alive: that argument therefore falls entirely to the ground: but there was great necessity, i will not say to defend, but even to palliate the titles of both henry the seventh and eighth. the former, all the world agrees now, had no title(49) the latter had none from his father, and a very defective one from his mother, if she had any right, it could only be after her brothers; and it is not to be supposed that so jealous a tyrant as henry the eighth would suffer it to be said that his father and mother enjoyed the throne to the prejudice of that mother's surviving brother, in whose blood the father had imbrued his hands. the murder therefore was to be fixed on richard the third, who was to be supposed to have usurped the throne, by murdering, and not, as was really the case, by bastardizing his nephews. if they were illegitimate, so was their sister; and if she was, what title had she conveyed to her son henry the eighth? no wonder that both henrys were jealous of the earl of suffolk, whom one bequeathed to slaughter, and the other executed; for if the children of edward the fourth were spurious, and those of clarence attainted, the right of the house of york was vested in the duchess of suffolk and her descendants. the massacre of the children of clarence and the duchess of suffolk show what henry the eighth thought of the titles both of his father and mother.(50) but, says mr. hume, all the historians of that time agree in treating perkin as an impostor. i have shown from their own mouths that they have all doubted of it. the reader must judge between us. but mr. hume selects sir thomas more as the highest authority; i have proved that he was the lowest--but not in the case of perkin, for sir thomas more's history does not go so low; yet happening to mention him, he says, the man, commonly called perkin warbeck, was, as well with the princes as the people, held to be the younger son of edward the fourth; and that the deaths of the young' king edward and of richard his brother had come so far in question, as some are yet in doubt, whether they were destroyed or no in the days of king richard. sir thomas adhered to the affirmative, relying as i have shown on very bad authorities. but what is a stronger argument ad hominem, i can prove that mr. hume did not think sir thomas more good authority; no, mr. hume was a fairer and more impartial judge: at the very time that he quotes sir thomas more, he tacitly rejects his authority; for mr. hume, agreeably to truth, specifies the lady eleanor butler as the person to whom king edward was contracted, and not elizabeth lucy, as it stands in sir thomas more. an attempt to vindicate richard will perhaps no longer be thought whimsical, when so very acute a reasoner as mr. hume could find no better foundation than these seven queries on which to rest his condemnation. (47) the excessive affection shown by the northern counties where the principal strength of the yorkists lay, to richard the third while living, and to his memory when dead, implies two things; first, that the party did not give him up to henry; secondly, that they did not believe he had murdered his nephews, tyrants of that magnitude are not apt to be popular. examine the list of the chiefs in henry's army as stated by the chronicle of croyland, p. 574. and they will be found lancastrians, or very private gentlemen, and but one peer, the earl of oxford, a noted lancastrian. (48) grafton has preserved a ridiculous oration said to be made by perkin to the king of scotland, in which this silly tale is told. nothing can be depended upon less than such orations, almost always forged by the writer, and unpardonable, if they pass the bounds of truth. perkin, in the passage in question, uses these words: "and farther to the entent that my life might be in a suretie he (the murderer of my elder brother) appointed one to convey me into some straunge countrie, where, when i was furthest off, and had most neede of comfort, he forsooke me sodainly (i think he was so appointed to do) and left me desolate alone without friend or knowledge of any relief for refuge," &c. would not one think one was reading the tale of valentine and orson, or a legend of a barbarous age, rather than the history of england, when we are told of strange countries and such indefinite ramblings, as would pass only in a nursery! it remains not only a secret but a doubt, whether the elder brother was murdered. if perkin was the younger, and knew certainly that his brother was put to death, our doubt would vanish: but can it vanish on no better authority than this foolish oration! did grafton hear it pronounced? did king james bestow his kinswoman on perkin, on the strength of such a fable? (49) henry was so reduced to make out any title to the crown, that he catched even at a quibble. in the act of attainder passed after his accession, he calls himself nephew of henry the sixth. he was so, but it was by his father, who was not of the blood royal. catharine of valois, after bearing henry the sixth, married owen tudor, and had two sons, edmund and jasper, the former of which married margaret mother of henry the seventh, and so was he half nephew of henry the sixth. on one side he had no blood royal, on the other only bastard blood. (50) observe, that when lord bacon wrote, there was great necessity to vindicate the title even of henry the seventh, for james the first claimed from the eldest daughter of henry and elizabeth. with regard to the person of richard, it appears to have been as much misrepresented as his actions. philip de comines, who was very free spoken even on his own masters, and therefore not likely to spare a foreigner, mentions the beauty of edward the fourth; but says nothing of the deformity of richard, though he saw them together. this is merely negative. the old countess of desmond, who had danced with richard, declared he was the handsomest man in the room except his brother edward, and was very well made. but what shall we say to dr. shaw, who in his sermon appealed to the people, whether richard was not the express image of his father's person, who was neither ugly nor deformed? not all the protector's power could have kept the muscles of the mob in awe and prevented their laughing at so ridiculous an apostrophe, had richard been a little, crooked, withered, hump-back'd monster, as later historians would have us believe--and very idly? cannot a foul soul inhabit a fair body. the truth i take to have been this. richard, who was slender and not tall, had one shoulder a little higher than the other: a defect, by the magnifying glasses, of party, by distance of time, and by the amplification of tradition, easily swelled to shocking deformity; for falsehood itself generally pays so much respect to truth as to make it the basis of its superstructures. i have two reasons for believing richard was not well made about the shoulders. among the drawings which i purchased at vertue's sale was one of richard and his queen, of which nothing is expressed but the out-lines. there is no intimation from whence the drawing was taken; but by a collateral direction for the colour of the robe, if not copied from a picture, it certainly was from some painted 'window; where existing i do not pretend to say:--in this whole work i have not gone beyond my vouchers. richard's face is very comely, and corresponds singularly with the portrait of him in the preface to the royal and noble authors. he has a sort of tippet of ermine doubled about his neck, which seems calculated to disguise some want of symmetry thereabouts. i have given two prints(51) of this drawing, which is on large folio paper, that it may lead to a discovery of the original, if not destroyed. (51) in the prints, the single head is most exactly copied from the drawing, which is unfinished. in the double plate, the reduced likeness of the king could not be so perfectly preserved. my other authority is john rous, the antiquary of warwickshire, who saw richard at warwick in the interval of his two coronations, and who describes him thus: "parvae staturae erat, curtam habens faciem, inaequales humeros, dexter superior, sinisterque inferior." what feature in this portrait gives any idea of a monster? or who can believe that an eyewitness, and so minute a painter, would have mentioned nothing but the inequality of shoulders, if richard's form had been a compound of ugliness? could a yorkist have drawn a less disgusting representation? and yet rous was a vehement lancastrian; and the moment he ceased to have truth before his eyes, gave in to all the virulence and forgeries of his party, telling us in another place, "that richard remained two years in his mother's womb, and came forth at last with teeth, and hair on his shoulders." i leave it to the learned in the profession to decide whether women can go two years with their burden, and produce a living infant; but that this long pregnancy did not prevent the duchess, his mother, from bearing afterwards, i can prove; and could we recover the register of the births of her children, i should not be surprised to find, that, as she was a very fruitful woman, there was not above a year between the birth of richard and his preceding brother thomas.(52) however, an ancient bard,(53) who wrote after richard was born and during the life of his father, tells us, richard liveth yit, but the last of all was ursula, to him whom god list call. (52) the author i am going to quote, gives us the order in which the duchess cecily's children were horn thus; ann duchess of exeter, henry, edward the fourth edmund earl of rutland, elizabeth duchess of suffolk, margaret duchess of burgundy, william, john, george duke of clarence, thomas, richard the third, and ursula. cox, im his history of ireland, says, that clarence was born in 1451. buck computed richard the third to have fallen at the age of thirty four or five; but, by cox's account, he could not be more than thirty two. still this makes it provable, that their mother bore them and their intervening brother thomas as soon as she well could one after another. (53) see vincent's errors in brooks's heraldry, p. 623. be it as it will, this foolish tale, with the circumstances of his being born with hair and teeth, was coined to intimate how careful providence was, when it formed a tyrant, to give due warning of what was to be expected. and yet these portents were far from prognosticating a tyrant; for this plain reason, that all other tyrants have been born without these prognostics. does it require more time to ripen a foetus, that is, to prove a destroyer, than it takes to form an aristides? are there outward and visible signs of a bloody nature? who was handsomer than alexander, augustus, or louis the fourteenth? and yet who ever commanded the spilling of more human blood. having mentioned john rous, it is necessary i should say something more of him, as he lived in richard's time, and even wrote his reign; and yet i have omitted him in the list of contemporary writers. the truth is, he was pointed out to me after the preceding sheets were finished; and upon inspection i found him too despicable and lying an author, even among monkish authors, to venture to quote him, but for two facts; for the one of which as he was an eye-witness, and for the other, as it was of publick notoriety, he is competent authority. the first is his description of the person of richard; the second, relating to the young earl of warwick, i have recorded in its place. this john rous, so early as in the reign of edward the fourth, had retired to the hermitage of guy's cliff, where he was a chantry priest, and where he spent the remaining part of his life in what he called studying and writing antiquities. amongst other works, most of which are not unfortunately lost, he composed a history of the kings of england. it begins with the creation, and is compiled indiscriminately from the bible and from monastic writers. moses, he tells us, does not mention all the cities founded before the deluge, but barnard de breydenback, dean of mayence, does. with the same taste he acquaints us, that, though the book of genesis says nothing of the matter, giraldus cambrensis writes, that caphera or cesara, noah's niece, being apprehensive of the deluge, set out for ireland, where, with three men and fifty women, she arrived safe with one ship, the rest perishing in the general destruction. a history, so happily begun, never falls off: prophecies, omens, judgements, and religious foundations compose the bulk of the book. the lives and actions of our monarchs, and the great events of their reigns, seemed to the author to deserve little place in a history of england. the lives of henry the sixth and edward the fourth, though the author lived under both, take up but two pages in octavo, and that of richard the third, three. we may judge how qualified such an author was to clear up a period so obscure, or what secrets could come to his knowledge at guy's cliff: accordingly he retails all the vulgar reports of the times; as that richard poisoned his wife, and put his nephews to death, though he owns few knew in what manner; but as he lays the scene of their deaths before richard's assumption of the crown, it is plain he was the worst informed of all. to richard he ascribes the death of henry the sixth; and adds, that many persons believed he executed the murder with his own hands: but he records another circumstance that alone must weaken all suspicion of richard's guilt in that transaction. richard not only caused the body to be removed from chertsey, and solemnly interred at windsor, but it was publickly exposed, and, if we will believe the monk, was found almost entire, and emitted a gracious perfume, though no care had been taken to embalm it. is it credible that richard, if the murderer, would have exhibited this unnecessary mummery, only to revive the memory of his own guilt? was it not rather intended to recall the cruelty of his brother edward, whose children he had set aside, and whom by the comparison of this act of piety, he hoped to depreciate(53) in the eyes of the people? the very example had been pointed out to him by henry the fifth, who bestowed a pompous funeral on richard the second, murdered by order of his father. (54) this is not a mere random conjecture, but combated by another instance of like address. he deforested a large circuit, which edward had annexed to the forest of whichwoode, to the great annoyance of the subject. this we are told by rous himself, p. 316, indeed the devotion of rous to that lancastrian saint, henry the sixth, seems chiefly to engross his attention, and yet it draws him into a contradiction; for having said that the murder of henry the sixth had made richard detested by all nations who heard of it, he adds, two pages afterwards, that an embassy arrived at warwick (while richard kept his court there) from the king of spain,(55) to propose a marriage between their children. of this embassy rous is a proper witness: guy's cliff, i think, is but four miles from warwick; and he is too circumstancial on what passed there not to have been on the spot. in other respects he seems inclined to be impartial, recording several good and generous acts of richard. (55) drake says, that an ambassador from the queen of spain was present at richard's coronation at york. rous> himself owns, that, amidst a great concourse of nobility that attended the king at york, was the duke of albany, brother of the king of scotland. richard therefore appears not to hav been abhorred by either the courts of spain or scotland. but there is one circumstance, which, besides the weakness and credulity of the man, renders his testimony exceedingly suspicious. after having said, that, if he may speak truth in richard's favour,(56) he must own that, though small in stature and strength, richard was a noble knight, and defended himself to the last 'breath with eminent valour, the monk suddenly turns, and apostrophizes henry the seventh, to whom be had dedicated his work, and whom he flatters to the best of his poor abilities; but, above all things, for having bestowed the name of arthur on his eldest son, who, this injudicious and over-hasty prophet forsees, will restore the glory of his great ancestor of the same name. had henry christened his second 'son merlin, i do not doubt but poor rous would have had still more divine visions about henry the eighth, though born to shake half the pillars of credulity. (56) attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam, p. 218. in short, no reliance can be had on an author of such a frame of mind, so removed from the scene of action, and so devoted to the welsh intruder on the throne. superadded to this incapacity and defects, he had prejudices or attachments of a private nature: he had singular affection for the beauchamps, earls of warwick, zealous lancastrians, and had written their lives. one capital crime that he imputes to richard is the imprisonment of his mother-in-law, ann beauchamp countess of warwick, mother of his queen. it does seem that this great lady was very hardly treated; but i have shown from the chronicle of croyland, that it was edward the fourth, not richard, that stripped her of her possessions. she was widow too of that turbulent warwick the king-maker; and henry the seventh bore witness that she was faithfully loyal to henry the sixth. still it seems extraordinary that the queen did not or could not obtain the enlargement of her mother. when henry the seventh 'attained the crown, she recovered her liberty 'and vast estates: yet young as his majesty was both in years and avarice, for this munificence took place in his third year, still he gave evidence of the falshood and rapacity of his nature; for though by act of parliament he cancelled the former act that had deprived her, as against all reason, conscience, and course of nature, and contrary to the laws of god and man,(57) and restored her possessions to her, this was but a farce, and like his wonted hypocrisy; for the very same year he obliged her to convey the whole estate to him, leaving her nothing but the manor of sutton for her maintenance. richard had married her daughter; but what claim had henry to her inheritance? this attachment of rous to the house of beauchamp, and the dedication of his work to henry, would make his testimony most suspicious, even if he had guarded his work within the rules of probability, and not rendered it a contemptible legend. (57) vide dugdale's warckshire in beauchamp. every part of richard's story is involved in obscurity: we neither known what natural children he had, nor what became of them. stanford says, he had a daughter called katherine, whom william herbert earl of huntingdon covenanted to marry, and to make her a fair and sufficient estate of certain of his manors to the yearly value of 200 pounds over and above all charges. as this lord received a confirmation of his title from henry the seventh, no doubt the poor young lady would have been sacrificed to that interest. but dugdale seems to think she died before the nuptuals were consummated "whether this marriage took effect or not i cannot say; for sure it is that she died in her tender years."(58) drake(59) affirms, that richard knighted at york a natural son called richard of gloucester, and supposes it to be the same person of whom peck has preserved so extraordinary an account.(60) but never was a supposition worse grounded. the relation given by the latter of himself, was, that he never saw the king till the night before the battle of bosworth: and that the king had not then acknowledged, but intended to acknowledge him, if victorious. the deep privacy in which this person had lived, demonstrates how severely the persecution had raged against all that were connected with richard, and how little truth was to be expected from the writers on the other side. nor could peck's richard plantagenet be the same person with richard of gloucester, for the former was never known till he discovered himself to sir thomas more; and hall says king richard's natural son was in the hands of henry the seventh. buck says, that richard made his son richard of gloucester, captain of calais; but it appears from rymer's foedera, that richard's natural son, who was captain of calais, was called john. none of these accounts accord with peck's; nor, for want of knowing his mother, can we guess why king richard was more secret on the birth of this son (if peck's richard plantagenet was truly so) than on those of his other natural children. perhaps the truest remark that can be made on this whole story is, that the avidity with which our historians swallowed one gross ill-concocted legend, prevented them from desiring or daring to sift a single part of it. if crumbs of truth are mingled with it, at least they are now undistinguishable in such a mass of error and improbability. (58) baronage, p. 258. (58) in his history of york. (59) see his desiderata curiosae. it is evident from the conduct of shakespeare, that the house of tudor retained all their lancastrian prejudices, even in the reign of queen elizabeth. in his play of richard the third, he seems to deduce the woes of the house of york from the curses which queen margaret had vented against them; and he could not give that weight to her curses, without supposing a right in her to utter them. this, indeed is the authority which i do not pretend to combat. shakespeare's immortal scenes will exist, when such poor arguments as mine are forgotten. richard at least will be tried and executed on the stage, when his defence remains on some obscure shelf of a library. but while these pages may excite the curiosity of a day, it may not be unentertaining to observe, that there is another of shakespeare's plays, that may be ranked among the historic, though not one of his numerous critics and commentators have discovered the drift of it; i mean the winter evening's tale, which was certainly intended (in compliment to queen elizabeth) as an indirect apology for her mother anne boleyn. the address of the poet appears no where to more advantage. the subject was too delicate to be exhibited on the stage without a veil; and it was too recent, and touched the queen too nearly, for the bard to have ventured so home an allusion on any other ground than compliment. the unreasonable jealousy of leontes, and his violent conduct in consequence, form a true portrait of henry the eighth, who generally made the law the engine of his boisterous passions. not only the general plan of the story is most applicable but several passages are so marked, that they touch the real history nearer than the fable. hermione on her trial says, . . . . . for honour, 'tis a derivative from me to mine, and only that i stand for. this seems to be taken from the very letter of anne boyleyn to the king before her execution, where she pleads for the infant princess his daughter. mamillius, the young prince, an unnecessary character, dies in his infancy; but it confirms the allusion, as queen anne, before elizabeth, bore a still-born son. but the most striking passage,' and which had nothing to do in the tragedy, but as it pictured elizabeth, is, where paulina, describing the new-born princess, and her likeness to her father, says, she has the very trick of his frown. there is one sentence indeed so applicable, both to elizabeth and her father, that i should suspect the poet inserted it after her death. paulina, speaking of the child, tells the king, . . . . . . 'tis yours; and might we lay the old proverb to your charge, so like you, 'tis the worse. the winter evening's tale was therefore in reality a second part of henry the eighth. with regard to jane shore, i have already shown that it was her connection with the marquis dorset, not with lord hastings, which drew on her the resentment of richard. when an event is thus wrested to serve the purpose of a party, we ought to be very cautious how we trust an historian, who is capable of employing truth only as cement in a fabric of fiction. sir thomas more tells us, that richard pretended jane "was of councell with the lord hastings to destroy him; and in conclusion, when no colour could fasten upon these matters, then he layd seriously to her charge what she could not deny, namely her adultry; and for this cause, as a godly continent prince, cleane and faultlesse of himself, sent out of heaven into this vicious world for the amendment of mens manners, he caused the bishop of london to put her to open penance." this sarcasm on richards morals would have had more weight, if the author had before confined himself to deliver nothing but the precise truth. he does not seem to be more exact in what relates to the penance itself. richard, by his proclamation, taxed mistress shore with plotting treason in confederacy with the marquis dorset. consequently, it was not from defect of proof of her being accomplice with lord hastings that she was put to open penance. if richard had any hand in that sentence, it was, because he had proof of her plotting with the marquis. but i doubt, and with some reason, whether her penance was inflicted by richard. we have seen that he acknowledged at least two natural children; and sir thomas more hints that richard was far from being remarkable for his chastity. is it therefore probable, that he acted so silly a farce as to make his brother's mistress do penance? most of the charges on richard are so idle, that instead of being an able and artful usurper, as his antagonists allow, he must have been a weaker hypocrite than ever attempted to wrest a sceptre out of the hands of a legal possessor. it is more likely that the churchmen were the authors of jane's penance; and that richard, interested to manage that body, and provoked by her connection with so capital an enemy as dorset, might give her up, and permit the clergy (who probably had burned incense to her in her prosperity) to revenge his quarrel. my reason for this opinion is grounded on a letter of richard extant in the museum, by which it appears that the fair, unfortunate, and aimable jane (for her virtues far outweighed her frailty) being a prisoner, by richard's order, in ludgate, had captivated the king's solicitor, who contracted to marry her. here follows the letter: harl. mss, no. 2378. by the king. "right reverend fadre in god, &c. signifying unto you, that it is shewed unto us, that our servaunt and solicitor, thomas lynom, merveillously blinded and abused with the late wife of william shore, now being in ludgate by oure commandment, hath made contract of matrymony with hir (as it is said) and entendith, to our full grete merveile, to precede to th' effect of the same. we for many causes wold be sory that hee soo shulde be disposed. pray you therefore to send for him, and in that ye goodly may, exhorte and sture hym to the contrarye. and if ye finde him utterly set for to marye hur, and noen otherwise will be advertised, then (if it may stand with the lawe of the churche.) we be content (the tyme of marriage deferred to our comyng next to london,) that upon sufficient suerite founde of hure good abering, ye doo send for hure keeper, and discharge him of our said commandment by warrant of these, committing hur to the rule and guiding of hure fadre, or any othre by your discretion in the mene season. yeven, &c. to the right reverend fadre in god, &c. the bishop of lincoln, our chauncellour." it appears from this letter, that richard thought it indecent for his sollicitor to mary a woman who had suffered public punishment for adultery, and who was confined by his command--but where is the tyrant to be found in this paper? or, what prince ever spoke of such a scandal, and what is stronger, of such contempt of his authority, with so much lenity and temper? he enjoins his chancellor to dissuade the sollicitor from the match--but should he persist--a tyrant would have ordered the sollicitor to prison too--but richard --richard, if his servant will not be dissuaded, allows the match; and in the mean time commits jane--to whose custody?--her own father's. i cannot help thinking that some holy person had been her persecutor, and not so patient and gentle a king. and i believe so, because of the salvo for the church: "let them be married," says richard, "if it may stand with the lawe of the churche." from the proposed marriage, one should at first conclude that shore, the former husband of jane, was dead; but by the king's query, whether the marriage would be lawful? and by her being called in the letter the late wife of william shore, not of the late william shore, i should suppose that her husband was living, and that the penance itself was the consequence of a suit preferred by him to the ecclesiastic court for divorce. if the injured husband ventured, on the death of edward the fourth, to petition to be separated from his wife, it was natural enough for the church to proceed farther, and enjoin her to perform penance, especially when they fell in with the king's resentment to her. richard's proclamation and the letter above-recited seem to point out this account of jane's misfortunes; the letter implying, that richard doubted whether her divorce was so complete as to leave her at liberty to take another husband. as we hear no more of the marriage, and as jane to her death retained the name of shore, my solution is corroborated; the chancellor-bishop, no doubt, going more roundly to work than the king had done. nor, however sir thomas more reviles richard for his cruel usage of mistress shore, did either of the succeeding kings redress her wrongs, though she lived to the eighteenth year of henry the eighth, she had sown her good deeds, her good offices, her alms her charities, in a court. not one took root; nor did the ungrateful soil repay her a grain of relief in her penury and comfortless old age. i have thus gone through the several accusations against richard; and have shown that they rest on the slightest and most suspicious ground, if they rest on any at all. i have proved that they ought to be reduced to the sole authorities of sir thomas more and henry the seventh; the latter interested to blacken and misrepresent every action of richard; and perhaps driven to father on him even his own crimes. i have proved that more's account cannot be true. i have shown that the writers, contemporary with richard, either do not accuse him, or give their accusations as mere vague and uncertain reports: and what is as strong, the writers next in date, and who wrote the earliest after the events are said to have happened, assert little or nothing from their own information, but adopt the very words of sir thomas more, who was absolutely mistaken or misinformed. for the sake of those who have a mind to canvass this subject, i will recapitulate the most material arguments that tend to disprove what has been asserted; but as i attempt not to affirm what did happen in a period that will still remain very obscure, i flatter myself that i shall not be thought either fantastic or paradoxical, for not blindly adopting an improbable tale, which our historians have never given themselves the trouble to examine. what mistakes i may have made myself, i shall be willing to acknowledge; what weak reasoning, to give up: but i shall not think that a long chain of arguments, of proofs and probabilities, is confuted at once, because some single fact may be found erroneous. much less shall i be disposed to take notice of detached or trifling cavils. the work itself is but an inquiry into a short portion of our annals. i shall be content, if i have informed or amused my readers, or thrown any light on so clouded a scene; but i cannot be of opinion that a period thus distant deserves to take up more time than i have already bestowed upon it. it seems then to me to appear, that fabian and the authors of the chronicle of croyland, who were contemporaries with richard, charge him directly with none of the crimes, since imputed to him, and disculpate him of others. that john rous, the third contemporary, could know the facts he alledges but by hearsay, confounds the dates of them, dedicated his work to henry the seventh, and is an author to whom no credit is due, from the lies and fables with which his work is stuffed. that we have no authors who lived near the time, but lancastrian authors, who wrote to flatter henry the seventh, or who spread the tales which he invented. that the murder of prince edward, son of henry the sixth, was committed by king edward's servants, and is imputed to richard by no contemporary. that henry the sixth was found dead in the tower; that it was not known how he came by his death; and that it was against richard's interest to murder him. that the duke of clarence was defended by richard; that the parliament petitioned for his execution; that no author of the time is so absurd as to charge richard with being the executioner; and that king edward took the deed wholly on himself. that richard's stay at york on his brother's death had no appearance of a design to make himself king. that the ambition of the queen, who attempted to usurp the government, contrary to the then established custom of the realm, gave the first provocation to richard and the princes of the blood to assert their rights; and that richard was solicited by the duke of buckingham to vindicate those rights. that the preparation of an armed force under earl rivers, the seizure of the tower and treasure, and the equipment of a fleet, by the marquis dorset, gave occasion to the princes to imprison the relations of the queen; and that, though they were put to death without trial (the only cruelty which is proved on richard) it was consonant to the manners of that barbarous and turbulent age, and not till after the queen's party had taken up arms. that the execution of lord hastings, who had first engaged with richard against the queen, and whom sir thomas more confesses richard was lothe to lose, can be accounted for by nothing but absolute necessity, and the law of self-defence. that richard's assumption of the protectorate was in every respect agreeable to the laws and usage; was probably bestowed on him by the universal consent of the council and peers, and was a strong indication that he had then no thought of questioning the right of his nephew. that the tale of richard aspersing the chastity of his own mother is incredible; it appearing that he lived with her in perfect harmony, and lodged with her in her palace at that very time. that it is as little credible that richard gained the crown by a sermon of dr. shaw, and a speech of the duke of buckingham, if the people only laughed at those orators. that there had been a precontract or marriage between edward the fourth and lady eleanor talbot; and that richard's claim to the crown was founded on the illegitimacy of edward's children. that a convention of the nobility, clergy, and people invited him to accept the crown on that title. that the ensuing parliament ratified the act of the convention, and confirmed the bastardy of edward's children. that nothing can be more improbable than richard's having taken no measures before he left london, to have his nephews murdered, if he had any such intention. that the story of sir james tirrel, as related by sir thomas more, is a notorious falshood; sir james tirrel being at that time master of the horse, in which capacity he had walked at richard's coronation. that tirrel's jealousy of sir richard ratcliffe is another palpable falshood; tirrel being already preferred, and ratcliffe absent. that all that relates to sir robert brackenbury is no less false: brackenbury either being too good a man to die for a tyrant or murderer, or too bad a man to have refused being his accomplice. that sir thomas more and lord bacon both confess that many doubted, whether the two princes were murdered in richard's days or not; and it certainly never was proved that they were murdered by richard's order. that sir thomas more relied on nameless and uncertain authority; that it appears by dates and facts that his authorities were bad and false; that if sir james tirrel and dighton had really committed the murder and confessed it, and if perkin warbeck had made a voluntary, clear, and probable confession of his imposture, there could have remained no doubt of the murder. that green, the nameless page, and will slaughter, having never been questioned about the murder, there is no reason to believe what is related of them in the supposed tragedy. that sir james tirrel not being attainted on the death of richard, but having, on the contrary, been employed in great services by henry the seventh, it is not probable that he was one of the murderers. that lord bacon owning that tirrel's confession did not please the king so well as dighton's; that tirrel's imprisonment and execution some years afterwards for a new treason, of which we have no evidence, and which appears to have been mere suspicion, destroy all probability of his guilt in the supposed murder of the children. that the impunity of dighton, if really guilty, was scandalous; and can only be accounted for on the supposition of his being a false witness to serve henry's cause against perkin warbeck. that the silence of the two archbishops, and henry's not daring to specify the murder of the princes in the act of attainder against richard, wears all the appearance of their not having been murdered. that richard's tenderness and kindness to the earl of warwick, proceeding so far as to proclaim him his successor, betrays no symptom of that cruel nature, which would not stick at assassinating any competitor. that it is indubitable that richard's first idea was to keep the crown but till edward the fifth should attain the age of twenty-four. that with this view he did not create his own son prince of wales till after he had proved the bastardy of his brother's children. that there is no proof that those children were murdered. that richard made, or intended to make, his nephew edward the fifth walk at his coronation. that there is strong presumption from the parliament-roll and from the chronicle of croyland, that both princes were living some time after sir thomas more fixes the date of their deaths. that when his own son was dead, richard was so far from intending to get rid of his wife that he proclaimed his nephews, first the earl of warwick, and then the earl of lincoln, his heirs apparent. that there is not the least probability of his having poisoned his wife, who died of a languishing distemper: that no proof was ever pretended to be given of it; that a bare supposition of such a crime, without proofs or very strong presumptions, is scarce ever to be credited. that he seems to have had no intention of marrying his niece, but to have amused her with the hopes of that match, to prevent her marrying richmond. that buck would not have dared to quote her letter as extant in the earl of arundel's library, if it had not been there: that others of buck's assertions having been corroborated by subsequent discoveries, leave no doubt of his veracity on this; and that that letter disculpates richard from poisoning his wife; and only shews the impatience of his niece to be queen. that it is probable the queen-dowager knew her second son was living, and connived at the appearance of lambert simnel, to feel the temper of the nation. that henry the seventh certainly thought that she and the earl of lincoln were privy to the existence of richard duke of york, and that henry lived in terror of his appearance. that the different conduct of henry with regard to lambert simnel and perkin warbeck, implies how different an opinion he had of them; that in the first case, he used natural and most rational methods prove him an impostor; whereas his whole behaviour in perkin's case was mysterious, and betrayed his belief or doubt that warbeck was the true duke of york. that it was morally impossible for the duchess of burgundy at the distance of twenty-seven years to instruct a flemish lad so perfectly in all that had passed in the court of england, that he would not have been detected in a few hours. that she could not inform him, nor could he know, what had passed in the tower, unless he was the true duke of york. that if he was not the true duke of york, henry had nothing to do but to confront him with tirrel and dighton, and the imposture must have been discovered. that perkin, never being confronted with the queen dowager, and the princesses her daughters, proves that henry did not dare to trust to their acknowledging him. that if he was not the true duke of york, he might have been detected by not knowing the queens and princesses, if shown to him without his being told who they were. that it is not pretended that perkin ever failed in language, accent,'or circumstances; and that his likeness to edward the fourth is allowed. that there are gross and manifest blunders in his pretended confession. that henry was so afraid of not ascertaining a good account of the purity of his english accent, that he makes him learn english twice over. that lord bacon did not dare to adhere to this ridiculous account; but forges another, though in reality not much more creditable. that a number of henry's best friends, as the lord chamberlain, who placed the crown on his head, knights of the garter, and men of the fairest characters, being persuaded that perkin was the true duke of york, and dying for that belief, without recanting, makes it very rash to deny that he was so. that the proclamation in rymer's foedera against jane shore, for plotting with the marquis dorset, not with lord hastings, destroys all the credit of sir thomas more, as to what relates to the latter peer. in short, that henry's character, as we have received it from his own apologists, is so much worse and more hateful than richard's, that we may well believe henry invited and propogated by far the greater part of the slanders against richard: that henry, not richard, probably put to death the true duke of york, as he did the earl of warwick: and that we are not certain whether edward the fifth was murdered; nor, if he was, by whose order he was murdered. after all that has been said, it is scarcely necessary to add a word on the supposed discovery that was made of the skeletons of the two young princes, in the reign of charles the second. two skeletons found in that dark abyss of so many secret transactions, with no marks to ascertain the time, the age of their interment, can certainly verify nothing. we must believe both princes died there, before we can believe that their bones were found there; and upon what that belief can be founded, or how we shall cease to doubt whether perkin warbeck was not one of those children, i am at a loss to guess. as little is it requisite to argue on the grants made by richard the third to his supposed accomplices in that murder, because the argument will serve either way. it was very natural that they, who had tasted most of richard's bounty, should be suspected as the instruments of his crimes. but till it can be proved that those crimes were committed, it is in vain to bring evidence to show who assisted him in perpetrating them. for my own part, i know not what to think of the death of edward the fifth: i can neither entirely acquit richard of it, nor condemn him; because there are no proofs on either side; and though a court of justice would, from that defect of evidence, absolve him; opinion may fluctuate backward and forwards, and at last remain in suspense. for the younger brother, the balance seems to incline greatly on the side of perkin warbeck, as the true duke of york; and if one was saved, one knows not how nor why to believe that richard destroyed only the elder. we must leave this whole story dark, though not near so dark as we found it: and it is perhaps as wise to be uncertain on one portion of our history, as to believe so much as is believed, in all histories, though very probably as falsely delivered to us, as the period which we have here been examining. finis. addition. the following notice, obligingly communicated to me by mr. stanley, came too late to be inserted in the body of the work, and yet ought not to be omitted. after the death of perkin warbeck, his widow, the lady catherine gordon, daughter of the earl of huntly, from her exquisite beauty, and upon account of her husband called the rose of scotland, was married to sir matthew cradock, and is buried with him in herbert's isle in swansea church in wales, where their tomb is still to be seen, with this inscription in ancient characters: "here lies sir mathie cradock knight, sume time deputie unto the right honorable charles erle of worcets in the countie of glamargon. l. attor. g. r chauncelor of the same, steward of gower and hilrei, and mi ladie, katerin his wife." they had a daughter mary, who was married to sir edvard herbert, son of the first earl of pembroke, and from that match are descended the earls of pembroke and countess of powis, hans stanley, esq, george rice, esq. &c. makers of history richard iii. by jacob abbott with engravings new york and london harper & brothers publishers 1901 entered, according to act of congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight, by harper & brothers, in the clerk's office of the district court of the southern district of new york. copyright, 1886, by benjamin vaughan abbott, austin abbott, lyman abbott, and edward abbott. [illustration: the royal champion.] preface. king richard the third, known commonly in history as richard the usurper, was perhaps as bad a man as the principle of hereditary sovereignty ever raised to the throne, or perhaps it should rather be said, as the principle of hereditary sovereignty ever _made_. there is no evidence that his natural disposition was marked with any peculiar depravity. he was made reckless, unscrupulous, and cruel by the influences which surrounded him, and the circumstances in which he lived, and by being habituated to believe, from his earliest childhood, that the family to which he belonged were born to live in luxury and splendor, and to reign, while the millions that formed the great mass of the community were created only to toil and to obey. the manner in which the principles of pride, ambition, and desperate love of power, which were instilled into his mind in his earliest years, brought forth in the end their legitimate fruits, is clearly seen by the following narrative. contents. chapter page i. richard's mother 13 ii. richard's father 33 iii. the childhood of richard 57 iv. accession of edward iv., richard's elder brother 67 v. warwick, the king-maker 89 vi. the downfall of york 118 vii. the downfall of lancaster 137 viii. richard's marriage 165 ix. end of the reign of edward 182 x. richard and edward v. 208 xi. taking sanctuary 221 xii. richard lord protector 236 xiii. proclaimed king 258 xiv. the coronation 279 xv. fate of the princes 291 xvi. domestic troubles 301 xvii. the field of bosworth 320 engravings. page the royal champion _frontispiece._ scenes of civil war 15 ludlow castle 26 castle and park of the middle ages 29 henry vi. in his childhood 38 queen margaret of anjou, wife of henry vi. 40 walls of york 49 last hours of king richard's father 54 castle and grounds belonging to the house of york 62 the old quintaine 84 playing ball 86 battle-door and shuttle-cock 87 richard's signature 88 edward iv. 102 queen elizabeth woodville 103 westminster in times of public celebrations 106 warwick in the presence of the french king 112 the sanctuary 133 death of warwick on the field of barnet 148 street leading to the tower 151 church at tewkesbury 155 queen margaret brought in prisoner at coventry 160 tomb of henry vi. 163 richard iii. 176 queen anne 177 middleham castle 180 louis xi. of france 184 the murderers coming for clarence 200 jane shore 203 the attempted reconciliation 211 ancient portrait of edward v. 219 ancient view of westminster 228 the people in the streets 235 clarence's children hearing of their father's death 237 the council in the tower 244 pomfret castle 248 baynard's castle 273 the king on his throne 276 the bloody tower 283 queen elizabeth at the grave 304 portrait of the princess elizabeth 318 the castle at tamworth 325 king henry vii. 332 the monastery at bermondsey 335 king richard iii. chapter i. richard's mother. the great quarrel between the houses of york and lancaster.--terrible results of the quarrel.--origin of it.--intricate questions of genealogy and descent.--lady cecily neville.--she becomes duchess of york.--her mode of life.--extract from the ancient annals.--lady cecily's family.--names of the children.--the boys' situation and mode of life.--their letters.--letter written by edward and edmund.--the boys congratulate their father on his victories.--further particulars about the boys.--the castle of ludlow.--character of richard's mother.--spirit of aristocracy.--relative condition of the nobles and the people.--character of richard's mother.--the governess.--sir richard croft, the boys' governor. the mother of king richard the third was a beautiful, and, in many respects, a noble-minded woman, though she lived in very rude, turbulent, and trying times. she was born, so to speak, into one of the most widely-extended, the most bitter, and the most fatal of the family quarrels which have darkened the annals of the great in the whole history of mankind, namely, that long-protracted and bitter contest which was waged for so many years between the two great branches of the family of edward the third--the houses of york and lancaster--for the possession of the kingdom of england. this dreadful quarrel lasted for more than a hundred years. it led to wars and commotions, to the sacking and burning of towns, to the ravaging of fruitful countries, and to atrocious deeds of violence of every sort, almost without number. the internal peace of hundreds of thousands of families all over the land was destroyed by it for many generations. husbands were alienated from wives, and parents from children by it. murders and assassinations innumerable grew out of it. and what was it all about? you will ask. it arose from the fact that the descendants of a certain king had married and intermarried among each other in such a complicated manner that for several generations nobody could tell which of two different lines of candidates was fairly entitled to the throne. the question was settled at last by a prince who inherited the claim on one side marrying a princess who was the heir on the other. thus the conflicting interests of the two houses were combined, and the quarrel was ended. but, while the question was pending, it kept the country in a state of perpetual commotion, with feuds, and quarrels, and combats innumerable, and all the other countless and indescribable horrors of civil war. [illustration: scenes of civil war.] the two branches of the royal family which were engaged in this quarrel were called the houses of york and lancaster, from the fact that those were the titles of the fathers and heads of the two lines respectively. the lancaster party were the descendants of john of gaunt, duke of lancaster, and the york party were the successors and heirs of his brother edmund, duke of york. these men were both sons of edward the third, the king of england who reigned immediately before richard the second. a full account of the family is given in our history of richard the second. of course, they being brothers, their children were cousins, and they ought to have lived together in peace and harmony. and then, besides being related to each other through their fathers, the two branches of the family intermarried together, so as to make the relationships in the following generations so close and so complicated that it was almost impossible to disentangle them. in reading the history of those times, we find dukes or princes fighting each other in the field, or laying plans to assassinate each other, or striving to see which should make the other a captive, and shut him up in a dungeon for the rest of his days; and yet these enemies, so exasperated and implacable, are very near relations--cousins, perhaps, if the relationship is reckoned in one way, and uncle and nephew if it is reckoned in another. during the period of this struggle, all the great personages of the court, and all, or nearly all, the private families of the kingdom, and all the towns and the villages, were divided and distracted by the dreadful feud. richard's mother, whose name, before she was married, was lady cecily neville, was born into one side of this quarrel, and then afterward married into the other side of it. this is a specimen of the way in which the contest became complicated in multitudes of cases. lady cecily was descended from the duke of lancaster, but she married the duke of york, in the third generation from the time when the quarrel began. of course, upon her marriage, lady cecily neville became the duchess of york. her husband was a man of great political importance in his day, and, like the other nobles of the land, was employed continually in wars and in expeditions of various kinds, in the course of which he was continually changing his residence from castle to castle all over england, and sometimes making excursions into ireland, scotland, and france. his wife accompanied him in many of these wanderings, and she led, of course, so far as external circumstances were concerned, a wild and adventurous life. she was, however, very quiet and domestic in her tastes, though proud and ambitious in her aspirations, and she occupied herself, wherever she was, in regulating her husband's household, teaching and training her children, and in attending with great regularity and faithfulness to her religious duty, as religious duty was understood in those days. the following is an account, copied from an ancient record, of the manner in which she spent her days at one of the castles where she was residing. "she useth to arise at seven of the clock, and hath readye her chapleyne to say with her mattins of the daye (that is, morning prayers), and when she is fully readye, she hath a lowe mass in her chamber. after mass she taketh something to recreate nature, and soe goeth to the chapelle, hearinge the divine service and two lowe masses. from thence to dynner, during the tyme of whih she hath a lecture of holy matter (that is, reading from a religious book), either hilton of contemplative and active life, or some other spiritual and instructive work. after dynner she giveth audyence to all such as hath any matter to shrive unto her, by the space of one hower, and then sleepeth one quarter of an hower, and after she hath slept she contynueth in prayer until the first peale of even songe. "in the tyme of supper she reciteth the lecture that was had at dynner to those that be in her presence. after supper she disposeth herself to be famyliare with her gentlewomen to the seasoning of honest myrthe, and one hower before her going to bed she taketh a cup of wine, and after that goeth to her pryvie closette, and taketh her leave of god for all nighte, makinge end of her prayers for that daye, and by eighte of the clocke is in bedde." the going to bed at eight o'clock was in keeping with the other arrangements of the day, for we find by a record of the rules and orders of the duchess's household that the dinner-hour was eleven, and the supper was at four. this lady, richard's mother, during her married life, had no less than twelve children. their names were anne, henry, edward, edmund, elizabeth, margaret, william, john, george, thomas, richard, and ursula. thus richard, the subject of this volume, was the eleventh, that is, the last but one. a great many of these, richard's brothers and sisters, died while they were children. all the boys died thus except four, namely, edward, edmund, george, and richard. of course, it is only with those four that we have any thing to do in the present narrative. several of the other children, however, besides these three, lived for some time. they resided generally with their mother while they were young, but as they grew up they were often separated both from her and from their father--the duke, their father, being often called away from home, in the course of the various wars in which he was engaged, and his wife frequently accompanied him. on such occasions the boys were left at some castle or other, under the care of persons employed to take charge of their education. they used to write letters to their father from time to time, and it is curious that these letters are the earliest examples of letters from children to parents which have been preserved in history. two of the boys were at one time under the charge of a man named richard croft, and the boys thought that he was too strict with them. one of the letters, which has been preserved, was written to complain of this strictness, or, as the boy expressed it, "the odieux rule and demeaning" of their tutor, and also to ask for some "fyne bonnets," which the writer wished to have sent for himself and for his little brother. there is another long letter extant which was written at nearly the same time. this letter was written, or at least signed, by two of the boys, edward and edmund, and was addressed to their father on the occasion of some of his victories. but, though signed by the boys' names, i suspect, from the lofty language in which it is expressed, and from the many high-flown expressions of duty which it contains, that it was really written _for_ the boys by their mother or by one of their teachers. of this, however, the reader can judge for himself on perusing the letter. in this copy the spelling is modernized so as to make it more intelligible, but the language is transcribed exactly from the original. "right high and mighty prince, our most worshipful and greatly redoubted lord and father: "in as lowly a wise as any sons can or may, we recommend us unto your good lordship, and please it to your highness to wit, that we have received your worshipful letters yesterday by your servant william clinton, bearing date at york, the 29th day of may.[a] "by the which william, and by the relation of john milewater, we conceive your worshipful and victorious speed against your enemies, to their great shame, and to us the most comfortable things that we desire to hear. whereof we thank almighty god of his gifts, beseeching him heartily to give you that good and cotidian[b] fortune hereafter to know your enemies, and to have the victory over them. "and if it please your highness to know of our welfare, at the making of this letter we were in good health of body, thanked be god, beseeching your good and gracious fatherhood for our daily blessing. "and whereas you command us by your said letters to attend specially to our learning in our young age, that should cause us to grow to honor and worship in our old age, please it your highness to wit, that we have attended to our learning since we came hither, and shall hereafter, by the which we trust to god your gracious lordship and good fatherhood shall be pleased. "also we beseech your good lordship that it may please you to send us harry lovedeyne, groom of your kitchen, whose service is to us right agreeable; and we will send you john boyes to wait upon your lordship. "right high and mighty prince, our most worshipful and greatly redoubted lord and father, we beseech almighty god to give you as good life and long as your own princely heart can best desire. "written at your castle of ludlow, the 3d of june. "your humble sons, "e. marche. "e. rutland." [footnote a: there were no postal arrangements in those days, and all letters were sent by private, and generally by special messengers.] [footnote b: daily.] the subscriptions e. march and e. rutland stand for edward, earl of march, and edmund, earl of rutland; for, though these boys were then only eleven and twelve years of age respectively, they were both earls. one of them, afterward, when he was about seventeen years old, was cruelly killed on the field of battle, where he had been fighting with his father, as we shall see in another chapter. the other, edward, became king of england. he came immediately before richard the third in the line. the letter which the boys wrote was superscribed as follows: "to the right high and mighty prince, our most worshipful and greatly redoubted lord and father, the duke of york, protector and defender of england." [illustration: ludlow castle.] the castle of ludlow, where the boys were residing when this letter was written, was a strong fortress built upon a rock in the western part of england, not far from shrewsbury. the engraving is a correct representation of it, as it appeared at the period when those boys were there, and it gives a very good idea of the sort of place where kings and princes were accustomed to send their families for safety in those stormy times. soon after the period of which we are speaking, ludlow castle was sacked and destroyed. the ruins of it, however, remain to the present day, and they are visited with much interest by great numbers of modern travelers. lady cecily, as we have already seen, was in many respects a noble woman, and a most faithful and devoted wife and mother; she was, however, of a very lofty and ambitious spirit, and extremely proud of her rank and station. almost all her brothers and sisters--and the family was very large--were peers and peeresses, and when she married prince richard plantagenet, her heart beat high with exultation and joy to think that she was about to become a queen. she believed that prince richard was fully entitled to the throne at that time, for reasons which will be fully explained in the next chapter, and that, even if his claims should not be recognized until the death of the king who was then reigning, they certainly would be so recognized then, and she would become an acknowledged queen, as she thought she was already one by right. so she felt greatly exalted in spirit, and moved and acted among all who surrounded her with an air of stately reserve of the most grand and aristocratic character. [illustration: castle and park of the middle ages.] in fact, there has, perhaps, no time and place been known in the history of the world in which the spirit of aristocracy was more lofty and overbearing in its character than in england during the period when the plantagenet family were in prosperity and power. the nobles formed then, far more strikingly than they do now, an entirely distinct and exalted class, that looked down upon all other ranks and gradations of society as infinitely beneath them. their only occupation was war, and they regarded all those who were engaged in any employments whatever, that were connected with art or industry, with utter disdain. these last were crowded together in villages and towns which were formed of dark and narrow streets, and rude and comfortless dwellings. the nobles lived in grand castles scattered here and there over the country, with extensive parks and pleasure-grounds around them, where they loved to marshal their followers, and inaugurate marauding expeditions against their rivals or their enemies. they were engaged in constant wars and contentions with each other, each thirsting for more power and more splendor than he at present enjoyed, and treating all beneath him with the utmost haughtiness and disdain. richard's mother exhibited this aristocratic loftiness of spirit in a very high degree, and it was undoubtedly in a great manner through the influence which she exerted over her children that they were inspired with those sentiments of ambition and love of glory to which the crimes and miseries into which several of them fell in their subsequent career were owing. to assist her in the early education of her children, richard's mother appointed one of the ladies of the court their governess. this governess was a personage of very high rank, being descended from the royal line. with the ideas which lady cecily entertained of the exalted position of her family, and of the future destiny of her children, none but a lady of high rank would be thought worthy of being intrusted with such a charge. the name of the governess was lady mortimer. the boys, as they grew older, were placed under the charge of a governor. his name was sir richard croft. it is this sir richard that they allude to in their letter. he, too, was a person of high rank and of great military distinction. the boys, however, thought him too strict and severe with them; at least so it would seem, from the manner in which they speak of him in the letter. the governor and the governess appear to have liked each other very well, for after a time sir richard offered himself to lady mortimer, and they were married. * * * * * besides ludlow castle, prince richard had several other strongholds, where his wife from time to time resided. richard, who was one of the youngest of the children, was born at one of these, called fotheringay castle; but, before coming to the event of his birth, i must give some account of the history and fortunes of his father. chapter ii. richard's father. a.d. 1415-1461 genealogy of richard plantagenet.--family of edward iii.--succession of heirs in the family of edward iii.--genealogical table of the houses of york and lancaster.--union of the houses of clarence and york.--richard plantagenet a prisoner.--king henry vi.--his gentle and quiet character.--portrait.--discontent of the people.--arrangements made for the succession.--character of margaret of anjou.--no children.--feeble and failing capacity of the king.--richard plantagenet formally declared the heir.--unexpected birth of a prince.--suspicions.--various plans and speculations.--richard's hopes.--progress of the formation of parties.--queen margaret's resolution and energy.--wars.--richard's two brothers, edward and edmund.--the walls of york.--prince richard at york.--boldness of the queen.--the advice of richard's counselors.--richard's reply.--the battle.--richard defeated.--death of edmund.--death of richard.--the head set upon a pole at york. richard's father was a prince of the house of york. in the course of his life he was declared heir to the crown, but he died before he attained possession of it, thus leaving it for his children. the nature of his claim to the crown, and, indeed, the general relation of the various branches of the family to each other, will be seen by the genealogical table on the next page but one. edward the third, who reigned more than one hundred years before richard the third, and his queen philippa, left at their decease four sons, as appears by the table.[c] they had other children besides these, but it was only these four, namely, edward, lionel, john, and edmund, whose descendants were involved in the quarrels for the succession. the others either died young, or else, if they arrived at maturity, the lines descending from them soon became extinct. [footnote c: see page 35.] of the four that survived, the oldest was edward, called in history the black prince. a full account of his life and adventures is given in our history of richard the second. he died before his father, and so did not attain to the crown. he, however, left his son richard his heir, and at edward's death richard became king. richard reigned twenty years, and then, in consequence of his numerous vices and crimes, and of his general mismanagement, he was deposed, and henry, the son of john of gaunt, duke of lancaster, edward's third son, ascended the throne in his stead. now, as appears by the table, john of gaunt was the third of the four sons, lionel, duke of clarence, being the second. the descendants of lionel would properly have come before those of john in the succession, but it happened that the only descendants of lionel were philippa, a daughter, and roger, a grandchild, who was at this time an infant. neither of these were able to assert their claims, although in theory their claims were acknowledged to be prior to those of the descendants of john. the people of england, however, were so desirous to be rid of richard, that they were willing to submit to the reign of any member of the royal family who should prove strong enough to dispossess him. so they accepted genealogical table of the family of edward iii., showing the connection of the houses of york and lancaster. edward iii. = phillippa. | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | edward lionel john edmund (the black prince). (duke of clarence). (of gaunt, (duke of york). | | duke of lancaster). | | | | | richard ii. phillippa = edward henry iv. richard = anne. | mortimer. | (_see second column._) roger mortimer henry v. | earl of marche). | | | henry vi. richard plantagenet | | (duke of york). | | | | | -------------- | | | | | anne = richard edward edward george richard of york. (prince iv. (duke iii. (_see fourth column._) of wales). of clarence). the character = denotes marriage; the short perpendicular line | a descent. there were many other children and descendants in the different branches of the family besides those whose names are inserted in the table. the table includes only those essential to an understanding of the history. henry of lancaster, who ascended the throne as henry the fourth, and he and his successors in the lancastrian line, henry the fifth and henry the sixth, held the throne for many years. still, though the people of england generally acquiesced in this, the families of the other brothers, namely, of lionel and edmund, called generally the houses of clarence and of york, were not satisfied. they combined together, and formed a great many plots and conspiracies against the house of lancaster, and many insurrections and wars, and many cruel deeds of violence and murder grew out of the quarrel. at length, to strengthen their alliance more fully, richard, the second son of edmund of york, married anne, a descendant of the clarence line. the other children, who came before these, in the two lines, soon afterward died, leaving the inheritance of both to this pair. their son was richard, the father of richard the third. he is called richard plantagenet, duke of york. on the death of his father and mother, he, of course, became the heir not only of the immense estates and baronial rights of both the lines from which he had descended, but also of the claims of the older line to the crown of england. the successive generations of these three lines, down to the period of the union of the second and fourth, cutting off the third, is shown clearly in the table. of course, the lancaster line were much alarmed at the combination of the claims of their rivals. king henry the fifth was at that period on the throne, and, by the time that richard plantagenet was three years old, under pretense of protecting him from danger, he caused him to be shut up in a castle, and kept a close prisoner there. time rolled on. king henry the fifth died, and henry the sixth succeeded him. richard plantagenet was still watched and guarded; but at length, by the time that richard was thirteen years old, the power and influence of his branch of the royal family, or rather those of the two branches from which, combined, he was descended, were found to be increasing, while that of the house of lancaster was declining. after a time he was brought out from his imprisonment, and restored to his rank and station. king henry the sixth was a man of a very weak and timid mind. he was quite young too, being, in fact, a mere child when he began to reign, and every thing went wrong with his government. while he was young, he could, of course, do nothing, and when he grew older he was too gentle and forbearing to control the rough and turbulent spirits around him. he had no taste for war and bloodshed, but loved retirement and seclusion, and, as he advanced in years, he fell into the habit of spending a great deal of his time in acts of piety and devotion, performed according to the ideas and customs of the times. the annexed engraving, representing him as he appeared when he was [illustration: henry vi. in his childhood.] a boy, is copied from the ancient portraits, and well expresses the mild and gentle traits which marked his disposition and character. such being the disposition and character of henry, every thing during his reign went wrong, and this state of things, growing worse and worse as he advanced in life, greatly encouraged and strengthened the house of york in the effort which they were inclined to make to bring their own branch of the family to the throne. "see," said they, "what we come to by allowing a line of usurpers to reign. these henrys of lancaster are all descended from a younger son, while the heirs of the older are living, and have a right to the throne. richard plantagenet is the true and proper heir. he is a man of energy. let us make him king." but the people of england, though they gradually came to desire the change, were not willing yet to plunge the country again into a state of civil war for the purpose of making it. they would not disturb henry, they said, while he continued to live; but there was nobody to succeed him, and, when he died, richard plantagenet should be king. [illustration: queen margaret of anjou, wife of henry vi.] henry was married at this time, but he had no children. the name of his wife was margaret of anjou. she was a very extraordinary and celebrated woman. though very beautiful in person, she was as energetic and masculine in character as her poor husband was effeminate and weak, and she took every thing into her own hands. this, however, made matters worse instead of better, and the whole country seemed to rejoice that she had no children, for thus, on the death of henry, the line would become extinct, and richard plantagenet and his descendants would succeed, as a matter of course, in a quiet and peaceful manner. as henry and margaret had now been married eight or nine years without any children, it was supposed that they never would have any. accordingly, richard plantagenet was universally looked upon as henry's successor, and the time seemed to be drawing nigh when the change of dynasty was to take place. henry's health was very feeble. he seemed to be rapidly declining. his mind was affected, too, quite seriously, and he sometimes sank into a species of torpor from which nothing could arouse him. indeed, it became difficult to carry on the government in his name, for the king sank at last into such a state of imbecility that it was impossible to obtain from him the least sign or token that would serve, even for form's sake, as an assent on his part to the royal decrees. at one time parliament appointed a commission to visit him in his chamber, for the purpose of ascertaining the state that he was in, and to see also whether they could not get some token from him which they could consider as his assent to certain measures which it was deemed important to take; but they could not get from the king any answer or sign of any kind, notwithstanding all that they could do or say. they retired for a time, and afterward came back again to make a second attempt, and then, as an ancient narrative records the story, "they moved and stirred him by all the ways and means that they could think of to have an answer of the said matter, but they could have no answer, word nor sign, and therefore, with sorrowful hearts, came away." this being the state of things, parliament thought it time to make some definite arrangements for the succession. accordingly, they passed a formal and solemn enactment declaring richard plantagenet heir presumptive of the crown, and investing him with the rank and privileges pertaining to that position. they also appointed him, for the present, protector and defender of the realm. richard, the subject of this volume, was at this time an infant two years old. the other ten children had been born at various periods before. it was now, of course, expected that henry would soon die, and that then richard plantagenet would at once ascend the throne, acknowledged by the whole realm as the sole and rightful heir. but these expectations were suddenly disturbed, and the whole kingdom was thrown into a state of great excitement and alarm by the news of a very unexpected and important event which occurred at this time, namely, the birth of a child to margaret, the queen. this event awakened all the latent fires of civil dissension and discord anew. the lancastrian party, of course, at once rallied around the infant prince, who, they claimed, was the rightful heir to the crown. they began at once to reconstruct and strengthen their plans, and to shape their measures with a view to retain the kingdom in the lancaster line. on the other hand, the friends of the combined houses of clarence and york declared that they would not acknowledge the new-comer as the rightful heir. they did not believe that he was the son of the king, for he, as they said, had been for a long time as good as dead. some said that they did not even believe that the child was margaret's son. there was a story that she had had a child, but that he was very weak and puny, and that he had died soon after his birth, and that margaret had cunningly substituted another child in his place, in order to retain her position and power by having a supposed son of hers reign as king after her husband should die. margaret was a woman of so ambitious and unscrupulous a character, that she was generally believed capable of adopting any measures, however criminal and bold, to accomplish her ends. but, notwithstanding these rumors, parliament acknowledged the infant as his father's son and heir. he was named edward, and created at once prince of wales, which act was a solemn acknowledgment of his right to the succession. prince richard made no open opposition to this; for, although he and his friends maintained that he had a right to the crown, they thought that the time had not yet come for openly advancing their claim, so for the present they determined to be quiet. the child might not survive, and his father, the king, being in so helpless and precarious a condition, might cease to live at any time; and if it should so happen that both the father and the child should die, richard would, of course, succeed at once, without any question. he accordingly thought it best to wait a little while, and see what turn things would take. he soon found that things were taking the wrong turn. the child lived, and appeared likely to continue to live, and, what was perhaps worse for him, the king, instead of declining more and more, began to revive. in a short time he was able to attend to business again, at least so far as to express his assent to measures prepared for him by his ministers. prince richard was accordingly called upon to resign his protectorate. he thought it best to yield to this proposal, and he did so, and thus the government was once more in henry's hands. things went on in this way for two or three years, but the breach between the two great parties was all the time widening. difficulties multiplied in number and increased in magnitude. the country took sides. armed forces were organized on one side and on the other, and at length prince richard openly claimed the crown as his right. this led to a long and violent discussion in parliament. the result was, that a majority was obtained to vote in favor of prince richard's right. the parliament decreed, however, that the existing state of things should not be disturbed so long as henry continued to live, but that at henry's death the crown should descend, not to little edward his son, the infant prince of wales, but to prince richard plantagenet and his descendants forever. queen margaret was at this time at a castle in wales, where she had gone with the child, in order to keep him in a place of safety while these stormy discussions were pending. when she heard that parliament had passed a law setting aside the claims of her child, she declared that she would never submit to it. she immediately sent messengers all over the northern part of the kingdom, summoning the faithful followers of the king every where to arm themselves and assemble near the frontier. she herself went to scotland to ask for aid. the king of scotland at that time was a child, but he was related to the lancastrian family, his grandmother having been a descendant of john of gaunt, the head of the lancaster line. he was too young to take any part in the war, but his mother, who was acting as regent, furnished margaret with troops. margaret, putting herself at the head of these forces, marched across the frontier into england, and joined herself there to the other forces which had assembled in answer to her summons. in the mean time, prince richard had assembled his adherents too, and had commenced his march to the northward to meet his enemies. he took his two oldest sons with him, the two that wrote the letter quoted in the last chapter. one of these you will recollect was edward, earl of marche, and the second was edmund, earl of rutland. edward was now about eighteen years of age, and his brother edmund about seventeen. one would have said that at this period of life they were altogether too young to be exposed to the hardships, fatigues, and dangers of a martial campaign; but it was the custom in those times for princes and nobles to be taken with their fathers to fields of battle at a very early age. and these youthful warriors were really of great service too, for the interest which they inspired among all ranks of the army was so great, especially when their rank was very high, that they were often the means of greatly increasing the numbers and the enthusiasm of their fathers' followers. edward, indeed, was in this instance deemed old enough to be sent off on an independent service, and so, while the prince moved forward with the main body of his army toward the north, he dispatched edward, accompanied by a suitable escort, to the westward, toward the frontiers of wales, to assemble all the armed men that he could find in that part of the kingdom who were disposed to espouse his cause. edmund, who was a year younger than edward, went with his father. the prince proceeded to the city of york, which was then a fortified place of great strength. the engraving gives a very good idea of the appearance of the walls in those times. these walls remain, indeed, almost entire at the present day, and they are visited a great deal by tourists and travelers, being regarded with much interest as furnishing a very complete and well-preserved specimen of the mural fortifications of the middle ages. such walls, however, would be almost entirely useless now as means of defense, since they would not stand at all against an attack from modern artillery. the great church seen over the walls, in the heart of the city, is the famous york minster, one of the grandest cathedral churches in england. it was a hundred and fifty years in building, and it was completed about two centuries before richard's day. when prince richard reached york, he entered the town, and established himself there, with a view of waiting till his son should arrive with the re-enforcements which he had been sent to seek in the western part of england. [illustration: walls of york.] while he was there, and before the re-enforcements came, the queen, at the head of her army from scotland, which was strengthened, moreover, by the troops which she had obtained in the north of england, came marching on down the country in great force. when she came into the neighborhood of york, she encamped, and then sent messengers to prince richard, taunting and deriding him for having shut himself up within fortified walls, and daring him to come out into the open field and fight her. the prince's counselors advised him to do no such thing. one of them in particular, a certain sir davy hall, who was an old and faithful officer in the prince's service, urged him to pay no attention to queen margaret's taunts. "we are not strong enough yet," said he, "to meet the army which she has assembled. we must wait till our re-enforcements come. by going out now we shall put our cause in great peril, and all to no purpose whatever." "ah! davy, davy," said the prince, "hast thou loved me so long, and now wouldst thou have me dishonored? when i was regent in normandy, thou never sawest me keep fortress, even when the dauphin himself, with all his power, came to besiege me.[d] i always, like a man, came forth to meet him, instead of remaining within my walls, like a bird shut up in a cage. now if i did not then keep myself shut up for fear of a great, strong prince, do you think i will now, for dread of a scolding woman, whose weapons are only her tongue and her nails, and thus give people occasion to say that i turned dastard before a woman, when no man had ever been able to make me fear? no, i will never submit to such disgrace. i would rather die in honor than live in shame; and so the great numbers of our enemies do not deter me in the least; they rather encourage me; therefore, in the name of god and st. george, advance my banner, for i am determined that i will go out and fight them, if i go alone." [footnote d: in former years prince richard had acted as viceroy of the english possessions in france, under king henry, and while there he had been engaged in wars with the king of france, and with the dauphin, his son.] [illustration: last hours of king richard's father.] so prince richard came forth from the gates of york at the head of his columns, and rode on toward the queen's camp. edmund went with him. edmund was under the care of his tutor, robert aspell, who was charged to keep close to his side, and to watch over him in the most vigilant manner. the army of the queen was at some distance from york, at a place called wakefield. both parties, as is usual in civil wars, were extremely exasperated against each other, and the battle was desperately fought. it was very brief, however, and richard's troops were defeated. richard himself was taken prisoner. edmund endeavored to escape. his tutor endeavored to hurry him off the field, but he was stopped on the way by a certain nobleman of the queen's party, named lord clifford. the poor boy begged hard for mercy, but clifford killed him on the spot. the prince's army, when they found that the battle had gone against them, and that their captain was a prisoner, fled in all directions over the surrounding country, leaving great numbers dead upon the field. the prince himself, as soon as he was taken, was disarmed on the field, and all the leaders of the queen's army, including, as the most authentic accounts relate, the queen herself, gathered around him in wild exultation. they carried him to a mound formed by an ant-hill, which they said, in mockery, should be his throne. they placed him upon it with taunts and derision. they made a crown for him of knotted grass, and put it upon his head, and then made mock obeisances before him, saying, "hail! king without a kingdom. hail! prince without a people." after having satisfied themselves with their taunts and revilings, the party killed their prisoner and cut off his head. they set his head upon the point of a lance, and in this way presented it to queen margaret. the queen ordered the head to be decorated with a paper crown, and then to be carried to york, and set up at the gates of that city upon a tall pole. thus was little richard, the subject of this narrative, left fatherless. he was at this period between eight and nine years old. chapter iii. the childhood of richard iii. condition of young richard in his childhood.--strange tales in respect to his birth.--dangers to which richard was exposed in his childhood.--extraordinary vicissitudes in the life of his mother.--the castles and palaces belonging to the house of york.--situation of lady cecily at the time of her husband's death.--lady cecily sends the children to the continent.--situation of lady cecily and of her oldest son. young richard, as was said at the close of the last chapter, was of a very tender age when his father and his brother edmund were killed at the battle of wakefield. he was at that time only about eight years old. it is very evident too, from what has been already related of the history of his father and mother, that during the whole period of his childhood and youth he must have passed through very stormy times. it is only a small portion of the life of excitement, conflict, and alarm which was led by his father that there is space to describe in this volume. so unsettled and wandering a life did his father and mother lead, that it is not quite certain in which of the various towns and castles that from time to time they made their residence, he was born. it is supposed, however, that he was born in the castle of fotheringay, in the year 1452. his father was killed in 1461, which would make richard, as has already been said, about eight or nine years old at that time. there were a great many strange tales related in subsequent years in respect to richard's birth. he became such a monster, morally, when he grew to be a man, that the people believed that he was born a monster in person. the story was that he came into the world very ugly in face and distorted in form, and that his hair and his teeth were already grown. these were considered as portents of the ferociousness of temper and character which he was subsequently to manifest, and of the unnatural and cruel crimes which he would live to commit. it is very doubtful, however, whether any of these stories are true. it is most probable that at his birth he looked like any other child. there were a great many periods of intense excitement and terror in the family history before the great final calamity at wakefield when richard's father and his brother edmund were killed. at these times the sole reliance of the prince in respect to the care of the younger children was upon lady cecily, their mother. the older sons went with their father on the various martial expeditions in which he was engaged. they shared with him the hardships and dangers of his conflicts, and the triumph and exultations of his victories. the younger children, however, remained in seclusion with their mother, sometimes in one place and sometimes in another, wherever there was, for the time being, the greatest promise of security. indeed, during the early childhood of richard, the changes and vicissitudes through which the family passed were so sudden and violent in their character as sometimes to surpass the most romantic tales of fiction. at one time, while lady cecily was residing at the castle of ludlow with richard and some of the younger children, a party of her husband's enemies, the lancastrians, appeared suddenly at the gates of the town, and, before prince richard's party had time to take any efficient measures for defense, the town and the castle were both taken. the lancastrians had expected to find prince richard himself in the castle, but he was not there. they were exasperated by their disappointment, and in their fury they proceeded to ransack all the rooms, and to destroy every thing that came into their hands. in some of the inner and more private apartments they found lady cecily and her children. they immediately seized them all, made them prisoners, and carried them away. by king henry's orders, they were placed in close custody in another castle in the southern part of england, and all the property, both of the prince and of lady cecily, was confiscated. while the mother and the younger children were thus closely shut up and reduced to helpless destitution, the father and the older sons were obliged to fly from the country to save their lives. in less than three months after this time these same exiled and apparently ruined fugitives were marching triumphantly through the country, at the head of victorious troops, carrying all before them. lady cecily and her children were set at liberty, and restored to their property and their rights, while king henry himself, whose captives they had been, was himself made captive, and brought in durance to london, and queen margaret and her son were in their turn compelled to fly from the realm to save their lives. this last change in the condition of public affairs took place only a short time before the great final contest between prince richard of york, king richard's father, and the family of henry, when the prince lost his life at wakefield, as described in the last chapter. [illustration: palace and garden belonging to the house of york.] of course, young richard, being brought up amid these scenes of wild commotion, and accustomed from childhood to witness the most cruel and remorseless conflicts between branches of the same family, was trained by them to be ambitious, daring, and unscrupulous in respect to the means to be used in circumventing or destroying an enemy. the seed thus sown produced in subsequent years most dreadful fruit, as will be seen more fully in the sequel of his history. there were a great many hereditary castles belonging to the family of york, many of which had descended from father to son for many generations. some of these castles were strong fortresses, built in wild and inaccessible retreats, and intended to be used as places of temporary refuge, or as the rallying-points and rendezvous of bodies of armed men. others were better adapted for the purposes of a private residence, being built with some degree of reference to the comfort of the inmates, and surrounded with gardens and grounds, where the ladies and the children who were left in them could find recreation and amusement adapted to their age and sex. it was in such a castle as this, near london, that lady cecily and her younger children were residing when her husband went to the northward to meet the forces of the queen, as related in the last chapter. here lady cecily lived in great state, for she thought the time was drawing nigh when her husband would be raised to the throne. indeed, she considered him as already the true and rightful sovereign of the realm, and she believed that the hour would very soon come when his claims would be universally acknowledged, and when she herself would be queen of england, and her boys royal princes, and, as such, the objects of universal attention and regard. she instilled these ideas continually into the minds of the children, and she exacted the utmost degree of subserviency and submission toward herself and toward them on the part of all around her. while she was thus situated in her palace near london, awaiting every day the arrival of a messenger from the north announcing the final victory of her husband over all his foes, she was one day thunderstruck, and overwhelmed with grief and despair, by the tidings that her husband had been defeated, and that he himself, and the dear son who had accompanied him, and was just arriving at maturity, had been ignominiously slain. the queen, too, her most bitter foe, now exultant and victorious, was advancing triumphantly toward london. not a moment was to be lost. lady cecily had with her, at this time, her two youngest sons, george and richard. she made immediate arrangements for her flight. it happened that the earl of warwick, who was at this time the lord high admiral, and who, of course, had command of the seas between england and the continent, was a relative and friend of lady cecily's. he was at this time in london. lady cecily applied to him to assist her in making her escape. he consented, and, with his aid, she herself, with her two children and a small number of attendants, escaped secretly from london, and made their way to the southern coast. there lady cecily put the children and the attendants on board a vessel, by which they were conveyed to the coast of holland. on landing there, they were received by the prince of the country, who was a friend of lady cecily, and to whose care she commended them. the prince received them with great kindness, and sent them to the city of utrecht, where he established them safely in one of his palaces, and appointed suitable tutors and governors to superintend their education. here it was expected that they would remain for several years. their mother did not go with them to holland. her fears in respect to remaining in england were not for herself, but only for her helpless children. for herself, her only impulse was to face and brave the dangers which threatened her, and triumph over them. so she went boldly back to london, to await there whatever might occur. besides, her oldest son was still in england, and she could not forsake him. you will recollect that, when his father went north to meet the forces of queen margaret, he sent his oldest son, edward, earl of marche, to the western part of england, to obtain re-enforcements. edward was at gloucester when the tidings came to him of his father's death. gloucester is on the western confines of england, near the southeastern borders of wales. now, of course, since her husband was dead, all lady cecily's ambition, and all her hopes of revenge were concentrated in him. she wished to be at hand to counsel him, and to co-operate with him by all the means in her power. how she succeeded in these plans, and how, by means of them, he soon became king of england, will appear in the next chapter. chapter iv. accession of edward iv., richard's elder brother. a.d. 1461 edward now becomes heir to the crown.--his energy and decision.--he marches to intercept margaret.--warwick.--battle with the queen.--warwick defeated.--margaret regains possession of her husband.--excesses committed by the queen's troops.--edward advances.--he enters london.--his welcome.--excitement in london.--measures taken by edward.--voice of the people.--they declare in favor of edward.--edward is formally enthroned.--various ceremonies.--edward marches to the northward.--a battle.--edward enters york in triumph.--he inters his father's body.--he returns to london.--grief of his mother.--situation of george and richard.--richard's person.--description of the armor worn in those days.--necessity of being trained to use this armor.--the armor costly.--substitutes for it.--exercises.--feats to be performed.--account of the quintaine.--other exercises and sports.--playing ball.--jumping through a hoop.--the two brothers companions.--richard's intellectual education. richard's brother edward, as has already been remarked, was at gloucester when he heard the news of his father's death. this news, of course, made a great change in his condition. to his mother, the event was purely and simply a calamity, and it could awaken no feelings in her heart but those of sorrow and chagrin. in edward's mind, on the other hand, the first emotions of astonishment and grief were followed immediately by a burst of exultation and pride. he, of course, as now the oldest surviving son, succeeded at once to all the rights and titles which his father had enjoyed, and among these, according to the ideas which his mother had instilled into his mind, was the right to the crown. his heart, therefore, when the first feeling of grief for the loss of his father had subsided, bounded with joy as he exclaimed, "so now _i_ am the king of england." the enthusiasm which he felt extended itself at once to all around him. he immediately made preparations to put himself at the head of his troops, and march to the eastward, so as to intercept queen margaret on her way to london, for he knew that she would, of course, now press forward toward the capital as fast as possible. he accordingly set out at once upon his march, and, as he went on, he found that the number of his followers increased very rapidly. the truth was, that the queen's party, by their murder of richard, and of young edmund his son, had gone altogether too far for the good of their own cause. the people, when they heard the tidings, were indignant at such cruelty. those who belonged to the party of the house of york, instead of being intimidated by the severity of the measure, were exasperated at the brutality of it, and they were all eager to join the young duke, edward, and help him to avenge his father's and his brother's death. those who had been before on the side of the house of lancaster were discouraged and repelled, while those who had been doubtful were now ready to declare against the queen. it is in this way that all excesses in the hour of victory defeat the very ends they were intended to subserve. they weaken the perpetrators, and not the subjects of them. in the mean time, while young edward, at the head of his army, was marching on from the westward toward london to intercept the queen, the earl of warwick, who has already been mentioned as a friend of lady cecily, had also assembled a large force near london, and he was now advancing toward the northward. the poor king was with him. nominally, the king was in command of the expedition, and every thing was done in his name, but really he was a forlorn and helpless prisoner, forced wholly against his will--so far as the feeble degree of intellect which remained to him enabled him to exercise a will--to seem to head an enterprise directed against his own wife, and his best and strongest friend. the armies of the queen and of the earl of warwick advanced toward each other, until they met at last at a short distance north of london. a desperate battle was fought, and the queen's party were completely victorious. when night came on, the earl of warwick found that he was beaten at every point, and that his troops had fled in all directions, leaving thousands of the dead and dying all along the road sides. the camp had been abandoned, and there was no time to save any thing; even the poor king was left behind, and the officers of the queen's army found him in a tent, with only one attendant. of course, the queen was overjoyed at recovering possession of her husband, not merely on his own account personally, but also because she could now act again directly in his name. so she prepared a proclamation, by which the king revoked all that he had done while in the hands of warwick, on the ground that he had been in durance, and had not acted of his own free will, and also declared edward a traitor, and offered a large reward for his apprehension. the queen was now once more filled with exultation and joy. her joy would have been complete were it not that edward himself was still to be met, for he was all this time advancing from the westward; she, however, thought that there was not much to be feared from such a boy, edward being at this time only about nineteen years of age. so the queen moved on toward london, flushed with the victory, and exasperated with the opposition which she had met with. her soldiers were under very little control, and they committed great excesses. they ravaged the country, and plundered without mercy all those whom they considered as belonging to the opposite party; they committed, too, many atrocious acts of cruelty. it is always thus in civil war. in foreign wars, armies are much more easily kept under control. troops march through a foreign territory, feeling no personal spite or hatred against the inhabitants of it, for they think it is a matter of course that the people should defend their country and resist invaders. but in a civil war, the men of each party feel a special personal hate against every individual that does not belong to their side, and in periods of actual conflict this hatred becomes a rage that is perfectly uncontrollable. accordingly, as the queen and her troops advanced, they robbed and murdered all who came in their way, and they filled the whole country with terror. they even seized and plundered a convent, which was a species of sacrilege. this greatly increased the general alarm. "the wretches!" exclaimed the people, when they heard the tidings, "nothing is sacred in their eyes." the people of london were particularly alarmed. they thought there was danger that the city itself would be given up to plunder if the queen's troops gained admission. so they all turned against her. she sent one day into the town for a supply of provisions, and the authorities, perhaps thinking themselves bound by their official duty to obey orders of this kind coming in the king's name, loaded up some wagons and sent them forth, but the people raised a mob, and stopped the wagons at the gates, refusing to let them go on. in the mean time, edward, growing every hour stronger as he advanced, came rapidly on toward london. he was joined at length by the earl of warwick and the remnant of the force which remained to the earl after the battle which he had fought with the queen. the queen, now finding that edward's strength was becoming formidable, did not dare to meet him; so she retreated toward the north again. edward, instead of pursuing her, advanced directly toward london. the people threw open the gates to him, and welcomed him as their deliverer. they thronged the streets to look upon him as he passed, and made the air ring with their loud and long acclamations. there was, indeed, every thing in the circumstances of the case to awaken excitement and emotion. here was a boy not yet out of his teens, extremely handsome in appearance and agreeable in manners, who had taken the field in command of a very large force to avenge the cruel death of his father and brother, and was now coming boldly, at the head of his troops, into the very capital of the king and queen under whose authority his father and brother had been killed. the most extraordinary circumstance connected with these proceedings was, that during all this time henry was still acknowledged by every one as the actual king. edward and his friends maintained, indeed, that he, edward, was _entitled_ to reign, but no one pretended that any thing had yet been done which could have the legal effect of putting him upon the throne. there was, however, now a general expectation that the time for the formal deposition of henry was near, and in and around london all was excitement and confusion. the people from the surrounding towns flocked every day into the city to see what they could see, and to hear what they could hear. they thronged the streets whenever edward appeared in public, eager to obtain a glimpse of him. at length, a few days after edward entered the city, his counselors and friends deemed that the time had come for action. accordingly, they made arrangements for a grand review in a large open field. their design was by this review to call together a great concourse of spectators. a vast assembly convened according to their expectations. in the midst of the ceremonies, two noblemen appeared before the multitude to make addresses to them. one of them made a speech in respect to henry, denouncing the crimes, and the acts of treachery and of oppression which his government had committed. he dilated long on the feebleness and incapacity of the king, and his total inability to exercise any control in the management of public affairs. after he had finished, he called out to the people in a loud voice to declare whether they would submit any longer to have such a man for king. the people answered "nay, nay, nay," with loud and long acclamations. then the other speaker made an address in favor of edward. he explained at length the nature of his title to the crown, showing it to be altogether superior in point of right to that of henry. he also spoke long and eloquently in praise of edward's personal qualifications, describing his courage, his activity, and energy, and the various graces and accomplishments for which he was distinguished, in the most glowing terms. he ended by demanding of the people whether they would have edward for king. the people answered "yea, yea, yea; king edward forever! king edward forever!" with acclamations as long and loud as before. of course there could be no legal validity in such proceedings as these, for, even if england had at that time been an elective monarchy, the acclamations of an accidental assembly drawn together to witness a review could on no account have been deemed a valid vote. this ceremony was only meant as a very public announcement of the intention of edward immediately to assume the throne. the next day, accordingly, a grand council was held of all the great barons, and nobles, and officers of state. by this council a decree was passed that king henry, by his late proceedings, had forfeited the crown, and edward was solemnly declared king in his stead. immediately afterward, edward rode at the head of a royal procession, which was arranged for the purpose, to westminster, and there, in the presence of a vast assembly, he took his seat upon the throne. while there seated, he made a speech to the audience, in which he explained the nature of his hereditary rights, and declared his intention to maintain his rights thenceforth in the most determined manner. the king now proceeded to westminster abbey, where he performed the same ceremonies a second time. he was also publicly proclaimed king on the same day in various parts of london. edward was now full of ardor and enthusiasm, and his first impulse was to set off, at the head of his army, toward the north, in pursuit of the queen and the old king. the king and queen had gone to york. the queen had not only the king under her care, but also her son, the little prince of wales, who was now about eight years old. this young prince was the heir to the crown on the lancastrian side, and edward was, of course, very desirous of getting him, as well as the king and queen, into his hands; so he put himself at the head of his troops, and began to move forward as fast as he could go. the body of troops under his command consisted of fifty thousand men. in the queen's army, which was encamped in the neighborhood of york, there were about sixty thousand. both parties were extremely exasperated against each other, and were eager for the fight. edward gave orders to his troops to grant no quarter, but, in the event of victory, to massacre without mercy every man that they could bring within their reach. the armies came together at a place called towton. the combat was begun in the midst of a snow-storm. the armies fought from nine o'clock in the morning till three in the afternoon, and by that time the queen's troops were every where driven from the field. edward's men pursued them along the roads, slaughtering them without mercy as fast as they could overtake them, until at length nearly forty thousand men were left dead upon the ground. the queen fled toward the north, taking with her her husband and child. edward entered york in triumph. at the gates he found the head of his father and that of his brother still remaining upon the poles where the queen had put them. he took them reverently down, and then put other heads in their places, which he cut off for the purpose from some of his prisoners. he was in such a state of fury, that i suppose, if he could have caught the king and queen, he would have cut off _their_ heads, and put them on the poles in the place of his father's and his brother's; but he could not catch them. they fled to the north, toward the frontiers of scotland, and so escaped from his hands. edward determined not to pursue the fugitives any farther at that time, as there were many important affairs to be attended to in london, and so he concluded to be satisfied at present with the victory which he had obtained, and with the dispersion of his enemies, and to return to the capital. he first, however, gathered together the remains of his father and brother, and caused them to be buried with solemn funeral ceremonies in one of his castles near york. this was, however, only a temporary arrangement, for, as soon as his affairs were fully settled, the remains were disinterred, and conveyed, with great funeral pomp and parade, to their final resting-place in the southern part of the kingdom. as soon as edward reached london, one of the first things that he did was to send for his two brothers, george and richard, who, as will be recollected, had been removed by their mother to holland, and were now in utrecht pursuing their education. these two boys were all the brothers of edward that remained now alive. they came back to london. their widowed mother's heart was filled with a melancholy sort of joy in seeing her children once more together, safe in their native land; but her spirit, after reviving for a moment, sank again, overwhelmed with the bitter and irreparable loss which she had sustained in the death of her husband. his death was, of course, a fatal blow to all those ambitious plans and aspirations which she had cherished for herself. though the mother of a king, she could now never become herself a queen; and, disappointed and unhappy, she retired to one of the family castles in the neighborhood of london, and lived there comparatively alone and in great seclusion. the boys, on the other hand, were brought forward very conspicuously into public life. in the autumn of the same year in which edward took possession of the crown, they were made royal dukes, with great parade and ceremony, and were endowed with immense estates to enable them to support the dignity of their rank and position. george was made duke of clarence; richard, duke of gloucester; and from this time the two boys were almost always designated by these names. suitable persons, too, were appointed to take charge of the boys, for the purpose of conducting their education, and also to manage their estates until they should become of age. there have been a great many disputes in respect to richard's appearance and character at this time. for a long period after his death, people generally believed that he was, from his very childhood, an ugly little monster, that nobody could look upon without fear; and, in fact, he was very repulsive in his personal appearance when he grew up, but at this time of his life the historians and biographers who saw and knew him say that he was quite a pretty boy, though puny and weak. his face was handsome enough, though his form was frail, and not perfectly symmetrical. those who had charge of him tried to strengthen his constitution by training him to the martial exercises and usages which were practiced in those days, and especially by accustoming him to wear the ponderous armor which was then in use. this armor was made of iron or steel. it consisted of a great number of separate pieces, which, when they were all put on, incased almost the whole body, so as to defend it against blows coming from any quarter. first, there was the helmet, or cap of steel, with large oval pieces coming down to protect the ears. next came the _gorget_, as it was called, which was a sort of collar to cover the neck. then there were elbow pieces to guard the elbows, and shoulder-plates for the shoulders, and a breast-plate or buckler for the front, and greaves for the legs and thighs. these things were necessary in those days, or at least they were advantageous, for they afforded pretty effectual protection against all the ordinary weapons which were then in use. but they made the warriors themselves so heavy and unwieldy as very greatly to interfere with the freedom of their movements when engaged in battle. there was, indeed, a certain advantage in this weight, as it made the shock with which the knight on horseback encountered his enemy in the charge so much the more heavy and overpowering; but if he were by any accident to lose his seat and fall to the ground, he was generally so encumbered by his armor that he could only partially raise himself therefrom. he was thus compelled to lie almost helpless until his enemy came to kill him, or his squire or some other friend came to help him up.[e] [footnote e: see engraving on page 148.] of course, to be able to manage one's self at all in these habiliments of iron and steel, there was required not only native strength of constitution, but long and careful training, and it was a very important part of the education of young men of rank in richard's days to familiarize them with the use of this armor, and inure them to the weight of it. suits of it were made for boys, the size and weight of each suit being fitted to the form and strength of the wearer. many of these suits of boys' armor are still preserved in england. there are several specimens to be seen in the tower of london. they are in the apartment called the horse armory, which is a vast hall with effigies of horses, and of men mounted upon them, all completely armed with the veritable suits of steel which the men and the horses that they represent actually wore when they were alive. the horses are arranged along the sides of the room in regular order from the earliest ages down to the time when steel armor of this kind ceased to be worn. [illustration: the old quintaine] these suits of armor were very costly, and the boys for whom they were made were, of course, filled with feelings of exultation and pride when they put them on; and, heavy and uncomfortable as such clothing must have been, they were willing to wear it, and to practice the required exercises in it. when actually made of steel, the armor was very expensive, and such could only be afforded for young princes and nobles of very high rank; for other young men, various substitutes were provided; but all were trained, either in the use of actual armor, or of substitutes, to perform a great number and variety of exercises. they were taught, when they were old enough, to spring upon a horse with as much armor upon them and in their hands as possible; to run races; to see how long they could continue to strike heavy blows in quick succession with a battle-axe or club, as if they were beating an enemy lying upon the ground, and trying to break his armor to pieces; to dance and throw summersets; to mount upon a horse behind another person by leaping from the ground, and assisting themselves only by one hand, and other similar things. one feat which they practiced was to climb up between two partition walls built pretty near together, by bracing their back against one wall, and working with their knees and hands against the other. another feat was to climb up a ladder on the under side by means of the hands alone. another famous exercise, or perhaps rather game, was performed with what was called the _quintaine_. the quintaine consisted of a stout post set in the ground, and rising about ten or twelve feet above the surface. across the top was a strong bar, which turned on a pivot made in the top of the post, so that it would go round and round. to one end of this cross-bar there was fixed a square board for a target; to the other end was hung a heavy club. the cross-bar was so poised upon the central pivot that it would move very easily. in playing the game, the competitors, mounted on horseback, were to ride, one after another, under the target-end of the cross-bar, and hurl their spears at it with all their force. the blow from the spear would knock the target-end of the cross-bar away, and so bring round the other end, with its heavy club, to strike a blow on the horseman's head if he did not get instantly out of the way. it was as if he were to strike one enemy in front in battle, while there was another enemy ready on the instant to strike him from behind. there is one of these ancient quintaines now standing on the green in the village of offham, in kent. such exercises as these were, of course, only fitted for men, or at least for boys who had nearly attained to their full size and strength. there were other games and exercises intended for smaller boys. there are many rude pictures in ancient books illustrating these old games. in one they are playing ball; in another they are playing shuttle-cock. the battle-doors that they use are very rude. [illustration: playing ball.] these pictures show how ancient these common games are. in another picture the boys are playing with a hoop. two of them are holding the hoop up between them, and the third is preparing to jump through it, head foremost. his plan is to come down on the other side upon his hands, and so turn a summerset, and come up on his feet beyond. [illustration: battle-door and shuttle-cock.] in these exercises and amusements, and, indeed, in all his occupations, richard had his brother george, the duke of clarence, for his playmate and companion. george was not only older than richard, but he was also much more healthy and athletic; and some persons have thought that richard injured himself, and perhaps, in some degree, increased the deformity which he seems to have suffered from in later years, or perhaps brought it on entirely, by overloading himself, in his attempts to keep pace with his brother in these exercises, with burdens of armor, or by straining himself in athletic exertions which were beyond his powers. the intellectual education of the boys was not entirely neglected. they learned to read and write, though they could not write much, or very well. their names are still found, as they signed them to ancient documents, several of which remain to the present day. the following is a fac-simile of richard's signature, copied exactly from one of those documents. [illustration: richard's signature.] richard continued in this state of pupilage in some of the castles belonging to the family from the time that his brother began to reign until he was about fourteen years of age. edward, the king, was then twenty-four, and clarence about seventeen. chapter v. warwick, the king-maker. a.d. 1461-1468 situation of richard under the reign of his brother.--strange vicissitudes in the life of margaret.--representatives of the house of york.--margaret.--value of a marriageable young lady.--warwick becomes edward's prime minister.--the three great parties.--the fortunes of margaret of anjou.--she escapes to france.--a new expedition planned.--margaret is defeated and compelled to fly.--she encounters great dangers at sea.--the king concealed.--the king is made prisoner, and sent to the tower.--brutal punishments.--great exasperation of the combatants.--account of elizabeth woodville.--edward's first interview with her.--the secret marriage.--the marriage gradually revealed.--indignation of the earl of warwick.--ancient portrait of edward iv.--portrait of queen elizabeth woodville.--george and richard.--the queen is publicly acknowledged.--various difficulties and entanglements resulting from this marriage.--jealousy against the queen's family and relations.--situation of henry and his family.--margaret of york.--plans and manoeuvres in respect to margaret's marriage.--count charles carries the day.--vexation of warwick.--progress of the quarrel.--a temporary reconciliation.--a new marriage scheme.--edward displeased.--he fails of preventing the marriage.--the ceremony performed at calais. richard's brother, edward the fourth, began to reign when richard was about eight or nine years of age. his reign continued--with a brief interruption, which will be hereafter explained--for twenty years; so that, for a very important period of his life, after he arrived at some degree of maturity, namely, from the time that he was fourteen to the time that he was thirty, richard was one of his brother's subjects. he was a prince, it is true, and a prince of the very highest rank--the next person but one, in fact, in the line of succession to the crown. his brother george, the duke of clarence, of course, being older than he, came before him; but both the young men, though princes, were subjects. they were under their brother edward's authority, and bound to serve and obey him as their rightful sovereign; next to him, however, they were the highest personages in the realm. george was, from this time, generally called clarence, and richard, gloucester. the reader may perhaps feel some interest and curiosity in learning what became of queen margaret and old king henry after they were driven out of the country toward the north, at the time of edward's accession. their prospects seemed, at the time, to be hopelessly ruined, but their case was destined to furnish another very striking instance of the extraordinary reverses of fortune which marked the history of nearly all the great families during the whole course of this york and lancaster quarrel. in about ten years from the time when henry and margaret were driven away, apparently into hopeless exile, they came back in triumph, and were restored to power, and edward himself, in his turn, was ignominiously expelled from the kingdom. the narrative of the circumstances through which these events were brought about forms quite a romantic story. in order, however, that this story may be more clearly understood, i will first enumerate the principal personages that take a part in it, and briefly remind the reader of the position which they respectively occupied, and the relations which they sustained to each other. first, there is the family of king henry, consisting of himself and his wife, queen margaret, and his little son edward, who had received the title of prince of wales. this boy was about eight years old at the time his father and mother were driven away. we left them, in the last chapter, flying toward the frontiers of scotland to save their lives, leaving to edward and his troops the full possession of the kingdom. henry and his little son, the prince of wales, of course represent the house of lancaster in the dispute for the succession. the house of york was represented by edward, whose title, as king, was edward the fourth, and his two brothers, george and richard, or, as they were now generally called, clarence and gloucester. in case edward should be married and have a son, his son would succeed him, and george and richard would be excluded; if, however, he should die without issue, then george would become king; and if george should die without issue, and richard should survive him, then richard would succeed. thus, as matters now stood, george and richard were presumptive heirs to the crown, and it was natural that they should wish that their brother edward should never be married. besides these two brothers, who were the only ones of all his brothers that were now living, edward had a sister named margaret. margaret was four years younger than edward the king, and about six years older than richard. she was now about seventeen. a young lady of that age in the family of a king in those days was quite a treasure, as the king was enabled to promote his political schemes sometimes very effectually by bestowing her in marriage upon this great prince or that, as would best further the interests which he had in view in foreign courts. this young lady, edward's sister, being of the same name--margaret--with the queen of old king henry, was distinguished from her by being called margaret of york, as she belonged to the york family. the queen was generally known as margaret of anjou. anjou was the place of her nativity. the next great personage to be named is the earl of warwick. he was the man, as you will doubtless recollect, who was in command of the sea between england and the continent at the time when lady cecily wished to send her children, george and richard, away after their father's death, and who assisted in arranging their flight. he was a man of great power and influence, and of such an age and character that he exerted a vast ascendency over all within his influence. without him, edward never would have conquered the lancaster party, and he knew very well that if warwick, and all those whom warwick would carry with him, were to desert him, he should not be able to retain his kingdom. indeed, warwick received the surname of _king-maker_ from the fact that, in repeated instances during this quarrel, he put down one dynasty and raised up the other, just as he pleased. he belonged to a great and powerful family named neville. as soon as edward was established on his throne, warwick, almost as a matter of course, became prime minister. one of his brothers was made chancellor, and a great number of other posts of distinction and honor were distributed among the members of the neville family. indeed, although edward was nominally king, it might have been considered in some degree a question whether it was the house of york or the house of neville that actually reigned in england. the earl of warwick had two daughters. their names were isabella and anne. these two young ladies the earl reckoned, as edward did his sister margaret, among the most important of his political resources. by marrying them to persons of very high position, he could strengthen his alliances and increase his power. there was even a possibility, he thought, of marrying one of them to the king of england, or to a prince who would become king. thus we have for the three great parties to the transactions now to be described, first, the representatives of the house of lancaster, the feeble henry, the energetic and strong-minded margaret of anjou, and their little son, the prince of wales; secondly, the representatives of the house of york, king edward the fourth, the two young men his brothers, george, duke of clarence, and richard, duke of gloucester, and his sister margaret; and, thirdly, between these two parties, as it were, the earl of warwick and his two daughters, isabella and anne, standing at the head of a vast family influence, which ramified to every part of the kingdom, and was powerful enough to give the ascendency to either side, in favor of which they might declare. we are now prepared to follow queen margaret in her flight toward the north with her husband and her son, at the time when edward the fourth overcame her armies and ascended the throne. she pressed on as rapidly as possible, taking the king and the little prince with her, and accompanied and assisted in her flight by a few attendants, till she had crossed the frontier and was safe in scotland. the scots espoused her cause, and assisted her to raise fresh troops, with which she made one or two short incursions into england; but she soon found that she could do nothing effectual in this way, and so, after wasting some time in fruitless attempts, she left scotland with the king and the prince, and went to france. here she entered into negotiations with the king of france, and with other princes and potentates, on the continent, with a view of raising men and money for a new invasion of england. at first these powers declined to assist her. they said that their treasuries were exhausted, and that they had no men. at last, however, margaret promised to the king of france that if he would furnish her with a fleet and an army, by which she could recover the kingdom of her husband, she would cede to him the town of calais, which, though situated on the coast of france, was at that time an english possession. this was a very tempting offer, for calais was a fortress of the first class, and a military post either for england or france of a very important character. the king consented to this proposal. he equipped a fleet and raised an army, and margaret set sail for england, taking the king and the prince with her. her plan was to land in the northern part of the island, near the frontiers of scotland, where she expected to find the country more friendly to the lancastrian line than the people were toward the south. as soon as she landed she was joined by many of the people, and she succeeded in capturing some castles and small towns. but the earl of warwick, who was, as has been already said, the prime minister under edward, immediately raised an army of twenty thousand men, and marched to the northward to meet her. margaret's french army was wholly unprepared to encounter such a force as this, so they fled to their ships. all but about five hundred of the men succeeded in reaching the ships. the five hundred were cut to pieces. margaret herself was detained in making arrangements for the king and the prince. she concluded not to take them to sea again, but to send them secretly into wales, while she herself went back to france to see if she could not procure re-enforcements. she barely had time, at last, to reach the ships herself, so close at hand were her enemies. as soon as the queen had embarked, the fleet set sail. the queen had saved nearly all the money and all the stores which she had brought with her from france, and she hoped still to preserve them for another attempt. but the fleet had scarcely got off from the shore when a terrible storm arose, and the ships were all driven upon the rocks and dashed to pieces. the money and the stores were all lost; a large portion of the men were drowned; margaret herself and the captain of the fleet saved themselves, and, as soon as the storm was over, they succeeded in making their escape back to berwick in an old fishing-boat which they obtained on the shore. soon after this, margaret, with the captain of the fleet and a very small number of faithful followers who still adhered to her, sailed back again to france. the disturbances, however, which her landing had occasioned, did not cease immediately on her departure. the lancastrian party all over england were excited and moved to action by the news of her coming, and for two years insurrections were continually taking place, and many battles were fought, and great numbers of people were killed. king henry was all this time kept in close concealment, sometimes in wales, and sometimes among the lakes and mountains in westmoreland. he was conveyed from place to place by his adherents in the most secret manner, the knowledge in respect to his situation being confined to the smallest possible number of persons. this continued for two or three years. at last, however, while the friends of the king were attempting secretly to convey him to a certain castle in yorkshire, he was seen and recognized by one of his enemies. a plan was immediately formed to make him prisoner. the plan succeeded. the king was surprised by an overwhelming force, which broke into the castle and seized him while he sat at dinner. his captors, and those who were lying in wait to assist them, galloped off at once with their prisoner to london. king edward shut him up in the tower, and he remained there, closely confined and strongly guarded for a long time. thus king henry's life was saved, but of those who espoused his cause, and made attempts to restore him, great numbers were seized and beheaded in the most cruel manner. it was edward's policy to slay all the leaders. it was said that after a battle he would ride with a company of men over the ground, and kill every wounded or exhausted man of rank that still remained alive, though he would spare the common soldiers. sometimes, when he got men that were specially obnoxious to him into his hands, he would put them to death in the most cruel and ignominious manner. one distinguished knight, that had been taken prisoner by warwick, was brought to king edward, who, at that time, as it happened, was sick, and by edward's orders was treated most brutally. he was first taken out into a public place, and his spurs were struck off from his feet by a cook. this was one of the greatest indignities that a knight could suffer. then his coat of arms was torn off from him, and another coat, inside out, was put upon him. then he was made to walk barefoot to the end of the town, and there was laid down upon his back on a sort of drag, and so drawn to the place of execution, where his head was cut off on a block with a broad-axe. such facts as these show what a state of exasperation the two great parties of york and lancaster were in toward each other throughout the kingdom. it is necessary to understand this, in order fully to appreciate the import and consequences of the very extraordinary transaction which is now to be related. it seems there was a certain knight named sir john gray, a lancastrian, who had been killed at one of the great battles which had been fought during the war. he had also been attainted, as it was called--that is, sentence had been pronounced against him on a charge of high treason, by which his estates were forfeited, and his wife and children, of course, reduced to poverty. the name of his wife was elizabeth woodville. she was the daughter of a noble knight named sir richard woodville. her mother's name was jacquetta. on the death and attainder of her husband, being reduced to great poverty and distress, she went home to the house of her father and mother, at a beautiful manor which they possessed at grafton. she was quite young, and very beautiful. it happened that by some means or other edward paid a visit one day to the lady jacquetta, at her manor, as he was passing through the country. whether this visit was accidental, or whether it was contrived by jacquetta, does not appear. however this may be, the beautiful widow came into the presence of the king, and, throwing herself at his feet, begged and implored him to revoke the attainder of her husband for the sake of her innocent and helpless children. the king was much moved by her beauty and by her distress. from pitying her he soon began to love her. and yet it seemed impossible that he should marry her. her rank, in the first place, was far below his, and then, what was worse, she belonged to the lancastrian party, the king's implacable enemies. the king knew very well that all his own partisans would be made furious at the idea of such a match, and that, if they knew that it was in contemplation, they would resist it to the utmost of their power. for a time he did not know what he should do. at length, however, his love for the beautiful widow, as might easily be foreseen, triumphed over all considerations of prudence, and he was secretly married to her. the marriage took place in the morning, in a very private manner, in the month of may, in 1464. the king kept the marriage secret nearly all summer. he thought it best to break the subject to his lords and nobles gradually, as he had opportunity to communicate it to them one by one. in this way it at length became known, without producing, at any one time, any special sensation, and toward the fall preparations were made for openly acknowledging the union. [illustration: king edward iv. this engraving is a portrait of king edward as he appeared at this time. it is copied from an ancient painting, and doubtless represents correctly the character and expression of his countenance, and one form, at least, of dress which he was accustomed to wear. he was, at the time of his marriage, about twenty-two years of age. elizabeth was ten years older.] [illustration: queen elizabeth woodville. this engraving represents the queen. it is taken, like the other, from an ancient portrait, and no doubt corresponds closely to the original.] although the knowledge of the king's marriage produced no sudden outbreak of opposition, it awakened a great deal of secret indignation and rage, and gave occasion to many suppressed mutterings and curses. of course, every leading family of the realm, that had been on edward's side in the civil wars, which contained a marriageable daughter, had been forming hopes and laying plans to secure this magnificent match for themselves. those who had no marriageable daughters of their own joined their nearest relatives and friends in their schemes, or formed plans for some foreign alliance with a princess of france, or burgundy, or holland, whichever would best harmonize with the political schemes that they wished to promote. the earl of warwick seems to have belonged to the former class. he had two daughters, as has already been stated. it would very naturally be his desire that the king, if he were to take for his wife any english subject at all, should make choice of one of these. of course, he was more than all the rest irritated and vexed at what the king had done. he communicated his feelings to clarence, but concealed them from the king. clarence was, of course, ready to sympathize with the earl. he was ready enough to take offense at any thing connected with the king's marriage on very slight grounds, for it was very much for his interest, as the next heir, that his brother should not be married at all. [illustration: westminster in times of public celebrations.] the earl and clarence, however, thought it best for the time to suppress and conceal their opposition to the marriage; so they joined very readily in the ceremonies connected with the public acknowledgment of the queen. a vast assemblage of nobles, prelates, and other grand dignitaries was convened, and elizabeth was brought forward before them and formally presented. the earl of warwick and clarence appeared in the foremost rank among her friends on this occasion. they took her by the hand, and, leading her forward, presented her to the assembled multitude of lords and ladies, who welcomed her with long and loud acclamations. soon after this a grand council was convened, and a handsome income was settled upon the queen, to enable her properly to maintain the dignity of her station. early in the next year preparations were made for a grand coronation of the queen. foreign princes were invited to attend the ceremony, and many came, accompanied by large bodies of knights and squires, to do honor to the occasion. the coronation took place in may. the queen was conveyed in procession through the streets of london on a sort of open palanquin, borne by horses most magnificently caparisoned. vast crowds of people assembled along the streets to look at the procession as it passed. the next day the coronation itself took place in westminster, and it was followed by games, feasts, tournaments, and public rejoicings of every kind, which lasted many days. thus far every thing on the surface, at least, had gone well; but it was not long after the coronation before the troubles which were to be expected from such a match began to develop themselves in great force. the new queen was ambitious, and she was naturally desirous of bringing her friends forward into places of influence and honor. the king was, of course, ready to listen to her recommendations; but then all her friends were lancastrians. they were willing enough, it is true, to change their politics and to become yorkists for the sake of the rewards and honors which they could obtain by the change, but the old friends of the king were greatly exasperated to find the important posts, one after another, taken away from them, and given to their hated enemies. then, besides the quarrel for the political offices, there were a great many of the cherished matrimonial plans and schemes of the old families interfered with and broken up by the queen's family thus coming into power. it happened that the queen had five unmarried sisters. she began to form plans for securing for them men of the highest rank and position in the realm. this, of course, thwarted the plans and disappointed the hopes of all those families who had been scheming to gain these husbands for their own daughters. to see five great heirs of dukes and barons thus withdrawn from the matrimonial market, and employed to increase the power and prestige of their ancient and implacable foes, filled the souls of the old yorkist families with indignation. parties were formed. the queen and her family and friends--the woodvilles and grays--with all their adherents, were on one side; the neville family, with the earl of warwick at their head, and most of the old yorkist noblemen, were on the other; clarence joined the earl of warwick; richard, on the other hand, or gloucester, as he was now called, adhered to the king. things went on pretty much in this way for two years. there was no open quarrel, though there was a vast deal of secret animosity and bickering. the great world at court was divided into two sets, or cliques, that hated each other very cordially, though both, for the present, pretended to support king edward as the rightful sovereign of the country. the struggle was for the honors and offices under him. the families who still adhered to the old lancastrian party, and to the rights of henry and of the little prince of wales, withdrew, of course, altogether from the court, and, retiring to their castles, brooded moodily there over their fallen fortunes, and waited in expectation of better times. henry was imprisoned in the tower; margaret and the prince of wales were on the continent. they and their friends were, of course, watching the progress of the quarrel between the party of the earl of warwick and that of the king, hoping that it might at last lead to an open rupture, in which case the lancastrians might hope for warwick's aid to bring them again into power. [illustration: warwick in the presence of the french king.] and now another circumstance occurred which widened this breach very much indeed. it arose from a difference of opinion between king edward and the earl of warwick in respect to the marriage of the king's sister margaret, known, as has already been said, as margaret of york. there was upon the continent a certain count charles, the son and heir of the duke of burgundy, who demanded her hand. the count's family had been enemies of the house of york, and had done every thing in their power to promote queen margaret's plans, so long as there was any hope for her; but when they found that king edward was firmly established on the throne, they came over to his side, and now the count demanded the hand of the princess margaret in marriage; but the stern old earl of warwick did not like such friendship as this, so he recommended that the count should be refused, and that margaret should have for her husband one of the princes of france. now king edward himself preferred count charles for the husband of margaret, and this chiefly because the queen, his wife, preferred him on account of the old friendship which had subsisted between his family and the lancastrians. besides this, however, flanders, the country over which the count was to reign on the death of his father, was at that time so situated that an alliance with it would be of greater advantage to edward's political plans than an alliance with france. but, notwithstanding this, the earl was so earnest in urging his opinion, that finally edward yielded, and the earl was dispatched to france to negotiate the marriage with the french prince. the earl set off on this embassy in great magnificence. he landed in normandy with a vast train of attendants, and proceeded in almost royal state toward paris. the king of france, to honor his coming and the occasion, came forth to meet him. the meeting took place at rouen. the proposals were well received by the french king. the negotiations were continued for eight or ten days, and at last every thing was arranged. for the final closing of the contract, it was necessary that a messenger from the king of france should proceed to london. the king appointed an archbishop and some other dignitaries to perform the service. the earl then returned to england, and was soon followed by the french embassadors, expecting that every thing essential was settled, and that nothing but a few formalities remained. but, in the mean time, while all this had been going on in france, count charles had quietly sent an embassador to england to press his claim to the princess's hand. this messenger managed this business very skillfully, so as not to attract any public attention to what he was doing; and besides, the earl being away, the queen, elizabeth, could exert all her influence over her husband's mind unimpeded. edward was finally persuaded to promise margaret's hand to the count, and the contracts were made; so that, when the earl and the french embassadors arrived, they found, to their astonishment and dismay, that a rival and enemy had stepped in during their absence and secured the prize. the earl of warwick was furious when he learned how he had been deceived. he had been insulted, he said, and disgraced. edward made no attempt to pacify him; indeed, any attempt that he could have made would probably have been fruitless. the earl withdrew from the court, went off to one of his castles, and shut himself up there in great displeasure. the quarrel now began to assume a very serious air. edward suspected that the earl was forming plots and conspiracies against him. he feared that he was secretly designing to take measures for restoring the lancastrian line to the throne. he was alarmed for his personal safety. he expelled all warwick's family and friends from the court, and, whenever he went out in public, he took care to be always attended by a strong body-guard, as if he thought there was danger of an attempt upon his life. at length one of the earl's brothers, the youngest of the family, who was at that time archbishop of york, interposed to effect a reconciliation. we have not space here to give a full account of the negotiations; but the result was, a sort of temporary peace was made, by which the earl again returned to court, and was restored apparently to his former position. but there was no cordial good-will between him and the king. edward dreaded the earl's power, and hated the stern severity of his character, while the earl, by the commanding influence which he exerted in the realm, was continually thwarting both edward and elizabeth in their plans. edward and elizabeth had now been married some time, but they had no son, and, of course, no heir, for daughters in those days did not inherit the english crown. of course, clarence, edward's second brother, was the next heir. this increased the jealousy which the two brothers felt toward each other, and tended very much to drive clarence away from edward, and to increase the intimacy between clarence and warwick. at length, in 1468, it was announced that a marriage was in contemplation between clarence and isabella, the earl of warwick's oldest daughter. edward and queen elizabeth were very much displeased and very much alarmed when they heard of this plan. if carried into effect, it would bind clarence and the warwick influence together in indissoluble bonds, and make their power much more formidable than ever before. every body would say when the marriage was concluded, "now, in case edward should die, which event may happen at any time, the earl's daughter will be queen, and then the earl will have a greater influence than ever in the disposition of offices and honors. it behooves us, therefore, to make friends with him in season, so as to secure his good-will in advance, before he comes into power." king edward and his queen, seeing how much this match was likely at once to increase the earl's importance, did every thing in their power to prevent it. but they could not succeed. the earl was determined that clarence and his daughter should be married. the opposition was, however, so strong at court that the marriage could not be celebrated at london; so the ceremony was performed at calais, which city was at that time under the earl's special command. the king and queen remained at london, and made no attempt to conceal their vexation and chagrin. chapter vi. the downfall of york. 1469-1470 insurrections.--the king goes to meet the rebels.--rebellion suppressed.--a grand reconciliation.--the king frightened.--the quarrel renewed.--new reconciliations.--new rebellions.--warwick comes to open war with the king.--warwick and his party not allowed to land at calais.--the party in great straits.--they land at harfleur.--strange compact between warwick and queen margaret.--attempt to entice clarence away from warwick.--edward does not fear.--the duke of burgundy.--queen margaret crosses the channel.--landing of the expedition.--reception of it.--edward's friends and followers forsake him.--edward flies from the country.--difficulties and dangers.--his mother makes her escape to sanctuary.--birth of edward's son and heir.--king henry is fully restored to the throne. edward's apprehension and anxiety in respect to the danger that warwick might be concocting schemes to restore the lancastrian line to the throne were greatly increased by the sudden breaking out of insurrections in the northern part of the island, while warwick and clarence were absent in calais, on the occasion of clarence's marriage to isabella. the insurgents did not demand the restoration of the lancastrian line, but only the removal of the queen's family and relations from the council. the king raised an armed force, and marched to the northward to meet the rebels. but his army was disaffected, and he could do nothing. they fled before the advancing army of insurgents, and edward went with them to nottingham castle, where he shut himself up, and wrote urgently to warwick and clarence to come to his aid. warwick made no haste to obey this command. after some delay, however, he left calais in command of one of his lieutenants and repaired to nottingham, where he soon released the king from his dangerous situation. he quelled the rebellion too, but not until the insurgents had seized the father and one of the brothers of the queen, and cut off their heads. in the mean time, the lancastrians themselves, thinking that this was a favorable time for them, began to put themselves in motion. warwick was the only person who was capable of meeting them and putting them down. this he did, taking the king with him in his train, in a condition more like that of a prisoner than a sovereign. at length, however, the rebellions were suppressed, and all parties returned to london. there now took place what purported to be a grand reconciliation. treaties were drawn up and signed between warwick and clarence on one side, and the king on the other, by which both parties bound themselves to forgive and forget all that had passed, and thenceforth to be good friends; but, notwithstanding all the solemn signings and sealings with which these covenants were secured, the actual condition of the parties in respect to each other remained entirely unchanged, and neither of the three felt a whit more confidence in the others after the execution of these treaties than before. at last the secret distrust which they felt toward each other broke out openly. warwick's brother, the archbishop of york, made an entertainment at one of his manors for a party of guests, in which were included the king, the duke of clarence, and the earl of warwick. it was about three months after the treaties were signed that this entertainment was made, and the feast was intended to celebrate and cement the good understanding which it was now agreed was henceforth to prevail. the king arrived at the manor, and, while he was in his room making his toilet for the supper, which was all ready to be served, an attendant came to him and whispered in his ear, "your majesty is in danger. there is a band of armed men in ambush near the house." the king was greatly alarmed at hearing this. he immediately stole out of the house, mounted his horse, and, with two or three followers, rode away as fast as he could ride. he continued his journey all night, and in the morning arrived at windsor castle. then followed new negotiations between warwick and the king, with mutual reproaches, criminations, and recriminations without number. edward insisted that treachery was intended at the house to which he had been invited, and that he had barely escaped, by his sudden flight, from falling into the snare. but warwick and his friends denied this entirely, and attributed the flight of the king to a wholly unreasonable alarm, caused by his jealous and suspicious temper. at last edward suffered himself to be reassured, and then came new treaties and a new reconciliation. this peace was made in the fall of 1469, and in the spring of 1470 a new insurrection broke out. the king believed that warwick himself, and clarence, were really at the bottom of these disturbances, but still he was forced to send them with bodies of troops to subdue the rebels; he, however, immediately raised a large army for himself, and proceeded to the seat of war. he reached the spot before warwick and clarence arrived there. he gave battle to the insurgents, and defeated them. he took a great many prisoners, and beheaded them. he found, or pretended to find, proof that warwick and clarence, instead of intending to fight the insurgents, had made their arrangements for joining them on the following day, and that he had been just in time to defeat their treachery. whether he really found evidence of these intentions on the part of warwick and clarence or not, or whether he was flushed by the excitement of victory, and resolved to seize the occasion to cut loose at once and forever from the entanglement in which he had been bound, is somewhat uncertain. at all events, he now declared open war against warwick and clarence, and set off immediately on his march to meet them, at the head of a force much superior to theirs. warwick and clarence marched and countermarched, and made many manoeuvres to escape a battle, and during all this time their strength was rapidly diminishing. as long as they were nominally on the king's side, however really hostile to him, they had plenty of followers; but, now that they were in open war against him, their forces began to melt away. in this emergency, warwick suddenly changed all his plans. he disbanded his army, and then taking all his family with him, including clarence and isabella, and accompanied by an inconsiderable number of faithful friends, he marched at the head of a small force which he retained as an escort to the sea-port of dartmouth, and then embarked for calais. the vessels employed to transport the party formed quite a little fleet, so numerous were the servants and attendants that accompanied the fugitives. they embarked without delay on reaching the coast, as they were in haste to make the passage and arrive at calais, for isabella, clarence's wife, was about to become a mother, and at calais they thought that they should all be, as it were, at home. it will be remembered that the earl of warwick was the governor of calais, and that when he left it he had appointed a lieutenant to take command of it during his absence. before his ship arrived off the port this lieutenant had received dispatches from edward, which had been hurried to him by a special messenger, informing him that warwick was in rebellion against his sovereign, and forbidding the lieutenant to allow him or his party to enter the town. accordingly, when warwick's fleet arrived off the port, they found the guns of the batteries pointed at them, and sentinels on the piers warning them not to attempt to land. warwick was thunderstruck. to be thus refused admission to his own fortress by his own lieutenant was something amazing, as well as outrageous. the earl was at first completely bewildered; but, on demanding an explanation, the lieutenant sent him word that the refusal to land was owing to the people of the town. they, he said, having learned that he and the king had come to open war, insisted that the fortress should be reserved for their sovereign. warwick then explained the situation that his daughter was in; but the lieutenant was firm. the determination of the people was so strong, he said, that he could not control it. finally, the child was born on board the ship, as it lay at anchor off the port, and all the aid or comfort which the party could get from the shore consisted of two flagons of wine, which the lieutenant, with great hesitation and reluctance, allowed to be sent on board. the child was a son. his birth was an event of great importance, for he was, of course, as clarence's son, a prince in the direct line of succession to the english crown. at length, finding that he could not land at calais, warwick sailed away with his fleet along the coast of france till he reached the french port of harfleur. here his ships were admitted, and the whole party were allowed to land. then followed various intrigues, manoeuvres, and arrangements, which we have not time here fully to unravel; but the end of all was, that in a few weeks after the earl of warwick's landing in france, he repaired to a castle where margaret of anjou and her son, the prince of wales, were residing, and there, in the course of a short time, he made arrangements to espouse her cause, and assist in restoring her husband to the english throne, on condition that her son, the prince of wales, should marry his second daughter anne. it is said that queen margaret for a long time refused to consent to this arrangement. she was extremely unwilling that her son, the heir to the english crown, should take for a wife the daughter of the hated enemy to whom the downfall of her family, and all the terrible calamities which had befallen them, had been mainly owing. she was, however, at length induced to yield. her ambition gained the victory over her hate, and she consented to the alliance on a solemn oath being taken by warwick that thenceforth he would be on her side, and do all in his power to restore her family to the throne. this arrangement was accordingly carried into effect, and thus the earl had one of his daughters married to the next heir to the english crown in the line of york, and the other to the next heir in the line of lancaster. he had now only to choose to which dynasty he would secure the throne. of course, the oath which he had taken, like other political oaths taken in those days, was only to be kept so long as he should deem it for his interest to keep it. he could not at once openly declare in favor of king henry, for fear of alienating clarence from him. but clarence was soon drawn away. king edward, when he heard of the marriage of warwick's daughter with the prince of wales, immediately formed a plan for sending a messenger to negotiate with clarence. he could not do this openly, for he knew very well that warwick would not allow any avowed messenger from edward to land; so he sent a lady. the lady was a particular friend of isabella, clarence's wife. she traveled privately by the way of calais. on the way she said nothing about the object of her journey, but gave out simply that she was going to join her mistress, the princess isabella. on her arrival she managed the affair with great discretion. she easily obtained private interviews with clarence, and represented to him that warwick, now that his daughter was married to the heir on the lancastrian side, would undoubtedly lay all his plans forthwith for putting that family on the throne, and that thus clarence would lose all. "and therefore," said she, "how much better it will be for you to leave him and return to your brother edward, who is ready to forgive and forget all the past, and receive you again as his friend." clarence was convinced by these representations, and soon afterward, watching his opportunity, he made his way to england, and there espoused his brother's cause, and was received again into his service. in the mean time, tidings were continually coming to king edward from his friends on the continent, warning him of warwick's plans, and bidding him to be upon his guard. but edward had no fear. he said he wished that warwick would come. "all i ask of my friends on the other side of the channel," said he, "is that, when he does come, they will not let him get away again before i catch him--as he did before." edward's great friend across the channel was his brother-in-law, the duke of burgundy, the same who, when count charles, had married the princess margaret of york, as related in a former chapter. the duke of burgundy prepared and equipped a fleet, and had it all in readiness to intercept the earl in case he should attempt to sail for england. in the mean time, queen margaret and the earl went on with their preparations. the king of france furnished them with men, arms, and money. when every thing was ready, the earl sent word to the north of england, to some of his friends and partisans there, to make a sort of false insurrection, in order to entice away edward and his army from the capital. this plan succeeded. edward heard of the rising, and, collecting all the troops which were at hand, he marched to the northward to put it down. just at this time a sudden storm arose and dispersed the duke of burgundy's fleet. the earl then immediately put to sea, taking with him margaret of anjou and her son, the prince of wales, with his wife, the earl of warwick's daughter. the prince of wales was now about eighteen years old. the father, king henry, margaret's husband, was not joined with the party. he was all this time, as you will recollect, a prisoner in the tower, where warwick himself had shut him up when he deposed him in order to place edward upon the throne. all europe looked on with astonishment at these proceedings, and watched the result with intense interest. here was a man who, having, by a desperate and bloody war, deposed a king, and shut him up in prison, and compelled his queen and the prince his son, the heir, to fly from the country to save their lives, had now sought the exiles in their banishment, had married his own daughter to the prince, and was setting forth on an expedition for the purpose of liberating the father again, and restoring him to the throne. the earl's fleet crossed the channel safely, and landed on the coast of devonshire, in the southwestern part of the island. the landing of the expedition was the signal for great numbers of the nobles and high families throughout the realm to prepare for changing sides; for it was the fact, throughout the whole course of these wars between the houses of york and lancaster, that a large proportion of the nobility and gentry, and great numbers of other adventurers, who lived in various ways on the public, stood always ready at once to change sides whenever there was a prospect that another side was coming into power. then there were, in such a case as this, great numbers who were secretly in favor of the lancaster line, but who were prevented from manifesting their preference while the house of york was in full possession of power. all these persons were aroused and excited by the landing of warwick. king edward found that his calls upon his friends to rally to his standard were not promptly obeyed. his friends were beginning to feel some doubt whether it would be best to continue his friends. a certain preacher in london had the courage to pray in public for the "king in the tower," and the manner in which this allusion was received by the populace, and the excitement which it produced, showed how ready the city of london was to espouse henry's cause. these, and other such indications, alarmed edward very much. he turned to the southward again when he learned that warwick had landed. richard, who had, during all this period, adhered faithfully to edward's cause, was with him, in command of a division of the army. as warwick himself was rapidly advancing toward the north at this time, the two armies soon began to approach each other. as the time of trial drew nigh, edward found that his friends and supporters were rapidly abandoning him. at length, one day, while he was at dinner, a messenger came in and told him that one of the leading officers of the army, with the whole division under his command, were waving their caps and cheering for "king harry." he saw at once that all was lost, and he immediately prepared to fly. he was not far from the eastern coast at this time, and there was a small vessel there under his orders, which had been employed in bringing provisions from the thames to supply his army. there were also two dutch vessels there. the king took possession of these vessels, with richard, and the few other followers that went with him, and put at once to sea. nobody knew where they were going. very soon after they had put to sea they were attacked by pirates. they escaped only by running their vessel on shore on the coast of finland. here the king found himself in a state of almost absolute destitution, so that he had to pawn his clothing to satisfy the most urgent demands. at length, after meeting with various strange adventures, he found his way to the hague, where he was, for the time, in comparative safety. as soon as warwick ascertained that edward had fled, he turned toward london, with nothing now to impede his progress. he entered london in triumph. clarence joined him, and entered london in his train; for clarence, though he had gone to england with the intention of making common cause with his brother, had not been able yet to decide positively whether it would, on the whole, be for his interest to do so, and had, accordingly, kept himself in some degree uncommitted, and now he turned at once again to warwick's side. the queen--elizabeth woodville--with her mother jacquetta, were residing at the tower at this time, where they had king henry in their keeping; for the tower was an extended group of buildings, in which palace and prison were combined in one. as soon as the queen learned that edward was defeated, and that warwick and clarence were coming in triumph to london, she took her mother and three of her daughters--elizabeth, mary, and cecily--who were with her at that time, and also a lady attendant, and hurried down the tower stairs to a barge which was always in waiting there. she embarked on board the barge, and ordered the men to row her up to westminster. westminster is at the upper end of london, as the tower is at the lower. on arriving at westminster, the whole party fled for refuge to a sanctuary there. this sanctuary was a portion of the sacred precincts of a church, from which a refugee could not be taken, according to the ideas of those times, without committing the dreadful crime of sacrilege. a part of the building remained standing for three hundred years after this time, as represented in the opposite engraving. it was a gloomy old edifice, and it must have been a cheerless residence for princesses and a queen. [illustration: the sanctuary.] in this sanctuary, the queen, away from her husband, and deprived of almost every comfort, gave birth to her first son. some persons living near took compassion upon her forlorn and desolate condition, and rendered her such aid as was absolutely necessary, out of charity. the abbot of the monastery connected with the church sent in various conveniences, and a good woman named mother cobb, who lived near by, came in and acted as nurse for the mother and the child. the child was baptized in the sanctuary a few days after he was born. he was named edward, after his father. of course, the birth of this son of king edward cut off clarence and his son from the succession on the york side. this little edward was now the heir, and, about thirteen years after this, as we shall see in the sequel, he became king of england. as soon as the earl of warwick reached london, he proceeded at once to the tower to release old king henry from his confinement. he found the poor king in a wretched plight. his apartment was gloomy and comfortless, his clothing was ragged, and his person squalid and dirty. the earl brought him forth from his prison, and, after causing his personal wants to be properly attended to, clothed him once more in royal robes, and conveyed him in state through london to the palace in westminster, and established him there nominally as king of england, though warwick was to all intents and purposes the real king. a parliament was called, and all necessary laws were passed to sanction and confirm the dynasty. queen margaret, who, however, had not yet arrived from the continent, was restored to her former rank, and the young prince of wales, now about eighteen years old, was the object of universal interest throughout the kingdom, as now the unquestioned and only heir to the crown. chapter vii. the downfall of lancaster. a.d. 1470-1471 position of richard.--the duke of burgundy.--his cunning.--secret communication with clarence.--warwick's plans to secure clarence.--edward and richard sail for england.--stratagems of war.--reception of edward at york.--the roses.--public opinion.--warwick.--position of clarence.--his double dealing.--clarence goes over to edward's side.--edward triumphant.--henry again sent to the tower.--warwick refuses to yield.--preparations for a battle.--edward victorious.--warwick slain.--king henry.--margaret and the prince of wales.--meeting of the armies.--two boys to command.--the killing of lord wenlock.--end of the battle.--murder of the prince of wales.--the queen's refuge.--edward in the church.--margaret taken.--conducted a prisoner to london.--henry is put to death in the tower.--burial of henry vi.--the lancastrian party completely subdued. it was in the month of october, 1470, that old king henry and his family were restored to the throne. clarence, as we have seen, being allied to warwick by being married to his daughter, was induced to go over with him to the lancastrian side; but gloucester--that is, richard--remained true to his own line, and followed the fortunes of his brother, in adverse as well as in prosperous times, with unchanging fidelity. he was now with edward in the dominions of the duke of burgundy, who, you will recollect, married margaret, edward's sister, and who was now very naturally inclined to espouse edward's cause. the duke of burgundy did not, however, dare to espouse edward's cause too openly, for fear of the king of france, who took the side of henry and queen margaret. he, however, did all in his power secretly to befriend him. edward and richard began immediately to form schemes for going back to england and recovering possession of the kingdom. the duke of burgundy issued a public proclamation, in which it was forbidden that any of his subjects should join edward, or that any expedition to promote his designs should be fitted out in any part of his dominions. this proclamation was for the sake of the king of france. at the same time that he issued these orders publicly, he secretly sent edward a large sum of money, furnished him with a fleet of fifteen or twenty ships, and assisted him in collecting a force of twelve hundred men. while he was making these arrangements and preparations on the continent, edward and his friends had also opened a secret communication with clarence in england. it would, of course, very much weaken the cause of edward and richard to have clarence against them; so margaret, the wife of the duke of burgundy, interested herself in endeavoring to win him back again to their side. she had herself great influence over him, and she was assisted in her efforts by their mother, the lady cecily, who was still living in the neighborhood of london, and who was greatly grieved at clarence's having turned against his brothers. the tie which bound clarence to the earl of warwick was, of course, derived chiefly from his being married to warwick's daughter. warwick, however, did not trust wholly to this. as soon as he had restored henry to the throne, he contrived a cunning plan which he thought would tend to bind clarence still more strongly to himself, and to alienate him completely from edward. this plan was to induce the parliament to confiscate all edward's estates and confer them upon clarence. "now," said warwick to himself, when this measure had been accomplished, "clarence will be sure to oppose edward's return to england, for he knows very well that if he should return and be restored to the throne, he would, of course, take all these estates back again." but, while edward was forming his plans on the continent for a fresh invasion of england, margaret sent messengers to clarence, and their persuasions, united to those of his mother, induced clarence to change his mind. he was governed by no principle whatever in what he did, but only looked to see what would most speedily and most fully gratify his ambition and increase his wealth. so, when they argued that it would be much better for him to be on the side of his brothers, and assist in restoring his own branch of the family to the throne, than to continue his unnatural connection with warwick and the house of lancaster, he allowed himself to be easily persuaded, and he promised that though, for the present, he should remain ostensibly a friend of warwick, still, if edward and richard would raise an expedition and come to england, he would forsake warwick and the lancasters, and join them. accordingly, in the spring, when the fleet and the forces were ready, edward and richard set sail from the low country to cross the channel. it was early in march. they intended to proceed to the north of england and land there. they had a very stormy passage, and in the end the fleet was dispersed, and edward and richard with great difficulty succeeded in reaching the land. the two brothers were in different ships, and they landed in different places, a few miles apart from each other. their situation was now extremely critical, for all england was in the power of warwick and the lancastrians, and edward and richard were almost entirely without men. they, however, after a time, got together a small force, consisting chiefly of the troops who had come with them, and who had succeeded at last in making their way to the land. at the head of this force they advanced into the country toward the city of york. edward gave out every where that he had not come with any view of attempting to regain possession of the throne, but only to recover his own private and family estates, which had been unjustly confiscated, he said, and conferred upon his brother. he acquiesced entirely, he said, in the restoration of henry to the throne, and acknowledged him as king, and solemnly declared that he would not do any thing to disturb the peace of the country. all this was treacherous and false; but edward and richard thought that they were not yet strong enough to announce openly their real designs, and, in the mean time, the uttering of any false declarations which they might deem it good policy to make was to be considered as a stratagem justified by usage, as one of the legitimate resources of war. so they went on, nobody opposing them. they reached, at length, the city of york. here edward met the mayor and aldermen of the city, and renewed his declaration, which he confirmed by a solemn oath, that he never would lay any claim to the throne of england, or do any thing to disturb king henry in his possession of it. he cried out, in a loud voice, in the hearing of the people, "long live king henry, and prince edward his son!" he wore an ostrich feather, too, in his armor, which was the badge of prince edward. the people of york were satisfied with these protestations, and allowed him to proceed. his force was continually increasing as he advanced, and at length, on crossing the river trent, he came to a part of the country where almost the whole population had been on the side of york during all the previous wars. he began now to throw off his disguise, and to avow more openly that his object was again to obtain possession of the throne for the house of york. his troops now began to exhibit the white rose, which for many generations had been the badge of the house of york, as the red rose had been that of lancaster.[f] in a word, the country was every where aroused and excited by the idea that another revolution was impending, and all those whose ruling principle it was to be always with the party that was uppermost began to make preparations for coming over to edward's side. [footnote f: it was in consequence of this use of the roses, as the badges of the two parties respectively, that the civil wars between these two great families are often called in history the wars of the roses.] in the mean time, however, warwick, alarmed, had come from the northward to london to meet the invaders at the head of a strong force. clarence was in command of one great division of this force, and warwick himself of the other. the two bodies of troops marched at some little distance from each other. edward shaped his course so as to approach that commanded by clarence. warwick did all he could to prevent this, being, apparently, somewhat suspicious that clarence was not fully to be relied on. but edward succeeded, by dint of skillful manoeuvring, in accomplishing his object, and thus he and clarence came into the neighborhood of each other. the respective encampments were only three miles apart. it seems, however, that there were still some closing negotiations to be made before clarence was fully prepared to take the momentous step that was now before him. richard was the agent of these negotiations. he went back and forth between the two camps, conveying the proposals and counter-proposals from one party to the other, and doing all in his power to remove obstacles from the way, and to bring his brothers to an agreement. at last every thing was arranged. clarence ordered his men to display the white rose upon their armor, and then, with trumpets sounding and banners flying, he marched forth to meet edward, and to submit himself to his command. when the column which he led arrived near to edward's camp, it halted, and clarence himself, with a small body of attendants, advanced to meet his brother; edward, at the same time, leaving his encampment, in company with richard and several noblemen, came forward too. thus edward and clarence met, as the old chronicle expresses it, "betwixt both hosts, where was right kind and loving language betwixt them two. and then, in like wise, spoke together the two dukes of clarence and gloucester, and afterward the other noblemen that were there with them; whereof all the people that were there that loved them were right glad and joyous, and thanked god highly for that joyous meeting, unity and concord, hoping that thereby should grow unto them prosperous fortune in all that they should after that have to do." warwick was, of course, in a dreadful rage when he learned that clarence had betrayed him and gone over to the enemy. he could do nothing, however, to repair the mischief, and he was altogether too weak to resist the two armies now combined against him; so he drew back, leaving the way clear, and edward, at the head now of an overwhelming force, and accompanied by both his brothers, advanced directly to london. he was received at the capital with great favor. whoever was uppermost for the time being was always received with favor in england in those days, both in the capital and throughout the country at large. it was said, however, that the interest in edward's fortunes, and in the succession of his branch of the family to the throne, was greatly increased at this time by the birth of his son, which had taken place in the sanctuary, as related in the last chapter, soon after queen elizabeth sought refuge there, at the time of edward's expulsion from the kingdom. of course, the first thing which edward did after making his public entry into london was to proceed to the sanctuary to rejoin his wife, and deliver her from her duress, and also to see his new-born son. queen margaret was out of the kingdom at this time, being on a visit to the continent. she had her son, the prince of wales, with her; but henry, the king, was in london. he, of course, fell into edward's hands, and was immediately sent back a prisoner to the tower. edward remained only a day or two in london, and then set off again, at the head of all his troops, to meet warwick. he brought out king henry from the tower, and took him with the army as a prisoner. warwick had now strengthened himself so far that he was prepared for battle. the two armies approached each other not many miles from london. before commencing hostilities, clarence wished for an opportunity to attempt a reconciliation; he, of course, felt a strong desire to make peace, if possible, for his situation, in case of battle, would be painful in the extreme--his brothers on one side, and his father-in-law on the other, and he himself compelled to fight against the cause which he had abandoned and betrayed. so he sent a messenger to the earl, offering to act as mediator between him and his brother, in hopes of finding some mode of arranging the quarrel; but the earl, instead of accepting the mediation, sent back only invectives and defiance. "go tell your master," he said to the messenger, "that warwick is not the man to follow the example of faithlessness and treason which the false, perjured clarence has set him. unlike him, i stand true to my oath, and this quarrel can only be settled by the sword." of course, nothing now remained but to fight the battle, and a most desperate and bloody battle it was. it was fought upon a plain at a place called barnet. it lasted from four in the morning till ten. [illustration: death of warwick on the field of barnet.] richard came forward in the fight in a very conspicuous and prominent manner. he was now about eighteen years of age, and this was the first serious battle in which he had been actually engaged. he evinced a great deal of heroism, and won great praise by the ardor in which he rushed into the thickest of the fight, and by the manner in which he conducted himself there. the squires who attended him were both killed, but richard himself remained unhurt. in the end, edward was victorious. the quarrel was thus decided by the sword, as warwick had said, and decided, so far as the earl was concerned, terribly and irrevocably, for he himself was unhorsed upon the field, and slain. many thousands of soldiers fell on each side, and great numbers of the leading nobles. the bodies were buried in one common trench, which was dug for the purpose on the plain, and a chapel was afterward erected over them, to mark and consecrate the spot. it is said in respect to king henry, who had been taken from the tower and made to accompany the army to the field, that edward placed him in the midst of the fight at barnet, in the hope that he might in this way be slain, either by accident or design. this plan, however, if it were formed, did not succeed, for henry escaped unharmed, and, after the battle, was taken back to london, and again conveyed through the gloomy streets of the lower city to his solitary prison in the tower. the streets were filled, after he had passed, with groups of men of all ranks and stations, discussing the strange and mournful vicissitudes in the life of this hapless monarch, now for the second time cut off from all his friends, and immured hopelessly in a dismal dungeon. [illustration: street leading to the tower.] on the very day of the battle of barnet, queen margaret, who had hastened her return to england on hearing of edward's invasion, landed at plymouth, in the southwestern part of england. the young prince of wales, her son, was with her. when she heard the terrible tidings of the loss of the battle of barnet and the death of warwick, she was struck with consternation, and immediately fled to an abbey in the neighborhood of the place where she had landed, and took sanctuary there. she soon, however, recovered from this panic, and came forth again. she put herself, with her son, at the head of the french troops which she had brought with her, and collected also as many more as she could induce to join her, and then, marching slowly toward the northward, finally took a strong position on the river severn, near the town of tewkesbury. tewkesbury is in the western part of england, near the frontiers of wales. edward, having received intelligence of her movements, collected his forces also, and, accompanied by clarence and gloucester, went forth to meet her. the two armies met about three weeks after the battle of barnet, in which warwick was killed. all the flower of the english nobility were there, on one side or on the other. queen margaret's son, the prince of wales, was now about eighteen years of age, and his mother placed him in command--nominally at the head of the army. edward, on his side, assigned the same position to richard, who was almost precisely of the same age with the prince of wales. thus the great and terrible battle which ensued was fought, as it were, by two boys, cousins to each other, and neither of them out of their teens. the operations were, however, really directed by older and more experienced men. the chief counselor on margaret's side was the duke of somerset. edward's army attempted, by means of certain evolutions, to entice the queen's army out of their camp. somerset wished to go, and he commanded the men to follow. some followed, but others remained behind. among those that remained behind was a body of men under the command of a certain lord wenlock. somerset was angry because they did not follow him, and he suspected, moreover, that lord wenlock was intending to betray the queen and go over to the other side; so he turned back in a rage, and, coming up to lord wenlock, struck him a dreadful blow upon his helmet with his battle-axe, and killed him on the spot. in the midst of the confusion which this affair produced, richard, at the head of his brother's troops, came forcing his way into the intrenchments, bearing down all before him. the queen's army was thrown into confusion, and put to flight. thousands upon thousands were killed. as many as could save themselves from being slaughtered upon the spot fled into the country toward the north, pursued by detached parties of their enemies. the young prince of wales was taken prisoner. the queen fled, and for a time it was not known what had become of her. she fled to the church in tewkesbury, and took refuge there. [illustration: church at tewkesbury.] as for the prince of wales, the account of his fate which was given at the time, and has generally been believed since, is this: as soon as the battle was over, he was brought, disarmed and helpless, into king edward's tent, and there edward, clarence, gloucester, and others gathered around to triumph over him, and taunt him with his downfall. edward came up to him, and, after gazing upon him a moment in a fierce and defiant manner, demanded of him, in a furious tone, "what brought him to england?" "my father's crown and my own inheritance," replied the prince. edward uttered some exclamation of anger, and then struck the prince upon the mouth with his gauntlet.[g] [footnote g: the gauntlet was a sort of iron glove, the fingers of which were made flexible by joints formed with scales sliding over each other.] at this signal, gloucester, and the others who were standing by, fell upon the poor helpless boy, and killed him on the spot. the prince cried to clarence, who was his brother-in-law, to save him, but in vain; clarence did not interfere. some of the modern defenders of richard's character attempt to show that there is no sufficient evidence that this story is true, and they maintain that the prince was slain upon the field, after the battle, and that richard was innocent of his death. the evidence, however, seems strongly against this last supposition. soon after the battle, it was found that the queen, with her attendants, as has already been stated, had taken refuge in a church at tewkesbury, and in other sacred structures near. edward proceeded directly to the church, with the intention of hunting out his enemies wherever he could find them. he broke into the sacred precincts, sword in hand, attended by a number of reckless and desperate followers, and would have slain those that had taken refuge there, on the spot, had not the abbot himself come forward and interposed to protect them. he came dressed in his sacerdotal robes, and bearing the sacred emblems in his hands. these emblems he held up before the infuriated edward as a token of the sanctity of the place. by these means the king's hand was stayed, and, before allowing him to go away, the abbot exacted from him a promise that he would molest the refugees no more. [illustration: queen margaret brought in prisoner at coventry.] this promise was, however, not made to be kept. two days afterward edward appointed a court-martial, and sent richard, with an armed force, to the church, to take all the men that had sought refuge there, and bring them out for trial. the trial was conducted with very little ceremony, and the men were all beheaded on the green, in tewkesbury, that very day. queen margaret and the ladies who attended her were not with them. they had sought refuge in another place. they were, however, found after a few days, and were all brought prisoners to edward's camp at coventry; for, after the battle, edward had begun to move on with his army across the country. the king's first idea was to send margaret immediately to london and put her in the tower; but, before he did this, a change in his plans took place, which led him to decide to go to london himself. so he took queen margaret with him, a captive in his train. on the arrival of the party in london, the queen was conveyed at once to the tower. here she remained a close prisoner for five long and weary years, and was then ransomed by the king of france and taken to the continent. she lived after this in comparative obscurity for about ten years, and then died. as for her husband, his earthly troubles were brought to an end much sooner. the cause of the change of plan above referred to, which led edward to go directly to london soon after the battle of tewkesbury, was the news that a relative of warwick, whom that nobleman, during his lifetime, had put in command in the southeastern part of england, had raised an insurrection there, with a view of marching to london, rescuing henry from the tower, and putting him upon the throne. this movement was soon put down, and edward returned from the expedition triumphant to london. he and his brothers spent the night after their arrival in the tower. the next morning king henry was found dead in his bed. the universal belief was then, and has been since, that he was put to death by edward's orders, and it has been the general opinion that richard was the murderer. the body of the king was put upon a bier that same day, and conveyed to st. paul's church in london, and there exhibited to the public for a long time, with guards and torch-bearers surrounding it. an immense concourse of people came to view his remains. the object of this exposition of the body of the king was to make sure the fact of his death in the public mind, and prevent the possibility of the circulation of rumors, subsequently, by the partisans of his house, that he was still alive; for such rumors would greatly have increased the danger of any insurrectionary plans which might be formed against edward's authority. in due time the body was interred at windsor, and a sculptured monument, adorned with various arms and emblems, was erected over the tomb. [illustration: tomb of henry vi.] the remaining leaders on the lancaster side were disposed of in a very effectual manner, to prevent the possibility of their again acquiring power. some were banished. others were shut up in various castles as hopeless prisoners. the country was thus wholly subdued, and edward was once more established firmly on his throne. chapter viii. richard's marriage. 1471-1474 characters of clarence and richard.--embarrassing situation in which clarence was placed.--richard made lord high admiral of england.--his real character.--requisites of a good soldier.--young edward formally acknowledged heir to the crown.--forlorn condition of lady anne.--her sister isabella.--clarence's views in respect to the property.--richard's plan.--his early acquaintance with anne.--the banquet at the archbishop's.--clarence conceals lady anne.--richard finds her at last.--his marriage.--measures for securing the property.--difficulty about the division of the property.--the quarrel becomes serious.--it is at last settled by the king.--richard's child is born.--anne becomes more contented. when the affairs of the kingdom were settled, after the return of king edward to the throne, richard, duke of gloucester, the subject of the present volume, was found occupying a very exalted and brilliant position. it is true, he was yet very young, being only about nineteen years of age, and by birth he was second to clarence, clarence being his older brother. but clarence had been so wavering and vacillating, having changed sides so often in the great quarrels, that no confidence was placed in him now on either side. richard, on the other hand, had steadily adhered to his brother edward's cause. he had shared all his brother's reverses, and he had rendered him most valuable and efficient aid in all the battles which he had fought, and had contributed essentially to his success in all the victories which he had gained. of course, now, edward and his friends had great confidence in richard, while clarence was looked upon with suspicion and distrust. clarence, it is true, had one excuse for his instability, which richard had not; for clarence, having married the earl of warwick's daughter, was, of course, brought into very close connection with the earl, and was subjected greatly to his influence. accordingly, whatever course warwick decided to take, it was extremely difficult for clarence to avoid joining him in it; and when at length warwick arranged the marriage of his daughter anne with the prince of wales, king henry's son, and so joined himself to the lancaster party, clarence was placed between two strong and contrary attractions--his attachment to his brother, and his natural interest in the advancement of his own family being on one side, and his love for his wife, and the great influence and ascendency exerted over his mind by his father-in-law being on the other. richard was in no such strait. there was nothing to entice him away from his fidelity to his brother, so he remained true. he had been so brave and efficient, too, in the military operations connected with edward's recovery of the throne, that he had acquired great renown as a soldier throughout the kingdom. the fame of his exploits was the more brilliant on account of his youth. it was considered remarkable that a young man not yet out of his teens should show so much skill, and act with so much resolution and energy in times so trying, and the country resounded with his praises. as soon as edward was established on the throne, he raised richard to what was in those days, perhaps, the highest office under the crown, that of lord high admiral of england. this was the office which the earl of warwick had held, and to which a great portion of the power and influence which he exercised was owing. the lord high admiral had command of the navy, and of the principal ports on both sides of the english channel, so long as any ports on the french side remained in english hands. the reader will recollect, perhaps, that while richard was quite a small boy, his mother was compelled to fly with him and his little brother george to france, to escape from the enemies of the family, at the time of his father's death, and that it was through the earl of warwick's co-operation that she was enabled to accomplish this flight. now it was in consequence of warwick's being at that time lord high admiral of england, and his having command of calais, and the waters between calais and england, that he could make arrangements to assist lady cecily so effectually on that occasion. still, richard, though universally applauded for his military courage and energy, was known to all who had opportunities of becoming personally acquainted with him to be a bad man. he was unprincipled, hard-hearted, and reckless. this, however, did not detract from his military fame. indeed, depravity of private character seldom diminishes much the applause which a nation bestows upon those who acquire military renown in their service. it is not to be expected that it should. military exploits have been, in fact, generally, in the history of the world, gigantic crimes, committed by reckless and remorseless men for the benefit of others, who, though they would be deterred by their scruples of conscience or their moral sensibilities from perpetrating such deeds themselves, are ready to repay, with the most extravagant honors and rewards, those who are ferocious and unscrupulous enough to perpetrate them in their stead. were it not for some very few and rare exceptions to the general rule, which have from time to time appeared, the history of mankind would show that, to be a _good soldier_, it is almost absolutely essential to be a _bad man_. the child, prince edward, the son of edward the fourth, who was born, as is related in a preceding chapter, in the sanctuary at westminster, whither his mother had fled at the time when edward was expelled from the kingdom, was, of course, king edward's heir. he was now less than a year old, and, in order to place his title to the crown beyond dispute, a solemn oath was required from all the leading nobles and officers of edward's government, that in case he survived his father they would acknowledge him as king. the following is the form of the oath which was taken: i acknowledge, take, and repute you, edward, prince of wales, duke of cornwayll, and erl of chestre, furste begoten son of oure sovereigne lord, as to the corones and reames of england and of france, and lordship of ireland; and promette and swere that in case hereafter it happen you by goddis disposition do outlive our sovereigne lord, i shall then take and accept you for true, veray and righteous king of england, and of france, and of ireland; and feith and trouth to you shall here, and yn all thyngs truely and feithfully behave me towardes you and youre heyres, as a true and feithful subject oweth to behave him to his sovereigne lord and righteous king of england, france, and ireland; so help me god, and holidome, and this holy evangelist. richard took this oath with the rest. how he kept it will hereafter appear. the lady anne, the second daughter of the earl of warwick, who had been betrothed to the prince of wales, king henry's son, was left, by the fall of the house of lancaster and the re-establishment of king edward the fourth upon the throne, in a most forlorn and pitiable condition. her father, the earl, was dead, having been killed in battle. her betrothed husband, too, the prince of wales, with whom she had fondly hoped one day to sit on the throne of england, had been cruelly assassinated. queen margaret, the mother of the prince, who might have been expected to take an interest in her fate, was a helpless prisoner in the tower. and if the fallen queen had been at liberty, it is very probable that all her interest in anne would prove to have been extinguished by the death of her son; for queen margaret had never felt any personal preference for anne, and had only consented to the marriage very reluctantly, and from political considerations alone. the friends and connections of her father's family, a short time since so exalted in station and so powerful, were now scattered and destroyed. some had been killed in battle, others beheaded by executioners, others banished from the realm. the rest were roaming about england in terror and distress, houseless, homeless, friendless, and only intent to find some hiding-place where they might screen themselves from edward's power and vengeance. there was one exception, indeed, the lady isabella, clarence's wife, who, as the reader will recollect, was warwick's oldest daughter, and, of course, the sister of lady anne. she and clarence, her husband, it might be supposed, would take an interest in lady anne's fate. indeed, clarence did take an interest in it, but, unfortunately, the interest was of the wrong kind. the earl of warwick had been immensely wealthy. besides the ancient stronghold of the family, warwick castle, one of the most renowned old feudal fortresses in england, he owned many other castles, and many large estates, and rights of property of various kinds all over the kingdom. now clarence, after warwick's death, had taken most of this property into his own hands as the husband of the earl's oldest daughter, and he wished to keep it. this he could easily do while anne remained in her present friendless and helpless condition. but he knew very well that if she were to be married to any person of rank and influence on the york side, her husband would insist on a division of the property. now he suspected that his brother richard had conceived the design of marrying her. he accordingly set himself at work earnestly to thwart this design. it was true that richard had conceived the idea of making anne his wife, from the motive, however, solely, as it would seem, to obtain her share of her father's property. richard had been acquainted with anne from her childhood. indeed, he was related to the family of the earl of warwick on his mother's side. his mother, lady cecily neville, belonged to the same great family of neville from which the warwicks sprung. warwick had been a great friend of lady cecily in former years, and it is even supposed that when richard and his brother george were brought back from the continent, at the time when edward first obtained possession of the kingdom, they lived for a time in warwick's family at middleham castle.[h] this is not quite certainly known, but it is at any rate known that richard and anne knew each other well when they were children, and were often together. [footnote h: for a view of this castle, and the grounds pertaining to it, see page 180.] there is an account of a grand entertainment which was given by the warwick family at york, some years before, on the occasion of the enthroning of the earl's brother george as archbishop of york, at which richard was present. richard, being a prince of the blood royal, was, of course, a very highly honored guest, notwithstanding that he was but a child. so they prepared for him and some few other great personages a raised platform, called a dais, at one end of the banquet-hall, with a royal canopy over it. the table for the distinguished personages was upon this dais, while those for the other guests extended up and down the hall below. richard was seated at the centre of the table of honor, with a countess on one side of him and a duchess on the other. opposite to him, at the same table, were seated isabella and anne. anne was at this time about twelve years old. now it is supposed that isabella and anne were placed at this table to please richard, for their mother, who was, of course, entitled to take precedence of them, had her seat at one of the large tables below. from this and some other similar indications, it is supposed that richard took a fancy to anne while they were quite young, as clarence did to isabella. indeed, one of the ancient writers says that richard wished, at this early period, to choose her for his wife, but that she did not like him. at any rate, now, after the re-establishment of his brother upon the throne, and his own exaltation to such high office under him, he determined that he would marry anne. clarence, on the other hand, determined that he should not marry her. so clarence, with the pretense of taking her under his protection, seized her, and carried her away to a place of concealment, where he kept her closely shut up. anne consented to this, for she wished to keep out of richard's way. richard's person was disagreeable to her, and his character was hateful. she seems to have considered him, as he is generally represented by the writers of those times, as a rude, hard-hearted, and unscrupulous man; and she had also a special reason for shrinking from him with horror, as the mortal enemy of her father, and the reputed murderer of the husband to whom she had been betrothed. clarence kept her for some time in obscure places of concealment, changing the place from time to time to elude the vigilance of richard, who was continually making search for her. the poor princess had recourse to all manner of contrivances, and assumed the most humble disguises to keep herself concealed, and was at last reduced to a very forlorn and destitute condition, through the desperate shifts that she resorted to, in her endeavors to escape richard's persecutions. all was, however, in vain. richard discovered her at last in a mean house in london, where she was living in the disguise of a servant. he immediately seized her, and conveyed her to a place of security which was under his control. soon after this she was taken away from this place and conveyed to york, and placed, for the time, under the protection of the archbishop--the same archbishop at whose enthronement, eight or ten years before, she had sat at the same table with richard, under the royal canopy. but she was not left at peace here. richard insisted on her marrying him. she insisted on her refusal. her friends--the few that she had left--turned against her, and urged her to consent to the union; but she could not endure the thought of it. [illustration: richard iii.] richard, however, persisted in his determination, and anne was finally overcome. it is said she resisted to the last, and that the ceremony was performed by compulsion, anne continuing to refuse her consent to the end. it was foreseen that, as soon as any change of circumstances should enable her to resume active resistance to the union, she would repudiate the marriage altogether, as void for want of her consent, or else obtain a divorce. to guard against this danger, richard procured the passage of an act of parliament, by which he was empowered to continue in the full possession and enjoyment of anne's property, even if _she were to divorce him_, provided that he did his best to be reconciled to her, and was willing to be re-married to her, with her consent, whenever she was willing to grant it. [illustration: queen anne.] as for richard himself, his object was fully attained by the accomplishment of a marriage so far acknowledged as to entitle him to the possession of the property of his wife. there was still some difficulty, however, arising from a disagreement between richard and clarence in respect to the division. clarence, when he found that richard would marry anne, in spite of all that he could do to prevent it, declared, with an oath, that, even if richard did marry her, he, clarence, would never "part the livelihood," that is, divide the property with him. so fixed was clarence in this resolution to retain all the property himself, and so resolute was richard, on the other hand, in his determination to have his share, that the quarrel very soon assumed a very serious character. the lords and nobles of the court took part in the controversy on one side and on the other, until, at length, there was imminent danger of open war. finally edward himself interposed, and summoned the brothers to appear before him in open council, when, after a full hearing of the dispute, he said that he himself would decide the question. accordingly, the two brothers appeared before the king, and each strenuously argued his own cause. the king, after hearing them, decided how the property should be divided. he gave to richard and anne a large share, but not all that richard claimed. richard was, however, compelled to submit. [illustration: middleham castle.] when the marriage was thus consummated, and richard had been put in possession of his portion of the property, anne seems to have submitted to her fate, and she went with richard to middleham castle, in the north of england. this castle was one which had belonged to the warwick family, and it now came into richard's possession. richard did not, however, remain long here with his wife. he went away on various military expeditions, leaving anne most of the time alone. she was well contented to be thus left, for nothing could be so welcome to her now as to be relieved as much as possible from the presence of her hateful husband. this state of things continued, without much change, until the end of about a year after her marriage, when anne gave birth to a son. the boy was named edward. the possession of this treasure awakened in the breast of anne a new interest in life, and repaid her, in some measure, for the sorrows and sufferings which she had so long endured. her love for her babe, in fact, awakened in her heart something like a tie to bind her to her husband. it is hard for a mother to continue long to hate the father of her child. chapter ix. end of the reign of edward. a.d. 1475-1483 richard's high position.--his character.--edward's plan for the invasion of france.--character of king louis.--louis's wily management.--treaty proposed.--arrangements made for a personal interview.--the grating on the bridge.--meeting of the kings at the grating.--jocose conversation of the two kings.--terms of the treaty.--marriage agreed upon.--clarence and gloucester.--the people of england discontented.--renewal of the quarrel between edward and clarence.--clarence retires from court.--belief in witchcraft.--birth of clarence's second son.--new quarrels.--the rich heiress.--edward and clarence quarrel about the heiress.--clarence becomes furious.--he is sent to the tower.--clarence is accused of high treason.--he is sentenced to death.--he is assassinated.--dissipation and wickedness of edward.--jane shore.--edward sends richard to war.--difficulties in scotland.--edward falls sick.--his anger against the king of france.--death of the duchess mary.--louis's treachery.--vexation and rage of edward.--his death. king edward reigned, after this time, for about eight years. during this period, richard continued to occupy a very high official position, and a very conspicuous place in the public mind. he was generally considered as personally a very bad man, and, whenever any great public crime was committed, in which the government were implicated at all, it was richard, usually, who was supposed to be chiefly instrumental in the perpetration of it; but, notwithstanding this, his fame, and the general consideration in which he was held, were very high. this was owing, in a considerable degree, to his military renown, and the straightforward energy and decision which characterized all his doings. he generally co-operated very faithfully in all edward's plans and schemes, though sometimes, when he thought them calculated to impede rather than promote the interests of the kingdom and the aggrandizement of the family, he made no secret of opposing them. as to clarence, no one placed any trust or confidence in him whatever. for a time, he and edward were ostensibly on friendly terms with each other, but there was no cordial good-will between them. each watched the other with continual suspicion and distrust. about the year 1475, edward formed a grand scheme for the invasion of france, in order to recover from the french king certain possessions which edward claimed, on the ground of their having formerly belonged to his ancestors. this plan, as, indeed, almost all plans of war and conquest were in those days, was very popular in england, and arrangements were made on an immense scale for fitting out an expedition. the duke of burgundy, who, as will be recollected, had married edward's sister, promised to join the english in this proposed war. when all was ready, the english army set sail, and crossed over to calais. edward went with the army as commander-in-chief. he was accompanied by clarence and gloucester. thus far every thing had gone on well, and all europe was watching with great interest for the result of the expedition; but, very soon after landing, great difficulties arose. the duke of burgundy and edward disagreed, and this disagreement caused great delays. the army advanced slowly toward the french frontier, but for two months nothing effectual was done. [illustration: louis xi. of france.] in the mean time, louis, the king of france, who was a very shrewd and wily man, concluded that it would be better for him to buy off his enemies than to fight them. so he continually sent messengers and negotiators to edward's camp with proposals of various sorts, made to gain time, in order to enable him, by means of presents and bribes, to buy up all the prominent leaders and counselors of the expedition. he gave secretly to all the men who he supposed held an influence over edward's mind, large sums of money. he offered, too, to make a treaty with edward, by which, under one pretext or another, he was to pay him a great deal of money. one of these proposed payments was that of a large sum for the ransom of queen margaret, as mentioned in a preceding chapter. the amount of the ransom money which he proposed was fifty thousand crowns. besides these promises to pay money in case the treaty was concluded, louis made many rich and valuable presents at once. one day, while the negotiations were pending, he sent over to the english camp, as a gift to the king, three hundred cart-loads of wine, the best that could be procured in the kingdom. at one time, near the beginning of the affair, when a herald was sent to louis from edward with a very defiant and insolent message, louis, instead of resenting the message as an affront, entertained the herald with great politeness, held a long and friendly conversation with him, and finally sent him away with three hundred crowns in his purse, and a promise of a thousand more as soon as a peace should be concluded. he also made him a present of a piece of crimson velvet "thirty ells long." such a gift as this of the crimson velvet was calculated, perhaps, in those days of military foppery, to please the herald even more than the money. these things, of course, put edward and nearly all his followers in excellent humor, and disposed them to listen very favorably to any propositions for settling the quarrel which louis might be disposed to make. at last, after various and long protracted negotiations, a treaty was agreed upon, and louis proposed that at the final execution of it he and edward should have a personal interview. edward acceded to this on certain conditions, and the circumstances under which the interview took place, and the arrangements which were adopted on the occasion, make it one of the most curious transactions of the whole reign. it seems that edward could not place the least trust in louis's professions of friendship, and did not dare to meet him without requiring beforehand most extraordinary precautions to guard against the possibility of treachery. so it was agreed that the meeting should take place upon a bridge, louis and his friends to come in upon one side of the bridge, and edward, with his party, on the other. in order to prevent either party from seizing and carrying off the other, there was a strong barricade of wood built across the bridge in the middle of it, and the arrangement was for the king of france to come up to this barricade on one side, and the king of england on the other, and so shake hands and communicate with each other through the bars of the barricade. the place where this most extraordinary royal meeting was held was called picquigny, and the treaty which was made there is known in history as the treaty of picquigny. the town is on the river somme, near the city of amiens. amiens was at that time very near the french frontier. the day appointed for the meeting was the 29th of august, 1475. the barricade was prepared. it was made of strong bars, crossing each other so as to form a grating, such as was used in those days to make the cages of bears, and lions, and other wild beasts. the spaces between the bars were only large enough to allow a man's arm to pass through. the king of france went first to the grating, advancing, of course, from the french side. he was accompanied by ten or twelve attendants, all men of high rank and station. he was very specially dressed for the occasion. the dress was made of cloth of gold, with a large _fleur de lis_--which was at that time the emblem of the french sovereignty--magnificently worked upon it in precious stones. when louis and his party had reached the barricade, edward, attended likewise by his friends, approached on the other side. when they came to the barricade, the two kings greeted each other with many bows and other salutations, and they also shook hands with each other by reaching through the grating. the king of france addressed edward in a very polite and courteous manner. "cousin," said he, "you are right welcome. there is no person living that i have been so ambitious of seeing as you, and god be thanked that our interview now is on so happy an occasion." after these preliminary salutations and ceremonies had been concluded, a prayer-book, or missal, as it was called, and a crucifix, were brought forward, and held at the grating where both kings could touch them. each of the kings then put his hands upon them--one hand on the crucifix and the other on the missal--and they both took a solemn oath by these sacred emblems that they would faithfully keep the treaty which they had made. after thus transacting the business which had brought them together, the two kings conversed with each other in a gay and merry manner for some time. the king of france invited edward to come to paris and make him a visit. this, of course, was a joke, for edward would as soon think of accepting an invitation from a lion to come and visit him in his den, as of putting himself in louis's power by going to paris. both monarchs and all the attendants laughed merrily at this jest. louis assured edward that he would have a very pleasant time at paris in amusing himself with the gay ladies, and in other dissipations. "and then here is the cardinal," he added, turning to the cardinal of bourbon, an ecclesiastic of very high rank, but of very loose character, who was among his attendants, "who will grant you a very easy absolution for any sins you may take a fancy to commit while you are there." edward and his friends were much amused with this sportive conversation of louis's, and edward made many smart replies, especially joking the cardinal, who, he knew, "was a gay man with the ladies, and a boon companion over his wine." this sort of conversation continued for some time, and at length the kings, after again shaking hands through the grating, departed each his own way, and thus this most extraordinary conference of sovereigns was terminated. the treaty which was thus made at the bridge of picquigny contained several very important articles. the principal of them were the following: 1. louis was to pay fifty thousand crowns as a ransom for queen margaret, and edward was to release her from the tower and send her to france as soon as he arrived in england. 2. louis was to pay to edward in cash, on the spot, seventy-five thousand crowns, and an annuity of fifty thousand crowns. 3. he was to marry his son, the dauphin, to edward's oldest daughter, elizabeth, and, in case of her death, then to his next daughter, mary. these parties were all children at this time, and so the actual marriage was postponed for a time; but it was stipulated solemnly that it should be performed as soon as the prince and princess attained to a proper age. it is important to remember this part of the treaty, as a great and serious difficulty grew out of it when the time for the execution of it arrived. 4. by the last article, the two kings bound themselves to a truce for seven years, during which time hostilities were to be entirely suspended, and free trade between the two countries was to be allowed. clarence was with the king at the time of making this treaty, and he joined with the other courtiers in giving it his approval, but richard would have nothing to do with it. he very much preferred to go on with the war, and was indignant that his brother should allow himself to be bought off, as it were, by presents and payments of money, and induced to consent to what seemed to him an ignominious peace. he did not give any open expression to his discontent, but he refused to be present at the conference on the bridge, and, when edward and the army, after the peace was concluded, went back to england, he went with them, but in very bad humor. the people of england were in very bad humor too. you will observe that the inducements which louis employed in procuring the treaty were gifts and sums of money granted to edward himself, and to his great courtiers personally for their own private uses. there was nothing in his concessions which tended at all to the aggrandizement or to the benefit of the english realm, or to promote the interest of the people at large. they thought, therefore, that edward and his counselors had been induced to sacrifice the rights and honor of the crown and the kingdom to their own personal advantage by a system of gross and open bribery, and they were very much displeased. * * * * * the next great event which marks the history of the reign of edward, after the conclusion of this war, was the breaking out anew of the old feud between edward and clarence, and the dreadful crisis to which the quarrel finally reached. the renewal of the quarrel began in edward's dispossessing clarence of a portion of his property. edward was very much embarrassed for money after his return from the french expedition. he had incurred great debts in fitting out the expedition, and these debts the parliament and people of england were very unwilling to pay, on account of their being so much displeased with the peace which had been made. edward, consequently, notwithstanding the bribes which he had received from louis, was very much in want of money. at last he caused a law to be passed by parliament enacting that all the patrimony of the royal family, which had hitherto been divided among the three brothers, should be resumed, and applied to the service of the crown. this made clarence very angry. true, he was extremely rich, through the property which he had received by his wife from the warwick estates, but this did not make him any more willing to submit patiently to be robbed by his brother. he expressed his anger very openly, and the ill feeling which the affair occasioned led to a great many scenes of dispute and crimination between the two brothers, until at last clarence could no longer endure to have any thing to do with edward, and he went away, with isabella his wife, to a castle which he possessed near tewkesbury, and there remained, in angry and sullen seclusion. so great was the animosity that prevailed at this time between the brothers and their respective partisans, that almost every one who took an active part in the quarrel lived in continual anxiety from fear of being poisoned, or of being destroyed by incantations or witchcraft. every body believed in witchcraft in these days. there was one peculiar species of necromancy which was held in great dread. it was supposed that certain persons had the power secretly to destroy any one against whom they conceived a feeling of ill will in the following manner: they would first make an effigy of their intended victim out of wax and other similar materials. this image was made the representation of the person to be destroyed by means of certain sorceries and incantations, and then it was by slow degrees, from day to day, melted away and gradually destroyed. while the image was thus melting, the innocent and unconscious victim of the witchcraft would pine away, and at last, when the image was fairly gone, would die. not very long after clarence left the court and went to tewkesbury, his wife gave birth to a child. it was the second son. the child was named richard, and is known in history as richard of clarence. isabella did not recover her health and strength after the birth of her child. she pined away in a slow and lingering manner for two or three months, and then died. clarence was convinced that she did not die a natural death. he believed that her life had been destroyed by some process of witchcraft, such as has been described, or by poison, and he openly charged the queen with having instigated the murder by having employed some sorcerer or assassin to accomplish it. after a time he satisfied himself that a certain woman named ankaret twynhyo was the person whom the queen had employed to commit this crime, and watching an opportunity when this woman was at her own residence, away from all who could protect her, he sent a body of armed men from among his retainers, who went secretly to the place, and, breaking in suddenly, seized the woman and bore her off to warwick castle. there clarence subjected her to what he called a trial, and she was condemned to death, and executed at once. the charge against her was that she administered poison to the duchess in a cup of ale. so summary were these proceedings, that the poor woman was dead in three hours from the time that she arrived at the castle gates. these proceedings, of course, greatly exasperated edward and the queen, and made them hate clarence more than ever. very soon after this, charles, the duke of burgundy, who married margaret, edward and clarence's sister, and who had been edward's ally in so many of his wars, was killed in battle. he left a daughter named mary, of whom margaret was the step-mother; for mary was the child of the duke by a former marriage. now, as charles was possessed of immense estates, mary, by his death, became a great heiress, and clarence, now that his wife was dead, conceived the idea of making her his second wife. he immediately commenced negotiations to this end. margaret favored the plan, but edward and elizabeth, the queen, as soon as they heard of it, set themselves at work in the most earnest manner to thwart and circumvent it. their motives for opposing this match arose partly from their enmity to clarence, and partly from designs of their own which they had formed in respect to the marriage of mary. the queen wished to secure the young heiress for one of her brothers. edward had another plan, which was to marry mary to a certain duke maximilian. edward's plan, in the end, was carried out, and clarence was defeated. when clarence found at length that the bride, with all the immense wealth and vastly increased importance which his marriage with her was to bring, were lost to him through edward's interference, and conferred upon his hated rival maximilian, he was terribly enraged. he expressed his resentment and anger against the king in the most violent terms. about this time a certain nobleman, one of the king's friends, died. the king accused a priest, who was in clarence's service, of having killed him by sorcery. the priest was seized and put to the torture to compel him to confess his crime and to reveal his confederates. the priest at length confessed, and named as his accomplice one of clarence's household named burdett, a gentleman who lived in very intimate and confidential relations with clarence himself. the confession was taken as proof of guilt, and the priest and burdett were both immediately executed. clarence was now perfectly frantic with rage. he could restrain himself no longer. he forced his way into the king's council-chamber, and there uttered to the lords who were assembled the most violent and angry denunciation of the king. he accused him of injustice and cruelty, and upbraided him, and all who counseled and aided him, in the severest terms. when the king, who was not himself present on this occasion, heard what clarence had done, he said that such proceedings were subversive of the laws of the realm, and destructive to all good government, and he commanded that clarence should be arrested and sent to the tower. after a short time the king summoned a parliament, and when the assembly was convened, he brought his brother out from his prison in the tower, and arraigned him at the bar of the house of lords on charges of the most extraordinary character, which he himself personally preferred against him. in these charges clarence was accused of having formed treasonable conspiracies to depose the king, disinherit the king's children, and raise himself to the throne, and with this view of having slandered the king, and endeavored, by bribes and false representations, to entice away his subjects from their allegiance; of having joined himself with the lancastrian faction so far as to promise to restore them their estates which had been confiscated, provided that they would assist him in usurping the throne; and of having secretly organized an armed force, which was all ready, and waiting only for the proper occasion to strike the blow. clarence denied all these charges in the most earnest and solemn manner. the king insisted upon the truth of them, and brought forward many witnesses to prove them. of course, whether the charges were true or false, there could be no difficulty in finding plenty of witnesses to give the required testimony. the lords listened to the charges and the defense with a sort of solemn awe. indeed, all england, as it were, stood by, silenced and appalled at the progress of this dreadful fraternal quarrel, and at the prospect of the terrible termination of it, which all could foresee must come. [illustration: the murderers coming for clarence.] whatever the members of parliament may have thought of the truth or falsehood of the charges, there was only one way in which it was prudent or even safe for them to vote, and clarence was condemned to death. sentence being passed, the prisoner was remanded to the tower. edward seems, after all, to have shrunk from the open and public execution of the sentence which he had caused to be pronounced against his brother. no public execution took place, but in a short time it was announced that clarence had died in prison. it was understood that assassins were employed to go privately into the room where he was confined and put him to death; and it is universally believed, though there is no positive proof of the fact, that richard was the person who made the arrangements for the performance of this deed.[i] [footnote i: there was a strange story in respect to the manner of clarence's death, which was very current at the time, namely, that he was drowned by his brothers in a butt of malmsey wine. but there is no evidence whatever that this story was true.] after clarence was dead, and the excitement and anger of the quarrel had subsided in edward's mind, he was overwhelmed with remorse and anguish at what he had done. he attempted to drown these painful thoughts by dissipation and vice. he neglected the affairs of his government, and his duties to his wife and family, and spent his time in gay pleasures with the ladies of his court, and in guilty carousings with wicked men. in these pleasures he spent large sums of money, wasting his patrimony and all his resources in extravagance and folly. among other amusements, he used to form hunting-parties, in which the ladies of his court were accustomed to join, and he used to set up gay silken tents for their accommodation on the hunting-ground. he spent vast sums, too, upon his dress, being very vain of his personal attractions, and of the favor in which he was held by the ladies around him. the most conspicuous of his various female favorites was the celebrated jane shore. she was the wife of a respectable citizen of london. edward enticed her away from her husband, and induced her to come and live at court with him. the opposite engraving, which is taken from an ancient portrait, gives undoubtedly a correct representation both of her features and of her dress. we shall hear more of this person in the sequel. [illustration: jane shore.] things went on in this way for about two years, when at length war broke out on the frontiers of scotland. edward was too much engrossed with his gallantries and pleasures to march himself to meet the enemy, and so he commissioned richard to go. richard was very well pleased that his brother edward should remain at home, and waste away in effeminacy and vice his character and his influence in the kingdom, while he went forth in command of the army, to acquire, by the vigor and success of his military career, that ascendency that edward was losing. so he took the command of the army and went forth to the war. the war was protracted for several years. the king of scotland had a brother, the duke of albany, who was attempting to dethrone him, in order that he might reign in his stead; that is, he was doing exactly that which edward had charged upon his brother clarence, and for which he had caused clarence to be killed; and yet, with strange inconsistency, edward espoused the cause of this clarence of scotland, and laid deep plans for enabling him to depose and supplant his brother. in the midst of the measures which richard was taking for the execution of these plans, they, as well as all edward's other earthly schemes and hopes, were suddenly destroyed by the hand of death. edward's health had become much impaired by the dissolute life which he had led, and at last he fell seriously sick. while he was sick, an affair occurred which vexed and worried his mind beyond endurance. the reader will recollect that, at the treaty which edward made with louis of france at the barricade on the bridge of picquigny, a marriage contract was concluded between louis's oldest son, the dauphin of france, and edward's daughter mary, and it was agreed that, as soon as the children were grown up, and were old enough, they should be married. louis took a solemn oath upon the prayer-book and crucifix that he would not fail to keep this agreement. but now some years had passed away, and circumstances had changed so much that louis did not wish to keep this promise. edward's great ally, the duke of burgundy, was dead. his daughter mary, who became the duchess mary on the death of her father, and who, so greatly to clarence's disappointment, had married maximilian, had succeeded to the estates and possessions of her father. these possessions the king of france desired very much to join to his dominions, as they lay contiguous to them, and the fear of edward, which had prompted him to make the marriage contract with him in the first instance, had now passed away, on account of edward's having become so much weakened by his vices and his effeminacy. he now, therefore, became desirous of allying his family to that of burgundy rather than that of england. the duchess mary had three children, all very young. the oldest, philip, was only about three years old. now it happened that just at this time, while the duchess mary was out with a small party, hawking, near the city of bruges, as they were flying the hawks at some herons, the company galloping on over the fields in order to keep up with the birds, the duchess's horse, in taking a leap, burst the girths of the saddle, and the duchess was thrown off against the trunk of a tree. she was immediately taken up and borne into a house, but she was so much injured that she almost immediately died. of course, her titles and estates would now descend to her children. the second of the children was a girl. her name was margaret. she was about two years old. louis immediately resolved to give up the match between the dauphin and edward's daughter mary, and contract another alliance for him with this little margaret. he met with considerable difficulty and delay in bringing this about, but he succeeded at last. while the negotiations were pending, edward, who suspected what was going on, was assured that nothing of the kind was intended, and various false tales and pretenses were advanced by louis to quiet his mind. at length, when all was settled, the new plan was openly proclaimed, and great celebrations and parades were held in paris in honor of the event. edward was overwhelmed with vexation and rage when he received the tidings. he was, however, completely helpless. he lay tossing restlessly on his sick-bed, cursing, on the one hand, louis's faithlessness and treachery, and, on the other, his own miserable weakness and pain, which made it so utterly impossible that he should do any thing to resent the affront. his vexation and rage so disturbed and worried him that they hastened his death. when he found that his last hour was drawing near, a new source of agitation and anguish was opened in his mind by the remorse which now began to overwhelm him for his vices and crimes. long-forgotten deeds of injustice, of violence, and of every species of wickedness rose before his mind, and terrified him with awful premonition of the anger of god and of the judgment to come. in his distress, he tried to make reparation for some of the grossest of the wrongs which he had committed, but it was too late. after lingering a week or two in this condition of distress and suffering, his spirit passed away. chapter x. richard and edward v. a.d. 1483 effect of the tidings of edward's death.--anxiety of queen elizabeth woodville.--attempt made by edward to effect a reconciliation.--plans for bringing the young prince to london.--richard's movements.--his letter to the queen.--he arrives at northampton.--the king at stony stratford.--movements and manoeuvres at northampton.--the noblemen taken into custody.--seizure of the king.--the little king is very much frightened.--richard's explanations of his proceedings.--edward's astonishment.--he is helpless in richard's hands. as the tidings of edward's death spread throughout england, they were received every where with a sentiment of anxiety and suspense, for no one knew what the consequences would be. edward left two sons. edward, the oldest of the two, the prince of wales, was about thirteen years of age. the youngest, whose name was richard, was eleven. of course, edward was the rightful heir to the crown. next to him in the line of succession came his brother, and next to them came richard, duke of gloucester, their uncle. but it was universally known that the duke of gloucester was a reckless and unscrupulous man, and the question in every one's mind was whether he would recognize the rights of his young nephews at all, or whether he would seize the crown at once for himself. richard, duke of gloucester, was in the northern part of england at this time, at the head of his army. the great power which the possession of this army gave him made people all the more fearful that he might attempt to usurp the throne. the person who was most anxious in respect to the result was the widowed queen elizabeth, the mother of the two princes. she was very much alarmed. the boys themselves were not old enough to realize very fully the danger that they were in, or to render their mother much aid in her attempts to save them. the person on whom she chiefly relied was her brother, the earl of rivers. edward, her oldest son, was under this uncle rivers's care. the uncle and the nephew were residing together at this time at the castle of ludlow.[j] queen elizabeth was in london with her second son. [footnote j: for a view of this castle, see page 26.] immediately on the death of the king, a council was called to deliberate upon the measures proper to be taken. the council decreed that the prince of wales should be proclaimed king, and they fixed upon the 4th of may for the day of his coronation. they also made arrangements for sending orders to the earl of rivers to come at once with the young king to london, in order that the coronation might take place. queen elizabeth was present at this council, and she desired that her brother might be ordered to come attended by as large an armed force as he could raise, for the protection of the prince on the way. now it happened that there were great dissensions among the officers and nobles of the court at this time. the queen, with the relatives and connections of her family, formed one party, and the other nobles and peers of england another party, and great was the animosity and hatred that prevailed. the english nobles had never been satisfied with edward's marriage, and they were very jealous of the influence of the queen's family and relations. this feud had been kept down in some degree while edward lived, and edward had made a great final effort to heal it entirely in his last sickness. he called together the leading nobles on each side, that had taken part in this quarrel, and then, by great exertion, went in among them, and urged them to forget their dissensions and become reconciled to each other. the effort for the time seemed to be successful, and both parties agreed to a compromise of the quarrel, and took a solemn oath that they would thenceforth live together in peace. but now, on the death of the king, the dissension broke out afresh. the other nobles were very jealous and suspicious of every measure which elizabeth proposed, especially if it tended to continue the possession of power and influence in the hands of her family. accordingly, when she proposed in the council to send for the earl, and to require him to raise a large escort to bring the young prince edward to london, they objected to it. [illustration: the attempted reconciliation.] "against whom," demanded one of the councilors, "is the young prince to be defended? who are his enemies? he has none, and the real motive and design of raising this force is not to protect the prince, but only to secure to the woodville family the means of increasing and perpetuating their own importance and power." the speaker upbraided the queen, too, with having, by this proposal, and by the attempt to promote the aggrandizement of the woodville party which was concealed in it, been guilty of violating the oath of reconciliation which had been taken during the last sickness of the late king. so the council refused to authorize the armed escort, and the queen, with tears of disappointment and vexation, gave up the plan. at least she gave it up ostensibly, but she nevertheless contrived to come to some secret understanding with the earl, in consequence of which he set out from the castle with the young prince at the head of quite a large force. some of the authorities state that he had with him two thousand men. in the mean time, richard of gloucester, as soon as he heard of edward's death, arranged his affairs at once, and made preparations to set out for london too. he put his army in mourning for the death of the king, and he wrote a most respectful and feeling letter of condolence to the queen. in this letter he made a solemn profession of homage and fealty to her son, the prince of wales, whom he acknowledged as rightfully entitled to the crown, and promised to be faithful in his allegiance to him, and to all the duties which he owed him. queen elizabeth's mind was much relieved by this letter. she began to think that she was going to find in richard an efficient friend to sustain her cause and that of her family against her enemies. when richard reached york, he made a solemn entry into that town, attended by six hundred knights all dressed in deep mourning. at the head of this funeral procession he proceeded to the cathedral, and there caused the obsequies of the king to be celebrated with great pomp, and with very impressive and apparently sincere exhibitions of the grief which he himself personally felt for the loss of his brother. after a brief delay in york, richard resumed his march to the southward. he arranged it so as to overtake the party of the prince and the earl of rivers on the way. he arrived at the town of northampton on the same day that the prince, with the earl of rivers and his escort, reached the town of stony stratford, which was only a few miles from it. when the earl heard that gloucester was so near, he took with him another nobleman, named lord gray, and a small body of attendants, and rode back to northampton to pay his respects to gloucester on the part of the young king; for they considered that edward became at once, by the death of his father, king of england, under the style and title of edward the fifth. gloucester received his visitors in a very courteous and friendly manner. he invited them to sup with him, and he made quite an entertainment for them, and for some other friends whom he invited to join them. the party spent the evening together in a very agreeable manner. they sat so long over their wine that it was too late for the earl and lord gray to return that night to stony stratford, and richard accordingly made arrangements for them to remain in northampton. he assigned quarters to them in the town, and secretly set a guard over them, to prevent their making their escape. the next morning, when they arose, they were astonished to find themselves under guard, and to perceive too, as they did, that all the avenues of the town were occupied with troops. they suspected treachery, but they thought it not prudent to express their suspicions. richard, when he met them again in the morning, treated them in the same friendly manner as on the evening before, and proposed to accompany them to stony stratford, in order that he might there see and pay his respects to the king. this was agreed to, and they all set out together. in company with richard was one of his friends and confederates, the duke of buckingham. this duke of buckingham had been one of the leaders of the party at court that were opposed to the family of the queen. these two, together with the earl of rivers and lord gray, rode on in a very friendly manner toward stratford. they went in advance of richard's troops, which were ordered to follow pretty closely behind. in this manner they went on till they began to draw near to the town. richard now at once threw off his disguise. he told the earl of rivers and lord gray that the influence which they were exerting over the mind of the king was evil, and that he felt it his duty to take the king from their charge. then, at a signal given, armed men came up and took the two noblemen in custody. richard, with the duke of buckingham and their attendants, drove on with all speed into the town. it seems that the persons who had been left with edward had, in some way or other, obtained intelligence of what was going on, for they were just upon the eve of making their escape with him when richard and his party arrived. the horse was saddled, and the young king was all ready to mount. richard, when he came up to the place, assumed the command at once. he made no obeisance to his nephew, nor did he in any other way seem to recognize or acknowledge him as his sovereign. he simply said that he would take care of his safety. "the persons that have been about you," said he, "have been conspiring against your life, but i will protect you." he then ordered several of the principal of edward's attendants to be arrested; the rest he commanded to disperse. what became of the large body of men which the earl of rivers is said to have had under his command does not appear. whether they dispersed in obedience to richard's commands, or whether they abandoned the earl and came over to richard's side, is uncertain. at any rate, nobody resisted him. the earl of rivers, lord gray, and the others were secured, with a view of being sent off prisoners to the northward. edward himself was to be taken with richard back to northampton. the little king himself scarcely knew what to make of these proceedings. he was frightened; and when he saw that all those personal friends and attendants who had had the charge of him so long, and to whom he was strongly attached, were seized and sent away, and others, strangers to him, put in their place, he could not refrain from tears. king as he was, however, and sovereign ruler over millions of men, he was utterly helpless in his uncle's hands, and obliged to yield himself passively to the disposition which his uncle thought best to make of him. all the accounts of edward represent him as a kind-hearted and affectionate boy, of a gentle spirit, and of a fair and prepossessing countenance. the ancient portraits of him which remain confirm these accounts of his personal appearance and of his character. [illustration: ancient portrait of edward v.] after having taken these necessary steps, and thus secured the power in his own hands, richard vouchsafed an explanation of what he had done to the young king. he told him that earl rivers, and lord gray, and other persons belonging to their party, "had conspired together to rule the kynge and the realme, to sette variance among the states, and to subdue and destroy the noble blood of the realme," and that he, richard, had interposed to save edward from their snares. he told him, moreover, that lord dorset, who was edward's half brother, being the son of the queen by her first husband, and who had for some time held the office of chancellor of the tower, had taken out the king's treasure from that castle, and had sent much of it away beyond the sea. edward, astonished and bewildered, did not know at first what to reply to his uncle. he said, however, at last, that he never heard of any such designs on the part of his mother's relatives, and he could not believe that the charges were true. but richard assured him that they were true, and that "his kindred had kepte their dealings from the knowledge of his grace." satisfied or not, edward was silenced; and he submitted, since it was hopeless for him to attempt to resist, to be taken back in his uncle's custody to northampton. chapter xi. taking sanctuary. a.d. 1483 alarm of the queen on hearing the news.--visit of the archbishop.--hasting's message.--the queen is in great distress.--uncertainty in respect to gloucester's designs.--arrest of the leading men in the woodville party.--the queen "on the rushes."--her daughters.--description of the sanctuary.--apartments.--the jerusalem chamber.--richard's plans in respect to the coronation.--reception of richard's party at london.--richard establishes his court.--dorset.--the queen's friends dismissed.--richard's titles.--anxiety of the people of england.--forlorn situation of the queen. when the news reached london that the king had been seized on the way to the capital, and was in gloucester's custody, it produced a universal commotion. queen elizabeth was thrown at once into a state of great anxiety and alarm. the tidings reached her at midnight. she was in the palace at westminster at the time. she rose immediately in the greatest terror, and began to make preparations for fleeing to sanctuary with the duke of york, her second son. all her friends in the neighborhood were aroused and summoned to her aid. the palace soon became a scene of universal confusion. every body was busy packing up clothing and other necessaries in trunks and boxes, and securing jewels and valuables of various kinds, and removing them to places of safety. in the midst of this scene, the queen herself sat upon the rushes which covered the floor, half dressed, and her long and beautiful locks of hair streaming over her shoulders, the picture of despair. there was a certain nobleman, named lord hastings, who had been a very prominent and devoted friend to edward the fourth during his life, and had consequently been upon very intimate and friendly terms with the queen. it was he, however, that had objected in the council to the employment of a large force to conduct the young king to london, and, by so doing, had displeased the queen. toward morning, while the queen was in the depths of her distress and terror, making her preparations for flight, a cheering message from hastings was brought to her, telling her not to be alarmed. the message was brought to her by a certain archbishop who had been chancellor, that is, had had the custody of the great seal, an impression from which was necessary to the validity of any royal decree. he came to deliver up the seal to the queen, and also to bring lord hastings's message. "ah, woe worth him!" said the queen, when the archbishop informed her that lord hastings bid her not fear. "it is he that is the cause of all my sorrows; he goeth about to destroy me and my blood." "madam," said the archbishop, "be of good comfort. i assure you that, if they crown any other king than your eldest son, whom they have with them, we will, on the morrow, crown his brother, whom you have with you here. and here is the great seal, which, in like wise as your noble husband gave it to me, so i deliver it to you for the use of your son." so the archbishop delivered the great seal into the queen's hands, and went away. this was just before the dawn. the words which the archbishop spoke to the queen did not give her much comfort. indeed, her fears were not so much for her children, or for the right of the eldest to succeed to the throne, as for herself and her own personal and family ascendency under the reign of her son. she had contrived, during the lifetime of her husband, to keep pretty nearly all the influence and patronage of the government in her own hands and in that of her family connections, the woodvilles. you will recollect how much difficulty that had made, and how strong a party had been formed against her coterie. and now, her husband being dead, what she feared was not that gloucester, in taking the young king away from the custody of her relatives, and sending those relatives off as prisoners to the north, meant any hostility to the young king, but only against her and the whole woodville interest, of which she was the head. she supposed that gloucester would now put the power of the government in the hands of other families, and banish hers, and that perhaps he would even bring her to trial and punishment for acts of maladministration, or other political crimes which he would charge against her. it was fear of this, rather than any rebellion against the right of edward the fifth to reign, which made her in such haste to flee to sanctuary. it was, however, somewhat uncertain what gloucester intended to do. his professions were all very fair in respect to his allegiance to the young king. he sent a messenger to london, immediately after seizing the king, to explain his views and motives in the act, and in this communication he stated distinctly that his only object was to prevent the king's falling into the hands of the woodville family, and not at all to oppose his coronation. "it neyther is reason," said he in his letter, "nor in any wise to be suffered that the young kynge, our master and kinsman, should be in the hands of custody of his mother's kindred, sequestered in great measure from our companie and attendance, the which is neither honorable to hys majestie nor unto us." thus the pretense of richard in seizing the king was simply that he might prevent the government under him from falling into the hands of his mother's party. but the very decisive measures he took in respect to the leading members of the woodville family led many to suspect that he was secretly meditating a deeper design. all those who were with the king at the time of his seizure were made prisoners and sent off to a castle in the north, as we have already said; and, in order to prevent those who were in and near london from making their escape, richard sent down immediately from northampton ordering their arrest, and appointing guards to prevent any of them from flying to sanctuary. when the archbishop, who had called to see the queen at the palace, went away, he saw through the window, although it was yet before the dawn, a number of boats stationed on the thames ready to intercept any who might be coming up the river with this intent from the tower, for several influential members of the family resided at this time at the tower. the queen herself, however, as it happened, was at westminster palace, and she had accordingly but little way to go to make her escape to the abbey. the space which was inclosed by the consecrated limits, from within which prisoners could not be taken, was somewhat extensive. it included not only the church of the abbey, but also the abbey garden, the cemetery, the palace of the abbot, the cloisters, and various other buildings and grounds included within the inclosure. as soon as the queen entered these precincts, she sank down upon the floor of the hall, "alone on the rushes, all desolate and dismayed." it was in the month of may, and the great fire-place of the hall was filled with branches of trees and flowers, while the floor, according to the custom of the time, was strewed with green rushes. for a time the queen was so overwhelmed with her sorrow and chagrin that she was scarcely conscious where she was. but she was soon aroused from her despondency by the necessity of making proper arrangements for herself and her family in her new abode. she had two daughters with her, elizabeth and cecily--beautiful girls, seventeen and fifteen years of age; richard, duke of york, her second son, and several younger children. the youngest of these children, bridget, was only three years old. elizabeth, the oldest, afterward became a queen, and little bridget a nun. [illustration: ancient view of westminster.] the rooms which the queen and her family occupied in the sanctuary are somewhat particularly described by one of the writers of those days. the fire-place, where the trees and flowers were placed, was in the centre of the hall, and there was an opening in the roof above, called a _louvre_, to allow of the escape of the smoke. this hearth still remains on the floor of the hall, and the louvre is still to be seen in the roof above.[k] the end of the hall was formed of oak panneling, with lattice-work above, the use of which will presently appear. a part of this paneling was formed of doors, which led by winding stairs up to a curious congeries of small rooms formed among the spaces between the walls and towers, and under the arches above. some of these rooms were for private apartments, and others were used for the offices of buttery, kitchen, laundry, and the like. at the end of this range of apartments was the private sitting-room and study of the abbot. the windows of the abbot's room looked down upon a pretty flower-garden, and there was a passage from it which led by a corridor back to the lattices over the doors in the hall, through which the abbot could look down into the hall at any time without being observed, and see what the monks were doing there. [footnote k: the room is now the college hall, so called, of westminster school.] besides these there were other large apartments, called state apartments, which were used chiefly on great public occasions. these rooms were larger, loftier, and more richly decorated than the others. they were ornamented with oak carvings and fluting, painted windows, and other such decorations. there was one in particular, which was called the jerusalem chamber. this was the grand receiving-room of the abbot. it had a great gothic window of painted glass, and the walls were hung with curious tapestry. this room, with the window, the tapestry, and all the other ornaments, remains to this day. it was on the night of the third of may that the queen and her family "took sanctuary." the very next day, the fourth, was the day that the council had appointed for the coronation. but richard, instead of coming at once to london, after taking the king under his charge, so as to be ready for the coronation at the appointed day, delayed his journey so as not to enter london until that day. he wished to prevent the coronation from taking place, having probably other plans of his own in view instead. it is not, however, absolutely certain that richard intended, at this time, to claim the crown for himself, for in entering london he formed a grand procession, giving the young king the place of honor in it, and doing homage to him as king. richard himself and all his retinue were in mourning. edward was dressed in a royal mantle of purple velvet, and rode conspicuously as the chief personage of the procession. a short distance from the city the cavalcade was met by a procession of the civic authorities of london and five hundred citizens, all sumptuously appareled, who had come out to receive and welcome their sovereign, and to conduct him through the gates into the city. in entering the city richard rode immediately before the king, with his head uncovered. he held his cap in his hand, and bowed continually very low before the king, designating him in this way to the citizens as the object of their homage. he called out also, from time to time, to the crowds that thronged the waysides to see, "behold your prince and sovereign." there were two places to which it might have been considered not improbable that richard would take the king on his arrival at the capital--one the palace of westminster, at the upper end of london, and the other, the tower, at the lower end. the tower, though often used as a prison, was really, at that time, a castle, where the kings and the members of the royal family often resided. richard, however, did not go to either of these places at first, but proceeded instead to the bishop's palace at st. paul's, in the heart of the city. here a sort of court was established, a grand council of nobles and officers of state was called, and for some days the laws were administered and the government was carried on from this place, all, however, in edward's name. money was coined, also, with his effigy and inscription, and, in fine, so far as all essential forms and technicalities were concerned, the young edward was really a reigning king; but, of course, in respect to substantial power, every thing was in richard's hands. the reason why richard did not proceed at once to the tower was probably because dorset, the queen's son, was in command there, and he, as of course he was identified with the woodville party, might perhaps have made richard some trouble. but dorset, as soon as he heard that richard was coming, abandoned the tower, and fled to the sanctuary to join his mother. accordingly, after waiting a few days at the bishop's palace until the proper arrangements could be made, the king, with the whole party in attendance upon him, removed to the tower, and took up their residence there. the king was nominally in his castle, with richard and the other nobles and their retinue in attendance upon him as his guards. really he was in a prison, and his uncle, with the people around him who were under his uncle's command, were his keepers. a meeting of the lords was convened, and various political arrangements were made to suit richard's views. the principal members of the woodville family were dismissed from the offices which they held, and other nobles, who were in richard's interest, were appointed in their place. a new day was appointed for the coronation, namely, the 22d of june. the council of lords decreed also that, as the king was yet too young to conduct the government himself personally, his uncle gloucester was, for the present, to have charge of the administration of public affairs, under the title of lord protector. the title in full, which richard thenceforth assumed under this decree, was, richard, duke of gloucester, brother and uncle of the king, protector and defender, great chamberlain, constable, and lord high admiral of england. during all this time the city of london, and, indeed, the whole realm of england, as far as the tidings of what was going on at the capital spread into the interior, had been in a state of the greatest excitement. the nobles, and the courtiers of all ranks, were constantly on the alert, full of anxiety and solicitude, not knowing which side to take or what sentiments to avow. they did not know what turn things would finally take, and, of course, could not tell what they were to do in order to be found, in the end, on the side that was uppermost. the common people in the streets, with anxious looks and many fearful forebodings, discussed the reports and rumors that they had heard. they all felt a sentiment of loyal and affectionate regard for the king--a sentiment which was increased and strengthened by his youth, his gentle disposition, and the critical and helpless situation that he was in; while, on the other hand, the character of gloucester inspired them with a species of awe which silenced and subdued them. edward, in his "protector's" hands, seemed to them like a lamb in the custody of a tiger. the queen, all this time, remained shut up in the sanctuary, in a state of extreme suspense and anxiety, clinging to the children whom she had with her, and especially to her youngest son, the little duke of york, as the next heir to the crown, and her only stay and hope, in case, through richard's violence or treachery, any calamity should befall the king. [illustration: the people in the streets.] chapter xii. richard lord protector. a.d. 1483 richard forms plans for seizing the crown.--his plan for disposing of edward's children.--clarence's children.--lady cecily.--baynard's castle.--situation of the queen's friends at pomfret castle.--lord hastings.--richard's councils.--the tower.--nobles in council at the tower.--richard's proceedings at the council.--scene in the council chamber at the tower.--he makes signals for the armed men to come in.--hastings is executed.--orders sent to the north.--execution of the prisoners at pomfret castle.--richard's plans in respect to the duke of york.--he determines to seize him.--the case of the little richard argued.--delegation sent to the tower.--interview with the mother of the princes.--the queen is forced to give up the child.--the parting scene.--the prince is taken away.--both princes entirely in richard's power. what sort of protection richard afforded to the young wards who were committed to his charge will appear by events narrated in this chapter. it was now june, and the day, the twenty-second, which had been fixed upon for the coronation, was drawing nigh. by the ancient usages of the realm of england, the office of protector, to which richard had been appointed, would expire on the coronation of the king. of course, richard perceived at once that if he wished to prolong his power he must act promptly. he began to revolve in his mind the possibility of assuming the crown himself, and displacing the children of his older brothers; for clarence left children at his decease as well as edward. of course, these children of clarence, as well as those of edward, would take precedence of him in the line of succession, being descended from an older brother. richard therefore, in order to establish any claim to the crown for himself, must find some pretext for setting aside both these branches of the family. the pretexts which he found were these. [illustration: clarence's children hearing of their father's death.] in respect to the children of edward, his plan was to pretend to have discovered proof of edward's having been privately married to another lady before his marriage with elizabeth woodville. this would, of course, render the marriage with elizabeth woodville null, and destroy the rights of the children to any inheritance from their father. in respect to the children of clarence, he was to maintain that they were cut off by the attainder which had been passed against their father. a bill of attainder, according to the laws and usages of those times, not only doomed the criminal himself to death, but cut off his children from all rights of inheritance. it was intended to destroy the family as well as the man. richard, however, did not at once reveal his plans, but proceeded cautiously to take the proper measures for putting them into execution. in the first place, there was his mother to be conciliated, the lady cecily neville, known, however, more generally by the title of the duchess of york. she lived at this time in an old family residence called baynard's castle, which stood on the banks of the thames.[l] as soon as richard arrived in london he went to see his mother at this place, and afterward he often visited her there. how far he explained his plans to her, and how far she encouraged or disapproved of them, is not known. if she was required to act at all in the case, it must have been very hard for her, in such a question of life and death, to decide between her youngest son alive and the children of her first-born in his grave. mothers can best judge to which side, in such an alternative, her maternal sympathies would naturally incline her. [footnote l: for a view of this castle, see engraving on page 273.] as for the immediate members of the woodville family, they were already pretty well taken care of. the queen herself, with her children, were shut up in the sanctuary. her brothers, and the other influential men who were most prominent on her side, had been made prisoners, and sent to pomfret castle in the north. here they were held under the custody of men devoted to richard's interest. but to prevent the possibility of his having any farther trouble with them, richard resolved to order them to be beheaded. this resolution was soon carried into effect, as we shall presently see. there remained the party of nobles and courtiers that were likely to be hostile to the permanent continuance of the power of richard, and inclined to espouse the cause of the young king. the nobles had not yet distinctly taken ground on this question. there were, however, some who were friendly to richard. others seemed more inclined to form a party against him. the prominent man among this last-named set was lord hastings. there were several others besides, and richard knew very well who they were. in order to circumvent and defeat any plans which they might be disposed to form, and to keep the power fully in his own hands, he convened his councils of state at different places, sometimes at westminster, sometimes at the tower, where the king was kept, and sometimes at his own residence, which was in the heart of london. he transferred the public business more and more to his own residence, assembling the councilors there at all times, late and early, and thus withdrawing them from attendance at the tower. very soon richard's residence in london became the acknowledged head-quarters of influence and power, and all who had petitions to present or favors to obtain gathered there, while the king in the tower was neglected, and left comparatively alone. still the form of holding a council from time to time at the tower was continued, and, of course, the nobles who assembled there were those most inclined to stand by and defend the cause of the king. such was the state of things on the 13th of june, nine days before the time appointed for the coronation. richard then, having carefully laid his plans, was prepared to take decisive measures to break up the party who were disposed to gather around the king at the tower and espouse his cause. on that day, while these nobles were holding a council in the tower, suddenly, and greatly to their surprise, richard walked in among them. he assumed a very good-natured and even merry air as he entered and took his seat, and began to talk with those present in a very friendly and familiar tone. this was for the purpose of lulling any suspicions which they might have felt on seeing him appear among them, and prevent them from divining the dreadful intentions with which he had come. "my lord," said he, turning to a bishop who sat near him, and who was one of those that he was about to arrest, "you have some excellent strawberries in your garden, i understand. i wish you would let me have a plateful of them." it was about the middle of june, you will recollect, which was the time for strawberries to be ripe. the bishop was very much pleased to find the great protector taking such an interest in his strawberries, and he immediately called a servant and sent him away at once to bring some of the fruit. after having greeted the other nobles at the board in a somewhat similar style to this, with jocose and playful remarks, which had the effect of entirely diverting from their minds every thing like suspicion, he said that he must go away for a short time, but that he would presently return. in the mean time, they might proceed, he said, with their deliberations on the public business. so he went out. he proceeded at once to make the preparations necessary for the accomplishment of the desperate measures which he had determined to adopt. he stationed armed men at the doors and the passages of the part of the tower where the council was assembled, and gave them instructions as to what they were to do, and agreed with them in respect to the signals which he was to give. in about an hour he returned, but his whole air and manner were now totally changed. he came in with a frowning and angry countenance, knitting his brows and setting his teeth, as if something had occurred to put him in a great rage. he advanced to the council table, and there accosting lord hastings in a very excited and angry manner, he demanded, "what punishment do you think men deserve who form plots and schemes for my destruction?" lord hastings was amazed at this sudden appearance of displeasure, and he replied to the protector that such men, if there were any such, most certainly deserved death, whoever they might be. "it is that sorceress, my brother's wife," said richard, "and that other vile sorceress, worse than she, jane shore. see!" this allusion to jane shore was somewhat ominous for hastings, as it was generally understood that since the king's death lord hastings had taken jane shore under his protection, and had lived in great intimacy with her. as richard said this, he pulled up the sleeve of his doublet to the elbow, to let the company look at his arm. this arm had always been weak, and smaller than the other. "see," said he, "what they are doing to me." he meant that by the power of necromancy they had made an image of wax as an effigy of him, according to the mode explained in a previous chapter, and were now melting it away by slow degrees in order to destroy his life, and that his arm was beginning to pine and wither away in consequence. [illustration: the council in the tower.] the lords knew very well that the state in which they saw richard's arm was its natural condition, and that, consequently, his charge against the queen and jane shore was only a pretense, which was to be the prelude and excuse for some violent measures that he was about to take. they scarcely knew what to say. at last lord hastings replied, "certainly, my lord, if they have committed so heinous an offense as this, they deserve a very heinous punishment." "if!" repeated the protector, in a voice of thunder. "and thou servest me, then, it seems, with _ifs_ and _ands_. i tell thee that they _have_ so done--and i will make what i say good upon thy body, traitor!" he emphasized and confirmed this threat by bringing down his fist with a furious blow upon the table. this was one of the signals which he had agreed upon with the people that he had stationed without at the door of the council hall. a voice was immediately heard in the ante-chamber calling out treason. this was again another signal. it was a call to a band of armed men whom richard had stationed in a convenient place near by, and who were to rush in at this call. accordingly, a sudden noise was heard of the rushing of men and the clanking of iron, and before the councilors could recover from their consternation the table was surrounded with soldiery, all "in harness," that is, completely armed, and as fast as the foremost came in and gathered around the table, others pressed in after them, until the room was completely full. richard, designating hastings with a gesture, said suddenly, "i arrest thee, traitor." "what! _me_, my lord?" exclaimed hastings, in terror. "yes, thee, traitor." two or three of the soldiers immediately seized hastings and prepared to lead him away. other soldiers laid hands upon several of the other nobles, such as richard had designated to them beforehand. these, of course, were the leading and prominent men of the party opposed to richard's permanent ascendency. most of these men were taken away and secured as prisoners in various parts of the tower. as for hastings, richard, in a stern and angry manner, advised him to lose no time in saying his prayers, "for, by the lord," said he, "i will not to dinner to-day till i see thy head off." then, after a brief delay, to allow the wretched man a few minutes to say his prayers, richard nodded to the soldiers to signify to them that they were to proceed to their work. they immediately took their victim out to a green by the side of the tower, and, laying him down with his neck across a log which they found there, they cut off his head with a broad-axe. [illustration: pomfret castle.] the same day richard sent off a dispatch to the north, directed to the men who had in charge the earl rivers, and the other friends of the king who had been made prisoners when the king was seized at stony stratford, ordering them all to be beheaded. the order was immediately obeyed. the person who had charge of the execution of this order was a stern and ruffian-like officer named sir richard ratcliffe. this man is quite noted in the history of the times as one of the most unscrupulous of richard's adherents. he was a merciless man, short and rude in speech, and reckless in action, destitute alike of all pity for man and of all fear of god. the place where the prisoners had been confined was pomfret castle.[m] on receiving the orders from richard, ratcliffe led them out to an open place without the castle wall to be beheaded. the executioners brought a log and an axe, and the victims were slaughtered one after another, without any ceremony, and without being allowed to say a word in self-defense. [footnote m: called sometimes pontefract.] the whole country was shocked at hearing of these sudden and terrible executions; but the power was in richard's hands, and there was no one capable of resisting him. the death of the leaders of what would have been the young king's party struck terror into the rest, and richard now had every thing in his own hands, or, rather, _almost_ every thing; for the queen and her family, being still in the sanctuary, were beyond his reach. he, however, had nothing to fear from her personally, and there were none of the children that gave him any concern except the duke of york, the king's younger brother. he, you will recollect, was with his mother at westminster when the king was seized, and she had taken him with the other children to the abbey. richard was now extremely desirous of getting possession of this boy. the reason why he deemed it so essential to get possession of him was this. the child was, it is true, of little consequence while his brother the king lived; but if the king were put out of the way, then the thoughts and the hearts of all the loyal people of england, richard knew very well, would be turned toward york as the rightful successor. but if they could both be put out of the way, and if the people of england could be induced to consider clarence's children as set aside by the attainder of their father, then he himself would come forward as the true and rightful heir to the crown. it is true that it was a part of his plan, as has already been said, to declare the marriage of elizabeth woodville with the king null, and thus cut off both these children of edward from their right of inheritance; but he knew very well that even if a majority of the people of england were to assent to this, there would certainly be a minority that would refuse their assent, and would adhere to the cause of the children, and they, if the children should fall into their hands, might, at some future time, make themselves very formidable to him, and threaten very seriously the permanence of his dominion. it was quite necessary, therefore, he thought, that he should get both children into his own power. "i must," said he to himself, therefore, "i must, in some way or other, and at all hazards, get possession of little richard." it is always the policy of usurpers, and of all ambitious and aspiring men who wish to seize and hold power which does not properly belong to them, to carry the various measures necessary to the attainment of their ends, especially those likely to be unpopular, not by their own personal action, but by the agency of others, whom they put forward to act for them. richard proceeded in this way in the present instance. he called a grand council of the peers of the realm and great officers of state, and caused the question to be brought up there of removing the young duke of york from the custody of his mother to that of the protector, in order that he might be with his brother. the peers who were in richard's interest advocated this plan; but all the bishops and archbishops, who, of course, as ecclesiastics, had very high ideas of the sacredness and inviolability of a sanctuary, opposed the plan of taking the duke away except by the consent of his mother. the other side argued in reply to them that a sanctuary was a place where persons could seek refuge to escape punishment in case of crime, and that where no crime could have been committed, and no charges of crime were made, the principle did not apply. in other words, that the sanctuary was for men and women who had been guilty, or were supposed to have been guilty, of violations of law; but as children could commit no crime for which an asylum was necessary, the privileges of sanctuary did not extend to them. this view of the subject prevailed. the bishops and archbishops were outvoted, and an order in council was passed authorizing the lord protector to possess himself of his nephew, the duke of york, and for this purpose to take him, if necessary, out of sanctuary by force. still, the bishops and archbishops were very unwilling that force should be used, if it could possibly be avoided; and finally the archbishop of canterbury, who was the highest prelate in the realm, proposed that a deputation from the council should be sent to the abbey, and that he should go with them, in order to see the queen, and make the attempt to persuade her to give up her son of her own accord. after giving notice to the abbot of their intended visit, and making an arrangement with him and with the queen in respect to the time when they could be received, the delegation proceeded in state to the abbey on the appointed day, and were received by the abbot and by elizabeth with due ceremony in the jerusalem chamber, the great audience hall of the abbey, which has already been described. the archbishop of canterbury, who was at the head of the delegation, explained the case to the queen. they wished her, he said, to allow her son, the duke of york, to leave the sanctuary, and to join his brother the king at his royal residence in the tower. he would be perfectly safe there, he said, under the care of his uncle, the lord protector. "the protector thinks it very necessary that the duke should go," added the archbishop, "to be company for his brother. the king is very melancholy, he says, for want of a playfellow." "and so the protector," replied the queen--"god grant that he may really prove a protector--thinks that the king needs a playfellow! and can no playfellow be found for him except his brother? "besides," she added, "he is not in a mood to play. he is not well. they must find some other playmate for his brother. just as if princes, while they are so young, could not as well have some one to play with them not of their own rank, or as if a boy must have his brother, and nobody else for his mate, when every body knows that boys are more likely to disagree with their brothers than they are with other children." the archbishop, in reply, proceeded to argue the case with the queen, and to represent the necessity, arising from reasons of state, why the young duke should be committed to the charge of his uncle. he explained to her, too, that the lord protector had been fully authorized, by a decree of the council, to come and take his nephew from the abbey, and to employ force, if necessary, to effect the purpose, but that it would be much better, both for the queen herself and the young duke, as well as for all concerned, that the affair should be settled in a peaceable and amicable manner. the unhappy queen saw at last that there was no alternative but for her to submit to her fate and give up her boy. slowly and reluctantly she came to this conclusion, and finally gave her consent. richard was brought in. his mother took him by the hand, and again addressed the archbishop and the delegation, speaking substantially as follows: "my lord," said she, "and all my lords now present, i will not be so suspicious as to mistrust the promises you make me, or to believe that you are dealing otherwise than fairly and honorably by me. here is my son. i give him up to your charge. i have no doubt that he would be safe here under my protection, if i could be allowed to keep him with me, although i have enemies that so hate me and all my blood, that i believe, if they thought they had any of it in their own veins, they would open them to let it flow out. "i give him up, at your demand, to the protection of his brother and his uncle. and yet i know well that the desire of a kingdom knows no kindred. brothers have been their brothers' bane, and can these nephews be sure of their uncle? the boys would be safe if kept asunder; together--i do not know. nevertheless, i here deliver my son, and with him his brother's life, into your hands, and of you shall i require them both, before god and man. i know that you are faithful and true in what you intend, and you have power, moreover, to keep the children safe, if you will. if you think that i am over-anxious and fear too much, take care that you yourselves do not fear too little." then drawing richard to her, she kissed him very lovingly, the tears coming to her eyes as she did so. "farewell," she said, "farewell, mine own sweet son. god send you good keeping. i must kiss you before you go, for god knows when we shall kiss together again." she kissed him again and blessed him, and then turned to go away, weeping bitterly. the child began to weep too, from sympathy with his mother's distress. the archbishop, however, took him by the hand and led him away, followed by the rest of the delegation. they conveyed the young duke first to the hall of the council, which was very near, and thence to the lord protector's residence in the city. here he was received with every mark of consideration and honor, and a handsome escort was provided to conduct him in state to the tower, where he joined his brother. richard had now every thing under his own control. the delivery of the duke of york into his hands took place on the sixteenth of june. the time which had been set for the coronation was the twenty-second. chapter xiii. proclaimed king. a.d. 1483 the duke of buckingham.--historical doubts.--richard at baynard's castle.--the expense-book.--items from the expense-book.--richard's plans.--richard's determination in respect to jane shore.--jane's character.--her jewelry confiscated.--the punishment of jane shore.--alleged marriage of edward iv. to elinor talbot.--particulars of the story.--plan for publishing it.--sermon preached by dr. shaw near st. paul's.--ingenious contrivance.--coolness of the people.--meeting at the guildhall.--the people do not respond.--the appeals to the people fail.--grand council convened.--arrangements made by buckingham.--the petition.--substance of the petition.--real object of it.--richard receives the petition at baynard's castle.--richard concludes to accept the crown.--ceremonies connected with the investiture of the king.--richard marches through london.--is every where proclaimed king.--extraordinary character of the reign of edward v. richard, having thus obtained control of every thing essential to the success of his plans, began to prepare for action. his chief friend and confederate, the one on whom he relied most for the execution of the several measures which he proposed to take, was a powerful nobleman named the duke of buckingham. i shall proceed in this chapter to describe the successive steps of the course which richard and the duke of buckingham pursued in raising richard to the throne, as recorded by the different historians of those days, and as generally believed since, though, in fact, there have been great disputes in respect to these occurrences, and it is now quite difficult to ascertain with certainty what the precise truth of the case really is. this, however, is, after all, of no great practical importance, for, in respect to remote transactions of this nature, the thing which is most necessary for the purposes of general education is to understand what the story is, in detail, which has been generally received among mankind, and to which the allusions of orators and poets, and the discussions of statesmen and moralists in subsequent ages refer, for it is with this story alone that for all the purposes of general reading we have any thing to do. * * * * * richard was residing at this time chiefly at baynard's castle with his mother.[n] the young king and his brother, the duke of york, were in the tower. they were not nominally prisoners, but yet richard kept close watch and ward over them, and took most effectual precautions to prevent their making their escape. the queen, elizabeth woodville, with her daughters, was in the sanctuary. richard's wife, with the young child, was still at middleham castle. [footnote n: for view of this castle, see page 273.] it is a very curious circumstance, showing how sometimes records of the most trivial and insignificant things come down to us from ancient times in a clear and certain form, while all that is really important to know is involved in doubt and obscurity--that the household expense-book of anne at middleham is still extant, showing all the little items of expense incurred for richard's son, while all is dispute and uncertainty in respect to the great political schemes and measures of his father. in this book there is a charge of 22_s._ 9_d._ for a piece of green cloth, and another of 1_s._ 8_d._ for making it into gowns for "my lord prince." there is also a charge of 5_s._ for a feather for him, and 13_s._ 1_d._ paid to a shoemaker, named dirick, for a pair of shoes. this expense-book was continued after anne left middleham castle to go to london, as will be presently related. there are several charges on the journey for offerings and gifts made by the child at churches on the way. two men were paid 6_s._ 8_d._ for running on foot by the side of his carriage. these men's names were medcalf and pacock. there is also a charge of 2_d._ for mending a whip! but to return to our narrative. the time for the coronation of edward the fifth was drawing near, but richard intended to prevent the performance of this ceremony, and to take the crown for himself instead. the first thing was to put in circulation the story that his two nephews were not the legitimate children of his brother, edward the fourth, and to prepare the way for this, he wished first, by every means, to cast odium on edward's character. this was easily done, for edward's character was bad enough to merit any degree of odium which his brother might wish it to bear. accordingly, richard employed his friends and partisans in talking as much as possible in all quarters about the dissoluteness and the vices of the late king. false stories would probably have been invented, if it had not been that there were enough that were true. these stories were all revived and put in circulation, and every thing was made to appear as unfavorable for edward as possible. richard himself, on the other hand, feigned a very strict and scrupulous regard for virtue and morality, and deemed it his duty, he said, to do all in his power to atone for and wipe away the reproach which his brother's loose and wicked life had left upon the court and the kingdom. among other things, the cause of public morals demanded, he said, that an example should be made of jane shore, who had been the associate and partner of the king in his immoralities. jane shore, it will be recollected, was the wife of a rich citizen of london, whom edward had enticed away from her husband and brought to court. she was naturally a very amiable and kind-hearted woman, and all accounts concur in saying that she exercised the power that she acquired over the mind of the king in a very humane and praiseworthy manner. she was always ready to interpose, when the king contemplated any act of harshness or severity, to avert his anger and save his intended victim, and, in general, she did a great deal to soften the brutality of his character, and to protect the innocent and helpless from the wrongs which he would otherwise have often done them. these amiable and gentle traits of character do not, indeed, atone at all for the grievous sin which she committed in abandoning her husband and living voluntarily with the king, but they did much toward modifying the feeling of scorn and contempt with which she would have otherwise been regarded by the people of england. richard caused jane to be arrested and sent to prison. he also seized all her plate and jewels, and confiscated them. she had a very rich and valuable collection of these things.[o] richard then caused an ecclesiastical court to be organized, and sent her before it to be tried. the court, undoubtedly in accordance with instructions that richard himself gave them, sentenced her, by way of penance for her sins, to walk in midday through the streets of london, from one end of the city to the other, almost entirely undressed. the intention of this severe exposure was to designate her to those who should assemble to witness the punishment as a wanton, and thus to put her to shame, and draw upon her the scorn and derision of the populace. they found some old and obsolete law which authorized such a punishment. the sentence was carried into effect on a sunday. the unhappy criminal was conducted through the principal streets of the city, wearing a night-dress, and carrying a lighted taper in her hand, between rows of spectators that assembled by thousands along the way to witness the scene. but, instead of being disposed to receive her with taunts and reproaches, the populace were moved to compassion by her saddened look and her extreme beauty. their hearts were softened by the remembrance of the many stories they had heard of the kindness of her heart, and the amiableness and gentleness of her demeanor, in the time of her prosperity and power. they thought it hard, too, that the law should be enforced so rigidly against her alone, while so many multitudes in all ranks of society, high as well as low, were allowed to go unpunished. [footnote o: the husband with whom she had lived before she became acquainted with edward was a wealthy goldsmith and jeweler.] still, richard's object in this exhibition was accomplished. the transaction had the effect of calling the attention of the public universally and strongly to the fact that edward the fourth had been a loose and dissolute man, and prepared people's minds for the charge which was about to be brought against him. this charge was that he had been secretly married to another lady before his union with elizabeth woodville, and that consequently by this latter marriage he was guilty of bigamy. of course, if this were true, the second marriage would be null and void, and the children springing from it would have no rights as heirs. whether there was any truth in this story or not can not now ever be certainly known. all that is certain is that richard circulated the report, and he found several witnesses to testify to the truth of it. the maiden name of the lady to whom they said the king had been married was elinor talbot. she had married in early life a certain lord boteler, whose widow she was at the time that edward was alleged to have married her. the marriage was performed in a very private manner by a certain bishop, nobody being present besides the parties except the bishop himself, and he was strictly charged by the king to keep the affair a profound secret. this he promised to do. notwithstanding his promise, however, the bishop some time subsequently, after the king had been married to elizabeth woodville, revealed the secret of the previous marriage to gloucester, at which the king, when he heard of it, was extremely angry. he accused the bishop of having betrayed the trust which he had reposed in him, and, dismissing him at once from office, shut him up in prison. richard having, as he said, kept these facts secret during his brother's lifetime, out of regard for the peace of the family, now felt it his duty to make them known, in order to prevent the wrong which would be done by allowing the crown to descend to a son who, not being born in lawful wedlock, could have no rights as heir. after disseminating this story among the influential persons connected with the court, and through all the circles of high life, during the week, it was arranged that on the following sunday the facts should be made known publicly to the people. there was a large open space near st. paul's cathedral, in the very heart of london, where it was the custom to hold public assemblies of all kinds, both religious and political. there was a pulpit built on one side of this space, from which sermons were preached, orations and harangues pronounced, and proclamations made. oaths were administered here too, in cases where it was required to administer oaths to large numbers of people. from this pulpit, on the next sunday after the penance of jane shore, a certain dr. shaw, who was a brother of the lord-mayor of london, preached a sermon to a large concourse of citizens, in which he openly attempted to set aside the claims of the two boys, and to prove that richard was the true heir to the crown. he took for his text a passage from the wisdom of solomon, "the multiplying brood of the ungodly shall not thrive." in this discourse he explained to his audience that edward, when he was married to elizabeth woodville, was already the husband of elinor boteler, and consequently that the second marriage was illegal and void, and the children of it entirely destitute of all claims to the crown. he also, it is said, advanced the idea that neither edward nor clarence were the children of their reputed father, the old duke of york, but that richard was the oldest legitimate son of the marriage, in proof of which he offered the fact that richard strongly resembled the duke in person, while neither edward nor clarence had borne any resemblance to him at all. it was arranged, moreover--so it was said--that, when the preacher came to the passage where he was to speak of the resemblance which richard bore to his father, the great duke of york, richard himself was to enter the assembly as if by accident, and thus give the preacher the opportunity to illustrate and confirm what he had said by directing his audience to observe for themselves the resemblance which he had pointed out, and also to excite them to a burst of enthusiasm in richard's favor by the eloquent appeal which the incident of richard's entrance was to awaken. but this intended piece of stage effect, if it was really planned, failed in the execution. richard did not come in at the right time, and when he did come in, either the preacher managed the case badly, or else the people were very little disposed to espouse richard's cause; for when the orator, at the close of his appeal, expected applause and acclamations, the people uttered no response, but looked at each other in silence, and remained wholly unmoved. in the course of the following two or three days, other attempts were made to excite the populace to some demonstration in richard's favor, but they did not succeed. the duke of buckingham met a large concourse of londoners at the guildhall, which is in the centre of the business portion of the city. he was supported by a number of nobles, knights, and distinguished citizens, and he made a long and able speech to the assembly, in which he argued strenuously in favor of calling richard to the throne. he denounced the character of the former king, and enlarged at length on the dissipated and vicious life which he had led. he also related to the people the story of edward's having been the husband of lady elinor boteler at the time when his marriage with queen elizabeth took place, which fact, as buckingham showed, made the marriage with elizabeth void, and cut off the children from the inheritance. the children of clarence had been cut off, too, by the attainder, and so richard was the only remaining heir. the duke concluded his harangue by asking the assembly if, under those circumstances, they would not call upon richard to ascend the throne. a few of the poorer sort, very likely some that had been previously hired to do it, threw up their caps into the air in response to this appeal, and cried out, "long live king richard!" but the major part, comprising all the more respectable portion of the assembly, looked grave and were silent. some who were pressed to give their opinion said they must take time to consider. thus these appeals to the people failed, so far as the object of them was to call forth a popular demonstration in richard's favor. but in one respect they accomplished the object in view: they had the effect of making it known throughout london and the vicinity that a revolution was impending, and thus preparing men's minds to acquiesce in the change more readily than they might perhaps have done if it had come upon them suddenly and with a shock. on the following day after the address at the guildhall, a grand assembly of all the lords, bishops, councilors, and officers of state was convened in westminster. it was substantially a parliament, though not a parliament in form. the reason why it was not called as a parliament in form was because richard, having doubts, as he said, about the right of edward to the throne, could not conscientiously advise that any public act should be performed in his name, and a parliament could only be legally convened by summons from a king. accordingly, this assembly was only an informal meeting of the peers of england and other great dignitaries of church and state, with a view of consulting together to determine what should be done. of course, it was all fully arranged and settled beforehand, among those who were in richard's confidence, what the result of these deliberations was to be. the duke of buckingham, richard's principal friend and supporter, managed the business at the meeting. the assembly consisted, of course, chiefly of the party of richard's friends. the principal leaders of the parties opposed to him had been beheaded or shut up in prison; of the rest, some had fled, some had concealed themselves, and of the few who dared to show themselves at the meeting, there were none who had the courage, or perhaps i ought rather to say the imprudence and folly, to oppose any thing which buckingham should undertake to do. the result of the deliberations of this council was the drawing up of a petition to be presented to richard, declaring him the true and rightful heir to the crown, and praying him to assume at once the sovereign power. a delegation was appointed to wait upon richard and present the petition to him. buckingham was at the head of this delegation. the petition was written out in due form upon a roll of parchment. it declared that, inasmuch as it was clearly established that king edward the fourth was already the husband of "dame alionora boteler," by a previous marriage, at the time of his pretended marriage with elizabeth woodville, and that consequently his children by elizabeth woodville, not being born in lawful wedlock, could have no rights of inheritance whatever from their father, and especially could by no means derive from him any title to the crown; and inasmuch as the children of clarence had been cut off from the succession by the bill of attainder which had been passed against their father; and inasmuch as richard came next in order to these in the line of succession, therefore he was now the true and rightful heir. this his right moreover by birth was now confirmed by the decision of the estates of the realm assembled for the purpose; wherefore the petition, in conclusion, invited and urged him at once to assume the crown which was thus his by a double title--the right of birth and the election of the three estates of the realm. of course, although the petition was addressed to richard as if the object of it was to produce an effect upon his mind, it was really all planned and arranged by richard himself, and by buckingham in conjunction with him; and the representations and arguments which it contained were designed solely for effect on the mind of the public, when the details of the transaction should be promulgated throughout the land. the petition being ready, buckingham, in behalf of the delegation, demanded an audience of the lord protector that they might lay it before him. richard accordingly made an appointment to receive them at his mother's residence at baynard's castle. at the appointed time the delegation appeared, and were received in great state by richard in the audience hall. the duke of buckingham presented the petition, and richard read it. he seemed surprised, and he pretended to be at a loss what to reply. presently he began to say that he could not think of assuming the crown. he said he had no ambition to reign, but only desired to preserve the kingdom for his nephew the king until he should become of sufficient age, and then to put him peaceably in possession of it. but the duke of buckingham replied that this could never be. the people of england, he said, would never consent to be ruled by a prince of illegitimate birth. "and if you, my lord," added the duke, "refuse to accept the crown, they know where to find another who will gladly accept it." [illustration: baynard's castle.] in the end, richard allowed himself to be persuaded that there was no alternative but for him to accept the crown, and he reluctantly consented that, on the morrow, he would proceed in state to westminster, and publicly assume the title and the prerogatives of king. accordingly, the next day, a grand procession was formed, and richard was conducted with great pomp to westminster hall. here he took his place on the throne, with the leading lords of his future court, and the bishops and archbishops around him. the rest of the hall was crowded with a vast concourse of people that had assembled to witness the ceremony. first the king took the customary royal oath, which was administered by the archbishop. he then summoned the great judges before him, and made an address to them, exhorting them to administer the laws and execute judgment between man and man in a just and impartial manner, inasmuch as to secure that end, he said, would be the first and greatest object of his reign. after this richard addressed the concourse of people in the hall, who, in some sense, represented the public, and pronounced a pardon for all offenses which had been committed against himself, and ordered a proclamation to be made of a general amnesty throughout the land. these announcements were received by the people with loud acclamations, and the ceremony was concluded by shouts of "long live king richard!" from all the assembly. we obtain a good idea of this scene by the following engraving, which is copied exactly from a picture contained in a manuscript volume of the time. [illustration: the king on his throne.] the royal dignity having thus been assumed by the new king at the usual centre and seat of the royal power, the procession was again formed, and richard was conducted to westminster abbey for the purpose of doing the homage customary on such occasions at one of the shrines in the church. the procession of the king was met at the door of the church by a procession of monks chanting a solemn anthem as they came. after the religious ceremonies were completed, richard, at the head of a grand cavalcade of knights, noblemen, and citizens, proceeded into the city to the church of st. paul. the streets were lined with spectators, who saluted the king with cheers and acclamations as he passed. at the church of st. paul more ceremonies were performed and more proclamations were made. the popular joy, more or less sincere, was expressed by the sounding of trumpets, the waving of banners, and loud acclamations of "long live king richard!" at length, when the services in the city were concluded, the king returned to westminster, and took up his abode at the royal palace; and while he was returning, heralds were sent to all the great centres of concourse and intelligence in and around london to proclaim him king. this proclamation of richard as king took place on the twenty-sixth of june. king edward the fourth died just about three months before. during this three months edward the fifth is, in theory, considered as having been the king of england, though, during the whole period, the poor child, instead of exercising any kingly rights or prerogatives, was a helpless prisoner in the hands of others, who, while they professed to be his protectors, were really his determined and relentless foes. chapter xiv. the coronation. a.d. 1483 plan for the coronation.--anne is sent for, and comes to london.--procession of barges.--great crowds of spectators.--the royal barges.--arrival at the tower.--measures adopted.--the princes imprisoned.--richard and anne proceed to westminster.--ceremonies connected with the coronation.--the royal paraphernalia.--religious services.--the king and queen crowned.--the dais.--ceremonial in westminster hall.--the banquet.--the royal champion.--grand challenge.--gauntlet thrown down.--the spectators.--a largesse.--modern largesses.--the torches. it was on the 26th of june, 1483, that richard was proclaimed king, under the circumstances narrated in the last chapter. in order to render his investiture with the royal authority complete, he resolved that the ceremony of coronation should be immediately performed. he accordingly appointed the 6th of july for the day. this allowed an interval of just ten days for the necessary preparations. the first thing to be done was to send to middleham castle for anne, his wife, who now, since the proclamation of richard, became queen of england. richard wished that she should be present, and take part in the ceremony of the coronation. the child was to be brought too. his name was edward. it seems that anne arrived in london only on the 3d of july, three days before the appointed day. there is a specification in the book of accounts of some very elegant and costly cloth of gold bought on that day in london, the material for the queen's coronation robe. richard determined that the ceremony of his coronation should be more magnificent than that of any previous english monarch. preparations were made, accordingly, on a very grand scale. there were several preliminary pageants and processions on the days preceding that of the grand ceremony. on the 4th of july, which was sunday, the king and queen proceeded in state to the tower. they went in barges on the river. the party set out from baynard's castle, the residence of richard's mother, and the place where the queen went on her arrival in london. the royal barges destined to convey the king and queen, and the other great personages of the party, were covered with canopies of silk and were otherwise magnificently adorned. great crowds of spectators assembled to witness the scene. some came in boats upon the water, others took their stations on the shores, where every prominent and commanding point was covered with its own special crowd, and others still occupied the windows of the buildings that looked out upon the river. through the midst of this scene the royal barges passed down the river to the tower. as they moved along, the air was filled with prolonged and continual shouts of "long live king richard!" "long live the noble queen anne!" royal or imperial power, once firmly established, will never fail to draw forth the acclamations of the crowd, no matter by what means it has been acquired. on his arrival at the tower, richard was received with great honor by the authorities which he had left in charge there, and he took possession of the edifice formally, as one of his own royal residences. he held a court in the great council-hall. at this court he created several persons peers of the realm, and invested others with the honor of knighthood. these were men whom he supposed to be somewhat undecided in respect to the course which they should pursue, and he wished, by these compliments and honors, to purchase their adhesion to his cause. he also liberated some persons who had been made prisoners, presuming that, by this kindness, he should conciliate their good-will. he did not, however, by any means extend this conciliating policy to the case of the young ex-king and his brother; indeed, it would have been extremely dangerous for him to have done so. he was aware that there must be a large number of persons throughout the kingdom who still considered edward as the rightful king, and he knew very well that, if any of these were to obtain possession of edward's person, it would enable them to act vigorously in his name, and to organize perhaps a powerful party for the support of his claims. he was convinced, therefore, that it was essential to the success of his plans that the boys should be kept in very close and safe custody. so he removed them from the apartments which they had hitherto occupied, and shut them up in close confinement in a gloomy tower upon the outer walls of the fortress, and which, on account of the cruel murders which were from time to time committed there, subsequently acquired the name of the bloody tower. [illustration: the bloody tower.] richard and the queen remained at the tower until the day appointed for the coronation, which was tuesday. the ceremonies of that day were commenced by a grand progress of the king and his suite through the city of london back to westminster, only, as if to vary the pageantry, they went back in grand cavalcade through the streets of the city, instead of returning as they came, by barges on the river. the concourse of spectators on this occasion was even greater than before. the streets were every where thronged, and very strict regulations were made, by richard's command, to prevent disorder. on arriving at westminster, the royal party proceeded to the abbey, where, first of all, as was usual in the case of a coronation, certain ceremonies of religious homage were to be performed at a particular shrine, which was regarded as an object of special sanctity on such occasions. the king and queen proceeded to this shrine from the great hall, barefooted, in token of reverence and humility. they walked, however, it should be added, on ornamented cloth laid down for this purpose on the stone pavements of the floors. all the knights and nobles of england that were present accompanied and followed the king and queen in their pilgrimage to the shrine. one of these nobles bore the king's crown, another the queen's crown, and others still various other ancient national emblems of royal power. the queen walked under a canopy of silk, with a golden bell hanging from each of the corners of it. the canopy was borne by four great officers of state, and the bells, of course, jingled as the bearers walked along. the queen wore upon her head a circlet of gold adorned with precious stones. there were four bishops, one at each of the four corners of the canopy, who walked as immediate attendants upon the queen, and a lady of the very highest rank followed her, bearing her train. when the procession reached the shrine, the king and queen took their seats on each side of the high altar, and then there came forth a procession of priests and bishops, clothed in magnificent sacerdotal robes made of cloth of gold, and chanting solemn hymns of prayer and praise as they came. after the religious services were completed, the ceremony of anointing and crowning the king and queen, and of investing their persons with the royal robes and emblems, was performed with the usual grand and imposing solemnities. after this, the royal cortã©ge was formed again, and the company returned to westminster hall in the same order as they came. the queen walked, as before, under her silken canopy, the golden bells keeping time, by their tinkling, with the steps of the bearers. at westminster hall a great dais had been erected, with thrones upon it for the king and queen. as their majesties advanced and ascended this dais, surrounded by the higher nobles and chief officers of state, the remainder of the procession, consisting of those who had come to accompany and escort them to the place, followed, and filled the hall. as soon as this vast throng saw that the king and queen were seated upon the dais, with their special and immediate attendants around them, their duties were ended, and they were to be dismissed. a grand officer of state, whose duty it was to dismiss them, came in on horseback, his horse covered with cloth of gold hanging down on both sides to the ground. the people, falling back before this horseman, gradually retired, and thus the hall was cleared. the king and queen then rose from their seats upon the dais, and were conducted to their private apartments in the palace, to rest and refresh themselves after the fatigues of the public ceremony, and to prepare for the grand banquet which was to take place in the evening. the preparations for this banquet were made by spreading a table upon the dais under the canopy for the king and queen, and four other very large and long tables through the hall for the invited guests. the time appointed for the banquet was four o'clock. when the hour arrived, the king and queen were conducted into the hall again, and took their places at the table which had been prepared for them on the dais. they had changed their dresses, having laid aside their royal robes, and the various paraphernalia of office with which they had been indued at the coronation, and now appeared in robes of crimson velvet embroidered with gold, and trimmed with costly furs. they were attended by many lords and ladies of the highest rank, scarcely less magnificently dressed than themselves. they were waited upon, while at table, by the noblest persons in the realm, who served them from the most richly wrought vessels of gold and silver. after the first part of the banquet was over, a knight, fully armed, and mounted on a warhorse richly caparisoned, rode into the hall, having been previously announced by a herald. this was the king's champion, who came, according to a custom usually observed on such occasions, to challenge and defy the king's enemies, if any such there were.[p] [footnote p: see frontispiece.] the trappings of the champion's horse were of white and red silk, and the armor of the knight himself was bright and glittering. as he rode forward into the area in front of the dais, he called out, in a loud voice, demanding of all present if there were any one there who disputed the claim of king richard the third to the crown of england. all the people gazed earnestly at the champion while he made this demand, but no one responded. the champion then made proclamation again, that if any one there was who would come forward and say that king richard was not lawfully king of england, he was ready there to fight him to the death, in vindication of richard's right. as he said this, he threw down his gauntlet upon the floor, in token of defiance. at this, the whole assembly, with one voice, began to shout, "long live king richard!" and the immense hall was filled, for some minutes, with thundering acclamations. this ceremony being concluded, a company of heralds came forward before the king, and proclaimed "a largesse," as it was called. the ceremony of a largesse consisted in throwing money among the crowd to be scrambled for. three times the money was thrown out, on this occasion, among the guests in the hall. the amount that is charged on the royal account-book for the expense of this largesse is one hundred pounds. the scrambling of a crowd for money thrown thus among them, one would say, was a very rude and boisterous amusement, but those were rude and boisterous times. the custom holds its ground in england, in some measure, to the present day, though now it is confined to throwing out pence and halfpence to the rabble in the streets at an election, and is no longer, as of yore, relied upon as a means of entertaining noble guests at a royal dinner. after the frolic of the largesse was over, the king and queen rose to depart. the evening was now coming on, and a great number of torches were brought in to illuminate the hall. by the light of these torches, the company, after their majesties had retired, gradually withdrew, and the ceremonies of the coronation were ended. chapter xv. the fate of the princes. the king resolves on a grand progress through the kingdom.--state of public sentiment.--oxford.--warwick castle.--embassadors.--arrival at york.--the coronation repeated.--richard's son.--celebrations and rejoicings.--his determination in respect to the children.--his agent green.--green's return.--conversation with the page.--sir james tyrrel.--richard employs tyrrel.--the letter.--tyrrel arrives at the ower.--murder of the princes.--action of the assassins.--the burial.--joy of richard.--re-interment of the bodies.--richard keeps the murder secret. after the coronation, king richard and anne, the queen, went to windsor, and took up their residence there, with the court, for a short time, in order that richard might attend to the most important of the preliminary arrangements for the management of public affairs, which are always necessary at the commencement of a new reign. as soon as these things were settled, the king set out to make a grand progress through his dominions, for the purpose of receiving the congratulations of the people, and also of impressing them, as much as possible, with a sense of his grandeur and power by the magnificence of his retinue, and the great parades and celebrations by which his progress through the country was to be accompanied. from windsor castle the king went first to oxford, where he was received with distinguished honors by all the great dignitaries connected with the university. hence he proceeded to gloucester, and afterward to worcester. at all these places he was received with great parade and pageantry. those who were disposed to espouse his cause, of course, endeavored to gain his favor by doing all in their power to give ã©clat to these celebrations. those who were indifferent or in doubt, flocked, of course, to see the shows, and thus involuntarily contributed to the apparent popularity of the demonstrations; while, on the other hand, those who were opposed to him, and adhered still secretly to the cause of young king edward, made no open opposition, but expressed their dissent, if they expressed it at all, in private conclaves of their own. they could not do otherwise than to allow richard to have his own way during the hour of his triumph, _their_ hour being not yet come. at last, richard, in his progress, reached warwick castle, and here he was joined by the queen and the young prince, who had remained at windsor while the king was making his tour through the western towns, but who now came across the country with a grand retinue of her own, to join her husband at her own former home; for warwick castle was the chief stronghold and principal residence of the great earl of warwick, the queen's father. the king and queen remained for some time at warwick castle, and the king established his court here, and maintained it with great pomp and splendor. here he received embassadors from spain, france, and burgundy, who had been sent by their several governments to congratulate him on his accession, and to pay him their homage. each of these embassadors came in great state, and were accompanied by a grand retinue; and the ceremonies of receiving them, and the entertainments given to do them honor, were magnificent beyond description. one of these embassadors, the one sent by the government of spain, brought a formal proposal from ferdinand and isabella for a marriage between their daughter and richard's little son. the little prince was at that time about seven years of age. after remaining some time at warwick castle, the royal party proceeded northward, and, after passing through several large towns, they arrived finally at york, which was then, in some sense, the northern capital of the kingdom. here there was another grand reception. all the nobility and gentry of the surrounding country came in to honor the king's arrival, and the ceremonies attending the entrance of the royal cortã©ge were extremely magnificent. while the court was at york, richard repeated the ceremony of the coronation. on this occasion, his son, the little prince edward, was brought forward in a conspicuous manner. he was created prince of wales with great ceremony, and on the day of the coronation he had a little crown upon his head, and his mother led him by the hand in the procession to the altar. the poor child did not live, however, to realize the grand destiny which his father thus marked out for him. he died a few months after this at middleham castle. the coronation at york was attended and followed, as that at london had been, with banquets and public parades, and grand celebrations of all sorts, which continued for several successive days, and the hilarity and joy which these shows awakened among the crowds that assembled to witness them seemed to indicate a universal acquiescence on the part of the people of england in richard's accession to the throne. still, although outwardly every thing looked fair, richard's mind was not yet by any means at ease. from the very day of his accession, he knew well that, so long as the children of his brother edward remained alive at the tower, his seat on the throne could not be secure. there must necessarily be, he was well aware, a large party in the kingdom who were secretly in favor of edward, and he knew that they would very soon begin to come to an understanding with each other, and to form plans for effecting a counter-revolution. the most certain means of preventing the formation of these plots, or of defeating them, if formed, would be to remove the children out of the way. he accordingly determined in his heart, before he left london, that this should be done.[q] [footnote q: i say he determined; for, although some of richard's defenders have denied that he was guilty of the crime which the almost unanimous voice of history charges upon him, the evidence leaves very little room to doubt that the dreadful tale is in all essential particulars entirely true.] he resolved to put them to death. the deed was to be performed during the course of his royal progress to the north, while the minds of the people of england were engrossed with the splendor of the pageantry with which his progress was accompanied. he intended, moreover, that the murder should be effected in a very secret manner, and that the death of the boys should be closely concealed until a time and occasion should arrive rendering it necessary that it should be made public. accordingly, soon after he left london, he sent back a confidential agent, named green, to sir robert brakenbury, the governor of the tower, with a letter, in which sir robert was commanded to put the boys to death. green immediately repaired to london to execute the commission. richard proceeded on his journey. when he arrived at warwick, green returned and joined him there, bringing back the report that sir robert refused to obey the order. richard was very angry when green delivered this message. he turned to a page who was in waiting upon him in his chamber, and said, in a rage, "even these men that i have brought up and made, refuse to obey my commands." the page replied, "please your majesty, there is a man here in the ante-chamber, that i know, who will obey your majesty's commands, whatever they may be." richard asked the page who it was that he meant, and he said sir james tyrrel. sir james tyrrel was a very talented and accomplished, but very unscrupulous man, and he was quite anxious to acquire the favor of the king. the page knew this, from conversation which sir james had had with him, and he had been watching an opportunity to recommend sir james to richard's notice, according to an arrangement that sir james had made with him. so richard ordered that sir james should be sent in. when he came, richard held a private conference with him, in which he communicated to him, by means of dark hints and insinuations, what he required. tyrrel undertook to execute the deed. so richard gave him a letter to sir robert brakenbury, in which he ordered sir robert to deliver up the keys of the tower to sir james, "to the end," as the letter expressed it, "that he might there accomplish the king's pleasure in such a thing as he had given him commandment." sir james, having received this letter, proceeded to london, taking with him such persons as he thought he might require to aid him in his work. among these was a man named john dighton. john dighton was sir james's groom. he was "a big, broad, square, strong knave," and ready to commit any crime or deed of violence which his master might require. on arriving at the tower, sir james delivered his letter to the governor, and the governor gave him up the keys. sir james went to see the keepers of the prison in which the boys were confined. there were four of them. he selected from among these four, one, a man named miles forest, whom he concluded to employ, together with his groom, john dighton, to kill the princes. he formed the plan, gave the men their instructions, and arranged it with them that they were to carry the deed into execution that night. accordingly, at midnight, when the princes were asleep, the two men stole softly into the room, and there wrapped the poor boys up suddenly in the bed-clothes, with pillows pressed down hard over their faces, so that they could not breathe. the boys, of course, were suddenly awakened, in terror, and struggled to get free; but the men held them down, and kept the pillows and bed-clothes pressed so closely over their faces that they could not breathe or utter any cry. they held them in this way until they were entirely suffocated. when they found that their struggles had ceased, they slowly opened the bed-clothes and lifted up the pillows to see if their victims were really dead. "yes," said they to each other, "they are dead." the murderers took off the clothes which the princes had on, and laid out the bodies upon the bed. they then went to call sir james tyrrel, who was all ready, in an apartment not far off, awaiting the summons. he came at once, and, when he saw that the boys were really dead, he gave orders that the men should take the bodies down into the court-yard to be buried. the grave was dug immediately, just outside the door, at the foot of the stairs which led up to the turret in which the boys had been confined. when the bodies had been placed in the ground, the grave was filled up, and some stones were put upon the top of it. immediately after this work had been accomplished, sir james delivered back the keys to the governor of the castle, and mounted his horse to return to the king. he traveled with all possible speed, and, on reaching the place where the king then was, he reported what he had done. the king was extremely pleased, and he rewarded sir james very liberally for his energy and zeal; he, however, expressed some dissatisfaction at the manner in which the bodies had been disposed of. "they should not have been buried," he said, "in so vile a corner." so richard sent word to the governor of the tower, and the governor commissioned a priest to take up the bodies secretly, and inter them again in a more suitable manner. this priest soon afterward died, without revealing the place which he chose for the interment, and so it was never known where the bodies were finally laid. richard gave all the persons who had been concerned in this affair very strict instructions to keep the death of the princes a profound secret. he did not intend to make it known, unless he should perceive some indication of an attempt to restore edward to the throne; and, had it not been for the occurrence of certain circumstances which will be related in the next chapter, the fate of the princes might, perhaps, have thus been kept secret for many years. chapter xvi. domestic troubles. a.d. 1483-1484 plots formed against richard.--situation of elizabeth woodville.--plans of the conspirators.--queen elizabeth's agony.--retribution.--elizabeth visits the grave.--the duke of buckingham.--richmond.--elizabeth.--plans formed for a marriage.--richmond plans an invasion.--buckingham's attempt to co-operate.--failure of the plan.--death of buckingham.--richmond retreats.--unhappy situation of elizabeth.--the princess.--he seeks to get possession of richmond.--parliament.--new policy.--the plan succeeds.--excuses for the queen.--her situation still unhappy.--the marriage countermanded.--richard's plan for the princess.--elizabeth's views on the subject.--death of richard's son.--sickness of queen anne.--sufferings of the queen--suspicions.--elizabeth's eagerness to marry the king.--death of the queen.--remonstrance of richard's counselors.--richard gives up the plan.--disappointment of elizabeth. while richard was making his triumphal tour through the north of england, apparently receiving a confirmation of his right to the crown by the voice of the whole population of the country, the leaders of the lancaster party were secretly beginning, in london, to form their schemes for liberating the young princes from the tower, and restoring edward to the kingdom. queen elizabeth, who still remained, with the princess elizabeth, her oldest daughter, and some of her other children, in the sanctuary at westminster, was the centre of this movement. she communicated privately with the nobles who were disposed to espouse her cause. the nobles had secret meetings among themselves to form their plans. at these meetings they drank to the health of the king in the tower, and of his brother, the little duke of york, and pledged themselves to do every thing in their power to restore the king to his throne. they little knew that the unhappy princes were at that very time lying together in a corner of the court-yard of the prison in an ignoble grave. at length the conspirators' plans were matured, and the insurrection broke out. richard immediately prepared to leave york, at the head of a strong force, to go toward london. at the same time, he allowed the tidings to be spread abroad that the two princes were dead. this news greatly disconcerted the conspirators and deranged their plans; and when the dreadful intelligence was communicated to the queen in the sanctuary, she was stunned, and almost killed by it, as by a blow. "she swooned away, and fell to the ground, where she lay in great agony, like a corpse;" and when at length she was restored to consciousness again, she broke forth in shrieks and cries of anguish so loud, that they resounded through the whole abbey, and were most pitiful to hear. she beat her breast and tore her hair, calling all the time to her children by their names, and bitterly reproaching herself for her madness in giving up the youngest into his enemies' hands. after exhausting herself with these cries and lamentations, she sank into a state of calm despair, and, kneeling down upon the floor, she began, with dreadful earnestness and solemnity, to call upon almighty god, imploring him to avenge the death of her children, and invoking the bitterest curses upon the head of their ruthless murderer. [illustration: queen elizabeth at the grave of her children.] it was but a short time after this that richard's child died at middleham castle, as stated in the last chapter. many persons believed that this calamity was a judgment of heaven, brought upon the king in answer to the bereaved mother's imprecations. it is said that when queen elizabeth had recovered a little from the first shock of her grief, she demanded to be taken to her children's grave. so they conducted her to the tower, and showed her the place in the corner of the court-yard where they had first been buried. one of the principal leaders of the conspiracy which had been formed against richard was the duke of buckingham--the same that had taken so active a part in bringing richard to the throne. what induced him to change sides so suddenly is not certainly known. it is supposed that he was dissatisfied with the rewards which richard bestowed upon him. at any rate, he now turned against the king, and became the leader of the conspirators that were plotting against him. when the conspirators heard of the death of the princes, they were at first at a loss to know what to do. they looked about among the branches of the york and lancaster families for some one to make their candidate for the crown. at last they decided upon a certain henry tudor, earl of richmond. this henry, or richmond, as he was generally called, was descended indirectly from the lancaster line. the proposal of the conspirators, however, was, that he should marry the princess elizabeth, queen elizabeth woodville's daughter, who has already been mentioned among those who fled with their mother to the sanctuary. now that both the sons of elizabeth were dead, this daughter was, of course, king edward's next heir, and by her marriage with richmond the claims of the houses of york and lancaster would be, in a measure, combined. when this plan was proposed to queen elizabeth, she acceded to it at once, and promised that she would give her daughter in marriage to richmond, and acknowledge him as king, provided he would first conquer and depose king richard, the common enemy. the plan was accordingly all arranged. richmond was in france at this time, having fled there some time previous, after a battle, in which his party had been defeated. they wrote to him, explaining the plan. he immediately fell in with it. he raised a small force--all that he could procure at that time--and set sail, with a few ships, from the port of st. malo, intending to land on the coast of devonshire, which is in the southwestern part of england. in the mean time, the several leaders of the rebellion had gone to different parts of the kingdom, in order to raise troops, and form centres of action against richard. buckingham went into wales. his plan was to march down, with all the forces that he could raise there, to the coast of devonshire, to meet richmond on his landing. this richard resolved to prevent. he raised an army, and marched to intercept buckingham. he first, however, issued a proclamation in which he denounced the leaders of the rebellion as criminals and outlaws, and set a price upon their heads. buckingham did not succeed in reaching the coast in time to join richmond. he was stopped by the river severn, which you will see, by looking on a map of england, came directly in his way. he tried to get across the river, but the people destroyed the bridges and the boats, and he could not get over. he marched up to where the stream was small, in hopes of finding a fording place, but the waters were so swollen with the fall rains that he failed in this attempt as well as the others. the result was, that richard came up while buckingham was entangled among the intricacies of the ground produced by the inundations. buckingham's soldiers, seeing that they were likely to be surrounded, abandoned him and fled. at last buckingham fled too, and hid himself; but one of his servants came and told richard where he was. richard ordered him to be seized. buckingham sent an imploring message to richard, begging that richard would see him, and, before condemning him, hear what he had to say; but richard, in the place of any reply, gave orders to the soldiers to take the prisoner at once out into the public square of the town, and cut off his head. the order was immediately obeyed. when richmond reached the coast of devonshire, and found that buckingham was not there to meet him, he was afraid to land with the small force that he had under his command, and so he sailed back to france. thus the first attempt made to organize a forcible resistance to richard's power totally failed. the unhappy queen, when she heard these tidings, was once more overwhelmed with grief. her situation in the sanctuary was becoming every day more and more painful. she had long since exhausted all her own means, and she imagined that the monks began to think that she was availing herself of their hospitality too long. her friends without would gladly have supplied her wants, but this richard would not permit. he set a guard around the sanctuary, and would not allow any one to come or go. he would starve her out, he said, if he could not compel her to surrender herself in any other way. it was, however, not the queen herself, but her daughter elizabeth, who was now the heir of whatever claims to the throne were possessed by the family, that richard was most anxious to secure. if he could once get elizabeth into his power, he thought, he could easily devise some plan to prevent her marriage with henry of richmond, and so defeat the plans of his enemies in the most effectual manner. he would have liked still better to have secured henry himself; but henry was in brittany, on the other side of the channel, beyond his reach. he, however, formed a secret plan to get possession of henry. he offered privately a large reward to the duke of brittany if he would seize henry and deliver him into his, richard's hands. this the duke engaged to do. but henry gained intelligence of the plot before it was executed, and made his escape from brittany into france. he was received kindly at paris by the french king. the king even promised to aid him in deposing richard, and making himself king of england instead. this alarmed richard more than ever. in the mean time, the summer passed away and the autumn came on. in november richard convened parliament, and caused very severe laws to be passed against those who had been engaged in the rebellion. many were executed under these laws, some were banished, and others shut up in prison. richard attempted, by these and similar measures, to break down the spirit of his enemies, and prevent the possibility of their forming any new organizations against him. still, notwithstanding all that he could do, he felt very ill at ease so long as henry and elizabeth were at liberty. at last, in the course of the winter, he conceived the idea of trying what pretended kindness could do in enticing the queen and her family out of sanctuary. so he sent a messenger to her, to make fair and friendly proposals to her in case she would give up her place of refuge and place herself under his protection. he said that he felt no animosity or ill will against her, but that, if she and her daughters would trust to him, he would receive them at court, provide for them fully in a manner suited to their rank, and treat them in all respects with the highest consideration. she herself should be recognized as the queen dowager of england, and her daughters as princesses of the royal family; and he would take proper measures to arrange marriages for the young ladies, such as should comport with the exalted station which they were entitled to hold. the queen was at last persuaded to yield to these solicitations. she left the sanctuary, and gave herself and her daughters up to richard's control. many persons have censured her very strongly for doing this; but her friends and defenders allege that there was nothing else that she could do. she might have remained in the abbey herself to starve if she had been alone, but she could not see her children perish of destitution and distress when a word from her could restore them to the world, and raise them at once to a condition of the highest prosperity and honor. so she yielded. she left the abbey, and was established by richard in one of his palaces, and her daughters were received at court, and treated, especially the eldest, with the utmost consideration. but, notwithstanding this outward change in her condition, the real situation of the queen herself, after leaving the abbey, was extremely forlorn. the apartments which richard assigned to her were very retired and obscure. he required her, moreover, to dismiss all her own attendants, and he appointed servants and agents of his own to wait upon and guard her. the queen soon found that she was under a very strict surveillance, and not much less a prisoner, in fact, than she was before. while in this situation, she wrote to her son dorset,[r] at paris, commanding him to put an end to the proposed marriage of her daughter elizabeth to henry of richmond, "as she had given up," she said, "the plan of that alliance, and had formed other designs for the princess." henry and his friends and partisans in paris were indignant at receiving this letter, and the queen has been by many persons much blamed for having thus broken the engagement which she had so solemnly made. others say that this letter to paris was not her free act, but that it was extorted from her by richard, who had her now completely in his power, and could, of course, easily find means to procure from her any writing that he might desire. [footnote r: the earl of dorset, you will recollect, was queen elizabeth's son by her first marriage; he, consequently, had no claim to the crown.] whether the queen acted freely or not in this case can not certainly be known. at all events, henry, and those who were acting with him at paris, determined to regard the letter as written under constraint, and to go on with the maturing of their plans just as if it had never been written. richard's plan was, so it was said, to marry the princess elizabeth to his own son; for the death of his child, though it has been already once or twice alluded to, had not yet taken place. richard's son was very young, being at that time about eleven years old; but the princess might be affianced to him, and the marriage consummated when he grew up. elizabeth herself seems to have fallen in with this proposed arrangement very readily. the prospect that henry of richmond would ever succeed in making himself king, and claiming her for his bride, was very remote and uncertain, while richard was already in full possession of power; and she, by taking his side, and becoming the affianced wife of his son, became at once the first lady in the kingdom, next to queen anne, with an apparently certain prospect of becoming queen herself in due time. but all these fine plans were abruptly brought to an end by the death of the young prince, which occurred about this time, at middleham castle, as has been stated before. the death of the poor boy took place in a very sudden and mysterious manner. some persons supposed that he died by a judgment from heaven, in answer to the awful curses which queen elizabeth woodville imprecated upon the head of the murderer of her children; others thought he was destroyed by poison. not very long after the death of the prince, his mother fell very seriously sick. she was broken-hearted at the death of her son, and pining away, she fell into a slow decline. her sufferings were greatly aggravated by richard's harsh and cruel treatment of her. he was continually uttering expressions of impatience against her on account of her sickness and uselessness, and making fretful complaints of her various disagreeable qualities. some of these sayings were reported to anne, and also a rumor came to her ears one day, while she was at her toilet, that richard was intending to put her to death. she was dreadfully alarmed at hearing this, and she immediately ran, half dressed as she was, and with her hair disheveled, into the presence of her husband, and, with piteous sobs and bitter tears, asked him what she had done to deserve death. richard tried to quiet and calm her, assuring her that she had no cause to fear. she, however, continued to decline; and not long afterward her distress and anguish of mind were greatly increased by hearing that richard was impatient for her death, in order that he might himself marry the princess elizabeth, to whom every one said he was now, since the death of his son, devoting himself personally with great attention. in this state of suffering the poor queen lingered on through the months of the winter, very evidently, though slowly, approaching her end. the universal belief was that richard had formed the plan of making the princess elizabeth his wife, and that the decline and subsequent death of anne were owing to a slow poison which he caused to be administered to her. there is no proof that this charge was true, but the general belief in the truth of it shows what was the estimate placed, in those times, on richard's character. it is very certain, however, that he contemplated this new marriage, and that the princess herself acceded to the proposed plan, and was very deeply interested in the accomplishment of it. it is said that while the queen still lived she wrote to one of her friends--a certain noble duke of high standing and influence--in which she implored him to aid in forwarding her marriage with the king, whom she called "her master and her joy in this world--the master of her heart and thoughts." in this letter, too, she expressed her impatience at the queen's being so long in dying. "only think," said she, "the better part of february is past, and the queen is still alive. will she _never_ die?" but the patience of the princess was not destined to be taxed much longer. the queen sank rapidly after this, and in march she died. the heart of elizabeth was now filled with exultation and delight. the great obstacle to her marriage with her uncle was now removed, and the way was open before her to become a queen. it is true that the relationship which existed between her and richard, that of uncle and niece, was such as to make the marriage utterly illegal. but richard had a plan of obtaining a dispensation from the pope, which he had no doubt that he could easily do, and a dispensation from the pope, according to the ideas of those times, would legalize any thing. so richard cautiously proposed his plan to some of his confidential counselors. his counselors told him that the execution of such a plan would be dangerous in the highest degree. the people of england, they said, had for some time been led to think that the king had that design in contemplation, and that the idea had awakened a great deal of indignation throughout the country. the land was full of rumors and murmurings, they said, and those of a very threatening character. the marriage would be considered incestuous both by the clergy and the people, and would be looked upon with abhorrence. besides, they said, there were a great many dark suspicions in the minds of the people that richard had been himself the cause of the death of his former wife anne, in order to open the way for this marriage, and now, if the marriage were really to take place, all these suspicions would be confirmed. they could judge somewhat, they added, by the depth of the excitement which had been produced by the bare suspicion that such things were contemplated, how great would be the violence of the outbreak of public indignation if the design were carried into effect. richard would be in the utmost danger of losing his kingdom. [illustration: portrait of the princess elizabeth.] so richard determined at once to abandon the plan. he caused it to be announced in the most public manner that he had never contemplated such a marriage, and that all the rumors attributing such a design to him were malicious and false. he also sent orders abroad throughout the kingdom requiring that all persons who had circulated such rumors should be arrested and sent to london to be punished. elizabeth's hopes were, of course, suddenly blasted, and the splendid castle which her imagination had built fell to the ground. it was only a temporary disappointment, however, for she became queen of england in the end, after all. chapter xvii. the field of bosworth. a.d. 1485-1492 richmond goes on with his preparations at paris.--the expedition sails.--richard issues a proclamation.--plans of the campaign.--the king goes to nottingham.--richmond's hopes and expectations.--the various negotiations.--richard at nottingham.--he commences his march.--the long column.--bosworth.--the two armies.--richard's depression and anxiety.--his painful suspicions.--his remorse.--the battle.--richard betrayed.--defection of his men.--richard's well.--his despair.--terrible combat.--he refuses to fly.--richard is killed.--transfer of the crown.--flight of richard's troops.--disposition of the body.--henry marries the princess.--queen elizabeth woodville.--last years of her life.--her death and burial. in the mean time, while richard had been occupied with the schemes and manoeuvres described in the last chapter, richmond was going on steadily in paris with the preparations that he was making for a new invasion of england. the king of france assisted him both by providing him with money and aiding him in the enlistment of men. when richmond received the message from elizabeth's mother declaring that the proposed match between him and the princess must be broken off, and heard that richard had formed a plan for marrying the young lady himself, he paid no regard to the tidings, but declared that he should proceed with his plans as vigorously as ever, and that, whatever counter-schemes they might form, they might rely upon it that he should fully carry into effect his purpose, not only of deposing richard and reigning in his stead, but also of making the princess elizabeth his wife, according to his original intention. at length the expedition was ready, and the fleet conveying it set sail from the port of harfleur. richard attempted to arouse the people of england against the invaders by a grand proclamation which he issued. in this proclamation he designated the earl of richmond as "one henry tudor," who had no claim whatever, of any kind, to the english throne, but who was coming to attempt to seize it without any color of right. in order to obtain assistance from the king of france, he had promised, the proclamation said, "to surrender to him, in case he was successful, all the rich possessions in france which at that time belonged to england, even calais itself; and he had promised, moreover, and given away, to the traitors and foreigners who were coming with him, all the most important and valuable places in the kingdom--archbishoprics, bishoprics, duchies, earldoms, baronies, and many other inheritances belonging of right to the english knights, esquires, and gentlemen who were now in the possession of them. the proclamation farther declared that the people who made up his army were robbers and murderers, and rebels attainted by parliament, many of whom had made themselves infamous as cutthroats, adulterers, and extortioners." richard closed his proclamation by calling upon all his subjects to arm themselves, like true and good englishmen, for the defense of their wives, children, goods, and hereditaments, and he promised that he himself, like a true and courageous prince, would put himself in the forefront of the battle, and expose his royal person to the worst of the dangers that were to be incurred in the defense of the country. at the same time that he issued this proclamation, richard sent forth orders to all parts of the kingdom, commanding the nobles and barons to marshal their forces, and make ready to march at a moment's warning. he dispatched detachments of his forces to the southward to defend the southern coast, where he expected richmond would land, while he himself proceeded northward, toward the centre of the kingdom, to assemble and organize his grand army. he made nottingham his head-quarters, and he gradually gathered around him, in that city, a very large force. in the mean time, while these movements and preparations had been going on on both sides, the spring and the early part of the summer passed away, and at length richard, at nottingham, in the month of august, received the tidings that richmond had landed at milford haven, on the southwestern coast of wales, with a force of two or three thousand men. richard said that he was glad to hear it. "i am glad," said he, "that at last he has come. i have now only to meet him, and gain one decisive victory, and then the security of my kingdom will be disturbed no more." richmond did not rely wholly on the troops which he had brought with him for the success of his cause. he believed that there was a great and prevailing feeling of disaffection against richard throughout england, and that, as soon as it should appear that he, richmond, was really in earnest in his determination to claim and take the crown, and that there was a reasonable prospect of the success of his enterprise, great numbers of men, who were now ostensibly on richard's side, would forsake him and join the invader. so he sent secret messengers throughout the kingdom to communicate with his friends, and to open negotiations with those of richard's adherents who might possibly be inclined to change sides. in order to give time for these negotiations to produce their effect, he resolved not to march at once into the interior of the country, but to proceed slowly toward the eastward, along the southern coast of wales, awaiting intelligence. this plan he pursued. his strength increased rapidly as he advanced. at length, when he reached the eastern borders of wales, he began to feel strong enough to push forward into england to meet richard, who was all this time gathering his forces together at nottingham, and preparing for a very formidable resistance of the invader. he accordingly advanced to leicester, and thence to the town of tamworth, where there was a strong castle on a rock. he took possession of this castle, and made it, for a time, his head-quarters. in the mean time, richard, having received intelligence of richmond's movements, and having now made every thing ready for his own advance, determined to delay no longer, but to go forth and meet his enemy. accordingly, one morning, he marshaled his troops in the market-place of nottingham, "separating his foot-soldiers in two divisions, five abreast, and dividing his cavalry so as to form two wide-spreading wings." he placed his artillery, with the ammunition, in the centre, reserving for himself a position in a space immediately behind it. [illustration: the castle at tamworth.] when all was ready, he came out from the castle mounted upon a milk-white charger. he wore, according to the custom of the times, a very magnificent armor, resplendent with gold and embroidery, and with polished steel that glittered in the sun. over his helmet he wore his royal crown. he was preceded and followed, as he came out through the castle gates and descended the winding way which led down from the hill on which the castle stands, by guards splendidly dressed and mounted--archers, and spearmen, and other men at arms--with ensigns bearing innumerable pennants and banners. as soon as he joined the army in the town the order was given to march, and so great was the number of men that he had under his command that they were more than an hour in marching out of nottingham, and when all had finally issued from the gate, the column covered the road for three miles. at length, after some days of man[oe]uvring and marching, the two armies came into the immediate vicinity of each other near the town of bosworth, at a place where there was a wide field, which has since been greatly renowned in history as the field of bosworth. the two armies advanced into the neighborhood of this field on the 19th and 20th days of august, and both sides began to prepare for battle. the army which richard commanded was far more numerous and imposing than that of richmond, and every thing, so far as outward appearances were concerned, promised him an easy victory. and yet richmond was exultant in his confidence of success, while richard was harassed with gloomy forebodings. his mind was filled with perplexity and distress. he believed that the leading nobles and generals on his side had secretly resolved to betray him, and that they were prepared to abandon him and go over to the enemy on the very field of battle, unless he could gain advantages so decisive at the very commencement of the conflict as to show that the cause of richmond was hopeless. although richard was morally convinced that this was the state of things, he had no sufficient evidence of it to justify his taking any action against the men that he suspected. he did not even dare to express his suspicions, for he knew that if he were to do so, or even to intimate that he felt suspicion, the only effect would be to precipitate the consummation of the treachery that he feared, and perhaps drive some to abandon him who had not yet fully resolved on doing so. he was obliged, therefore, though suffering the greatest anxiety and alarm, to suppress all indications of his uneasiness, except to his most confidential friends. to them he appeared, as one of them stated, "sore moved and broiled with melancholy and dolor, and from time to time he cried out, asking vengeance of them that, contrary to their oath and promise, were so deceiving him." the recollection of the many crimes that he had committed in the attainment of the power which he now feared he was about to lose forever, harassed his mind and tormented his conscience, especially at night. "he took ill rest at nights," says one of his biographers, "using to lie long, waking and musing, sore wearied with care and watch, and rather slumbered than slept, troubled with fearful dreams." on the day of the battle richard found the worst of his forebodings fulfilled. in the early part of the day he took a position upon an elevated portion of the ground, where he could survey the whole field, and direct the movements of his troops. from this point he could see, as the battle went on, one body of men after another go over to the enemy. he was overwhelmed with vexation and rage. he cried out, treason! treason! and, calling upon his guards and attendants to follow him, he rushed down the hill, determined to force his way to the part of the field where richmond himself was stationed, with a view of engaging him and killing him with his own hand. this, he thought, was the last hope that was now left him. there was a spring of water, and a little brook flowing from it in a part of the field where he had to pass. he stopped at this spring, opened his helmet, and took a drink of the water. he then closed his helmet and rode on. this spring afterward received, from this circumstance, the name of "richard's well," and it is known by that name to this day. from the spring richard rushed forward, attended by a few followers as fearless as himself, in search of richmond. he penetrated the enemies' lines in the direction where he supposed richmond was to be found, and was soon surrounded by foes, whom he engaged desperately in a hand-to-hand encounter of the most furious and reckless character. he slew one or two of the foremost of those who surrounded him, calling out all the time to richmond to come out and meet him in single combat. this richmond would not do. in the mean time, many of richard's friends came up to his assistance. some of these urged him to retire, saying that it was useless for him to attempt to maintain so unequal a contest, but he refused to go. "not one foot will i fly," said he, "so long as breath bides within my breast; for, by him that shaped both sea and land, this day shall end my battles or my life. i will die king of england." so he fought on. several faithful friends still adhered to him and fought by his side. his standard-bearer stood his ground, with the king's banner in his hand, until at last both his legs were cut off under him, and he fell to the earth; still he would not let the banner go, but clung to it with a convulsive grasp till he died. at last richard too was overpowered by the numbers that beset him. exhausted by his exertions, and weakened by loss of blood, he was beaten down from his horse to the ground and killed. the royal crown which he had worn so proudly into the battle was knocked from his head in the dreadful affray, and trampled in the dust. lord stanley, one of the chieftains who had abandoned richard's cause and gone over to the enemy, picked up the crown, all battered and bloodstained as it was, and put it upon richmond's head. from that hour richmond was recognized as king of england. he reigned under the title of henry the seventh. [illustration: king henry vii.] the few followers that had remained faithful to richard's cause up to this time now gave up the contest and fled. the victors lifted up the dead body of the king, took off the armor, and then placed the body across the back of a horse, behind a pursuivant-at-arms, who, thus mounted, rode a little behind the new king as he retired from the field of battle. followed by this dreadful trophy of his victory, king henry entered the town of leicester in triumph. the body of richard was exposed for three days, in a public place, to the view of all beholders, in order that every body might be satisfied that he was really dead, and then the new king proceeded by easy journeys to london. the people came out to meet him all along the way, receiving him every where with shouts and acclamations, and crying, "king henry! king henry! long live our sovereign lord, king henry!" for several weeks after his accession henry's mind was occupied with public affairs, but, as soon as the most urgent of the calls upon his attention were disposed of, he renewed his proposals to the princess elizabeth, and in january of the next year they were married. it seems to have been a matter of no consequence to her whether one man or another was her husband, provided he was only king of england, so that she could be queen. henry's motive, too, in marrying her, was equally mercenary, his only object being to secure to himself, through her, the right of inheritance to her father's claims to the throne. he accordingly never pretended to feel any love for her, and, after his marriage, he treated her with great coldness and neglect. his conduct toward her poor mother, the dowager queen, elizabeth woodville, was still more unfriendly. he sent her to a gloomy monastery, called the monastery of bermondsey, and caused her to be kept there in the custody of the monks, virtually a prisoner. the reason which he assigned for this was his displeasure with her for abandoning his cause, and breaking the engagement which she had made with him for the marriage of her daughter to him, and also for giving herself and her daughter up into richard's hands, and joining with him in the intrigues which richard formed for connecting the princess with his family. in this lonely retreat the widowed queen passed the remainder of her days. she was not precisely a prisoner--at least, she was not kept in close and continual confinement, for two or three times, in the course of the few remaining years that she lived, she was brought, on special occasions, to court, and treated there with a certain degree of attention and respect. one of these occasions was that of the baptism of her daughter's child. [illustration: the monastery of bermondsey.] in this lonely and cheerless retreat the queen lingered a few years, and then died. her body was conveyed to windsor for interment, and her daughters and the friends of her family were notified of the event. a very few came to attend the funeral. her daughter elizabeth was indisposed, and did not come. the interment took place at night. a few poor old men, in tattered garments, were employed to officiate at the ceremony by holding "old torches and torches' ends" to light the gloomy precincts of the chapel during the time while the monks were chanting the funeral dirge. the end. [frontispiece: _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_) {v} 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 {vi} 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.' {vii} 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 {viii} 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. {ix} 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. {xi} 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 {xii} 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 {xiii} 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 {xiv} 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 {xv} 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 {xvi} _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 {xvii} 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 {xviii} 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 {xix} 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 {xx} 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 {1} 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, {2} 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, {3} 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 {4} 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] {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] {6} 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. [illustration: 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 {7} 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 {8} 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_. {9} 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 {10} 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 {11} 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 {12} 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 {13} 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 {14} 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 {15} 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 {16} 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 {17} 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] {18} 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 {19} 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). {20} 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. {21} 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 {22} 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, {23} 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 {24} 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 {25} 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 {26} 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 {27} 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 {28} 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 {29} 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, {30} 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 {31} 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 {32} 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 {33} 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 {34} 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 {35} 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 {36} 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. {37} 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 40_l._ 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. {38} 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. {39} 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] {40} 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] {41} 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 {42} 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 {43} 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 {44} 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. {45} 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 {46} 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 {47} 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. {48} 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. [sidenote: battle of barnet] the king only had one full day in london, in 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. {49} 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 {50} 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 {51} 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, {52} 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. {53} 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 {54} 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 {55} 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 {56} 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 {57} 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 {58} 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 {59} 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] {60} 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 {61} 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 {62} 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 {63} 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.' {64} 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 100_l._ 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 {65} 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.' {66} 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 {67} 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 {68} 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. {69} 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, {70} 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 {71} 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 {72} 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. {73} 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 {74} 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 {75} 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 {76} 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 {77} 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 {78} 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 {79} 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. {80} 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, {81} 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 {82} and anne were happily married in westminster abbey by the archbishop of york. his age was nineteen, that of his wife sixteen. [sidenote: middleham castle] their home was at middleham, in beautiful 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. [illustration: 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 {83} 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 {84} 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. [sidenote: richard's able administration] though middleham was richard's home, his official residence, as chief seneschal of the duchy of 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 {85} 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 {86} 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. [sidenote: children of edward iv.] king edward iv. died at westminster on april 9, 1483, and was buried at windsor. he had gone 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 {87} 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. she was murdered by henry viii. on may 27, 1541. {88} 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 {89} 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. [sidenote: richard appointed protector] by his will king edward iv. left the care of his son's person and the government of the kingdom 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 {90} faction, which are indeed proved by these overt acts; and which went the length of conspiring against richard's life.[3] [sidenote: arrest of rivers] the duke of buckingham hurried from london 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. {91} 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 {92} 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 {93} 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. [sidenote: bishop stillington's revelation] up to this time affairs had gone smoothly. on june 5 the protector had given detailed orders for his 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] {94} 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 {95} 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 {96} 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] {97} 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 {98} 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] [sidenote: conspirators thwarted] the conspiracy was divulged to the protector by master william catesby, who was in the confidence 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 {99} 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 {100} 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. [sidenote: title to the crown] in spite of the _supersedeas_ which was 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 {101} 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 {102} 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 27_l._ 13_s._ 4_d_. worth 553_l._ 6_s._ 8_d_. 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. {103} 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. {104} 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. {105} 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.' [sidenote: the peerage] it is also a mistake, though a frequently reiterated 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 {106} 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. [sidenote: castles] 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 rooms, and chapels. the more modern and more comfortable lodgings followed the lines of the {107} 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. {108} 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 {110} 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. ====================================================================== {109} [sidenote: 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 (1_st cousin_), k.g. * lord greystoke (1_st 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 {111} 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. [sidenote: magnificence of the court] magnificence in dress was not a sign of ostentation and vanity, but of what was felt to be due 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. {112} 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 {113} 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. [sidenote: introduction of printing] the great glory of the yorkist kings was the introduction of printing into england, in which their 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 {114} 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 {115} '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. [sidenote: literary noblemen] literature was beginning to receive attention from 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 {116} 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.' [sidenote: education] rivers and worcester were not the only men of 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 {117} 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 {118} 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 {119} 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. [sidenote: the church and the law] the law was presided over by conscientious and learned judges. old fuller says of markham and 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, {120} 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. [sidenote: condition of the people] but the country was in a lawless state. upright judgments were pronounced, but they could not 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. {121} 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 {122} 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 3_d._ now). if a labourer had to undertake a journey, there were houses as well as {123} 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. {124} 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. {125} [sidenote: the young nephews] on july 4, 1483, king richard iii. and queen 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 {126} 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. ====================================================================== {127} 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. {128} 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. [sidenote: the royal progress] the king set out on a progress through england,[3] {129} 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, {130} 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 {131} 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 {132} 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] {133} 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 {134} 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] {135} [sidenote: the revenue] king richard iii. introduced reforms in the 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 6_s._ 8_d._ on the sack of wool, and 13_s._ 4_d._ on the last of leather. the 'parva costuma' included 3_s._ 4_d._ on a sack of wool, a small tax on cloth and other imports and exports, and an _ad valorem_ duty of 2_d._ in the pound, and 3_d._ from foreigners, on general merchandise. tonnage and poundage was 1_s._ in the pound on the value of most goods, except wool and leather, and 3_d._ 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 18,629_l._ in the first, and 20,743_l._ in the second year of king richard's reign. the old crown revenues yielded 17,900_l._, hanaper 2,930_l._, and other receipts 5,297_l_. the total annual revenue was 50,356_l._ in the first, and 57,122_l._ in the second year. [sidenote: the navy] the navy in those days was small, indeed it had 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 {136} 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 5,600_l_. 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. [sidenote: death of the prince of wales] in march, 1484, the king and queen left london, and proceeded northwards by way of cambridge, 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 {137} 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, {138} 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 {139} 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. [sidenote: popularity of the king] richard iii. returned to london on november 9. he was met by the lord mayor and aldermen with 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 {140} 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, {141} 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. [sidenote: threatened invasion] the king, in anticipation of the threatened 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 {142} 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 20,000_l._ had been received, out of 30,000_l._ 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. ====================================================================== {143} 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. ====================================================================== ====================================================================== {144} 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. ====================================================================== ====================================================================== {145} 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. ====================================================================== ====================================================================== {146} 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. ====================================================================== ====================================================================== {147} 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. 208_b_, 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 8_l._ 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. {148} 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, {149} 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 {150} 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. {151} 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. {152} 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. [sidenote: the battle of bosworth] [illustration: 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, {153} 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 {154} 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 {155} 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 {156} 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 {157} 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 {158} 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. {159} 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: {160} 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. [sidenote: administration of king richard] richard's parliament was the best that had met since the time of edward i. his administration was patriotic. he checked corruption in the public service, {161} 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 {162} 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 {163} 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. [sidenote: richard and the tudors] in all respects richard was better fitted to reign over england in the days of change that were inevitable than the two tyrants who succeeded him. 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. {164} 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. [sidenote: contemporary sovereigns] the true picture of our last plantagenet king is not unpleasant to look upon, when the accumulated garbage and filth of centuries of calumny have been cleared off its surface. {165} 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. {166} 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 {167} with the committal of a series of atrocious crimes, his name has been execrated by posterity, and historians have vied with each other in heaping opprobrium on his memory. [sidenote: rooted prejudice] yet there are obvious reasons for closely criticising the accusations against king richard, and for examining them with more than ordinary care before accepting them as proved. for his successor had no valid title to the crown. it was not only the new king's interest, but a necessity of his position, that he should cause grave charges to be brought against his predecessor, and that they should be accepted as true. henry vii. had the power and the will to silence all comment, and to prevent any defence from being published. evidence in favour of richard was destroyed. authors employed by henry, and others who were anxious to please him and his successors, were alone permitted to write histories. not a syllable was allowed to be uttered on the other side for one hundred and sixty years. the story thus put forward was dramatised by shakespeare, and became so familiar to posterity that even writers of our own day approach the subject with unconscious prejudice which they cannot resist. if richard performs kindly acts, and many such are recorded, he is trying 'to get unsteadfast friends.' if he punishes treason he is 'a venomous hunchback.' if a rebellion is put down during his reign he is an inhuman tyrant. his ability is cunning, his justice is cruelty, his bravery is fury, his generosity is artfulness, his devotion is hypocrisy. in giving some account of the original authorities upon whose testimony the charges against king richard rest, i only propose to state general conclusions with regard to them in the present chapter; because proofs {168} and arguments will be embodied in the detailed discussions which follow. bernard 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. [sidenote: morton's pamphlet] by far the most important of the original authorities, and the one on which all subsequent history has been based, is archbishop morton. his narrative is contained in the 'history of richard iii.,' erroneously attributed to sir thomas more, who was in morton's household when a boy. this work first appeared in hardyng's chronicle, printed by grafton in 1543. it was embodied in hall's chronicle, and copied by holinshed. fourteen years after its publication, another and somewhat different version was brought out by rastell in 1557. rastell was related to sir thomas more, and he alleged that his version was taken from a manuscript in more's handwriting written about 1513. a latin version, written long before its publication, was printed at louvain in 1566, with various additions to the imaginary speeches, and an address to henry viii. and the earl of surrey. sir george buck[3] and sir john harington[4] had heard that the work was written {169} by morton. the latin version could not have been, for it is addressed to henry viii., and morton died in 1500. the history, as we have it, contains long speeches and dialogues which must have been fabricated by the writer. the narrative from the death of edward iv. to the accession of richard was certainly written or dictated by morton, for no one else could have been cognizant of some of the facts. the title given by the publisher is misleading. it is not a 'history of richard iii.,' but a very detailed narrative of the events from his brother's death to his own accession, covering a period of less than three months. it ends abruptly at a point just before the date of morton's flight from england. his personal knowledge ceased with his departure, and here the story suddenly comes to an end. he was evidently acquainted personally with every detail, and he possessed an exceptionally accurate memory.[5] the errors and alterations of dates in the narrative must consequently have been made intentionally and with an object. morton's character and the value of his testimony will be discussed more fully in a future chapter. the story of the murder of the young princes at the end of the book cannot have been written by morton, for it alludes to events which happened after october 12, 1500, the date of that prelate's death. the outline of the story of the murder was no doubt inspired, as lord bacon shrewdly suspected, by henry vii. himself. rastell assumed that the english version of this {170} 'history of richard iii.' was composed by sir thomas more because a copy in his handwriting was found among his papers. the previous publication by grafton proves that there were other copies abroad, differing slightly from each other, and there is no reason for assuming that the copy in more's handwriting was the original. indeed there is evidence that it was not. grafton's version contains a good deal at the end which is not in the narrative attributed to more by rastell. the latter ends abruptly, as if the whole had not been copied. more merely made an unfinished copy. the respect with which this production has been treated is due to sir thomas more's reputed authorship, and to this is to be attributed its comparative freedom from criticism. it is in reality an unscrupulous party pamphlet, and its authorship ought not to affect its character. yet the reply to any objection to statements contained in it has hitherto been that it was written by the good and virtuous sir thomas more, and therefore must be true.[6] internal evidence makes it certain that more did not write it. the author speaks of the death-bed of edward iv. as an eye-witness.[7] more was then only five years of age. he was born in february 1478. {171} this seems conclusive. sir thomas made an incomplete copy, when a young man, of a work which was attracting a good deal of attention, and of which there were other copies in circulation. the date of the copy is said by rastell to be 1513, when more's age was about thirty-five. the actual compiler of the book, as we have it, is unknown. but the information and the inspiration of the whole work, with the exception of the story of the murder of the young princes at the end, is undoubtedly from archbishop morton. i have, therefore, referred to the work as by morton, and to the story of the murders, which is clearly not by morton, as by rastell's anonymous historian. [sidenote: bernard andré] henry vii. began the business of vilifying his predecessor very early in his reign. it was indeed a matter of the utmost moment to him, for he appears to have considered that a belief in the alleged crimes of richard was essential to the security of his own position. he brought over a blind gascon from france, named bernard 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. [sidenote: polydore virgil] but the italian who arrived some years later in henry's reign was far more serviceable. polydore virgil was the paid historian of the tudors. he was a native of urbino, and was sent to england by his patron, the infamous pope alexander vi., in 1501 as the assistant collector of the tax called peter's pence. henry requested him to undertake the history, placing all official materials at his disposal, and doubtless indicating the line he was to take. he proved {172} an apt pupil and was well rewarded. he was made absentee rector of church langton, received a prebend at lincoln, another at hereford, and was appointed archdeacon of wells. in 1513 he was made a canon of st. paul's with a house, and he had other preferment. his history was completed in 1534. polydore virgil was a man of learning, and his work is based on original research. but he did not hesitate to misrepresent facts not only to please his patrons, but in order to gratify his own spite and malignity.[8] in his account of events in the life of richard iii. he merely recorded the version that would be pleasing to his employer. his imperfect knowledge of the english language impairs the value of his evidence when obtained from oral sources. the tale of the assassination of young edward of lancaster by a king of england and his chief nobles is peculiarly italian, and may be claimed by polydore as his original conception. it is worthy of this 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 {173} 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] [sidenote: rous] the authors who wrote during the reign of henry vii., but not in his pay or directly under his influence, next come under review. john rous, the so-called hermit of guy's cliff, was an antiquary and an heraldic draughtsman. he knew richard personally. he was the author of 'historia regum 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 {174} of king richard. one is at kimbolton, the other at the heralds' college. to the latter rous had access after the accession of henry. to the former he had not. in the former richard is described as 'a mighty prince and special good lord,' and as 'the most victorious prince richard iii. in his realm full commendably punishing offenders of the laws, especially oppressors of his commons, and cherishing those that were virtuous, by the which discreet guiding he got great thanks and love of all his subjects rich and poor, and great laud of the people of all other lands about him.' the latter roll was still in the hands of rous when richard fell. the above passage is expunged. the portraits of the two yorkist kings are taken out. queen anne nevill is despoiled of her crown, her son is deprived of crown and sceptre, and richard is merely alluded to as anne's 'infelix maritus.' the testimony of such an unblushing time-server as rous must be rejected as worthless. yet, in one or two instances, he has inadvertently revealed the truth, where the official writers have intended to conceal it.[12] robert fabyan was a clothier and alderman of london, who recorded the events of earlier times and of his own day in a chronicle which was written during the reign of henry vii.[13] he was a fulsome tudor partisan, anxious to please the reigning powers, and ready to record any story against the fallen king, even to wholesale falsification of dates. it will be shown further on that, in concocting part of his chronicle, he must have been in dishonest collusion with morton. {175} fabyan died in 1513, and his chronicle was first published in 1516. it was used by polydore virgil. dr. warkworth, master of jesus college, cambridge, wrote a diary which has chiefly been relied upon as evidence of the date of the death of henry vi.,[14] but that question will be fully discussed in a future chapter. [sidenote: the monks of croyland] morton, polydore virgil, rous, and fabyan will be found to be dishonest and untrustworthy narrators, who can be shown to use deception deliberately, with a full knowledge of the truth. the second continuation of the chronicle of croyland abbey occupies an entirely different position. there is every reason for believing that the monks who wrote it, though the first was prejudiced, and the second was credulous and easily deceived, intended to relate what they believed to be true. this continuation long remained in manuscript, in which state it was seen by sir george buck. it was not printed until 1684. it occupies twenty-eight folio pages.[15] the first part of the continuation bears internal evidence of having been written by one monk who concludes with some local notices respecting the abbey and its inmates. then another monk took up the chronicling pen, and ends his part in the same way. it is capable of absolute proof that this continuation of the croyland chronicle was written by at least two monks. in referring to the death of henry vi., the first monk prays that the tyrant who caused it may be given time for repentance. this part must, therefore, have been written while the tyrant in question was alive, whether edward iv., richard, or lord rivers the constable (who was really the responsible person) {176} is intended. the second monk says at the end, that the work was finished on april 30, 1486, and that it was written in ten days. edward, richard and rivers were all dead in april 1486. consequently these two passages must have been written by different hands. the first of these monks was the more judicious of the two, and he had probably once mixed in the world. he mentions a councillor of edward iv. who was doctor of canon law, and who was sent to abbeville on an embassy to the duke of burgundy in 1471. in the margin there is a note to the effect that the same man compiled that part of the chronicle. if this note is to be relied on, the first monk had once been in the service of edward iv., but he had lancastrian sympathies like morton. he refers to the executions after tewkesbury as vindictive, and he hints at a rumour that henry vi. met his death by order of his successor. his part of the chronicle includes ten pages, and covers the period from 1471 to the death of edward iv. the second monk seems to have known nothing of the outer world, and was very credulous. it is with him that we have to do in this inquiry. he relates the events leading to the accession of richard iii. with general accuracy, and correctly as regards dates, the same dates being falsified by morton and fabyan. he even gives the true grounds on which richard's claim to the crown rested, which are falsified by morton and by polydore virgil, and which were forbidden by henry vii. to be mentioned on pain of imprisonment. the chronicle remained in manuscript, and the truth-telling monk was not found out. the contribution of the second monk to the continuation of the chronicle of croyland abbey was written out in {177} ten days, and finished in the time of henry vii., on april 30, 1486. though generally trustworthy it contains several errors. it follows morton, polydore virgil, and fabyan in stating that hastings was beheaded on the day of his arrest. it will be seen in chapter iii. that this is disproved by an investigation of dates given by those writers, and by stallworthe. it follows morton in the statement that lord rivers and his companions were beheaded without trial. this is disproved by rous. it asserts that, after king richard's coronation, there was a rumour that his nephews had been put to death. there is no other contemporaneous mention of this rumour, and reasons will presently be given for believing that there was no such rumour. it also states that richard was crowned a second time at york. mr. davies, in his 'york records,' has shown that no such coronation ever took place. the interesting question arises how the monk was misled on these four points, when his information was so accurate, and so directly contradicts morton, polydore virgil, and fabyan, as regards the dates of events immediately preceding richard's accession, and as regards the nature of his claim to the throne. could morton have been at his elbow? if he was, these errors would be explained, for they are the most telling points in morton's case. we know that morton was sent to brecknock castle, in the custody of the duke of buckingham, in august 1483. later in the autumn he escaped, crossed england in disguise, and was concealed for some time in the fen country near ely, before taking ship for flanders. he even mentions his object in going there. 'if he were in the isle of ely,' he told buckingham, 'he could make many {178} friends to further the enterprise.'[16] he went there to plot and intrigue. the secluded abbey of croyland is a likely asylum for morton to have selected as a place of concealment. a political bishop who had been a principal actor in the recent events would be a godsend to the chronicling monk; while the intriguer would be in his element, sowing the first seeds of his future crop of calumny. the second croyland monk would be as clay in the potter's hand. he gives us a striking instance of his gossiping credulity. he had been told that the king's niece, elizabeth, once appeared at court in a dress similar to that of the queen. instead of the obvious deduction that queen anne had kindly provided the girl with a dress like her own, we are treated to dark hints about a rival who was to supplant the queen, and modern historians have taken the old monk's nonsense in all seriousness. morton would have found such a man quite ready to accept without further inquiry any statement he might make, and to be the channel of any rumour he chose to spread. such are the witnesses arrayed against the last plantagenet king by his tudor successors. it will be our business to test the value of their testimony. they had it all their own way. no one was allowed to answer them. for those who knew the truth it was a choice between silence and ruin. the accused had no counsel. whether the tudor writers are trustworthy or not, there can be no question that, aided by these advantages, they served their employers well. they have completely succeeded in their object. they have blackened the memory of king richard iii. for all time. the chief evidence in richard's favour can only {179} now be found in the contradictions, admissions, inadvertent lapses into truth, and suppressions of his traducers. official documents and private letters also tell their tale. falsifications of dates, and the objects of such falsifications by the tudor writers, are often detected by means of these unimpeachable sources of information. among the harleian manuscripts there is a book kept by dr. russell, the bishop of lincoln and richard's chancellor, containing all the documents that passed the great or privy seal during his reign, as well as correspondence with foreign sovereigns and ambassadors.[17] this manuscript has been a mine of rebutting evidence. there is also valuable testimony derivable from the rolls of parliament, patent rolls, and from rymer's 'foedera.' it is worthy of special note that the undesigned evidence of official documents often exposes the true character of tudor testimony. enough has been said to show that the statements of the tudor writers call for more than ordinary caution in their use; and that the nearest approach to the truth, which is all we can hope for, will not be reached if any fact or insinuation alleged or hinted by them is accepted without being first subjected to very rigorous scrutiny. [sidenote: later chroniclers] the later chroniclers, such as hall, grafton, holinshed, stow and buck, copied from the earlier writers. they cannot be considered as original authorities. hall is little more than a translation of polydore virgil, served up with embellishments invented by himself. stow is much more trustworthy. these later writers must not be relied upon for facts. it was their habit to add numerous minor details to the stories they received from their {180} predecessors, and it cannot reasonably be doubted that these additions were inventions intended to add force or interest to their narratives. when they quote from or insert documents the case is different. thus hall and grafton give the conversation between morton and the duke of buckingham at brecknock, being a copy of some original document. buck gives the substance of a letter from elizabeth of york to the duke of norfolk, the original of which he had actually seen. he also quotes some older narrative for the imprisonment and death of king richard's illegitimate son. hall gives the proceedings of the council when the imprisonment of the queen dowager, at bermondsey, was ordered. in such cases only ought the evidence of the later writers to be accepted. [sidenote: modern authors] there was a reaction against the acceptance of all the statements put forth by tudor writers, which began from the moment that it became safe to discuss the subject. the caricature was too gross, and too coarsely drawn for general acceptance. as soon as the last of the tudors had passed away, sir george buck[18] wrote a defence of richard iii. he was followed by carte in his history of england.[19] rapin, although he felt {181} obliged to repeat the stories of the tudor writers, evidently had no confidence in their accuracy, and warned his readers against them more than once. stronger views on the subject were adopted by horace walpole in his 'historic doubts'[20] (1768), by bayley in his 'history and antiquities of the tower of london,'[21] by laing in his continuation of 'henry's history of england,'[22] by mr. courtenay in his 'commentaries on shakespeare,'[23] by miss halsted in her 'life of richard iii.'[24] and by mr. legge in his 'unpopular king.'[25] mr. thorold rogers rejects the story of the assassination of henry vi.; sharon turner[26] and jesse[27] acquit the accused king on all the counts except the murder of his nephews; while dr. hook,[28] dr. stubbs and sir harris nicolas[29] are unable to believe all the accusations. the arguments put forward by some of {182} these authors are not always tenable. but they show that there has been, from the time when discussion was first allowed, a revulsion of feeling among well-informed students against the acceptance of these accusations without close scrutiny. it was felt that the statements of tudor writers must at least be considered as those of prejudiced and _ex parte_ witnesses. miss halsted's 'life of richard iii.' is by far the most complete and the most valuable. her interest in the slandered young king led her to pay frequent visits to the ruins of middleham castle, the scene of richard's boyhood and of his happy married life. miss halsted eventually married the dean of the college founded by richard and lies buried in middleham church. [sidenote: tudor fables discredited] on the other hand, there have been a few historians who have approached the questions at issue either without considering the other side at all or with a strong though possibly unconscious bias. hume only had a superficial knowledge of the subject. the most authoritative and important upholder of the tudor accusations is dr. lingard.[30] he defends them in their entirety, and in this he stands alone among those who have really studied the subject. mr. gairdner[31] rejects some of the accusations and supports other tudor stories with hesitation, and in an apologetic and more or less doubtful tone. but mr. gairdner's knowledge of the subject is so exhaustive, and his {183} position as a historian is so justly high, that i have devoted a separate chapter to the consideration of his views on the chief accusations against king richard iii. the tudor fables are now discredited and are dying, but they are dying hard. [1] richard ii. was the first of our kings, after the norman conquest, who was partly an englishman. henry v., edward iv., and richard iii. were almost pure englishmen. so was edward vi., and elizabeth was a thorough englishwoman. mary ii. and anne were half english. [2] see p. 159, note 1. [3] 'dr. morton had taken his revenge and written a book in latin against king richard, which came afterwards to the hands of mr. more. the book was lately in the hands of mr. roper of eltham, as sir edward hoby, who saw it, told me.'--buck, p. 75. [4] 'written as i have heard by morton.'--harington's _metamorphosis of ajax_, p. 46. mr. gairdner has suggested that the book attributed to more is a translation of one written in latin by morton. see _letters and papers illustrative of the reign of richard iii._, &c. preface xviii. (_n_). it is really the english version that was dictated or inspired by morton. [5] more's _utopia_, p. 20. [6] see for instance sharon turner (iii. 462), who claims unquestioning belief in this scurrilous production, because 'all confess more's ability and integrity.' see also jesse (p. 156 _n._ and p. 500). in the same spirit sir john harington defended his own filthy treatise because 'the worthy and incorrupt master more' was dirty in his history of richard iii. these writers seem to think that falsehood becomes truth, and obscenity becomes decency in this book, merely because its authorship is attributed to more. see _metamorphosis of ajax_, p. 46. [7] 'as i myself, who wrote this pamphlet, truly know.' this is not in rastell's version; but in the continuation of hardyng's chronicle. [8] speaking of polydore virgil in his _life of henry viii._ (p. 9), lord herbert of cherbury adds: 'in whom i have observed not a little malignity.' the story of cardinal wolsey's ingratitude to fox owes its parentage to the spite of polydore virgil; whom wolsey imprisoned. it was quite untrue.--brewer. [9] 'polydore virgil committed as many of our ancient manuscript volumes to the flames as would have filled a waggon, that the faults of his own work might pass undiscovered.'--caius, _de antiquitate 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. {184} 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 {185} 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. [sidenote: deformity] it is stated that he was two years in his mother's 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. {186} 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. {187} 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 {188} 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] [sidenote: young edward's death] the battle took place on may 4, 1471. the young duke of gloucester had displayed valour and 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, {189} 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., {190} 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 {191} 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 {192} 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. [sidenote: death of henry vi] the charge against the duke of gloucester that he 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 {193} 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. {194} 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] {195} 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 {196} 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. [sidenote: true date of henry's death] we are not altogether without the means of ascertaining the truth. henry vi. was not an old man. 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 {197} 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 14_l._ 5_s_.' 'to william sayer for money delivered at times, namely at one time, 7_s._ 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 3_s._ 10_d._ for the board of said henry within the said tower as per account delivered 10_s._ 10_d_.'[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 {198} maintained in becoming state, at a cost of 400_l._ a year, equivalent to upwards of 2,000_l._ 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. {199} 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 {200} 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.' [sidenote: anne nevill and her mother] but there is more to be said. the two young cousins, richard and anne, were brought up 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 {201} 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 {202} 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. [sidenote: death of clarence] shakespeare and others have further accused 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 {203} 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 {204} 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 100_l._ 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. {205} chapter iii further charges against richard iii 7. execution of hastings. 8. execution of rivers, vaughan, grey, and haute. 9. the 'usurpation.' 10. refusal of buckingham's 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. [sidenote: archbishop morton] the portion of the history published by grafton and rastell was undoubtedly written or dictated by john morton himself. it is on morton's story that all subsequent historians have relied for their facts; and as it is on this period that the whole career of richard as a sovereign hinges, it is necessary that we should bear in mind what manner of man this morton really {206} was. he was born at beer regis in 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 {207} and the woodville faction against the protector. he brought hastings to his death, but escaped himself. the incorrigible plotter was entrusted to the custody of the duke of buckingham. by his cunning artifices he induced that weak 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. {208} [sidenote: morton's misrepresentations] morton was most unscrupulous in fabricating his story, throwing out misleading insinuations, garbling and suppressing facts, making false statements, and altering dates. he was a leading actor in, and an eyewitness of what he described, he was an able and clever man, and he was intimately acquainted with the facts as they really happened. moreover, we are informed by sir thomas more, who knew him, that he had an extraordinary memory.[6] consequently every mistake that is detected in his narrative, every date that is altered, must have been inserted with a special object. it is fortunate for the cause of truth that he was more careless, and wrote in greater detail, than he certainly would have done, if there had been any chance of an answer being put forward by one equally conversant with the facts. but he knew that he was safe--power unscrupulously enforced was on his side. 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 {209} 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, {210} 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 {211} 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 {212} 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. [sidenote: falsification of dates] morton would have us believe that hastings was beheaded on the spot without trial. this version of the story is also told by fabyan, and adopted by polydore virgil. it was told to the second croyland {213} 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] {214} 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. {215} 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. {216} 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. [sidenote: trial of rivers] the trial of lord rivers, with grey, vaughan and 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 {217} 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 {218} 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 {219} put forward. the conclusion is inevitable that the previous contract of edward iv. with lady eleanor butler was a fact. [sidenote: the true claim to the crown] by a mere accident the original draft of the 'titulus regius' was not destroyed. it was discovered 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 {220} 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. [sidenote: morton's fabrications] but morton was not to be outdone by the italian. he puts the slander about the duchess of york into 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 {221} 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 {222} 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. {223} 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. [sidenote: buckingham's treason] we next come to the treason of the duke of buckingham. its motive was misrepresented by 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 {224} 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. [sidenote: buckingham and morton] this story must have been fabricated to conceal the true motive of buckingham's treason. he 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. {225} 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. {226} 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 {227} 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. [sidenote: the second coronation] the next accusation against richard refers to his conduct at york, and is derived from the second 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 {228} 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. [sidenote: elizabeth of york] the rumour that king richard had an intention of marrying his illegitimate niece elizabeth is {229} 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 {230} 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. [sidenote: intrigues of lady stanley] the tudor writers tell various stories about henry, while in brittany, having promised to marry 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. {231} 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, {232} 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). {233} 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 {234} nephews, was not previously steeped in crime. the accusation must now be considered as being brought against an ordinary prince of the fifteenth century, if not better certainly not worse than his contemporaries. this at once destroys the chief points of the evidence against him. his accusers rightly felt that it was necessary to blacken richard's character, and this they did coarsely enough, but very successfully. they knew that, without this poisoning of the wells, the case against him lost all its force. 'nemo repente turpissimus.' we must now approach the question relating to the fate of the two young sons of edward iv., without having constantly before our minds the grotesque caricature portrayed by the tudor writers. although it is not possible, especially at this distance of time, to account for the workings of any man's mind, or for the motives which may control his actions, it is yet necessary to consider this phase of the question, with as much light as we can bring to bear upon it. it is not disputed that edward iv. always evinced unshaken love and affection for his young brother, and showed the most absolute confidence in him at the time of his death. richard returned this affection with devoted loyalty. he had no love for the woodville faction, but he must have felt some regard for his brother's children, being such a man as we believe he has been proved to have been. this feeling of regard would decrease the strength of any motive producing a desire to destroy them for his own ends. but there was no such motive. the boys had been declared to be illegitimate, after an examination of evidence, by the unanimous voice of parliament. when the cardinal archbishop, surrounded by his suffragans, {235} placed the crown of st. edward on richard's head, he proclaimed the belief of the church, and released from their oaths all who under a misapprehension had sworn allegiance to edward v. the boy, as a claimant to the throne, had ceased to be dangerous. [sidenote: unanimity at richard's coronation] it should be borne in mind that parliament was unanimous in recognising the title of richard iii. excepting half a dozen lancastrian exiles who were equally opposed to any member of the house of york,[1] the whole peerage was at richard's coronation except those whose absence is accounted for by extreme age or youth, or by the calls of duty.[2] even the woodville faction had submitted, and was represented at the coronation by viscount lisle and the bishop of salisbury. henry tudor's mother bore the train of richard's queen, and his uncle lord welles was also at the coronation. there was absolutely no party for the illegitimate sons of edward iv. at the time of their alleged murders, and consequently no danger to be apprehended from them. if the story had put the murders after buckingham's rising it would have been a little more plausible. but it placed them two months before the rising, when the king had not the shadow of a suspicion that any opposition was contemplated. setting aside all natural or religious feeling, and even assuming richard to have been the impossible monster depicted by tudor writers, he certainly had no motive for the crime. {236} but it may be argued that the workings of men's minds are inexplicable, and that richard may have committed the crime from a motive which would seem insufficient to any reasonable man. to decide upon this proposition we can only turn to a consideration of his conduct as regards other persons in the same relationship and position as the two boys, and who were likely to cause richard as much or as little trouble. there were seven such persons, namely, the five daughters of edward iv. and the two children of the duke of clarence. the king treated his nieces with kindness and consideration as near relations, when they came under his protection. the young earl of warwick, son of richard's elder brother clarence, was a far more formidable rival than the sons of edward. the former was incontestably legitimate; while the latter had been declared to be illegitimate by both houses of parliament. richard knighted the son of clarence, placed him at the head of the nobility, and made him a member of council and of his own household. we, therefore, know that richard did not look upon the children of his elder brothers as enemies to be destroyed, but as relations to be cherished. [sidenote: the princes alive in richard's time] we find, then, that the two young sons of edward iv. went to reside in the royal lodgings of the tower in june 1483. the statement put forth by henry vii. is that they were murdered there in the following august. but there are two pieces of evidence, one of them positive evidence, that they were alive throughout the reign of richard iii. in the orders for king richard's household dated after the death of his own son, children are mentioned of such high rank that they were to be served before all other lords. the only children who could occupy {237} such a position were the sons of edward iv. and the son of clarence. the conclusion must be that all his nephews were members of his household, and that they were only sent to sheriff hutton and to the tower when danger threatened the realm from the invasion of henry tudor. the other piece of evidence is found in a warrant in rymer's 'foedera,' dated march 9, 1485, to the following effect: it directs henry davy 'to deliver unto john goddestande, footman unto the lord bastard, two doblets of silk, one jacket of silk, one gown of cloth, two shirts, and two bonets.'[3] there are other warrants to pay for provisions. dr. lingard[4] tried to destroy the significance of these warrants by suggesting that they referred to john of gloucester, an illegitimate son of the king. but this boy is mentioned in rymer's 'foedera,' and is designated as a bastard son of the king[5] simply and not as a lord, for no such title belonged to him. edward, on the other hand, although he was officially called a bastard, was also a lord. in his case the designation of lord was correct. in the 'wardrobe account' he was called the lord edward; after the accession of his uncle.[6] the royal titles of wales and cornwall were no longer consistent or proper, and had indeed been transferred, in due course, to the king's son. but the earldoms of march {238} and pembroke, conferred on him by his father, still belonged to edward. he would properly be styled the lord bastard, while john of gloucester could not be and was not. there was only one 'lord' bastard.[7] the warrants, therefore, show that edward was alive and well treated in march 1485, four months before the death of richard iii. these two pieces of evidence are in keeping with morton's statement that king richard had declared his intention of maintaining his nephews in honourable estate. but there is strong collateral evidence pointing to the same conclusion. if there had been foul play, it is scarcely credible that the mother could have been induced by any promises to throw her remaining children on the protection of one who had already violated the most sacred ties as regards her two sons. it is, however, just possible that a very unfeeling and selfish woman (though elizabeth was neither), weary of confinement in sanctuary, might have been induced to make terms with the murderer of her sons, in order to obtain a comfortable provision for herself. but she did more than this. she sent for her other son, who was safe in france, advising him to return home and submit himself to the king. it is incredible that she could have done this unless she knew that the two boys were alive and well treated. she remained on friendly terms with richard until his death, and her daughters attended the festivities at his {239} court. still stronger evidence in the same direction is afforded by the letter to the duke of norfolk, whether it was written by the king's niece elizabeth or by her mother, as mr. gairdner suggests. the writer could not have spoken of richard as her 'joy and maker in the world,' or have said that she was 'his in heart and thought,' if he had just murdered the brothers of one and the sons of the other. the thing is quite impossible. the conduct of their mother and sister is a strong corroboration of the positive evidence that the young princes were alive and well throughout king richard's reign. [sidenote: the alleged rumours] on the other hand, there is no evidence whatever that they were dead; beyond rumours of which we only hear long afterwards. we are told that there were rumours that they had been murdered, and rumours that they were alive, and had been taken abroad. rumours but no evidence. if they had been smothered the bodies would have been exposed to allay suspicion, and would have received christian burial. to hide them would have been an act of incredible folly. there remain then, for consideration, these rumours which are alleged to have prevailed during the reign of king richard to the effect that his nephews had been murdered. it is maintained that if these rumours were generally believed, richard must have been guilty, because if he had been innocent he would have taken some steps to disprove the rumours, and he took no such steps, or rather--no such steps are recorded by his enemies. the points for investigation are whether such rumours actually existed, and if so, whether they were {240} so general as to reach the king's ears and make it advisable that anything should be done to refute them. it is alleged that these rumours took shape during the king's progress to york in the summer and autumn of 1483. there is no evidence that they prevailed at this or any other time during richard's reign.[8] the authority for a rumour about the fate of the two boys in the summer of 1483 is the croyland chronicle; and there can be no doubt that the statement was made in good faith; although the writer may have been deceived. the passage in the croyland chronicle is to the effect that the princes remaining in custody in the tower, the people in the south and west of england became anxious for their liberation, that meetings were held on the subject, and that proposals were made to arrange the escape of the daughters of edward iv. so that, if anything happened to his sons, there might still be heirs of his body. it was also reported that the sons of edward were dead, though it was unknown by what violent means they met their end.[9] so far the croyland monk. no doubt there were partizans of the defeated factions of hastings and the woodvilles who were ready to spread any rumours injurious to the king. the question is whether the rumours which reached the ears of the croyland monk were ever generally {241} credited by the people, so as to call for action from the government. is it true that they led to loud murmurings from meetings and assemblages of the people in the south and west of england, such as would attract general notice? the only proof offered is that an officer named nesfield was ordered to watch the approaches of the sanctuary at westminster, and see that no one left it secretly. but this was a precaution which would have been taken under any circumstances. polydore virgil alleges that richard himself spread a report that his nephews were dead; and this is magnified and embellished by grafton and hall, according to their wont. the statement is grossly improbable in itself, is wholly unsupported, and is entirely unworthy of credit. there is, then, no evidence that these rumours existed, beyond the passage in the croyland chronicle. but there is strong reason for rejecting the monk's story. if the rumours had really existed, and if in consequence there were mutinous assemblages of the people preliminary to an insurrectionary movement, the vigilant and energetic young king would have made all necessary preparations to meet the danger. nothing is more certain in his history than that he was taken absolutely by surprise when he received tidings of an outbreak in kent on october 11, 1483. it was a concerted rising, secretly arranged by buckingham. this duke had taken leave of the king at gloucester on august 2 before the alleged action of richard at warwick with a view to the murders, which was on august 8. according to the story, buckingham can have known nothing of the murders when he arranged his plot. consequently it is not possible that the rising in kent, arranged by buckingham, can {242} have had anything to do with the alleged murder of the young princes. yet the croyland monk had certainly been told that there was a rumour that the boys were dead. if it had not reached him as general talk, it must have come direct to him from some malignant enemy of the king. was there such a man lurking in the fen country round croyland? we know that morton had taken refuge in the fen country (isle of ely) at this very time. if that schemer was at the chronicler's elbow, the rumour is fully accounted for. it probably originated with morton while he was lurking in the fens, and ceased to exist when he sailed for flanders. his own narrative, as we have received it, comes to an abrupt termination while he is conversing with the duke of buckingham at brecknock. if it had been continued, we should doubtless have had a highly coloured version of the rumour mentioned in the croyland chronicle. morton and his slanders went abroad together. the rumour that the young princes had been put to death appeared no more in england during richard's life. but as soon as morton went to france, it appeared there. in the autumn of 1483 morton left england. in january 1484, the murder of the princes was alleged as a fact by the chancellor of france in a speech to the states-general at tours. 'regardez, je vous prie, les événements qui après la mort du roi édouard sont arrivés dans ce pays. contemplez ses enfants, déjà grands et braves, massacreé impunément, et la couronne transportée a l'assassin par la faveur des peuples.'[10] the chancellor may have received this statement from another lancastrian exile, but it is {243} most likely that it came from morton. louis xi. had hated richard because he opposed the peace which the french king bought from edward iv., and because he refused the french bribes with contempt.[11] this hatred was inherited by the lady of beaujeu who became regent on the death of louis xi. in august 1483. any calumny was seized upon as an opportunity for reviling the king of england; and with morton in france there would be no dearth of such wares. the insult to the king of england uttered by the french chancellor may not have reached richard's government. if it did, it must have been apologised for or explained away, for some months afterwards, in september 1484, king richard granted a safe-conduct for an embassy from the french regency to treat of peace.[12] the calumny was clearly received by the french chancellor from morton, or some other unscrupulous outlaw, and not from any general rumour. for it is stated as a fact; the truth being that it was never known what became of the two boys, or pretended to be known until after the alleged confession of tyrrel in 1502. fabyan, writing in the time of henry vii., talks of a rumour, and of its having been the common fame that king richard put his nephews to secret death. this was merely what henry vii. wanted to be the 'common fame'; and no one dared to gainsay it. in the year after his accession the usurping tudor ordered it to be given out that the boys were murdered by their uncle, and his paid agents had to repeat the statement. andré said they were killed with a sword.[13] {244} rous stated that they were put to death by some means unknown.[14] polydore followed rous. comines, naturally enough, told the story officially promulgated in england. but henry never dared to make the accusation publicly in his first so-called parliament, and there can have been only one reason for this silence. the boys were then alive. henry's chroniclers, however, testify that nothing was known, and thus prove the falsehood of the french chancellor's statement, while furnishing additional proof that no general rumour existed during richard's reign that the boys were dead. it is not to be supposed that sir william stanley would have entertained for a moment the belief that perkin warbeck was a son of edward iv. unless he knew that the princes were alive throughout richard's reign. no one had better means of knowing. the story put forward by henry vii. tells us that it remained in doubt whether the boys were destroyed or not in richard's day. polydore virgil mentions a rumour that they had escaped abroad. perkin warbeck's story was believed by a great number of people, which could not have been the case if the rumour of the death of the princes had been generally credited. [sidenote: baseless rumours] no question arose before king richard's death. many persons must have known that his nephews were alive and well treated. their mother and brother knew, and they were silenced by imprisonment. sir william stanley and his fellow-sufferers knew, and they were beheaded. after henry's accession, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of people who knew the truth. they had a choice between silence and ruin or {245} death. the truth might have been, and probably was, mentioned in private correspondence; but even that would be very perilous, and scarcely any correspondence of that date has been preserved. in one letter in the 'plumpton correspondence,' the dislike of henry's illegal attainders is referred to, but with bated breath. among the mass of the people there was no certain knowledge of what had happened to the boys. of course many baseless rumours then became current. the statements accusing richard, and the assertions that these rumours received popular credit during his reign, merely indicate what his successor wanted to be believed on the subject. [1] earls of oxford, devonshire, and pembroke, lords rivers, dynham, and beaumont. lord clifford was a minor, and in hiding in yorkshire. [2] lord dudley in extreme old age, earls of shrewsbury and essex, and lord hungerford minors, lords greystoke and ogle in the marches, lord mountjoy at calais, lord de la warre abroad. the earl of westmoreland was dangerously ill. [3] bayley, _antiquities of the tower of london_. (8vo. ed 1830, p. 343 _n_.) [4] iv. p. 580 (5th ed. 1849). [5] rymer, xii. p. 265. 'pro filio bastardo regis.' 'cum summa dilecti filii nostri bastardi johannis de gloucestriæ ingenii vivacitas, membrorumque agilitas, et ad omnes bonos mores magnam et indubiam nobis de futuro ejus servitio bono spem, gratiâ divinâ promittant.' this warrant granted the wardship of calais to john of gloucester, so soon as he should have reached the age of twenty-one. [6] _archæologia_, i. p. 367. [7] sir richard, k.g., the second son, was not then a lord. the title of york was a royal one, like that of wales, and he could not hold it when proved to be illegitimate. those of norfolk and nottingham came from his intended wife, anne mowbray, and when she died, they went to her heirs howard and berkeley, by creation of the king on june 8, 1483. young richard, as well as edward, was a knight of the garter, but edward was the only 'lord bastard.' [8] a letter from the king to the mayor of york, dated april 11, 1485, is on the subject of the suppression of false reports and lies. but this refers to the false report that richard intended to marry his niece. davies, _york records_. drake incorrectly places this letter in 1484. drake's _ebor._ p. 119. [9] 'vulgatum est dictos regis edwardi pueros, quo genere violenti interitus ignoratur, decessisse in fata.' [10] _journal des etats-généraux de france tenus en_ 1483-84 (documents inédits), quoted by gairdner in his _richard iii._ p. 160. [11] he accepted a present of horses from louis as a matter of courtesy. [12] rymer's _foedera_, xii. p. 234. [13] 'nepotes clam ferro feriri jussit.'--andré. [14] 'ita quod ex post paucissimis notum fuit qua morte martirizati sunt.'--rous. {246} chapter v henry tudor in the dock murder of the princes in the tower. conviction. [sidenote: victims after bosworth] henry tydder, _alias_ tudor, must now take his place in the dock. let us first see what manner of man this fortunate adventurer was. in 1485 he was twenty-eight years of age. he is described as a man of slender build, about five feet nine inches high, with a saturnine expression, grey restless eyes, yellow hair, and very little of it. having passed his life as a fugitive and conspirator, cunning and dissimulation had become a second nature to him. the victory gained for him at bosworth, by the foulest treachery, placed despotic power in his hands. his first acts were the illegal and unjust executions of william catesby,[1] chancellor of the exchequer, of john buck, the comptroller of the late king's household, of {247} william bracher, yeoman of the crown, and of his son. these executions were in violation of all law. they were simply murders; for henry tudor himself had no legal status, and was in fact an attainted outlaw. catesby was the faithful and loyal minister of a king who studied the welfare of his subjects, and was the speaker of the best parliament that had sat since the time of edward i. he was an able and diligent public servant. this was his only crime. nothing tangible has ever been alleged against him, except that he did his duty by reporting the meditated treason of hastings. if the fables of morton and his colleagues are accepted, the executions of rivers, grey and vaughan were doubtful acts. but the executions of catesby, buck, and the brachers were heinous crimes. richard was the chief of the state, though it may be held that his measures were unjust. henry was an outlaw without legal authority of any kind, and his executions were ruthless murders. thus did this adventurer wade through the blood of innocent men to his usurped throne.[2] his next proceeding was to {248} send sir robert willoughby to sheriff hutton, to get possession of young edward earl of warwick, the heir to the throne, and of the late king's niece elizabeth. henry tudor then marched to london and seized the government. he became responsible for the surviving members of the royal family of england, legitimate or otherwise. what did he do with them? there were edward and richard, the illegitimate sons of edward iv., there was edward the legitimate son of the duke of clarence, and now the rightful king of england, and there was john, the illegitimate son of richard iii. they all fell into his power, and he alone became answerable for their lives. there is too much reason to suspect that they all met with foul play at his hands. henry tudor, on usurping the crown of england, necessarily found himself in a very difficult position. his mother's claim, as heiress to an illegitimate son of the third son of edward iii., was worthless in itself, for even if the descent had been legitimate, she must come after all the descendants of the second son of edward iii. moreover the claim, such as it was, had not yet descended to henry tudor and never did, for his mother survived him. he wisely refrained from stating such a claim as this, although he alleged a vague hereditary right of some sort, which he did not try to explain. there remained the right of conquest with the aid of french mercenaries, and he ventured to put it forward. but he soon saw that he would have to find some other prop to support his usurpation. {249} [sidenote: character of henry vii] henry must certainly have been a man of great ability, with an acute but narrow mind, marvellous powers of dissimulation and of self-deception, with considerable tact and skill in guiding and influencing those around him. he was essentially un-english. he was a near relation of louis xi., and he made that mean tyrant his model. he hated english freedom, and that intimate contact with the people which made the plantagenets popular. he loved mystery. he surrounded himself with an armed guard which constantly went about with him, a thing never done before by former kings.[3] he originated a tribunal with despotic powers, consisting of a committee of his council, the infamous star chamber. he established 'a close and secret, a tyrannical and often a most cruel government.'[4] he extorted money by means of those illegal 'benevolences' which had been abolished by the patriotic parliament of richard iii. he was penurious, greedy, and mean. he was the first english king who increased his revenue by forfeitures enforced through legal chicanery. he began the practice of setting agents to ferret out any claim which the crown could make, and a subservient judge would affirm. for he loved the forms of law, which apparently soothed his conscience. he was very superstitious. when his own interests were not concerned he was not devoid of natural affection and he recoiled from crime. yet he became capable of any foul deed if he deemed it necessary for his own security. but he meditated a crime for months and years, and stood trembling on the brink for a long time before he summoned up {250} courage to act. even then he much preferred the forms of law, thinking that if he shared the deed with others, the guilt became a limited liability. henry had the wisdom to see that, although his claim of conquest and vague assertion of right by descent[5] might serve for a time, he must establish some better title to secure any stability for his throne. he had obtained his position by the favour of a treacherous faction, and was confirmed in it by a pretended parliament of his adherents, many of them still under attainder. unlike the grand ceremony of king richard's coronation, when the whole peerage was present, that of henry was very thinly attended. he felt that some step must promptly be taken, with a view to strengthening his position, and reconciling the nation to his usurpation. there was elizabeth, the late king's niece, whose person he had secured. if she was made queen it might propitiate the powerful yorkist party. but she was illegitimate, and consequently young warwick was the rightful king. there was another more fatal difficulty, a knowledge of which was shared with the girl's mother, if not with the girl herself. all evidence of the illegitimacy might be destroyed. henry caused the act of parliament recording and legalising king richard's title to be expunged. he ordered the original act to be removed from the rolls and burnt. every person who possessed a copy or remembrance of it, was commanded to deliver up the same, under a penalty of fine and imprisonment at the tyrant's pleasure.[6] henry granted a general pardon to bishop {251} stillington in order to avoid prosecuting him for the offence of having borne witness to the illegitimacy. for he feared discussion. he then trumped up some other charge, threw the bishop into prison, and that unfortunate prelate never came out alive. but this was not enough. there was other work to be done from which henry long recoiled. yet without its perpetration he could not safely be married to elizabeth, and there could be no security for his usurpation. indeed, his position would be rendered even more precarious by the destruction of the evidence of illegitimacy. he had usurped a throne to retain which he saw that the committal of more than one crime was indispensable. meanwhile henry had summoned the so-called parliament of his outlawed adherents. he got his own attainder reversed. he then caused an act of attainder to be passed against the late king and many loyal noblemen and knights, whose property he seized. he had the effrontery to accuse them of treason to him, by dating the commencement of his reign from the day previous to the battle of bosworth. no more shameless act of injustice is recorded in the annals of tyranny. the bit of legal chicanery by which an attempt was made to excuse it, shows the character of the man. ====================================================================== {252} loyal men with the king at bosworth illegal attainders by order of henry tudor passed in the so-called parliament of 1485 richard iii., king of england, k.g. } john howard, duke of norfolk, k.g. } _slain at bosworth_. thomas howard, earl of surrey, k.g. _prisoner at bosworth_. francis viscount lovell, k.g. _slain at stoke_. walter lord ferrers, k.g. } john lord zouch. } _slain at bosworth_. sir james harington. (clerk of the council.) _at bosworth_. sir robert harington. _at bosworth_. sir richard charlton. _at bosworth_. sir richard ratcliffe, k.g. _slain at bosworth_. sir william berkeley, k.b. (knight of the bath at the coronation.) sir robert brackenbury. (constable of the tower.) _slain at bosworth_. sir thomas pilkington. (brother-in-law of the haringtons.) _slain at stoke_. sir robert middleton. walter hopton, esq. (treasurer of the household.) william catesby, esq. (chancellor of the exchequer.) _murdered at leicester_. roger wake, esq. william sapcote, esq., of huntingdonshire. humphrey stafford, esq. _put to death by henry vii_. william clarke, esq., of wenlock. walter st. germain, esq. walter watkin, esq. (herald.) richard revell, esq., of derbyshire. thomas pulter, esq., of kent. john welch, esq., _otherwise_ hastings. john kendall, esq. (secretary of state.) _slain at bosworth_. john buck, esq. (comptroller of the household.) _murdered at leicester_. john batte, esq. william brampton, esq., of burford. (from the _plumpton correspondence_, p. 48.) ====================================================================== this odious measure outraged the feelings of all parties in the country. 'there was many gentlemen against it, but it would not be for it was the king's pleasure,' wrote sir robert plumpton's correspondent from london.[7] the monk of croyland wrote against the outrage, exclaiming 'o god! what security are our kings to have henceforth that in the day of battle they {253} may not be deserted by their subjects who, acting on the awful summons of a king may, on the decline of that king's party, as is frequently the case, be bereft of life and fortune and all their inheritance.'[8] nor was this insult to king richard's memory, and the lawless robbery of his loyal subjects, forgotten by the people of england. they were resolved to secure themselves against a repetition of such proceedings. ten years afterwards the tyrant had the mortification of being obliged to give his assent to an act formally condemning the attainder of king richard's officers.[9] it is very significant that, although in the act of attainder king richard is reviled for cruelty and tyranny, he is not accused of the murder of his nephews. this is most remarkable. henry got possession of the tower at once. he arrived in london on august 28. if the young princes were missing, it is certain that in the act of attainder the usurper would have promptly accused king richard of having murdered them. but he did not do so. there can only be one explanation of this omission. the young princes were not missing. [sidenote: henry's great difficulty] here then was henry's great difficulty. this fully accounts for the long delay in marrying elizabeth. he was afraid. he was ready to commit any crime with the forms of law. he did not hold with lord russell, that 'killing by forms of law was the worst kind of murder.' but a recourse to law was impossible {254} in this case. whatever he was to do, must be done in profound secrecy. yet his timid and superstitious nature shrank from a crime the responsibility of which he could not share with others. its perpetration had, he saw, become absolutely necessary for his security. he hesitated for months. all evidence of the illegitimacy had been hidden out of sight. no man dared to mention it. he long stood on the brink. at length he plunged into guilt. he married elizabeth on january 18, 1486, nearly five months after his accession. the die was then cast. it became a matter of life and death to henry vii. that the brothers of his wife should cease to exist. [sidenote: tudor victims] we must now apply the same tests to henry as we applied to richard. had henry sufficient motive for the crime? it is impossible that a man in his position could have had a stronger motive. he had denied the illegitimacy, and had thus made his wife's brothers his most formidable rivals. he could not, he dared not let them live, unless he relinquished all he had gained. the second test we applied to richard was his treatment of those persons who were in his power, and who were, as regards relationship, in the same position as the sons of edward iv. let us apply the same test to henry. john of gloucester, the illegitimate son of richard iii., fell into the hands of henry. at first the boy received a maintenance allowance of 20_l._ a year.[10] but he was soon thrown into prison, on suspicion of an invitation having reached him to come to ireland, and he never came {255} out alive.[11] this 'active well-disposed boy,'[12] as he is described in the warrant in rymer's 'foedera,' fell a victim to the usurper's fears. his right to the crown was at least as good as that of henry tudor. he was the illegitimate son of a king. henry was only the great-grandson of an illegitimate son of a younger son of a king. the earl of warwick, who was the rightful heir to the crown, was also in henry's power. the tyrant hesitated for years before he made up his mind to commit another foul crime. but he finally slaughtered the unhappy youth under circumstances of exceptional baseness and infamy, to secure his own ends. his next supposed danger was caused by the earl of suffolk, another nephew of king richard. the ill-fated prince was delivered into henry's hands under a promise that his life should be spared. he evaded the promise by enjoining his son to kill the victim. that son promptly complied, and followed up the death of suffolk by putting five other descendants of the plantagenet royal family to death. these tudor kings cannot stand the tests we applied to richard iii., which he passed unscathed. the conduct of richard to the relations who were under his protection was that of a christian king. the executions of which henry vii. and his son were guilty were an imitation of the policy of turkish sultans. if the young princes were in the tower when henry succeeded, his conduct in analogous cases leaves no doubt of their fate. it was the fate of john of gloucester, warwick, suffolk, exeter, {256} montagu, surrey, buckingham, and the countess of salisbury.[13] they may not have been made away with before henry's marriage, nor for some months afterwards. the tyrant had the will but not the courage. he hesitated long, as in the case of young warwick. for reasons which will appear presently it is likely that the boys were murdered, by order of henry vii., between june 16 and july 16, 1486, three years after the time alleged by the official tudor historians. [sidenote: imprisonment of the queen dowager] then, for the first time, the 'common fame' was ordered to spread the report that king richard 'had put them under suer kepynge within the tower, in such wise that they never came abrode after,' and that 'king richard put them unto secrete death.'[14] but henry feared detection. the mother knew that this was false. if the boys were murdered in july 1486, that mother must soon have begun to feel uneasy. she was at winchester with her daughter when her grandchild arthur was born on september 20, 1486, and was present at the baptism. but she was in london in the autumn, and before many months her suspicions must have been aroused. she must be silenced. consequently, in february 1487 'it was resolved that the lady elizabeth, wife of king edward iv., should lose and forfeit all her lands and possessions because she had voluntarily submitted herself and her daughters {257} to the hands of king richard. whereat there was much wondering.'[15] she was ordered to reside in the nunnery of bermondsey.[16] once she was allowed to appear at court on a state occasion.[17] the pretext for her detention was not the real motive, for henry had made grants of manors and other property to his mother-in-law soon after his accession,[18] when her conduct with regard to king richard was equally well known to him. the real reason was kept secret, as well it might be. mr. gairdner calls this proceeding 'a very mysterious decision taken about the queen {258} dowager.'[19] very mysterious, indeed, on the assumption of henry's innocence. but not so if the mother knew that her sons were alive when richard fell, and could now obtain no tidings of them. if the boys ceased to live in july 1486, it was high time for henry to silence the awkward questions of their mother in the following february. he did so by condemning her to life-long seclusion in a nunnery. henry was terrified that a lady who knew some of his secrets, and probably suspected more, should be at large. in the end of the following year, and not till then, henry's wife elizabeth was at length crowned on november 25, 1487. the king and his mother beheld the ceremony from a stage, but there is no mention of the poor queen's mother. [sidenote: polydore virgil's story] years passed on. perkin warbeck personated young richard, and no one had such good reason as henry for knowing that he was an impostor. but the tyrant dared not tell how he knew that perkin was a 'feigned boy,' as he called him. at length, in 1502 or thereabouts, the first detailed story of the murder of the two princes was put forward, after the execution of sir james tyrrel. it may be considered as henry's official statement, and was evidently communicated to his paid historian polydore virgil, in whose hands it took the following form: 'richard lived in continual fear, for the expelling thereof by any kind of means, he determined by death to despatch his nephews, because so long as they lived he could never be out of hazard. wherefore he sent warrant to robert brakenbury, lieutenant of the tower, to procure their death with all diligence by some means convenient. then he departed to york. {259} but the lieutenant of the tower of london, after he had received the king's horrible commission, was astonished with the cruelty of the fact, and fearing lest, if he should obey, the same might one time or other turn to his own harm, did therefore defer the doing thereof in hope that the king would spare his own blood, or their tender age, or alter that heavy determination. but any one of these points were so far from taking place, seeing that the mind therein remained immovable, as that when king richard understood the lieutenant to make delay of that which he had commanded, he anon committed the charge of hastening that slaughter unto another, that is to say james tyrrel, who, being forced to do the king's commandment, rode sorrowfully to london, and to the worst example that hath been almost ever heard of, murdered those babes of the issue royal. this end had prince edward and richard his brother, but with what kind of death these silly children were executed is not certainly known.' this was the story put forward by henry after tyrrel's death. he may have added some other particulars afterwards.[20] it is indeed probable that he did. a much more detailed fable appeared in the history attributed to more, and in grafton, both by the same hand. it has been seen already that the statements of this writer are unworthy of credit, and it is very difficult to distinguish what parts were authorised by henry,[20] and what parts were fabricated by the writer himself. his story is as follows: 'at the time when sir james tyrrel and john {260} dighton were in prison for treason in 1502, they made the following confession. taking his way to gloucester in august 1483, king richard sent one john green with a letter to sir robert brakenbury, constable of the tower, ordering him to put the children to death. sir robert plainly answered that he would not put them to death; with which answer john green returning, recounted the same to king richard at warwick. 'the same night the king said to a secret page of his, "who shall i trust to do my bidding?" "sir," quoth the page, "there lieth one on your pallet without who i dare well say will do your grace's pleasure, the things were right hard that he would refuse." this was sir james tyrrel, who saw with envy that ratcliffe and catesby were rising above him in his master's favour. going out to sir james, who was reposing with his brother thomas, the king said "what sirs are you abed so soon?" then, calling sir james into his chamber, he brake to him secretly his mind in this mischievous matter. tyrrel assented, and was despatched on the morrow with a letter to brakenbury, to deliver to sir james all the keys of the tower for one night. after which letter delivered and the keys received, sir james appointed the night next ensuing to destroy them, devising before and preparing the means. the princes were in charge of will slaughter (or slater) called "black will," who was set to serve them and see them sure. sir james tyrrel devised that they should be murdered in their beds; to the execution whereof he appointed miles forest, one of the four who kept them, a fellow flesh-bred in murder before time. to him he joined his horse-keeper, john dighton, a big, broad, square, strong {261} knave. they smothered the children, and tyrrel ordered the murderers to bury them at the stair foot, metely deep in the ground, under a great heap of stones. then rode sir james in great haste to king richard, and shewed him all the manner of the murder, who gave him great thanks, and as some say, then made him knight. but the king allowed not their burial in so vile a corner, because they were king's sons. whereupon a priest of sir robert brakenbury took them and secretly interred them in such a place as, by the occasion of his death which only knew it the very truth could never yet be very well known. very truth is it and well known that at such time as sir james tyrrel was in the tower for treason, committed against king henry vii., both he and dighton were examined together of this point, and both they confessed the murder to be done in the same manner as you have heard. god never gave a more notable example of what wretched end ensueth such despiteous cruelty. miles forest at st. martin-le-grand piecemeal miserably rotted away. sir james tyrrel died on tower hill. dighton, indeed, yet walketh alive, in good possibility to be hanged ere he die.' grafton says: 'john dighton lived at calais long after, no less disdained and hated than pointed at, and there died in great misery.' the version in kennet[21] makes both 'dighton and forest die in a most horrible manner, rotting away by degrees.' 'thus, as i have learned of them that much knewe and little cause had to lye were these two princes murdered.' this last sentence is audacious. these informers, if they ever existed outside the writer's imagination, had very strong cause to lie. they thus complied with the wishes of {262} the reigning powers, and furthered their own interests. the truth, if they knew it, would have been their ruin. [sidenote: the story published by rastell] such is the detailed accusation which was finally put forward. it contradicts the story of morton, in his alleged conversation with buckingham, who says that the princes were murdered long before the king reached warwick, and while buckingham was still at court. on the face of it there is no confession in this long story. it is a concocted tale, and, indeed, this is fully admitted. it is merely represented to be the most probable among several others which were based on various accounts of the alleged confession. if there ever was a confession why should there be various accounts of it? the silence of fabyan, and of polydore virgil, who must have heard of the confession if it had been made, seems conclusive against the truth of the story of a confession. even this selected tale, as we have received it, is full of gross improbabilities and inaccuracies. for instance, tyrrel, who is said to have been knighted for the murder, had been a knight for twelve years, and was also a knight banneret of some standing.[22] the first thing that strikes one is that, if the story had been true, henry must have heard the main facts when he came to london, after the battle of bosworth. for sir robert brackenbury's supersession during one day, with the delivery of all the keys to sir james tyrrel, must inevitably have been known to his subordinates. all the officials of the tower must have known it, and must also have known that the boys disappeared at the same time. many persons must have been acquainted with what happened. some of them would certainly have been eager to gain favour with {263} henry by telling him, when he enquired about the missing princes. yet there is no accusation in the act of attainder against richard or tyrrel, and it is pretended that nothing was known until 1502. this proves that the story was a subsequent fabrication. there is another proof that the tale was false. it is alleged that tyrrel and dighton both confessed. yet tyrrel was beheaded for another offence in defiance of henry's plighted word, and dighton was rewarded with a residence at calais and, as will be seen presently, a sinecure in lincolnshire. these are proofs that there was no such confession as was alleged and was embodied in the story which, as it now stands, must be a fabrication. for if the confessions were ever made, tyrrel and dighton must have been tried and convicted for these atrocious murders, and duly punished. it has been suggested that tyrrel could not be proceeded against because his statement was under the seal of confession. it is clear from the story that this was not so. the story tells us that tyrrel and dighton were subjected to examination, and that it was in that way that their confessions were obtained. in point of fact dighton does not appear to have been arrested at all. the names of those who were concerned in tyrrel's business are given by the chroniclers, and dighton is not one of them.[23] it seems unnecessary to dwell on the absurdities and contradictions in the story itself. they have often been exposed, and indeed they are admitted by mr. gairdner, who merely contends that the story may be {264} true in the main, although the details may not be correct. but it is worth while to refer to the contention of sharon turner, lingard and others, that the story must be true, on the ground that the persons mentioned in it were rewarded by king richard. [sidenote: alleged rewards to murderers] they maintain that 'brakenbury and tyrrel received several grants, green was made receiver of the isle of wight and of the castle and lordship of porchester, dighton was appointed bailiff of the manor of ayton, forest was keeper of the wardrobe at barnard castle.' but it is not pretended that 'black will' was rewarded by richard. we shall presently see that he was by henry. all this can easily be answered. brackenbury and tyrrel were yorkist officers of rank, and such grants would have been made to them in any circumstances for their distinguished services. as regards the others, either the grants were made previous to the alleged date of the murders, or there is no evidence to show whether they were made before or after, or in any way to connect them with the crime. the statement that green held the receiverships of the isle of wight and porchester is derived from an entirely unsupported note by strype.[24] there was a man named green who was comptroller of customs at boston, and another who was appointed to provide horse meat and litter for the king's stables. but the dates of these appointments were july 24 and 30, 1483, before the alleged date of the murders. a man named dighton was made bailiff of the manor of ayton[25]; but there is nothing to show that {265} this appointment was after the murder, or that he was tyrrel's horse keeper, or that tyrrel ever had a groom of that name. it will presently be seen that the john dighton of the murder was probably a clergyman and not a groom. it is alleged of miles forest that he was one of four jailers in the tower who had charge of the princes, that he was a professional murderer, and that he rotted away miserably, in sanctuary at st. martin's-le-grand. these assertions are certainly false. miles forest was keeper of the wardrobe at barnard castle[26] in the valley of the tees in durham, 244 miles from the tower of london. there he lived with his wife joan and his son edward. a footman serving at middleham castle, named henry forest, was perhaps another son.[27] there is not the slightest reason for believing that forest entered upon his appointment after the date of the alleged murders; but much to disprove this assumption. he died in september 1484, and, as his wife and son received a pension for their lives, he must have been an old and faithful servant who had held the office for many years. dr. lingard suggests that the pension was granted because forest held the post for such a _short_ time, assuming that he was one of the murderers in the story. this is certainly a very odd reason for granting a pension![28] some authors have thought that it was baynard's castle, the residence of the duchess of york in london, where forest was keeper of the wardrobe. but the names in the manuscript are quite clear. miles forest was a responsible old official in a royal castle, living with his wife and grown-up sons in the {266} far north of england; where he died and his family received a pension for his long service. we are asked to believe that he was, at the same time, a notorious murderer who was also a jailer in the tower of london, and that he died in sanctuary at st. martin's-le-grand. [sidenote: genesis of the story] how forest's name got into the story concocted from the pretended confession it is not possible, at this distance of time, to surmise. but the author of it was quite unscrupulous, and the above considerations justify the conclusion that forest's name was used without any regard for truth. there was a desire to give names and other details in order to throw an air of verisimilitude over the fable. we see the same attempt in the use of the name of dighton. he was not tyrrel's horse-keeper, nor probably the actual murderer, but a different person, as will be seen presently. but there was a john dighton living at calais when the story was made up, who was known to be connected, in some mysterious way, with the disappearance of the princes. so the author of the story hit upon his name to do duty as a strong square knave who did the deed. the name of forest was doubtless adopted owing to some similar chance. the name of neither deighton nor forest occurs in the authorised version as given by polydore virgil. henry at first only accused tyrrel of the murders; but it seems likely that he subsequently put forward some further details. there is an indication of the green episode in polydore virgil. it is therefore probable that it was sanctioned by henry's authority, as well as the details respecting the interment of the bodies. all the rest about dighton and forest, and the mode in which their crime was committed, is an impudent fabrication, as regards richard, based upon {267} the authorised story which is given by polydore virgil. the italian was supplied with the statement sanctioned by henry, and he distinctly tells us that the mode of death was not divulged. if the mode of death was not divulged, the alleged confession of tyrrel and dighton cannot have taken place. for this is the very thing they would have confessed. there remains a circumstantial story which may really have been connected with a secret tragedy. it has a very suspicious look of having been parodied out of something which actually happened. it is unlikely to have been pure invention. the fear of detection must have been always haunting henry's mind. he would be tortured with the apprehension that the vague rumours he had set afloat against richard were not believed; and this would be an inducement to promulgate a more detailed and circumstantial story. he could not and dared not accuse tyrrel while he was alive, for a reason which will appear directly, but as soon as he was dead it would be safe to do so. at the time when he got rid of tyrrel his son arthur had just died. the man's mind would be filled with fear of retributive justice. then the terror of detection would increase upon him. he would long to throw off suspicion from himself, by something more decisive than vague rumour. the notion of imputing his own crime, in its real details, to his predecessor, is quite in keeping with the workings of a subtle and ingenious mind such as we know henry's to have been. hence, tyrrel, green, dighton, black will, may have been the accomplices of henry vii., not of richard iii. as soon as tyrrel was disposed of, the circumstantial story might be divulged as his confession, merely {268} substituting the name of richard for that of henry, and the name of brackenbury for that of daubeney.[29] [sidenote: murder of the princes] with this clue to guide us, let us see what light can still be thrown on the dark question of the murders. sir james tyrrel of gipping had been a knight of some distinction. he had been on a commission for exercising the office of lord high constable under edward iv. he had been master of the horse and was created a knight banneret at berwick siege. king richard made him master of the henchmen and conferred many favours on him. but he was not one of the good men and true who stood by their sovereign to the end. his name drops out of history during those last anxious months before bosworth. he was no doubt a trimmer. but he could not escape the consequences of his long service under the yorkist kings. henry tudor deprived him of his chamberlainship of the exchequer, and of his constableship of newport, in order to bestow those appointments on his own friends.[30] tyrrel had to wait patiently in the cold shade. but he was ambitious, unscrupulous, and ready to do a great deal for the sake of the new king's favour. here was a ready instrument for such a man as henry tudor. the die had been cast. the usurper had married elizabeth of york and entered upon the year 1486. there was a dark deed which must be done. henry set out on a progress to york, leaving london in the middle of march. on the 11th of the same month, john green received from the new king a grant of {269} a third of the manor of benyngton in hertfordshire.[31] for this favour green had, no doubt, to perform some secret service which, if satisfactorily executed, would be more fully rewarded. this grant was a small retaining fee. we know from the story what that service was. we also know from the story that green did not succeed. henry vii. returned from his progress in june, only to find that green had failed him in his need. then henry (not richard) may well have exclaimed 'who shall i trust to do my bidding?' '"sir," quoth a secret councillor'[32] (called a page in the story), '"there waiteth without one who i dare well say will do your grace's pleasure." so tyrrel was taken into favour, and undertook to perform henry's work with the understanding that he was to receive a sufficient reward. he became a knight of the king's body.[33] on june 16, 1486, sir james tyrrel late of gipping received a general pardon.[34] there is nothing extraordinary in this. it was an ordinary practice, in those days, to grant general pardons on various occasions. but it marks the date when henry found 'one without' who was ready to do his pleasure. tyrrel, as the story tells us, was given a warrant to the lieutenant of the tower, conferring on him the needful powers. the murders were then committed, as the story informs us, by william slaughter or slater, called 'black will,' with the aid of john dighton. slater was, no doubt, the jailer. master dighton, however, was not tyrrel's groom. a john dighton was a priest, and possibly a chaplain in the tower. he may have {270} been only an accessory after the fact, in connexion with the interments. the bodies, as we are told in the story, were buried at the stair foot, 'metely deep in the ground'; where they were discovered in july 1674,[35] 188 years afterwards. the tale about their removal,[36] and the death of the priest, was no doubt inserted by henry, to prevent that discovery. on july 16, 1486, sir james tyrrel received a second general pardon.[37] this would be very singular under ordinary circumstances, the second pardon having been granted within a month of the first. but it is not so singular when we reflect on what probably took place in the interval. there was an offence to be condoned which must be kept a profound secret. thus we are able to fix the time of the murder of the two young princes between june 16 and july 16, 1486. one was fifteen and a half, the other twelve years of age. [sidenote: relations silenced] henry had at length found courage to commit the crime. he may have excused it to himself from the absolute necessity of his position. it had been perpetrated in profound secrecy. if the mother, brother, or sisters suspected anything, they could be silenced. they were absolutely at his mercy. henry caused the mother to be stripped of her property, immured in bermondsey nunnery, and left dependent on him for subsistence. she was thus effectually silenced. the marquis of dorset, half brother of the murdered boys, was committed to the tower during 1487; but he succeeded in convincing the tyrant that there was {271} nothing to fear from him, and was eventually released. the eldest sister was henry's wife and at his mercy--the wife of a man who, as his admirers mildly put it, 'was not uxorious.' she was within two months of her confinement. doubtless for that reason her mother kept all misgivings to herself. henry married the next sister, cicely, to his old uncle lord welles,[38] who would ensure her silence. she was married in that very year, and sent off to lincolnshire. the three youngest were children, and in due time could be married to his adherents, or shut up in a nunnery.[39] others who knew much, and must have suspected more, were silent in public, for their fortunes, perhaps their lives, depended on their silence. yet the guilty tyrant could have known no peace. he must have been haunted by the fear of detection, however industriously he might cause reports to be spread and histories to be written, in which his predecessor was charged with his crimes. then there was the horror of having to deal with his accomplices. here fortune favoured him. green died in the end of 1486[40]; though hush money seems to have been paid to 'black will' for some time longer.[41] john dighton {272} was presented by henry vii. with the living of fulbeck near grantham, in lincolnshire, on may 2, 1487.[42] but he was expected to live on the other side of the channel. sir james tyrrel received ample recompense. he seems to have been appointed to the office of constable of guisnes immediately after the date of his second general pardon.[43] he was next sent as ambassador to maximilian, king of the romans, to conclude a perpetual league and treaty. in 1493 tyrrel was one of the commissioners for negotiating the treaty of etaples with france. in august 1487 he received a grant for life of the stewardship of the king's lordship of ogmore in wales. but henry, although he was obliged to reward his accomplices, was anxious to keep them on the other side of the channel as much as possible. dighton had to reside at calais. tyrrel was required to make an exchange, giving up his estates in wales to the king, and receiving revenues from the county of guisnes of equal value.[44] in 1498 henry still addressed him as his well-beloved and faithful councillor. [sidenote: arrest of tyrrel] the long-sought pretext for getting rid of tyrrel was found in 1502. the usurper dreaded the earl of suffolk, king richard's nephew, as a claimant to the throne. he heard that tyrrel had favoured the escape of the ill-fated young prince to germany. henry would be terrified at the idea of tyrrel taking the side of another claimant, and publicly denouncing his misdeeds. {273} he ordered the arrest of his accomplice, but tyrrel refused to surrender the castle of guisnes. he was besieged by the whole garrison of calais. henry then ordered dr. fox, the bishop of winchester and lord privy seal, one of his most intimate associates, to send a promise under the privy seal, to the effect that tyrrel should come and go in security if he would confer with sir thomas lovell, henry's chancellor of the exchequer, on board a ship at calais. tyrrel should have known his master by this time. but even he had not gauged the full depth of tudor perfidy. he was deceived by the 'pulchris verbis' of bishop fox.[45] when he came on board he was told that he would be pitched overboard unless he sent a token to his son to deliver up the castle. the token was sent, and the king's promise under his privy seal was broken. tyrrel was safely locked up in a dungeon of the tower and beheaded without trial and in great haste on may 6, 1502. at length henry could breathe freely. green and tyrrel were dead. slater does not appear again, so it {274} may be assumed that he also had been got rid of. only dighton remained. he had to reside at calais on the proceeds of his sinecure in lincolnshire, and to be useful as a false witness. we know from rastell and grafton that he did live and die at calais. the identity of names suggests the probability that he was a brother or son of the john dighton who was bailiff of ayton manor. the story told in the publications of grafton and rastell was generally accepted as true; although, even after the lapse of so many years, there must have been many old people who knew it to be false. these people had the choice between silence and ruin. as they died off, the belief in the story became more and more universal. this fable, appearing first in grafton, was the final touch to the hideous and grotesque caricature which was portrayed by the tudor historians and dramatised by shakespeare. the history of its reception in all its absurd and improbable details, of the ineradicable prejudice which could keep it alive for four centuries, and long after sound methods of criticism had begun to be applied to other historical questions, forms a curious chapter in the record of human credulity. [sidenote: death of the earl of warwick] henry tudor suffered for his crimes. the secret removal of his wife's brothers and of her uncle's illegitimate son failed to complete the catalogue of them. young edward earl of warwick was another stumbling block in his way. but again his superstitious mind recoiled from guilt which his judgment recommended. if his wife had been legitimate, there would have been no danger to henry from the earl of warwick; that young prince would have been far removed from the succession. his wife's illegitimacy {275} made her cousin the rightful heir, and hence another crime seemed necessary. henry put off the perpetration of this crime for years. ferdinand of spain refused to allow a marriage between his daughter and henry's son arthur, until the rightful heir to the crown of england had been put out of the way. this refusal at length gave henry a motive for the crime which outweighed his superstitious fears. he committed it in a way which was thoroughly characteristic. he caused perkin warbeck to be given access to the earl of warwick in the tower, and some of the jailers were told to suggest an attempt at escape. an informer, named robert cleymound, was employed to listen to the conversations of the two lads, and to report that an escape was meditated by them. this was made a capital charge against the young prince. he was subjected to a mock trial, so that henry might indulge in his hope of limited liability for murder, and was then slaughtered on november 28, 1499. a man who was capable of committing such a cowardly murder in such a way was certainly as capable of the crime of which he falsely accused king richard. as soon as richard iii. was dead, edward earl of warwick became _de jure_ king of england, not only as the acknowledged heir to the dead king but also as the nearest in succession, and as the last male plantagenet. his existence was, at that time, a serious danger to the usurper, who did not lose a day in securing the poor lad's person. if, as henry afterwards caused it to be proclaimed, the declaration of the illegitimacy of the children of edward iv. was false, then the earl of warwick ceased to be dangerous; and there was no object in condemning him to perpetual imprisonment. it was a useless act of injustice {276} and cruelty. but if henry knew that, in spite of his attempts to destroy all evidence of the illegitimacy, the awkward fact remained, his injustice and cruelty are explained. they afford one more proof of the truth of dr. stillington's evidence, which led to the accession of king richard. warwick was now put out of the way, in obedience to the king of spain. but remorse gnawed the tyrant's heart. his father confessor, though doubtless an astute courtier, failed to soothe his conscience. he sought the help of wizards and quacks. but his superstitions gave him little consolation. the spanish ambassador noticed the change that had taken place in henry's appearance since the murder of young warwick. don pedro de ayala had been in scotland during the interval. the king had come to look many years older in a single month. dark thoughts were haunting his mind. his eldest son died, and an anonymous writer has recorded that he showed some feeling, and exchanged words of consolation with his wife.[46] this is quite in keeping with one side of his character. the other side is shown in his harsh treatment of catharine of aragon, in his monstrous proposal to marry her when his wife died, in his disgusting inquiries respecting the young queen of naples, and in his revolting offer for the hand of juana (_la loca_). but the necessities of his position gave him little time for the indulgence either of such grief as he was capable of feeling or of the other less creditable sentiments that are revealed in his correspondence. his son's death must have seemed to him the nemesis of his crimes. yet within a month he was beheading {277} tyrrel, and fabricating a story to account for the disappearance of his wife's brothers. we can never know how much that wife suffered. no doubt she was kept in ignorance of the fate of her brothers. but she knew they were not killed by her uncle. she saw her mother immured in a nunnery for life. she saw her brother, the marquis of dorset, committed to the tower. she saw the sister, nearest to her in age, hurriedly married to old lord welles. she must have suspected much, even if she knew nothing. she could not have been kept in ignorance of the cruel imprisonment of her young cousin warwick. she must have shuddered at his murder. she would have been less than human if she did not loathe the perpetrator of these deeds, even though he was the father of her children. the unhappy wife was released from companionship with the murderer of her relations on february 11, 1503. [sidenote: death of the earl of suffolk] another crime was contemplated by the miserable usurper, to make his position safe. but he could not get the earl of suffolk into his clutches without giving a solemn promise to spare his life. he evaded the promise by advising his son to commit the crime after his death.[47] murderous designs thus occupied his mind, even on his death-bed. yet one of henry's last acts was an act of restitution. he restored in blood, and to all his estates, the son of his accomplice, sir james tyrrel, on april 6, 1507, feeling no doubt that the greater criminal of the two remained unpunished, except by his own remorseful conscience. {278} henry became haggard and restless. prosperous and successful as the world deemed him, we may rely upon it that his crimes were not unpunished. his cowardly nature was peculiarly susceptible to the torturing pangs of remorse. he died, full of terrors, prematurely old and worn out, at the early age of fifty-two, on april 21, 1509. he was successful as the world counts success. he accumulated riches by plunder and extortion. he established a despotic government. he cleared his path of rivals. we are told that he inaugurated a new era--era of 'benevolences' and star chamber prosecutions. in all these things he succeeded. he, and the writers he employed, were pre-eminently successful as slanderers. they succeeded in blackening for all time the fame of a far better man than henry tudor. [sidenote: things unexplained] hitherto we have been engaged in the investigation of positive evidence. there is, however, another side to the question--a negative side. we must now examine henry's omissions. according to his story he found the two boys missing when he arrived in london after the battle of bosworth. if henry's story was true, it must have been well known to every official in the tower that sir robert brackenbury gave up charge to sir james tyrrel and that the boys had never been seen since. if henry made any enquiries he must have heard this, and the whole story would have come out. why were not tyrrel, dighton, green, and black will arrested, tried, and hanged? why was not king richard accused of murdering his nephews in the act of attainder? it is very improbable, though just possible, that henry might have failed to ascertain the details of the story, assuming it to have been true, when he first arrived. still, if the boys were missing, {279} it is certain that he would have accused richard of their murder in the act of attainder. his omission to do so amounts to a strong presumption that they were not missing. according to the story, tyrrel and dighton confessed the murder in 1502. why were they not tried and executed for it? this must have been done if there ever was a confession. it was clearly not made under the seal of confession, according to the story, but under the pressure of official examination. tyrrel was actually beheaded, in great haste, on a frivolous charge, and his capture was a breach of a royal promise given under the privy seal. surely this would have been avoided if there had been any other way, and there was another way. there was every possible reason for trying him for these horrible murders and executing him for them. why was not this done? there can be only one answer. there was no confession. henry's treatment of dighton is still more extraordinary. it is alleged that he also confessed the murder. yet he was not only unpunished, but allowed to live at large in calais. when we find that henry gave rewards to tyrrel, dighton, green, and black will, the conclusion is inevitable that there was no confession to the king in 1502, because it was quite unnecessary. the confession was due from henry himself. another omission in henry's conduct is equally incriminating. if the children of edward iv. were legitimate, why was not the act of richard iii. published, which alleged their illegitimacy, and its falsehood fully exposed by evidence? why was such extraordinary anxiety shown to conceal its contents, and violence threatened against anyone who preserved a record of them? why were absurd, improbable, {280} and contradictory tales invented, in substitution of the statements made in richard's act? there can be only one answer. the statements in the act were true. in no other way can henry's cruel treatment of the young earl of warwick be accounted for. if elizabeth was the legitimate heiress of york, then there could be no danger from warwick, and no reason for molesting him. he was simply a harmless young prince, far removed from the succession. but if elizabeth and her sisters were not legitimate, the case was very different. warwick was then _de jure_ edward v. there was every reason for a usurper to imprison and kill him. the lambert simnel insurrection is explained in that case. it would have been without motive if warwick came after five others in the succession to the crown. here again henry's conduct can only be explained in one way. warwick was imprisoned and killed for the same reason that richard's act of parliament, declaring his title, was destroyed. the conduct of henry adds weight to all the other evidence. it cannot be reconciled with his innocence. it can only be explained by his guilt. [1] william catesby was the son of sir william catesby of ashby st. leger in northamptonshire, by philippa, heiress of sir william bishopston. he was a learned man, well versed in the laws of his country. on june 30, 1483, he become chancellor of the exchequer, and was chosen speaker of king richard's parliament. lord rivers had such confidence in his integrity that he nominated him executor of his will. his wife was margaret, daughter of william lord zouch. he made his own will on august 25, 1485, leaving his wife sole executrix and dividing his property among his children. his unjust attainder was afterwards reversed in favour of his son george. [2] yet dr. lingard tells us that 'henry was careful not to stain his triumph with blood.' this is a strange assertion, when it is directly followed by the admission that he did stain his triumph with blood. of all his prisoners,' he continues, 'three only suffered death, the notorious [why notorious?] catesby and two persons of the name of brecher, who _probably_ had merited that distinction by their crimes' (iv. p. 260). this is a pure assumption, unwarranted by any evidence whatever. if the word 'loyalty' had been substituted for 'crimes,' dr. lingard would have been nearer the truth. all that this historian's praise amounts to is that henry refrained from committing a massacre, such as he caused to be perpetrated on a subsequent occasion, when warbeck's followers landed in kent. mr. gairdner says: 'whether these executions were just is another question, save that the ministers of a bad king must take the responsibility even of his worst deeds' (p. 311). he evidently sees that henry's conduct is indefensible; and he has elsewhere admitted that richard was not a bad king. the more impartial hutton says: 'thus the first regal act performed by henry was an act of tyranny' (_bosworth_, p. 148). [3] 'for men remember not any king of england before that tyme which used such a furniture of daily soldiers.'--hall, p. 425. [4] gairdner. [5] 'de jure belli et de jure lancastriæ.' [6] _rot. parl._ vi. 289_a_. the monk of croyland had a copy, but luckily for him, he was not found out. [7] _plumpton correspondence_. letter dated december 13, 1485 (p. 49). [8] translation by mr. gairdner in his _henry vii._ (p. 38). [9] 11 henry vii. cap. 1 (1496). it was enacted that no person serving the king and sovereign lord of the land for the time being shall be convicted of high treason, nor suffer any forfeiture or imprisonment. in the previous year the usurper, also no doubt from fear of public opinion, had paid 10_l._ 1_s._ to james keyley for king richard's tomb (_excerp. hist._ p. 105). [10] grant to john of gloucester of an annual rent of 20_l._ during the king's pleasure, from the revenues of the manor of kingston lacey, parcel of the duchy of lancaster in the county of dorset. march 1 1486.--_materials for a history of the reign of henry vii._ i. [11] 'about the same time there was a base-born son of king richard iii. made away, having been kept long in prison.'--buck, p. 105, from _chron. ms._ in 4to. apud _dr. rob. cotton_. [12] rymer, xii. p. 265. [13] a critic, after reading this work, objected that partiality was shown by the fact that while the older writers are blamed for blackening richard's character in other ways, in order to make the charge of murdering the princes more plausible, precisely the same thing is done with henry vii. but the other charges against henry are proved and acknowledged facts. those against richard have been disproved. the older writers are justly blamed for inventing calumnies. [14] fabyan. [15] polydore virgil. lord bacon observes, in his _life of henry vii._, 'which proceeding, being even at that time taxed for rigorous and undue makes it probable there was some greater matter against her, which the king, upon reason of policy, would not publish.' undoubtedly, there was; she knew too much. [16] dr. lingard (iv. 279 and 286_n_) and nicolas (p. lxxviii) bring forward a negotiation with the king of scots, in november 1487, in which henry proposed that james iii. should marry the queen dowager, as a proof that he never deprived her of liberty. if he suspected her, they argue, he would not have given her the opportunity of plotting against him, which her situation as queen of scotland would have afforded her. although henry may have momentarily entertained the idea of getting rid of a woman who knew too much by this expatriation, he soon changed his mind. she was safer in his power. the negotiations were broken off, and james was killed in the following year. [17] she was present when her daughter gave audience to the french ambassador in november 1489 (_leland coll._ iv. 249). henry allowed her a pension of 400_l._ a year from february 19, 1490. her will, dated april 10, 1492, is witnessed by the abbot of bermondsey. she here confirms the fact of the seizure of her property by her son-in-law. her words are decisive on that point. 'whereas i have no worldly goods.' sir h. nicolas tried to account for this by suggesting that she only had a life interest in her income. but this will not explain so sweeping a statement as that she had no worldly goods at all (p. lxxx). mr. gairdner says: 'henry vii. found it advisable to shut up his mother-in-law in a monastery, and had not the slightest scruple in taking her property away from her' (_richard iii._ p. 88). [18] _letters patent_, march 4, 1486. [19] gairdner's _henry vii._ [20] 'the king's manner of showing things by pieces and side lights hath so muffled it that it hath left it almost a mystery to this day.'--lord bacon. [21] i. 501. [22] he was made a knight banneret at the taking of berwick, in 1482. [23] they were sir william courtenay, one welborne, and tyrrel's son, who were pardoned; sir walter tyrrel and sir john wyndham beheaded; a ship-master hanged at tyburn, a poursuivant named curson, and a yeoman named matthew jones executed at guisnes; all on suspicion of having aided the earl of suffolk to escape. [24] in rennet's _england_, i. p. 552. mr. gairdner, referring to this note by strype, says: 'i own i cannot find his authority.'--_richard iii._ p. 164. [25] _harl. ms._ 433, fol. 55. [26] _harl. ms._ 433, fol. 78 and 187. [27] _ibid._ 433, fol. 118. [28] v. 577. [29] the earl of oxford was appointed constable of the tower for life, on september 22, 1485. we may hope that oxford, who did not reside, had no guilty knowledge. [30] _memorials of henry vii._ i. pp. 41, 95. [31] _memorials of henry vii._ i. p. 384. [32] was this morton? buck had heard so. [33] _memorials of henry vii._ ii. p. 251. [34] _ibid._ i. p. 460. [35] sandford, v. p. 404. [36] 'the latter part of the tale, which declares their interment by the priest and their removal by richard's order, was evidently fabricated by henry, to prevent the hazard of a search.'--hutton's _bosworth_, p. 169. [37] _memorials of henry vii._ i. p. 486. [38] lord welles was a half brother, on the mother's side, of henry's mother. [39] anne was eleven. in due time she was married to the son of the earl of surrey. katherine was only seven. when she was twenty she became the wife of the lancastrian earl of devonshire. bridget, the youngest, was five. she was immured in a nunnery at dartford, as soon as she was old enough. [40] _memorials of henry vii._ i. p. 617. [41] as late as 1488 there is a grant of five marks, at easter, 'by way of reward,' to william slater. if this was the jailer, he received hush money for two years after the perpetration of the murders. he is not heard of again. _memorials of henry vii._ ('writs under the privy seal. easter term 3 hen. vii.'), ii. p. 298. [42] _memorials of henry vii._ ii. p. 148. [43] this appears from general pardons having been granted to the former constable, to the chaplain, and to twenty-four soldiers of the garrison of guisnes on the same date, july 16. no doubt these pardons were on the occasion of the appointment of a new constable, and the return of part of the garrison to england. [44] _memorials of henry vii._ ii. pp. 188, 251. [45] this is an ugly story. dr. richard fox was originally an agent of morton and other conspirators abroad. this discreditable work brought him to paris early in 1485, where he became known to henry tudor. a man so employed could not have been a good priest. he came with henry to england as his secretary, and was of course well rewarded. he became bishop of winchester and lord privy seal; and appears to have been munificent and diligent as a prelate. by his 'pulchris verbis' he treacherously drew tyrrel into the clutches of sir thomas lovell. this appears from a letter of the earl of suffolk to the emperor maximilian dated at aix-la-chapelle on may 12, 1502. so hurried were the proceedings against tyrrel that he was actually beheaded six days before the date of suffolk's letter announcing his treacherous capture. bishop fox has been much eulogised. but no one could be for years in the inner counsels of such a man as henry vii. without being in sympathy with his ways, which certainly do not deserve eulogy. [46] _leland's coll._ v. p. 373. from an anonymous manuscript. _letters of richard iii. and henry vii._, b. p. i. pref. p. 29. [47] lord herbert of cherbury, _life of henry viii._ p. 36. 'our king executing what his father at his departure out of the world commanded, as bellay hath it.' {281} chapter vi mr. gairdner's richard iii it will be interesting, in conclusion, to examine the critical treatment of these questions by the latest historian who has written on the subject.[1] mr. gairdner argues in favour of the tudor portrait of the last plantagenet king, but only to a limited extent. the thick and thin believers in the tudor caricature, such as hume and lingard, aroused doubts in many minds. mr. gairdner is the most formidable enemy to the memory of the gallant young king that has yet appeared, because he is, beyond comparison, the best informed author that has ever treated of this part of history, has conscientiously striven to be fair and impartial, and has stated both sides of the question, while retaining a belief in richard's worst crimes. his predecessors, who have taken his view, simply adopted all the statements of tudor writers as facts, and have depicted a cool, calculating, scheming, cruel, and most revolting villain without a redeeming feature. they thus portrayed at least a possible monster. but mr. gairdner, while striving to be fair and just, still clings to what he calls 'tradition,' {282} that is to the tudor stories of crimes, told many years after the time. the two things are incompatible, so that he produces a monster which would be impossible anywhere. his richard iii. is a prince, headlong and reckless as to consequences, but of rare gifts and with many redeeming qualities. he was wise and able, brave, generous, religious, fascinating, and yet had committed two very cowardly assassinations before he was nineteen, murdered his defenceless nephews, and gratuitously slandered his mother. such a monster is an impossibility in real life. even dr. jekyll and mr. hyde are nothing to it. let us see how mr. gairdner arrived at his two-sided monster. he explains his method in his preface. he demurs to the view of the late mr. buckle that commonly received opinions should be doubted until they are found to stand the test of argument.[2] he lays it down that no attempt to set aside traditional views can be successful until the history of the particular epoch has been re-written, and the new version exhibits a moral harmony with the facts of subsequent times and of times preceding.[3] 'tradition,' mr. gairdner tells us, is an interpreter and nothing more, and seldom supplies anything material in the way of facts.[4] yet he adds that the attempt to discard it is like an attempt to learn a language without a master, and he thinks that a sceptical spirit is a most fatal one in history. it is difficult to follow him when he announces that, in spite of this view of tradition, his plan is to place the chief reliance on contemporary information, and that this treatment of history should be adhered to.[5] {283} 'tradition,' in richard's case, means the embellishments of later chroniclers writing long after the events, in the interests of another dynasty. unfortunately mr. gairdner does not always adhere to contemporary evidence, but prefers 'tradition.' in the case of richard iii. mr. gairdner thinks that it is not clearly shown that the story would be more intelligible without 'tradition,' and that the said 'tradition' is not well accounted for. let us endeavour to test these two propositions by the light of mr. gairdner's own admissions. his richard stood high in general estimation when duke of gloucester.[6] as king the people showed him marks of loyalty.[7] in the north undoubtedly, and perhaps with the common people generally, he was highly popular, and there was every evidence of devoted loyalty and personal popularity at the time of buckingham's rising.[8] he was an able ruler,[9] he had the confidence even of his enemies in his justice and integrity,[10] he was generous not only to the widows and children of fallen enemies, but even to the wives of rebels in open revolt,[11] his generous acts were done graciously and in no grudging spirit,[12] there was nothing mean or paltry in his character,[13] his manners were ingratiating, and he had great influence over others. a person so described is very unintelligible if the assassinations and infamies of 'tradition' have to be added. richard's character is far more intelligible without them; and 'tradition' is perfectly accounted for by the necessities of the new dynasty, whose well-paid writers created it. {284} mr. gairdner acknowledges that 'tradition' seldom supplies anything material in the way of facts. yet he maintains that traditional views cannot be set aside unless the history of the particular epoch is re-written, and the new version exhibits a moral harmony with the facts of subsequent times and times preceding. of course certain passages in history would have to be re-written when they were found to be erroneous. but the truth or falsehood of a particular accusation cannot be affected by facts of subsequent times or times preceding. its truth or falsehood is not established by moral harmony with something else, but by contemporary evidence. my detailed remarks on mr. gairdner's views respecting richard's alleged crimes are intended to show that his conclusions are mistaken when they deviate from his own plan of placing the chief reliance on contemporary evidence; and that a sceptical spirit, in the special case of richard, is absolutely necessary if the truth is to be reached. mr. gairdner assumes that richard murdered his nephews, and, on the strength of his guilt in committing that crime, he argues that the criminal was capable of anything during his former life, and on this ground believes in some of the other alleged crimes. the earlier accusers appear to argue in the reverse way. they accumulated every accusation they could think of, with reference to richard's former life, in order to make the main crime more probable. though mr. gairdner's sense of justice obliges him to make so many admissions that the revolting monster of earlier histories almost disappears in his hands, yet in some respects he goes backwards. for he still {285} clings to the assassinations of young edward and of henry vi., two horrible stories invented by later chroniclers. surely the sound arguments of sharon turner and others ought to have been allowed finally to expunge these revolting fables from our history. however, in mr. gairdner's book the venomous hunchback, born with teeth, entirely disappears. he gives us, in his place, a prince 'whose bodily deformity, though perceptible, was probably not conspicuous.' in his latest version, he abandons the assassination in the king's tent by his chief nobles. he thinks that richard is unduly blamed about the murder of henry vi. because it was probably sanctioned by others. he pronounces richard to be guiltless of the death of clarence. he admits that anne was not married to young edward, and that there is some reason to believe that she regarded richard with favour. he gives no countenance to the insinuation that anne was poisoned by her husband. he is inclined to credit the pre-contract of edward iv. with lady eleanor butler, and admits the strength of the evidence for its truth. he considers it remarkable that a man (lord rivers) who suffered by the protector's order could appeal to him to be supervisor of his will. this would certainly be very remarkable if gloucester and rivers had been accomplices in two cowardly murders. such monsters do not usually place confidence in each other. but the simple truth is not remarkable. rivers felt that he had failed and must pay the penalty, but he placed full and deserved confidence in richard's honour and integrity, as well as in his generosity. {286} mr. gairdner has thus removed much of the tudor garbage from the picture of king richard, but he will not sweep off the rest. his researches show him that the accusations of the tudor writers are irreconcilable with the results of modern investigations. but his preconceived convictions, although much shaken, are not yet swept away. the inevitable result is that the life and character of richard become a puzzle to him. generous, kind, and patriotic acts continue to be recorded of the young king throughout his life, which are certainly not the acts of an habitual assassin. those who are forced to acknowledge the facts, and yet cling to a belief in the fictions, find themselves in a tight place. this is mr. gairdner's position. he will not give up all the tudor fables, and clings to such shreds of them as it seems to him possible to retain. yet his own researches force him to abandon much and to apologize for the rest. the man's acts cannot be made to harmonize with the tudor calumnies. the consequent contradictions necessitate the explanation that 'richard was not yet even a hardened criminal' (p. 46); while some of the events which cannot be disputed are 'certainly remarkable' (p. 91), and others 'almost inconceivable' (p. 214). mr. gairdner cannot quite give up the fable of the murder of young edward at tewkesbury. he admits that it was not countenanced by any contemporary writer, that it was first told by fabyan many years after the event, and that the final embellishment, according to which young gloucester was a participator in the crime, was a tradition of later times. yet in his history, he preferred the tradition of later times to the story of fabyan, although he thought the latter had every appearance of probability, and he preferred both to the {287} unanimous testimony of contemporaries.[14] there is no reason for this topsy-turvy criticism, except that what mr. gairdner calls a 'tradition' accuses richard, while fabyan and the contemporaries do not. his arguments in favour of the murder given in his 'life of richard iii.' were that richard may very probably have been a murderer at nineteen, if any one of his other alleged murders be admitted; and that he was capable of a cowardly assassination because he condemned prisoners to death in his judicial capacity. on these grounds alone he urged that the accusation is not to be rejected. he did not maintain that it is true, but that it cannot safely be pronounced apocryphal. he also admitted that richard ought not to bear the whole responsibility, as he was only an accessory. this is very different from the downright condemnation of hume and lingard.[15] the fable is evidently doomed. but there can be no sharing of responsibility. if richard stabbed his young cousin he was a cowardly ruffian, whether other ruffians did the same or not. if he did not, no words can be strong enough to express the infamy of his italian slanderer. mr. gairdner has since shifted his ground,[16] and, adopting warkworth's version, has admitted that {288} young edward was slain in the field, calling for succour to the duke of clarence; but he cannot bring himself to acquit richard altogether, and suggests that he was the slayer, because no meaner person would have taken the responsibility of slaying so valuable a prisoner. as if these fine-drawn distinctions were made in the heat of a desperate _mêlée_. but even so, the two boys being about the same age and weight, it was a fair fight. there was no crime. yet mr. gairdner still calls it a 'murder'! of course there is no authority or ground whatever for bringing richard in at all, if warkworth's version is adopted. verily the fiction is dying hard! there is no reason for considering the duke of gloucester to have been capable of assassinating his cousin because it was his duty to sit in judgment on prisoners as lord constable. the trial of rebels before a court consisting of the earl marshal and the lord constable was perfectly legal and constitutional. speaking of trial by jury, chief justice fortescue laid it down that in england 'some cases might be proved before two only, such as facts occurring on the high seas, and proceedings before the earl marshal and the lord constable.' it was a constitutional tribunal, and, although very young, his office of constable made it incumbent on gloucester to sit in judgment. the earl marshal, being an older man, would probably take the leading part. mr. gairdner says that it was a summary tribunal and that all who were brought before it were beheaded. it was a constitutional tribunal, and only thirteen prisoners were condemned to death. as many as twelve of the leaders were pardoned, if not more, and all the subordinate officers and soldiers. in comparison with lancaster {289} and tudor proceedings under similar circumstances,[17] the tribunal at tewkesbury was lenient.[18] although it does not affect richard, a serious accusation against edward iv. should here receive attention, namely, that his enemies who had taken refuge in tewkesbury abbey might, in mr. gairdner's words, 'have saved themselves by flight if edward had not sworn in church upon the sacraments to pardon them. as to the executions being vindictive, i should very much like to know what other character they can possibly bear except that they were perfidious also.' they may be called vindictive if all executions for treason in a civil war are to be so called, but not, as mr. gairdner evidently intends, in any special sense. the sting of the accusation, however, is in the alleged perfidy. here is habington's version of the accusation referred to by mr. gairdner. 'king edward with his sword drawn would have entered the church and forced the fugitives thence. but a priest with the eucharist in his hand would not let him until he had granted to all a free pardon. but this pardon betrayed {290} them, for on the monday after they were taken out of the church and all beheaded.' there are some assertions so contrary to all reasonable probability that they cannot be accepted, after having been examined with any care. this is one. the fugitives had taken refuge in the abbey because they were too closely pursued, and escape was not possible. how could they have saved themselves by flight when tewkesbury was occupied, and the abbey surrounded by edward's army? we are asked to believe that the king swore on the sacrament to pardon all, and next day beheaded all. why should he commit this wholly useless act of perjury? there was no object, nothing to gain by it. even if he refrained from taking the fugitives out of the church, which the story has it that he did do next day, he could soon have starved them out. it is untrue that all were beheaded. the story that he took such an unnecessary oath, intending to break it next day, is too absurd for acceptance. as the result proved, the king intended to have the prisoners tried before the earl marshal's court, to cause some of the condemned to undergo their sentence, and to pardon others. he may possibly have told a priest that some would be pardoned. this would soon be turned, by partisans, into all being pardoned. in point of fact many were pardoned. in discussing the alleged murder of henry vi., mr. gairdner admits that 'an after age has been a little unjust to richard in throwing upon him the whole responsibility of acts in which others perhaps participated.' but this amounts to a surrender of the whole point at issue. richard either stabbed henry vi. without his brother's knowledge, as the story attributed to sir thomas more tells us, or he did {291} nothing. the boy of eighteen either obtained the custody of the tower from his political enemy lord rivers, without the king's knowledge and consent, went to henry's room, and stabbed the unarmed feeble invalid with a dagger, or he did not. assuming the murder, mr. gairdner appears to mean by saying that others participated in it, that it was committed by edward iv. and his council, with the complicity of rivers the constable of the tower. it is difficult to see what else he can mean. in that case the statement of the historian whom mr. gairdner believes to be sir thomas more, that gloucester committed the murder without his brother's knowledge, is false. mr. gairdner is mistaken about the household accounts. he thinks they only refer to the expenses and diet of henry's servants. but the statement is clear and distinct that the expenses and diet for fourteen days after may 11, that is until may 24, are for henry himself as well as his attendants. the only contemporary writer gives the same date, and polydore virgil, the official writer employed by henry vii., tells us that his death was long after may 21, the day when richard was in the tower. fabyan and warkworth's informant give this date of may 21, in contradiction to the above conclusive evidence for the 24th or night of the 23rd. first they assumed the murder, and then they fixed the date of it on the only day when gloucester was there to commit it. the household accounts expose this fabrication of dates. mr. gairdner settles the difference between these authorities in a very summary fashion. 'considering the source from which this statement comes' (for the 23rd) 'and its total disagreement with the accounts of almost all other writers in or near the time, it is {292} impossible to attach any weight to it whatever.' the answer to the last part of this sentence is that the writer in question was the only one who wrote at the time; and that warkworth and fabyan, who wrote afterwards, are the only authorities for the 21st. moreover polydore virgil, who had access to all official records, directly contradicts warkworth and fabyan, giving a much later date for the death of henry vi. mr. gairdner's other reason for rejecting the evidence of the writer in fleetwood is that his report was official, and that consequently 'it is impossible to attach any weight to his statement whatever.' but on this principle mr. gairdner ought to sweep away all the accusations against richard made by tudor writers; for they are almost all the work of official partisans engaged, some of them paid to vilify the predecessor of their employer. official chroniclers should be held in suspicion, and their narratives call for strict scrutiny. but there ought to be discrimination. if a document is official, it is not _ipso facto_ false. there must be some evidence against it besides its official character. the writer who sent a narrative of the restoration of edward iv. to the citizens of bruges has not been detected in any misrepresentations. he gave a plain statement of the course of events, with no other object than to convey to the generous flemings a knowledge of what had befallen the gallant young king whom they had befriended. he gave the 23rd as the date of the death of henry vi. because the fact was within his own personal knowledge. this was not the case with any writer who has given a different date. according to the story the murder was committed in profound secrecy. the most virulent {293} tudor chroniclers only mention it as a suspicion. there was no ground whatever for the accusation, or they would have stated it. this suspicion, as regards gloucester, was never whispered until the tudor king was in power. it is, therefore, to the last degree improbable that, assuming there was a crime, it should have been needlessly divulged to the author of the letter to bruges with orders that he should falsify the date. if the murder was a secret, as the tudor chroniclers affirm, and if, as two of them assert, the date of henry's death was known, it would have been useless to falsify a date which was known, to conceal an unknown deed. the inevitable conclusion is that the date was not falsified in the letter to bruges; and that the 23rd was the day of henry's death. the suggested falsification would be such an act of folly as no writer, even if he wrote officially, would be at all likely to commit; for it would be uselessly raising a suspicion where none existed. if anything of the kind had been attempted, the date of richard's presence, not of henry's death, would have been altered. but there is really nothing to raise a suspicion of the author's good faith. very different are the authorities who contradict him. warkworth's story contains a statement that the duke of gloucester was present in the tower at the time of henry's death, and then the date is given with that excessive minuteness of day and hour which is characteristic of the lie circumstantial. the whole story is dished up with a miracle or two. it is not necessary to suppose that dr. warkworth was himself guilty of misrepresentation. he was evidently very credulous, and he was deceived by his informer. as for fabyan, he wrote in the days of henry vii. and {294} was desirous of suiting his tales to the wishes of that jealous tyrant. apart from the undesigned evidence of the household accounts, the letter to the citizens of bruges must, on every principle of historical criticism, be accepted as a more reliable authority, on this point, than the miracle-monger warkworth or the unscrupulous time-server fabyan. the whole story about henry vi. having been murdered by gloucester is palpably a tudor calumny invented long afterwards, and told so clumsily that it certainly did not deserve the success which has attended it.[19] mr. gairdner acquits richard of responsibility for the death of clarence, as was inevitable. for he would not be supported even by the most unscrupulous enemy of richard's memory if he refused to acquit him. clearly there was no belief among his contemporaries that richard was in any way to blame. yet mr. gairdner cannot let the matter rest. he suggests that richard's foundation of colleges at middleham and barnard castle, with provision for masses for the souls of his father, brothers, and sisters, betokens remorse for the death of clarence, because the licences to found these colleges were granted soon after his brother's death. clarence is not specially mentioned, only brothers and sisters. this pious act might betoken regret, but it cannot be supposed to betoken remorse. the man's conscience must indeed have been morbidly sensitive if it caused remorse for that which the king and the parliament had done, but which he had opposed. it was quite natural that {295} richard should have provided for these masses from ordinary feelings of regret and affection for all the deceased members of his family. the idea of remorse is gratuitous and very far-fetched; for richard had arranged for the foundation of these colleges before the death of clarence. mr. gairdner further remarks that richard gained by his brother's death, his son being created earl of salisbury and he himself receiving the whole of a lordship of which he previously owned half. richard certainly would not have compassed his brother's death, even assuming him to have been the monster of 'tradition,' for the sake of an earldom for his son, seeing that the father had two earldoms already, scarcely for the other half of the barnard castle estate. mr. gairdner cannot surely think that richard had some hand in his brother's death for the sake of such very small gains. for he has told us that there was nothing mean or paltry in richard's character, and he acquits him of the death of clarence. king edward, naturally enough, gave the vacant earldoms of warwick and salisbury to the infant sons of his two brothers. mr. gairdner has nothing to say against the young prince with regard to his marriage. we, therefore, come to our historian's treatment of the events which led to richard's accession. mr. gairdner dismisses the accusations against the duke of gloucester, that he was carrying on intrigues with buckingham and other members of the council, between the date of his brother's death and that of his arrival in london.[20] he also considers the arrest and execution {296} of lord rivers and his companions to have been justifiable. he believes that the woodville party intended to keep the government in their own hands by main force,[21] that the generality of the people were convinced that rivers and grey had entertained designs distinctly treasonable,[22] and he mentions the fact that their baggage contained large quantities of armour and implements of war. this is a proof that they contemplated the raising and arming of a large force. mr. gairdner even goes so far as to admit that the retribution dealt out to rivers and his companions was 'not more severe than perhaps law itself might have authorised.' as we know from rous that the law was invoked, these admissions amount to an exculpation of king richard, as regards his treatment of rivers, vaughan, and grey. mr. gairdner's position with regard to richard's title to the crown is curious. that title was based on the fact that edward iv. had entered into a marriage contract with lady eleanor butler before he went through the ceremony with the widow of sir j. grey. the tudor king attempted to destroy all record of this event, and his official writers then put forward two other statements, which they alleged to have been made as justifications of richard's claim to the crown. one of these was that richard's elder brothers were illegitimate, the other that the previous marriage was with a woman named lucy. the name of lady eleanor is carefully suppressed. long afterwards the official document was discovered in which the title is based solely on the previous contract with lady eleanor butler. {297} such is the case very briefly stated. mr. gairdner believes that the story of the pre-contract with lady eleanor may be true. he considers that the care taken by the tudor writers to suppress and pervert it is evidence of its truth. he even suggests that the death of clarence was due to the fact that he had got possession of the secret. but he fails to see that the truth of this pre-contract not only invalidates the other stories invented by the tudor writers to conceal it, but entirely destroys their credibility. morton's statement that it was alleged by richard's supporters that the pre-contract was with lucy must be false, as well as the assertion that a calumny was promulgated against the duchess of york; if the pre-contract with lady eleanor is true. surely mr. gairdner must see that the statement of a title made in an officially inspired sermon or speech must have been made to agree with that in the document which henry vii. attempted to destroy. having made away with the document, so that they could mis-state its contents, henry's chroniclers put what inventions they pleased into the mouths of preachers and orators. but the document has since been found. its real contents are known. men who would deliberately make this elaborate series of false statements are utterly unworthy of credit. yet mr. gairdner still clings to the belief that the odious slander about the duchess of york was promulgated, and continues to quote morton's story as if it were authentic and reliable history. the sole ground put forward for still believing that the slander was uttered against the duchess of york is that one of these authorities alleges that the people were scandalised at the sermon, and another that {298} the duchess complained of the dishonour done her. these additions to the fable, from the same suspicious sources, can in no conceivable way strengthen its credibility.[23] we now come to the main stronghold of tudor calumny--the story of the smothering of the little princes in the tower. mr. gairdner makes a hesitating defence. he cannot doubt that the dreadful deed was done. but he admits that the story, as told in the narrative attributed to sir thomas more, is full of inaccuracies and improbabilities. he contends, however, that it is not necessary for it to be true in all its details, in order to give credence to the main allegation. he also admits that the crime imputed to richard rests upon the assertions of only a few, and that two of these mention it merely as a report. he denies that richard was the cold scheming calculating villain of previous histories; and apparently thinks that, if this had been his character, he would not have acted in the way alleged in the story. consequently the story could not be true. for a cold calculating villain would not have been so foolish as to leave london, and then send his orders to the tower, without having previously ascertained that they would be obeyed. mr. gairdner's theory is that richard was headstrong and reckless as to consequences, a man of violent and impatient temper. such a man, mr. gairdner thinks, might act in the way described in the story; {299} if a strong motive was suddenly supplied to him. mr. gairdner looks round for such a motive, and thinks he has found it in the alleged contemplated rising in favour of the two young princes. but no such motive existed. the date given for the alleged murders was august 1483. the rising, even if it had been in favour of the boys and not of buckingham, was in october. mr. davies has shown that the first tidings reached the king at lincoln on october 11,[24] and mr. gairdner fully admits that richard was taken completely by surprise. this proves that no motive for the crime was supplied in august, calculated to make a violent and reckless man take sudden action. if there was no motive there was no murder. thus mr. gairdner's explanation fails, while the improbabilities remain as strong as ever. the difficulties disappear as soon as richard is acquitted, and his astute successor is placed in the dock. with reference to this horrible accusation against king richard, mr. gairdner had opened his work with the dictum that 'it is vain to deny that richard had long lost the hearts of his subjects.' but mr. gairdner himself has supplied some of the proofs that the king never lost the hearts of his subjects. mr. gairdner acknowledges that up to september 1483, 'in the north undoubtedly, and perhaps with the common people generally, richard was highly popular' (p. 147). in november 1484, when, on the young king's return to london he was received with demonstrations of loyalty, mr. gairdner says that 'perhaps he had to some extent recovered the good will of the people' (p. 243). but, in the meanwhile, we are not supplied with a shadow of a {300} proof that he had ever lost it. he was the victim of the perfidy of a few traitors. there was no national movement against him in favour of henry tudor. sharon turner truly remarked that 'the nation had no share in the conflict. it was an ambush of a few perfidious and disaffected noblemen against the crown. richard was overwhelmed by the explosion of a new mine, which he had not suspected to be forming beneath him, because it was prepared and fired by those whom gratitude, honour and conscience ought to have made faithful.' the city of york recorded the grief of the people at king richard's death. he was popular to the end. mr. gairdner fully explains the causes of richard's popularity (p. 313). 'his taste in building was magnificent and princely. there was nothing mean or paltry in his character (p. 318). many of his acts were dictated by charitable feelings or a sense of justice. he had in him a great deal of native religious sentiment (p. 47). he made it his endeavour, so far as it lay in his power, to prevent tyranny for the future (p. 205), and as king he really studied his country's welfare (p. 313). no wonder that such a king, who was also renowned for his valour in the field and his wisdom in council, should have been popular among his subjects! but it is wonderful that thoughtful and accomplished men, who admit all this, should cling to the vile and wretched calumnies, the discredited tatters of which still partly obscure the truth. the work of mr. gairdner is of great value owing to its conscientious attempt to be judicially impartial, to the learning and research that are apparent in every page, and to the considerable number of errors it exposes, and of mistakes that are finally cleared up {301} by it. the good points in the character of king richard iii. are prominently brought forward. the excellence of his government and the generosity of his character are made so apparent, that one is surprised, in the midst of this goodly record, to come suddenly on such epithets as 'usurper,' 'tyrant,' 'inhuman king.' mr. gairdner's learning and critical insight have so weakened the traditional fables, a half belief in which he cannot quite shake off, that they are not likely to retain a place much longer in serious history. [1] _history of the life and reign of richard iii._, by james gairdner (1878), 1st ed. _history of the life and reign of richard iii._, by james gairdner (1898), 2nd ed. _henry the seventh_, by james gairdner (1889). article in the _english historical review_, 1891. [2] preface to gairdner's _life of richard iii._ p. x. [3] _ibid._ p. x. [4] _ibid._ p. xii. [5] _ibid._ p. xii. [6] gairdner's _richard iii._ p. 38. [7] _ibid._ p. 112. [8] _ibid._ pp. 115, 131. [9] _ibid._ p. 247. [10] _ibid._ p. 73. [11] _ibid._ p. 250. [12] _ibid._ p. 251. [13] _ibid._ p. 251. [14] stow set a better example. he adopted the 'probable story' of fabyan, and rejected the 'tradition of later times,' as mr. gairdner calls the unsupported calumny of polydore virgil. [15] dr. lingard says that 'clarence and gloucester, perhaps the knights in their retinue, despatched young edward with their swords' (iv. p. 189). in a foot-note he sees no good reason to doubt stow. but stow says nothing of the kind. he merely adopts fabyan's tale that king edward's servants despatched the prince. he does not even mention either clarence or gloucester. the accusation against the knights in the retinue of those princes is lingard's own, unsupported by any evidence whatever. [16] _english historical review_, 1891 (july), p. 448. [17] the lancastrians gave no quarter at wakefield, slaughtering all prisoners high and low. at the second battle ol st. albans their cruelty was deepened by bad faith. after bosworth, henry tudor ordered four executions which, in his outlawed condition, were lawless murders. the atrocious conduct of his son, in suppressing the pilgrimage of grace, was still more horrible. executions went on, long after all resistance had ceased, with unrelenting cruelty. the tribunal at tewkesbury is unjustly arraigned by modern historians, while the barbarities of lancastrians and tudors are slurred over or ignored. [18] 'i am struck with the singular leniency of edward iv. towards his political enemies. the rolls of parliament are full of petitions for the reversal of attainders. i do not recollect a single instance in which the petition was refused.'--thorold rogers, _agriculture and prices_, iv. p. 180. [19] dr. lingard's chief reason for believing that gloucester murdered henry vi. is that 'writers who lived under the next dynasty attributed the black deed to richard' (iv. p. 192). of course they did. they were well paid to do so. [20] p. 61. he considers it more probable that gloucester was ignorant of what had been going on in london. [21] p. 62. [22] p. 66. [23] dr. lingard's argument in favour of the calumny against the duchess of york is that a man who would shed the blood of his nephews would not refuse to allow his mother to be slandered. doubtless the doctor would have been equally ready with the reversed argument. a man who would slander his mother would not refuse to allow his nephews to be murdered (iv. p. 232 _n_). [24] _york records_, p. 181 _n._ {303} index ndx aberford, 26 abergavenny, lord, at richard's coronation, 109, 143; cousin to the king, 110 abingdon, 71; cattle fair at, 112 acaster college, founded by bishop stillington, 96, 118. _see_ stillington albany, duke of, with king richard in the progress, 130 alcock, bishop, 88, 91, 146; at oxford to receive king richard, 129; account of, 91 _n._ alfonso v. of portugal, 66 alkmaar, edward iv. landed at, 42 alnwick, 59 ambien hill, 153; king richard slain at the foot of, 157 ambien lees, 152, 154 andré, bernard, historiographer to henry vii., 168, 171; silent about the fable of the murder of edward of lancaster, 191 angers, 67, 79, 206 anker, river, 152, 153 anne, heiress of thomas, duke of gloucester, married edmund earl of stafford, 128 anne, nevill, companion of richard at middleham, 40; taken to france by her father, 66, 67; marriage with edward of lancaster never took place, 67; return to england, 68; her wardship claimed by clarence. in sanctuary, 81; married to prince richard, 82; joined by her mother at middleham, 82, 202; marriage settlement, 199, 200, 201; her beauty, 124; joined her husband in london, 93 anne, queen, her coronation, 126, 127; joined the king at warwick, 129; at york, 130; grief on her son's death, 137; illness, 139; death and burial, 139, 140, 228; malignant slander of polydore virgil and rous, 228 anne, daughter of edward iv., married the earl of surrey, 86 _n._, 271 _n._ anne, sister of edward iv., duchess of exeter, 3; birth, 6, 110 anne de la pole, betrothed to james iii., became a nun at sion, 139 appledore, home of captain horn who fell at towton, 32 arbitration by king richard, 84, 113, 160 _n._; by the lord mayor, 113 armour and arms, 107, 120, 122; arrows at towton, 32; hand-guns, 44; artillery, 49, 155 _n._ arthur, son of henry vii., 267 arthur plantagenet, son of edward iv., 87 _n._, 221 _n._ arundel, archbishop, 117 arundel, earl of, at richard's coronation, 109, 143 arundel collection, letter from elizabeth of york to the duke of norfolk seen by buck in, 229 arundell, sir thomas, k.b., at richard's coronation, 147 ashton, sir ralph, made vice-constable, 131, 132 _n._ atherstone, henry tudor at, 149 attorney-general, _see_ kidwelly, morgan audley, lord, battle of blore heath, 56; at richard's coronation, 109, 143; lord treasurer, 144 audley, edmund, bishop of rochester, 146 audley, sir humphrey, tried and executed at tewkesbury, 76 ayala, don pedro de, spanish ambassador, his evidence respecting the remorse of henry vii., 276 ayscough, bishop of salisbury, 118 babington, sir henry, made k.b., 147 bacon, lord, his character of richard iii., 134; believed the story of the murders to have been inspired by henry vii., 169; on treatment of the queen dowager by henry vii., 257 _n._ bamborough castle, 59 banbury, 47 bangor, thomas ednam, bishop of, 146 barnard castle, 84, 161, 265, 295 barnet, battle of, 49, 50-52; losses at, 52 barrow, thomas, master of the rolls, commissioner for peace with scotland, 145 basset pardoned after tewkesbury, 77 bath, knights of the, at coronations of edward iv., 35; and richard iii., 126, 147 bath and wells, bishop of, at richard's coronation, 127, 144, 146. _see_ stillington baume, sir thomas, slain at wakefield, 15 bayley, 'history of the tower,' 181, 198 _n._ baynard's castle, 3, 91, 92 _n._, 102, 110, 222; family of the duke of york assembled at, 10, 11, 19, 21; edward iv. accepted the crown at, 22 beauchamp of powyke, lord, 72; at richard's coronation, 109, 143; his son in command at gloucester, 72 beaufort, sir john, 70; slain at tewkesbury, 73, 76 beaujeu, the lady of, regent of france, her enmity to england, 141, 243 beaulieu abbey, countess of warwick in sanctuary at, 70, 81, 82, 201 beaumont, viscount, at towton, 24, 31; flight from towton, 33; under attainder, 109, 144 becca banks, 26 bedingfield, sir edmund, k.b., at richard's coronation, 147 bemynster, robert, abbot of cerne, 69 benevolences abolished by richard's parliament, 134, 142 _n._ berkeley, lord, viii _n._ berkeley, sir william, of beverston made k.b., 147; a traitor, 133 berkeley, sir william, of wyldy made k.b., 147; loyal to the last, 252 bermondsey nunnery, queen dowager confined in, until her death, 257 bernall, richard, tutor to young edward, 84 berners, juliana, her 'book of st. albans,' 108 berners, lord, 34, 51 berwick, 86 beskwood park, king richard hunting at, 151 beverley, 46 bigot, sir john, of musgrave castle, at towton for henry, 24 bisham, earl of salisbury buried at, 34; warwick and montagu buried at, 51 bishops in the fifteenth century, 118; at richard's coronation, 126, 127, 146; at oxford to receive richard, 129; with him on his progress, 129; list, 146 blore heath, battle of, 56 blount, sir walter, marched north with edward, 23; in the pursuit of clifford, 28; march to towton, created lord mountjoy, 35, _whom see_ blythe, 39 bohun inheritance explained, 128, 223, 224 boleyn, sir thomas, made k.b. at richard's coronation, 147 bolton castle, 83, 107 bolton hall, henry vi. concealed at, 59 bootham bar, york, 34, 58 borough, sir john, present to, from the royal wardrobe, 111 bosworth, battle of, 152-157; numbers, 153; artillery at, 155 _n._ bosworth market, sir w. stanley's camp near, 153 bourchier, cardinal, archbishop of canterbury, crowned edward iv., 35; cousin to the king, 111; crowned richard iii., 120, 143, 146, 234 bourchier, sir edward, with the duke of york at wakefield, 10; slain, 15; head stuck on the gate at york, 17 bourchier, sir humphrey, two slain at barnet, 51 _n._ _see_ cromwell, lord bracher, wm., and his son, loyal servants of king richard, put to death by henry tudor, 247 brackenbury, sir robert, knighted, 147; joined the king at bosworth, 151; slain, 155, 156; loyal to the last, 252; in the story of the murders, 258, 260, 261 'bradshaws' a strategic position at bosworth field, 152 bramham moor, 26 brampton, wm., of burford, loyal to the last, 252 brandon, sir william, knighted after tewkesbury, 77; traitor, 133 _n._; henry tudor's standard-bearer, slain by the king, 156 bray, reginald, lady stanley's steward, 149; his skill as an architect, 149 _n._; agent to henry tudor, 226, 231 brecknock castle, 226, 227, 231 brezé, pierre de, lord of varenne, devoted to margaret of anjou, 53, 58 brian, sir thomas, chief justice of common pleas, 145 bridget, daughter of edward iv., a nun, 87 _n._, 271 _n._ bristol, 71, 72 brittany, treaty with, 139, 161; henry tudor in, 131, 141 browne, sir john, made k.b., 147 bruges, edward iv. and richard at, 43; caxton at, 113; news of edward's success sent to the citizens, 198 buck, sir george, wrote the life of richard iii.--had seen the true statement of his claim to the crown, 219; heard that the pamphlet attributed to sir thomas more was written by morton, 168, 179; account of, 180 _n._; saw the letter from elizabeth of york to the duke of norfolk, 229 buck, sir john, controller of the household, 145; put to death by henry tudor, 246 buckingham, duchess of, 7, 55, 132 buckingham, duke of, 89; left london to warn richard, 90; speech at the guildhall, 102; at richard's coronation, 109, 143; cousin to the king, 110; bearing the king's train, 127; lord constable, 144; his claims, 223, 224; alleged conversations with morton, 225; object of his treason, 225; met lady stanley on the road, 226; trial and execution at salisbury, 131, 132; richard's generous treatment of his widow, 132 burford, _see_ cornwall burgundy, charles the bold, duke of, helped edward secretly, 43; marriage with princess margaret, 43, 113; invested with the garter, 113; received margaret of anjou at st. pol, 60; edward's desertion of, 82; fall of, 162 burgundy, philip the good, duke of, george and richard under protection of, 18 burgundy, duchess of, _see_ margaret, princess butler, lady eleanor, contracted in marriage to edward iv., 93; truth of the contract, 218, 219, 222, 296; details respecting her, 219 _n._; her death, 94, 219 butler, sir john, at towton, 24. _see_ ormonde byron, sir john, with henry tudor, 149; saved sir gervase clifton at bosworth, 156 byron, sir nicholas, created k.b., 36 cade, jack, 122 cadeby, norfolk's camp at, before bosworth, 152 calabria, john of, 67 calais, 7, 102; dighton living at, 261, 274; tyrrel seized at, 273 cambridge, 117, 136 campbell, lord, on king richard's parliament, 134 canterbury pilgrimages, 119. archbishops. _see_ arundel, bourchier, kemp, morton cardigan, 148 carlisle, bishop of, 146 carte, 'history of england,' 180 cary, sir hugh, tried and executed at tewkesbury, 76 castleford, 28 castles in the fifteenth century, 106, 107 catesby, reported the hastings-woodville conspiracy to richard, 98, 211; executor to will of lord rivers, 99 _n._; speaker of the house of commons, 134; and chancellor of the exchequer, 144; commissioner for the peace with scotland, 145; at bosworth, 144, 155; put to death by henry tudor, 246; notice of, 246 _n._ cattle fair, 112 caxton: his own account of himself, 113; helped edward iv. and richard in fitting out their expedition, 113; his first essay at printing, 113; in the service of the duchess of burgundy, 114; came to england, books printed by him, 114, 115; his house in the almonry, 114; book of chivalry dedicated to richard iii., 115; lament on the earl of worcester's death, 115, 116 cerne abbey, 69 chamberlain, sir robert, 45 charles vii. of france, 53 charles viii. of france, 141 charlton, sir richard, loyal to the last, 252 cheltenham, 73 cheney, sir john, with henry tudor, 149 cheney, sir william, traitor, unhorsed by the king himself at bosworth, 156 chevet, 13 chichester, bishop of, 146 chipping sodbury, 71, 73 church, the, 117, 118. _see_ convocation; bishops cicely, princess, daughter of edward iv., married to lord welles, 86 _n._, 271 cirencester, 71 clarence, george, duke of, born at dublin, 3, 6; taken prisoner at ludlow, 7, 8, 10; sent to holland for safety, 18; married to isabella nevill, 41, 66; his treason, 41, 43; reconciled to his brothers, 48, 71; grasping conduct, 80; attainder, death, 202, 203; cause of his death, 95; his children, 87 _n._, 236; his attainder barred his children's succession, 101; town house at cold harbour, 110; richard interceded for him, 203, 204, 294; mr. gairdner's views, 295 clarendon, sir richard, at bosworth for the king, 155, 157 clarke, william, of wenlock, loyal to the last, 252 cleger, john, a robber who made margaret of anjou prisoner, 57 cleymound, robert, hired informer, 275 clifford, lord, led the lancastrian van at wakefield, 13, 14, 15, 24; surprised the yorkists at ferrybridge, 27; pursued and slain, 28; some account of him, 29 clifton, sir gervase, made k.b., 147; wounded at bosworth, fighting for the king, 156 clifton, sir robert, created k.b., 36 clothes, in the royal wardrobe, 111; clement paston's, 117; an eton boy's, 117; john paston's, 122; mr. payn's, 122 cobham, lord, knighted after tewkesbury, 77; at richard's coronation, 109, 143 cock beck, near the towton battlefield, 26, 33 cockermouth, earl of wiltshire arrested at, 34 coke's mother, 120 colchester, 120 cold harbour, 110 collingbourne, a traitor, executed, 132 _n._ comines, details of the flight of edward iv., 42; marriage of edward iv. and lady eleanor butler, 93 _n._; death of edward of lancaster, 189 companies, city, influence, dispute settled by arbitration, 112, 113 conisborough castle, 3 convocation, their address to king richard, 136 conyers, sir john, made a knight of the garter, 146; faithful to the king, 151; fell at bosworth, 157 corbet, sir k., knighted after tewkesbury, 77 cornwall, sir edmund, baron of burford, made k.b., 147 coronation of richard iii., 126, 127; story of a second untrue, 227, 228 corpus christi, fraternity in london, 112; at york, 119 cotswold hills, 72, 73 court, splendour of the, 111. _see_ wardrobe courtenay, sir e., traitor, 133 courtenay, sir walter, beheaded at tewkesbury, 76, 77 courtenay, sir william, 263 _n._ courtenay, _see_ exeter, bishop of courtenay, _see_ devonshire, earl of courtenays, forgiven by edward iv., 36 courteys, pierce, keeper of the wardrobe, 145 coventry, earl of warwick at, 47; edward iv. at, 78; richard iii. at, in his progress, 130 cover, river, 83 coverham, monks of, 83 crakenthorpe, sir john and sir t., slain at towton, 33 croft, richard, tutor to edward and edmund, 4, 5; knighted after tewkesbury, 71, 77, 191 _n._ cromer, 45 cromwell, lord, slain at barnet, 51 crosby, sir j., built crosby place, 85 crosby place rented by richard iii., 85, 93, 110, 223 croyland chronicle on the slain at towton, 33; there were two writers, 175, 176; independent witnesses, 175; the second credulous but honest; his accuracy as regards dates exposes morton and fabyan, 176; gives richard's title to the crown correctly, 176, 219; his mistakes, 177; no countenance to the deformity fables, 186; on the tewkesbury question, 189; on the death of henry vi., 195, 199; his mistake about a second coronation at york, 227; retails a rumour about the death of the princes, 240 dacre, lord of gillesland, 24; death at towton, 31, 33; tomb at saxton, 34; his brother forgiven, 36; at richard's coronation, 109, 143; commissioner for peace with scotland, 145; hurrying to king richard's help, but too late, 151 dampierre, château where margaret of anjou died, 79 dartford, princess bridget a nun at, 87 _n._ daubeny, sir giles, with henry tudor, 149; lieutenant of the tower, 268 daventry, 48 davies, mr., _see_ york records. davy, henry, to deliver certain garments to john goddestande, footman to edward son of edward iv., 237 dobenham, sir gilbert, 45 de la warre, lord, 109, 143 deptford, vicar of, burnt on tower hill, 118 devereux, sir walter, mentioned in the letter from edward and edmund to their father, 4; lord ferrers of chartley (_whom see_) _jure uxoris_ devonshire, earl of, at the battle of wakefield, 14; at towton, 24, 31; flight from towton, 33; beheaded, 34; next earl with margaret of anjou, 70; at tewkesbury, 74; slain, 76; son married katherine, daughter of edward iv., 87 _n._, 271 _n._; under attainder, 109, 144 dickon's nook, where king richard addressed his army, 154 digby, captain, slain at wakefield, 15 digby, simon, joined henry tudor, 149; a spy, 153 dighton, john, 260; likely to be hanged, 261; false statements respecting, 263; bailiff of ayton, 264, 266, 274; probably a priest, 267, 269; rewarded, 272; lived at calais, 274 dittingdale, near towton, 28 doncaster, 42 dorchester, 69 dorset, marquis of, at tewkesbury, 74; in command at the tower when edward iv. died, 88; in sanctuary, 91; in rebellion, 109, 144; guardian to the earl of warwick, 129; his rebellion, 131; flight, 132; advised by his mother to return, 136, 238; imprisoned by henry vii., 270 dublin, george, duke of clarence, born at, 3 dudley, lord, 109, 129, 143 dudley, william, bishop of durham, 146 durham, bishop of, at richard's coronation, 144 dymoke, sir robert, the champion, knighted, 147 dynham, sir j., with the reserves at towton, 23, 30, 32, 35, 109; traitor, 144; created lord dynham, 35 easterling ships, 42, 43, 44 ebrington, 77 eccleshall castle, 56 edgcombe, richard, with henry tudor, 149 edmund langley, duke of york, rebuilt fotheringhay and founded a college there, 1, 2, 11 edmund, earl of rutland, born at rouen, 3, 6; letter to his father, 4; fled to ireland with his father, 7; came to london, 9; and to sandal castle with his father, 10, 13; in the battle of wakefield, 14; slain, 15, 16; absurd story about his death, 16 _n._; head on gate at york, 17; obsequies, 39; memorial chapel at wakefield, 19 ednam, j., bishop of bangor, 146 edward, 2nd duke of york, 2; his book 'the master of games,' 108 edward iv., born at rouen, 3, 6; letter to his father, 4; escaped to calais, 7; return, victory at northampton, 7; visits his brothers and sister in the temple every day, 8; at shrewsbury, 11; victory at mortimer's cross, proclaimed king, 18, 19, 20, 22; description of, 20; started for the north, 22; head-quarters at pomfret, 27; conduct at surprise at ferrybridge, 28; judicious orders to retrieve the disaster, 28; valour and presence of mind at towton, 32; always gave quarter, 34; advance to york, 34; coronation, 35; just, placable, and forgiving, 36; kindness to lord hungerford's family, 36, 37; marriage ceremony with lady grey, 41; affection for his brother richard, 41; flight to holland, 42; reception, 43; expedition to recover the crown, 44; lands at ravenspur, 45; at york, 46; march to london, 47, 48; battle of barnet, 50; tewkesbury campaign, 70-78; pardon to several leaders at tewkesbury, 77; conduct after tewkesbury, 289, 290; bribed by louis xi. to desert the duke of burgundy, 82; death, 86; children, 86, 87 _n._; buried at windsor, 86; his will, 89; contract of marriage with lady eleanor butler, 93, 218, 219, 222; treasure under ecclesiastical sequestration, 227; his alleged conduct after tewkesbury discussed, 289, 290 edward of lancaster, son of henry vi., birth, 54, 55; at greenwich, 56; present at battles, 57; with his mother, 58, 59; life at koeur-la-petite, 61; instruction from chief justice fortescue, 62-65; proposed marriage with anne nevill, 67; character, 68; at battle of tewkesbury 74; slain, 75; buried in tewkesbury abbey, 75; mode of his death, croyland, 189; andré, 189; comines, 189; letter to bruges, 75 _n._; warkworth, 189; fabyan, 189; polydore virgil, 190; habington, grafton, hall, 190, 191 n.; holmshed, 190; stow, 191; silence of morton and rous, 191, 192; mr. gairdner, 188 _n._, 286, 287, 288 edward, son of richard iii., 84; created earl of salisbury, 85, 295; prince of wales, 130; death, 136; tomb at sheriff hutton, 137 edward, son of duke of clarence, 87 _n._; birth, 101; ward to dorset, 129; earl of warwick, 125; at richard's coronation, 109, 143; declared heir to the throne, 102, 138; in king richard's household, 125; with the king in his progress, 129; knighted at york, 130; at sheriff hutton, 142; member of council, 236; seized by henry tudor, 248, 255; cruel treatment and death, 275, 280 edward, son of edward iv., earl of march and pembroke, 86 _n._; proclaimed king, 89; came to london, 91; set aside as illegitimate, 97; preparations for his coronation, 209; intentions of king richard respecting, 125; in king richard's household, 125, 236; his tailor's bill, 237. _see_ murder of the princes elizabeth woodville, lady grey, marriage ceremony with edward iv., 41, 86; children, 86 _n._; in sanctuary, 91; allowed her son richard to join his brother, 100; agreed with the king to come out of sanctuary, 136, 238; intrigues with lady stanley, 231; advised her son dorset to come home and submit to the king, 238; her knowledge a cause of fear for henry vii., 256; robbed and imprisoned by henry vii., 257; attempted explanation by lingard and nicolas, 257 _n._; mr. gairdner, 257 _n._ elizabeth, daughter of edward iv., birth, 86 _n._; her dress like the queen's, 178; rumour about her marriage with richard, 140; her letter to the duke of norfolk 229; evidence of buck, views of nicolas, lingard, gairdner, 229, 230 _n._; sent to sheriff hutton, 142; seized by henry tudor, 248; married to him as henry vii., 250, 253, 254; her coronation, 258; treatment of her relations by henry, 277; death, 277 elizabeth, another daughter of edward iv., 87 _n._, married to lord lumley, 221 _n._ elizabeth, duchess of suffolk, born at rouen, 3, 6; at richard's coronation, 126, 127 elizabeth, queen, founded st. peter's college, westminster, 116; her english ancestry, 163 eltham, 11, 107 ely, isle of, 242 ely, bishop of, _see_ morton ely place, holborn, 110 enderby, sir william, made k.b., 147 england, face of the country in the fifteenth century, 106; condition of the people, 65, 121-123; prices, 123; progress of king richard through, 128; products, 112 essex, earl of, 109, 110, 143 esteney, john, abbot of westminster, 114, 146 eton, founded by henry vi., 116; boys at, in the fifteenth century, 117 eure, sir ralph, at towton for henry, 24 ewelme, 78 exeter, 70, 132 exeter, bishop of, _see_ courtenay nevill exeter, duchess of, _see_ anne exeter, duke of, marriage, 3; at wakefield, 14; at towton, 24, 58; advancing against edward, 47; at barnet, 49 fabyan's chronicle, 168, 174; untrustworthy, 174, 175; silent about the deformity, 186; invented a story about the murder of edward of lancaster, 190; on date of henry's death, 195, 199; gave false dates, 215; contradicts polydore virgil respecting dr. shaw's sermon, 222; silent as to calumny against the duchess of york, 222; common fame that richard secretly murdered his nephews, 243; 'smoky gunners,' 44 fairfax, sir guy, judge of the king's bench, 145 fairs, 112 fauconberg, lord, reviewed the london citizens, 21; his service, 21, the best general on edward's side, 23; sent in pursuit of clifford, overtook and routed him, 28; march to towton, 31, 32; his orders to the archers, 32; created earl of kent, 35 fauconberg, bastard of, his insurrection put down by prince richard, 80 feilding, sir william, slain at tewkesbury, 76 fenn lanes near bosworth, 153 ferrers of chartley. _see_ devereux. at richard's coronation, 109, 143; hurried to help the king, 151; fell at bosworth, 155, 157; loyal to the last, 252 ferrybridge, yorkist force at, 23, 27 fitzhugh, lord, at towton on the lancastrian left, 31 fitzjames, captain, slain at wakefield, 15 fitzranulph, robert, founder of middleham, 83 fitzwalter, lord, _jure uxoris_, sir john ratcliff, 23; slain at ferrybridge, 27 fitzwilliam, nicholas, recorder of london, 146 flory, john, of france, beheaded at tewkesbury, 76 flushing, 44 fogge, sir john, reconciliation with the king, 128; traitor, 133 _n._ forest, miles, in henry vii.'s story of the murder of the princes, 260; said to have rotted away piecemeal, 261; really keeper of the wardrobe at barnard castle, 264; an old royal servant falsely accused, 265 fortescue, sir john, chief justice, 24, 59; conversations with edward of lancaster, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65; with margaret, 67, 69; pardoned after tewkesbury, 77; fuller's praise of him, 119; on the condition of english labouring class, 123 fortescues followed the earl of devon to towton, 24 fotheringhay castle, birthplace of richard iii., 1, 3; its history, 1; description, dukes of york resided at, 2; subsequent history, 2 _n._; funeral of the duke of york, 39; monuments, 40 _n._ fox, dr. richard, an agent of morton, secretary to henry tudor, 149; made bishop of winchester, 149 _n._; decoyed tyrrel into henry's power, 273; notice of, 273 _n._ french chancellor, assertion that the princes were murdered, 242, 243; proved to be false, 244 fulford, sir baldwin, beheaded at york, 34 fulford pardoned after tewkesbury, 77 fulfords followed the earl of devon to towton, 24 gainsborugh, 130 gairdner, james, c.b., ll.d., reason for thinking richard may have been a murderer at 19, 188 _n._; on the obit of henry vi., 198 _n._; on the grant to buckingham, 224 _n._; on the letter of elizabeth to the duke of norfolk, 230 _n._; on the executions by henry tudor after bosworth, 247; on the treatment of the queen dowager, 257; proved that the king's attorney general was loyal to the last, 145 _n._; suggests that the death of clarence was due to his knowledge of edward's marriage contract, 95; his view of the government of henry vii., 249; his view of the extent of richard's guilt, 281, 282; his method stated in his preface, 282, 283; remarks on his views, 283, 284; his admissions, 285; on the deformity, 285; surprise that rivers should make richard supervisor of his will, 285; richard's acts do not harmonise with the tudor stories, 286; his ideas about the death of young edward at tewkesbury, 286-288; views respecting king edward's treatment of prisoners after the battle, 289-290; views about the death of henry vi., 290-294; acknowledges that richard interceded for his brother clarence, 294; reply to his remarks about richard's supposed remorse, 295; has nothing to say against richard's marriage, 295; he admits, assuming they were not tried, that the sentence of rivers and his companions was not more severe than the law might authorise, 296; he thinks that edward's precontract with lady eleanor butler may be true, 296; yet he still believes in the slander of the duchess of york, 297; his defence of the assertion that richard murdered his nephews, 298-299 galtres forest, 34, 58 gamble's close, position of lord stanley at bosworth, 152 garter, order of the, stall plate of richard duke of gloucester, 38; duke of burgundy invested, 113; knights made by king richard, 146 gascoignes faithful to king richard, 151 gascons, trade in wine, 112 gastons, a position on tewkesbury battle field, 72 gedding, sir john, slain at wakefield, 15 george, _see_ clarence, duke of giles, sir john, pardoned after tewkesbury, 77 gladmoor, _see_ barnet glastonbury, 70 gloucester, 71, 128; king richard at, 129; buckingham at, 225 gloucester, humphrey duke of, his treatment of jacoba of holland, 44 gloucester, john of, illegitimate son of richard iii., 237 _n._; made away with by henry vii., 255 _n._ gloucester, richard duke of, _see_ richard iii. gloucester, thomas of woodstock, duke of, marriage with the bohun co-heiress, 128 goddestande, 237, _see_ davy golden fleece, edward iv. and gruthuus companions of, 43 goldwell, dr., bishop of norwich, 146 gower, james, beheaded at tewkesbury, 76, 77 grantham, 39 green, john, in the story of the murders, 260; apocryphal grants to, 264; grants to a namesake by richard iii., 264; grant to himself by henry vii., 268, 269; his death, 271-273 greenfield, clement paston's tutor, 117 greenwich, 56 grey, lord, of codnor, 109, 143 grey, lord, of powys, 109, 143; commissioner for peace with scotland, 145 grey, lord, of wilton, 109, 143 grey, sir john, made k.b., 147 grey, sir richard, with young edward at ludlow, 88; arrested, 90; beheaded, 100 grey, thomas, marquis of dorset, _whom see_ grey de ruthyn, lord, treachery at northampton, 56 grey, lady, _see_ elizabeth woodville greystoke, lord, at richard's coronation, 109, 143; cousin to the king, 110; hurrying to help the king, but too late, 151 grimsby, sir william, pardoned after tewkesbury, 77 gruthuus, louis de bruges, lord of, hospitality to edward iv., 43; help in fitting out the expedition, 44 guilds, 112 gunners, flemish, with hand guns, 44 gunthorpe, john, lord privy seal, 144; commissioner for peace with scotland, 145 gupshill farm near tewkesbury battle-field, 73; margaret awaited the result in a religious house at, 74 habington's life of edward iv., on absurdity of accusing richard of murder of henry vi., 199; his account of edward's proceedings after tewkesbury, 289; with hall and grafton adds dorset to the assassins at tewkesbury, 190 hague, the, edward iv. at, 43 hall, sir david, the duke of york's chief adviser, 10, 13, 23; sent out foraging party from sandal, 13; battle brought on against his advice, 14; slain, 15, 21, 106 hall's chronicle, absurd story about the murder of rutland, 16 _n._, 190 _n._; his statement about funeral of henry vi., 190 n., and about richard croft and edward of lancaster, 191 _n._; the pamphlet inspired by morton embodied in, 168; copied from earlier writers, 179, 190, 241 halsted, miss, biographer of richard iii., 85 _n._, 181, 186; the best work on the subject, 145 _n._, 182 hampton, sir edmund, slain at tewkesbury, 76 hanson, captain, wounded at wakefield, 15 hardwycke, of lindley, joined henry tudor and acted as a guide, 153 hardynge's chronicle, morton's lampoon first appeared in, 168 harfleur, margaret of anjou embarked at, 69; henry tudor embarked at, 142 harington, james, clerk of the council, 145; slain at bosworth, 155, 157; loyal to the last, 252 harington, sir john, heard that the morton lampoon was written by morton, 168; or by more, 170 _n._ harrow, j., warden of the mercers' company, with the duke of york at wakefield, 11; wounded and put to death, 15; head stuck on a gate at york, 17 hastings, wm., 23; knighted on the field of towton, 36; created lord hastings, 36; flight with edward iv., 42, 44; at barnet, 49; at tewkesbury, 71, 74, 89; his conspiracy, 97, 98; arrest and execution, 99; his son a minor, 109; richard's generosity to his widow and family, 99; falsifications of dates respecting his death, 210-216 haute, sir john, 79 haute, sir richard, 88; arrested, 90; beheaded, 100 hedgley moor, 59 hedingham castle, 107 henry iv. (bolingbroke), his usurpation and its consequences, 103, 117; marriage with the bohun heiress, 128 henry v. (of monmouth), his character, war, and persecution of heretics, 103 henry vi. (of windsor), taken prisoner at northampton, 7; marriage, 54; assent to the act making the duke of york heir apparent, 9; hunting at greenwich, 11; re-captured by his wife, 17; at york during the battle of towton, flight to scotland, 34, 58; at hexham, 59; concealed at bolton hall, 59; his death, 78; buried at windsor, 139; false date for his death and insinuations by morton, polydore virgil, warkworth, fabyan, rous, croyland, 193-195; his accounts reveal the truth, 197, 198, 199; mr. gairdner's views respecting his death, 290-4; founded eton college, 116 henry vii., _see_ tudor, henry; business of vilifying his predecessor, 171, 173; inspired the story of the murder of the princes, as lord bacon suspected, 169, 236, 250, 251; his conduct respecting the act settling the crown on richard, 218; his illegal executions after bosworth, 246, 247 _n._; his character and government, 248, 249, 251, 253; his usurpation, 250; marriage, 254: strong motive for the crime, 254; his other victims, 255; silences the relations, 257, 270, 271; gives out the story, 258, 259; fear of detection, 267; murder of the princes, 269; rewards to tyrrel and others, 268, 269, 270; got tyrrel into his power by treachery, 273; cruel treatment and death of edward, earl of warwick, 275; contemplating another crime on his death-bed, 277; restitution to tyrrel's son, 277; died tormented by remorse, 278; things unexplained in his conduct, 279, 280. _see_ murder of the princes henry, captain of bristol, slain at tewkesbury, 76 heraldry, 110 heralds' college, 110, 162 hereford, 8 hereford, bishop of, 146 heretics, lancastrian law for burning, 103, 117, 118 hexham, battle of, 59 heydon, john, recorder of norwich, 119 hill, sir w., beheaded at york, 34 holborn, 110 holderness, 45 holinshed's chronicle, 179, 190 holme hill, near tewkesbury battlefield, 72 hook, dr., lives of archbishops of canterbury, has doubts, 181 hopton, walter, treasurer of the household, 145; knighted, 147; slain at bosworth, 145, 252 home, captain of appledore, at towton, 23; in the pursuit of clifford, 28; slain in the battle, 32 howard, lord, 89, _see_ norfolk, duke of hungates of saxton, 30, 35 hungerford, lord, at towton for henry, 24, 31; known as lord molines, 25; flight, 33; continued in rebellion, 36; beheaded, 59; generosity of edward iv. to his family, 36; his son a minor, 109, 143 hungerford, walter, joined henry tudor, 149; slew sir r. brackenbury, 156 hunting, 106, 108 huntingdon, earl of, at richard's coronation, 109, 143; bore the queen's sceptre, 127; with the king on his progress, 129 hussey, sir william, lord chief justice, 145 iceland, richard's promotion of trade with, 161 inns in london, 112 inns of court, 112 insomuch, j., printer of the book of st. albans, 108 iolanthe, sister of margaret of anjou, 67 ireland, duke of clarence born at dublin, 3; flight of the duke of york to, 7; earl of kildare lord deputy, 145; king richard's good government of, 161 jackson, robert, beheaded at tewkesbury, 76 jacoba of holland, 44 james iii. of scotland, 86, 139, 257 _n._ jenney, sir william, judge of common pleas, 145; knighted, 147 jervaux, monks of, 83 jesse, disbelieved most of the tudor fables, 181 john of gloucester, _see_ gloucester judges in time of richard iii., 145 katherine, daughter of edward iv., married to the earl of devonshire, 87 _n._, 271 _n._ kelfield, stillington family at, 96 _n._ kemp, cardinal archbishop of canterbury, christened edward of lancaster, 55 kempe, j., bishop of london, 146 kendall, john, secretary of slate, 145; slain at bosworth, 155, 157; loyal to the last, 252 kent, earl of, lord fauconberg created, 35 kent, grey, earl of, at richard's coronation, carried the ecclesiastical sword of justice, 109, 127, 143 keyley, james, payment to, for king richard's tomb, 253 _n._ kidwelly, morgan, attorney-general, 145; loyal to the last, 145 _n._ kildare, earl of, lord deputy of ireland, 145 kirkcudbright, margaret embarked at, 58 laing, continuation of henry's history, disbelief of tudor stories, 181, 197 _n._ lancaster, duchy of, duke of gloucester, chief seneschal, 84; t. metcalf, chancellor of, 83 _n._, 145 lancastrians, duke of york's two elder daughters married to, 3; overpowered the duke of york at ludlow, 7; raise an army in yorkshire, 9, 11, 13; atrocities after wakefield, 16, 17. (_see_ towton, barnet, tewkesbury.) malcontents intriguing in france, 140, 141, 231, 243 langstrother, sir john, prior of st. john, with margaret, 69; at tewkesbury, 74; tried and executed, 76 langton, bishop of st. david's, 146; praise of king richard, 130 latimer, lady, made richard supervisor of her will, 84, 160, 202 law, 119 law officers, 145 lawless times, 120 lawyers, 112 legge, 'unpopular king,' rejects most of the tudor stories, 181 leicester, 47, 130; king richard at, 152; buried at, 158 lewis, dr., sent by lady stanley to the queen dowager, 231 lewknor, sir thomas, traitor, 133 _n._ lichfield, bishop of, 146 lincoln, king richard at, when he heard of buckingham's rebellion, 130 lincoln, bishop of, _see_ russell, dr. lincoln, earl of, 109; nephew to the king, 110; at richard's coronation bearing the orb, 127, 143; with the king on his progress, 129; false statement of rous, 138 lingard, dr., believer in all tudor stories, 182, 281; on henry vi., 198 _n._; on the execution of rivers, 210 _n._; on young edward's tailor's account, 237; defence of henry's executions after bosworth, 247 _n._; imprisonment of the queen dowager, 257 _n._; alleged rewards to murderers, 264 lisle, viscount (grey), 100, 109; at richard's coronation, 126, 235; bore the rod with dove, 127, 143 lisle, viscount, arthur, son of edward iv., 87 _n._, 221 _n._ llandaff, j. marshall, bishop of, 146 loan raised by king richard, 142 london warmly supported the house of york, 10, 104; residences, 110, 112; inns, 112; city companies, 112; popularity of king richard, 139; recorder, 146; bishop, 146 londoners with the duke of york at wakefield, 10; citizens declare for edward iv., 21; march to towton, 22 lorenzo the magnificent, likeness to richard iii., 40 _n._, 124 lorraine, isabelle of, mother of margaret of anjou, 53; death of, 55 louis xi., 58, 66; bribed the ministers of edward iv., 82; interview with prince richard, 82 louis xii., 128 lovel, francis, viscount, friend of richard, 40; bore the civil sword of justice at the coronation, 109, 127; lord chamberlain, 144; created a knight of the garter, 146; with the king at bosworth, 151, 155; loyal to the end, 252 lovell, sir thomas, tyrrel decoyed into his power by treachery, 273 loyal men, at bosworth and on their way, 151, 155, 157; in henry's act of attainder, 252 lucy, elizabeth, mother of two children of edward iv., 87 _n._, 221 _n._; false statement of morton, 220 ludlow, duke of york succeeds to, 3; yorkist defeat at, 7; young edward at, 88 lumley, lord, 87 _n._, 221 _n._; at richard's coronation, 109, 143 lumley castle, 107 lymbricke, sir walter, wounded and taken prisoner at wakefield, 15 lymon, thomas, solicitor-general, 145; married jane shore, 100, 145 lynn, 42 magdalen college, oxford, king richard at, 129 malmesbury, 71 maltravers, lord, at richard's coronation, 109, 143 manor houses, 121 mantes, 54 march, earl of (edward iv.), 7, 8 _n._, 20, 58 march, earl of, and pembroke, son of edward iv., 125. _see_ edward marches, richard warden of the, 85 margaret of anjou, birth, 53; marriage, 54; birth of her son, 54, 55; strove to make her son popular, 56; adventures in the war, 57-59; living at koeur-la-petite, 60-67; agreement with warwick, 66, 67; embarked for england, 68-69; at cerne abbey, 69, 70; at tewkesbury, 72-77; taken prisoner to the tower, 78; with the duchess of suffolk, 78; ransomed, 79; last years and death, 79; her alleged cruelties after wakefield untrue, 17 _n._ margaret, princess, duchess of burgundy, birth, 3, 6; taken prisoner, 7; in john paston's chambers, 7, 8; marriage, 43, 113; help to her brothers, 43-44; visit to her brothers, 111; patron of caxton, 113, 114 margaret, princess, daughter of the duke of clarence, countess of salisbury, 87 _n._; killed by henry viii., 256 margaret beaufort, _see_ stanley, lady markham, sir john, created k.b. by edward iv., 36; his present of a book to lord cromwell, 51 _n._; lord chief justice, 119 markham, sir robert, created k.b. by edward iv., 36 marshall, j., bishop of bangor, 146 mauleverers loyal to king richard, 151 mercers company, _see_ harrow. caxton a mercer, 113 merchant adventurers, 113 merchant taylors' company, dispute with skinners, 112 merchants' increasing wealth, 112 metcalfes of nappa, thomas made chancellor of the duchy, 83, 145 methley, lord welles buried at, 34 micklegate, duke of york's head on, 17, 36 middleham castle, the home of richard and anne, 81, 82; description of, 83, 107; richard founded a college at 85, 118, 294 middleton, sir robert, 252 miles, lewis, beheaded at tewkesbury, 76 milewater, servant to edward and edmund, 5; slain at barnet fighting by richard's side, 50 milford haven, henry tudor landed at, 142, 148 milling, dr., bishop of hereford, 146 millstones from paris, 112 ministers of richard iii., 144-145 miracle plays, 119 moleyns, bishop of chichester, hanged by sailors, 118 molines or moleyns, lord, _see_ hungerford; lawless conduct, 120 monasteries, 118 montagu, marquis; his treason, 42; at hexham, 59; outmanoeuvred, 47; at barnet, 49; slain, 51; grief of richard, 51; who interceded for his children, 51, 202 more, sir thomas, the so-called 'history of richard iii.' attributed to, 168; its freedom from criticism due to more's reputed authorship, 170; not written by more, 170; on morton's extraordinary memory, 208 morley, lord, at richard's coronation, 109; with the king on his progress, 129, 143 mortimer inheritance, duke of york succeeded to, 3 mortimer, hugh and sir john, with the duke of york, 10; slain at wakefield, 15 mortimer's cross, victory won by the earl of march, 18, 20 morton, dr., with henry vi. at york, 24, 27; with margaret in exile, 69; at tewkesbury, pardoned, 77; bishop of ely, bribed by louis xi., 82; intrigues against richard, 97-99; given in charge to the duke of buckingham, 100; his political pamphlet called 'history of richard iii.', 168; its authorship, 169-171; account of morton and his career, 206-207; made archbishop of canterbury, 25, 207; on richard's alleged deformity, 185-186; silent respecting the death of edward of lancaster, 191, 192; insinuation about henry vi., 193; confessed that richard resisted the death of clarence, 203; his story about richard's assumption of the protectorship, 208-210; his version of the hastings plot, 210-213; his falsification of dates, 213-216; his version of the execution of rivers, 216-217; his falsification of king richard's title, 217-221; his shameful slander of the duchess of york, 220; unworthy of credit, 221; his false version of richard's accession, 222-223; his account of conversations with the duke of buckingham, 222-227; his evidence of richard's intentions respecting his nephews, 238; intriguing in the isle of ely and in france, 242 mountjoy, lord (_see_ sir walter blount), 35; son and heir slain at barnet, 51; to announce accession of richard iii. at calais, 102, 109 mowbray, inheritance, 125 muccleston church, 56 murder of the princes, story as given out by henry vii., 169, 258-259; fuller story published by grafton and rastell, 259-261; question of their fate, 233; no danger to richard, 235; alive during richard's reign, 236-238; conduct of mother and sister, 238, 239; false rumours, 239, 240; contradictory dates, 225; murdered by order of henry vii., 256; story put forward contradictory and inaccurate, 262; tyrrel, 269; burial, bodies discovered, 270; relations silenced, 270, 271; alleged rewards to murderers, 264, 265; henry's rewards, 272; henry's remorse, 276, 278; mr. gairdner's theory, 298, 299 musgraves faithful to king richard, 151 nappa hall, seat of the metcalfes, 83 navy of richard iii., 135-136. _see_ rogers, thomas neale, richard, judge of common pleas, 145 nesfield, captain, to watch the westminster sanctuary, 241 nevill, george, bishop of exeter, persuaded edward to take the kingly office, 22, 23; archbishop of york, richard and anne sat together at his installation feast, 40; anne's guardian, married her to richard, 81, 82 nevill, lady anne, _see_ anne nevill, lady cecily, 3. _see_ york, duchess of nevill, lady isabella, duchess of clarence, 41; children, 87 _n._ nevill, 77 nevill, lord, traitor to the duke of york, 11 nevill, lord, richard wrote to, for reinforcements, 98 nevill, sir george, son of lord abergavenny, made k.b., 147. _see_ montagu, salisbury, warwick, westmoreland nevill, sir john, at towton for henry, 24; with lord clifford, 27; slain, 29 nevill, sir thomas, 10; slain at wakefield, 15; head stuck on the gate at york, 17 newark, 47 newborough, sir william, beheaded at tewkesbury, 76 newcastle, earl of wiltshire beheaded at, 34 nicolas, sir harris, rejects some of tudor stories, 181; denounces some of them, 228, 230 nobility not destroyed by wars of the roses, 37, 105; life in the country, 106, 108. _see_ peerage nokes, john, 5 norfolk, duke of (mowbray), 10, 11; at towton, 32, 35; death of heiress, 125 norfolk, duke of (howard), at richard's coronation bearing the crown, 109, 127, 143; cousin to the king, 110; present to, from the royal wardrobe, 111; earl marshal, 144; admiral, 144; commissioner for peace with scotland, 145; hurried to the king's help, 151, 154; his camp, 152; slain at bosworth, 155 norfolk coast, ships of king edward off, 45 northampton, battle of, 7, 56; richard and buckingham at, 90 northumberland, earl of, at the battle of wakefield, 14; at towton for henry, 24; led the centre, 31, 32; slain, 33; buried at york, 34; his son restored, 36, 134; at richard's coronation, bore the pointless sword of mercy, 127; 109, 143; commissioner for peace with scotland, 145; at bosworth but held back, 151, 154; retribution, 154 _n._; presided at the trial of lord rivers, 99, 217 norwegian traders at stourbridge fair, 112 norwich sent troop to edward, 71; recorder of, _see_ heydon norwich, bishop of (dr. goldwell), at richard's coronation, 144, 146 nostell priory, 13 nottingham, 47, 130, 136; memorial to king richard iii. at, 158 nottingham castle, 47, 148; king richard commenced his march from, 151 nottingham, earl of, 109, 125, 143 official documents in richard's favour, 179; value of evidence, 292 ogle, lord, in the marches during richard's coronation, 109, 143; hurrying to join the king at bosworth, 151 ogle, sir robert, 58 oldham, dr., bishop of sodor and man, 147 ormonde, earl of, 24 (_see_ wiltshire); pardoned, 36; in portugal, 66; pardoned at tewkesbury, 77 ormonde, sir thomas, created k.b., 147 oxford university, 116; king richard at, 128, 129 oxford, john vere earl of, under attainder, 109, 144; at barnet, 47, 49, 50; came with henry tudor, 148; at bosworth, 154, 155; origin of the star in the arms of, 50 _n._ parker, pardoned after tewkesbury, 77 parker, sir william, the king's standard bearer at bosworth, 156, 157 parliament, act making the duke of york heir apparent, 9; deposed henry vi. for violating his word, 21, 22; met in spite of the _supersedeas_, 98, 100; proofs of the illegitimacy submitted, 101; petitions richard to assume the crown, 102; great power of the speaker, 104; richard's parliament met, acts passed, 134; acts first published in english, 134; distinction between public and private acts first made, 134; lord campbell's opinion, 134. _see_ titulus regius parr, dr., inscription over king richard's well, 158; remarks on likeness of richard to lorenzo the magnificent, 40 _n._, 124 parr, sir thomas, with the duke of york at wakefield, 10; grandfather of queen katherine parr, 15 parr, sir william, slain at wakefield, 15; head stuck on the gate at york, 17 parr, thomas, richard's esquire, slain at barnet, 50 paston, boy at eton, 117 paston, clement, at cambridge, 117 paston, john, 7, 120, 122, 201 paston, mrs., 117, 120, 122 paston letters, 7, 8 _n._, 23, 76 _n._, 81, 151 _n._ payn, mr., his luggage seized by jack cade, 122 payne's place, margaret of anjou took refuge at, 77 peerage, 37, 105, 106; of richard iii., 109, 143; at his coronation, 109, 126, 127; no peer, except stanley, joined henry tudor, 149 pembroke, _see_ tudor, jasper, title of edward, son of edward iv. (_whom see_) pembroke castle, henry tudor born at, 140 percy, sir richard, 24; slain at towton, 33, 34 percy, sir robert, of scotton, friend of richard, 40; controller of the household, 145; knighted, 147; with the king at bosworth, 151, 156 peterborough, 1 pickering, sir james, with the duke of york at wakefield, 10; slain, 15; head stuck on a gate at york, 17 pilgrimages, 119 pilkington, sir john, knighted after tewkesbury, 77 pilkington, sir thomas, loyal to king richard, 252 pilkingtons, faithful to king richard, 151 plantagenets, the dynasty, 166; the kings of the lancastrian branch, 103, 104; yorkist right, 9, 104; children of the duke of york, 6; of edward iv., 86 _n._; of the duke of clarence, 87 _n._; slaughter of the last male, 275 plumpton correspondence, 245; arbitration, 84, 160 _n._ plumptons faithful to king richard, 151 plumstead churchyard, 120 pole-on-the-humber, lord rivers landed at, 46 pole, de la, _see_ suffolk, duke of, lincoln, earl of pole, anne de la, 139 pole, richard, married to the princess margaret, daughter of the duke of clarence, 87 _n._ pole, sir edmund de la, created k.b., 147; afterwards earl of suffolk polydore virgil, employed by henry vii., 168; his coming to england, 171; his numerous preferments, 172; character of his history, 172; untrustworthy, 175; on the unequal shoulders, 186; on treatment of captives at towton, 34; a slanderer, 190, 192; on date of death of henry vi., 193, 196; his calumny about the duchess of york, 220, 222; statement about buckingham's claims, 223; silent about clarence, 202; contradicts morton about shaw's sermon, 220; contemplated marriage with elizabeth, 231; battle of bosworth, 157 _n._; his story of the murder, 258 pomfret, lancastrian army at, 13; bodies of the duke of york and earl of rutland at, 34, 39; montagu at, 47 pomfret castle, a residence of the duke of gloucester, 84; edward's headquarters before towton, 25; execution of lord rivers at, 99 pont-à-mousson, birth place of margaret of anjou, 53, 61 portsmouth, 69 post first established by richard iii., 106, 159 prices, 123 printing, _see_ caxton progress, king richard's royal, 129-30 pulter, thomas, loyal to king richard, 252 quarter, none given by the lancastrians at wakefield, 16, 17; proof that it was given by edward at towton, 34; always given by edward, 34; given to inferior officers and soldiers at tewkesbury, where several leaders were also pardoned, 77 queen, _see_ anne nevill queen, _see_ elizabeth of york queen dowager, _see_ elizabeth woodville raby, rose of, _see_ york, duchess of ramme, traitor, executed at exeter, 132 rapin, history of england, 180, 181 ratcliffe, sir john (lord fitzwalter), 23; at ferrybridge, 23; slain, 27 ratcliffe, sir richard, 99, 145; knight of the garter, 147; at bosworth, 156, 157; loyal to the last, 252 ratford, capt, slain at the battle of wakefield, 15 ratte, john, loyal to the end, 252 ravenspur, edward landed at, 45 redman, dr., bishop of st. asaph, 129, 145, 146 redmore plain, 152, 154 rené, king, 53; death, 79 revell, richard, loyal to the last, 252 richard iii. (duke of gloucester), son of the duke of york, born at fotheringhay, 3, 6; childhood with margaret and george, 4; prisoner at war, 7; in john paston's chambers in the temple, 8, 10; sent to holland for safety, 18; loss of his father and brother, 18, 19, 38; built a memorial chapel at towton, 37; creations, knight of the garter, 38; stall plate at windsor, 38; chief mourner at his father's funeral, 39; military training under warwick, 40; early and enduring friendships, 40; companionship with anne nevill, 40; description of, 40, 124; loyal to edward iv., 41; flight with edward to holland, 42; at bruges, 43; fitting out ships at veere, 44; at ravenspur, 45; negotiation with clarence, 47, 48; at barnet, 50; at tewkesbury, 74; marriage and life at middleham, 81, 82, 84; with edward iv. in france, upright conduct, 82; founded colleges, 85, 107, 118, 294; supervisor of wills, 84, 99; arbitrator, 84, 160 _n._; high offices of state, 84, 85; warden of the marches, campaign in scotland, excellence of his administration, 85; takes berwick, 86; protector by edward's will, services and popularity, 89; arrested rivers, 89, 90; resided with his mother, 91; ignorant of his brother's matrimonial secrets, 97; stamped out the hastings conspiracy, 98, 99; rightful heir, 101; accepts the crown, 102; town house at crosby place, 85, 110; coronation, 126, 127; grant to buckingham, 126; progress, 128-130; at york, 130; suppressed buckingham's revolt, 131-132; parliament and administrative reforms, 134, 135; loss of his son, 137; progress and reception of scotch ambassadors, 139; popularity in london, 139; his wife's death, 140; military talent, 149; courage and pluck, 150; formation of his army, 154; resolves on a desperate charge at bosworth, 155; glorious death, 156; buried at leicester, 158; memorials, 158; character, 159, 160; accusations against him, 167, 184; tudor calumnies, 192, 199; deformity, 185-187; mr. gairdner and the alleged crimes of, 281-301. _see_ edward of lancaster, henry vi., anne nevill, hastings, clarence, rivers, titulus regius, murder of the princes richard, second son of edward iv., 86 _n._; in sanctuary, 91; joined his brother, 100, 125. _see_ murder of the princes. richmond, earldom, granted to the duke of gloucester, 38, 140; henry tudor had no right to the title, 109, 133 _n._, 144 richmond castle, 107 rivers, earl, flight with edward iv., 42, 44; landed at pole, 46; constable of the tower, 78; in charge of his nephew at ludlow, 88; arrested, 90; tried and executed, 99, 216, 217; made richard iii. supervisor of his will, 99, 160; his literary attainments, 115; his son a minor, 109 robsart, sir terry, knighted after tewkesbury, 77 rochester, bishop of, dr. audley, at richard's coronation, 144, 146 rockingham forest, 1 rogers, thomas, keeper of the ships, 135, 144 rogers, mr. thorold, on the character of edward iv., 37; on the wars of the roses, 104; opinion of churchmen, 118; disbelief in the murder of henry vi., 198 roos, lord, with henry and margaret at york, 24, 27; beheaded at hexham, 59 roos, sir henry, pardoned after tewkesbury, 77 roos, sir william, slain at tewkesbury, 76 rose of raby, _see_ york, duchess of roses, wars of the, their causes, 6, 104; the nobility not annihilated, 37, 105; not a war of the people, 104 rotherham, archbishop, 88, 100 roucliffe, brian, baron of the exchequer, 145 rouen, children of the duke of york born at, 3, 6 rous, john, an unblushing time server, 173, 174; on richard's birth, 186; reason of his silence about tewkesbury, 191; henry vi., 195; countess of warwick, 201; trial of rivers, 217 _n._; death of queen anne, 228; adoption of warwick as heir, alleged supersession by lincoln, 138; death of the princes, 244 rumours of the deaths of the princes alleged to have existed, 239; croyland monk, 240; no evidence, 241; morton in the isle of ely, 242; spread by henry vii., 256 russell, dr., bishop of lincoln, his speech on investiture of the duke of burgundy with the garter, 113; an upright prelate, 118; king richard's chancellor, 144; at the coronation, 144; commissioner for peace with scotland, 145 rutland, earl of, _see_ edmund saints' days, letters always dated on, 119 st. albans, battles of, 17, 56, 57 st. albans, book of, 108 st. asaph, bishop of, b. redman, 129, 146; commissioner for peace with scotland, 145 st. david's, bishop, 109. _see_ langton st. denis, at york, earl of northumberland buried at, 34 st. germain, walter, loyal to the last, 252 st. john, prior of, _see_ langstrother st. leger, sir thomas, traitor, 131; beheaded, 132 st. liz, simon de, founder of fotheringhay, 1 st. lo, sir john, knighted at tewkesbury, 77 st. martin's day, stock killed and salted on, 121 st. martin's le grand sanctuary, anne nevill in, 81 st. miheil, 60 st. pol, duke of burgundy's court, 43, 60 salisbury, buckingham beheaded at, 132 salisbury, bishop of, 100; traitor, 132, 146; at richard's coronation, 144. _see_ woodville salisbury, earl of, with the duke of york at sandal, 10, 13; at wakefield, 14; taken prisoner and put to death, 16, 21; head exposed at york, 17; funeral at bisham, 34; town house at cold harbour, 110 salisbury, earl of, _see_ edward salkeld, wm., arrested the earl of wiltshire at cockermouth, 34 sanctuary at westminster, 91, 136, 241; at st. martin's le grand, 81 sandal castle, duke of york's inheritance, 3; the duke arrived at, description, 11-12; ruins, 12; surrounding country, 13; duke's christmas at, 13, 14 sandford, on the death of clarence, 202, 203 _n._ sandwich, 80 sapcote, william, loyal to the last, 252 sasiola, galfridus de, _see_ spanish ambassador savage, sir john, joined henry tudor at bosworth, 149, 154 saxton, near towton, _see_ towton _and_ hungate; lord dacre buried at, 34, 35 saye, lord, flight with edward iv., 42, 44; slain at barnet, 51 saye, sir william, created k.b., 147 sayer, william, payments to, for keep of henry vi., 197 scarthingwell, 27, 28 scotland, flight of henry vi. to, 34, 58; richard's campaign in, 85, 86; peace with, 139, 145; margaret of anjou in, 9 scotton, _see_ percy scrope, of bolton, lord, with edward, 23; wounded at towton, 32; richard's neighbour, 130, 143; at richard's coronation, 109; executions by, 132 _n._; hurrying to the aid of the king, 151 scrope of masham, lord, at richard's coronation, 109, 143 severn, 71, 72; slaughter at a ford, after tewkesbury, 75; great flood, 131 seymour, sir john, slain at tewkesbury, 76 shaundé, philibert de, in command of henry tudor's troops, 142; at bosworth, 153, 154 shaw, dr., sermon, misrepresented by morton and polydore virgil, 220, 221; false date, 215 sheen, 35 sherburn, 27, 29 sheriff hutton, 84; chapel added to the church by richard, 85; tomb of edward prince of wales at, 137; edward, king richard's heir, at, 138, 142 shore, jane, 100; married to the solicitor-general, 145 _n._ shrewsbury, earl of, a minor, 109, 143 simnel, lambert, 280 skinners' company, 112 skipton, 84 skipwith, sir john, at the duke of york's obsequies, 39 slaughter or slater ('black will'), 260, 264, 269; rewards to, 271 sluys, 60 smith, wm., bishop of lichfield, 146 smyth, william, 5 sodor and man, bishop of, 146 somerset, duke of, at the battle of wakefield, 14; and towton, 23; made his peace, 36; beheaded at hexham, 59 somerset, duke of, edmund, buckingham's descent from, 225; at barnet, 49; with margaret, 69, 70; at tewkesbury, 73; his charge, 74, 75; beheaded, 76; title became extinct, 37 sopwell, prioress of, _see_ berners, juliana southampton, 54 southwick, 54 spanish ambassador, 130; knighted at york, 130, _see_ ayala sasiola spofforth, 84 sport, _see_ hunting stafford, humphrey, at bosworth for the king, 155; loyal to the last, 252 stafford, sir thomas, at bosworth for the king, 155 stallworthe, reverend simon, letter to sir w. stonor, with real date of execution of hastings, 214 stanley, lady, mother of henry tudor, 140; at richard's coronation bore the queen's train, 126, 127, 235; her intrigues, 131, 133, 226, 231; pardoned by the king, 148, 231 stanley, lord, 109, 111; at richard's coronation, 109, 143; lord steward, 144; commissioner for peace with scotland, 145; the only peer who joined henry tudor, 149; raised forces, 149; secret interview with henry tudor, 149; treachery at bosworth, 150, 152, 153; threw off the mask, 155, 159; objects of the stanleys, 148 stanley, sir ralph, wounded and taken prisoner at wakefield, 15 stanley, sir wm., captured margaret of anjou, 78; treachery at bosworth, 156; retribution, 158; knew the truth about the princes, 244 stapleton, sir brian, for the king at bosworth, 155 stapleton village, 152 stillingfleet church, 96 _n._ stillington, dr., bishop of bath and wells; his disclosure of edward's first marriage, 93-97; account of, 94-96; treatment by henry vii., 251 stoke golding, 152, 153, 157 stonor, sir william, _see_ stallworthe stony stratford, 90 story, ed., bishop of chichester, 146 stourbridge, 112 stourton, lord, at richard's coronation, 109, 143 stow's chronicle, 179, 185, 191 strange, lord, 231-232 strickland, miss, on richard's marriage with anne, 201 strickland, sir thomas, knighted after tewkesbury, 77; loyal to the king, 151 suffolk, duchess of, _see_ elizabeth suffolk, duke and duchess, 53, 54; received margaret of anjou at ewelme, 78 suffolk, duke of, at richard's coronation bearing the sceptre, 109, 143; king's brother-in-law, 110 supersedeas, _see_ parliament surrey, earl of, son married to anne daughter of edward iv., 86 _n._; at richard's coronation bearing the sword of state in the scabbard, 109, 127, 143; knight of the garter, 146; at bosworth for king richard, 151, 252 sutton cheney, 152; king's army formed near, 154 tadcaster, 26, 27, 46 talbot, sir gilbert, his treason, 148; at bosworth, 154 talbots, 148 talboys, sir william, at towton for henry, 24; beheaded at york, 34 tattershall castle, built of brick by lord bourchier, 107 taunton, 70 temple, john paston's chambers in, _see_ paston, john tewkesbury, 72; battle, 74-75, king richard at, 128, 129; contemporary accounts, warkworth, croyland monk, comines, 189; stories of fabyan, 190; polydore virgil, 190; grafton, hall, holinshed, habington, 190; silence of morton and rous, 191, 192; mr. gairdner's view, 286, 287, 288; executions after the battle, 76, 77, 288; pardons, 77 throgmorton, pardoned after tewkesbury, 77 tickhill castle, 107 tipton, lord, _see_ worcester, earl of titchfield, henry vi. and margaret of anjou married at, 54 'titulus regius,' a state paper explaining king richard's title to the crown, 101; became an act of parliament, 134, 218; attempt of henry vii. to destroy all copies, 218, 250, 279 townshend, rodger, judge of the king's bench, 145, 146 towton, battle of, numbers, 25, 31; distances, 25; description of the surrounding country, 26; formation of the lancastrian line, 31; battle, 32, 33. _see_ fauconberg, edward iv., horne tremayne, thomas, king's serjeant, 146 tresham, speaker, 104 trollope, sir andrew, lancastrian chief of the staff at wakefield, 14, 16; at towton, 25; his antecedents, 25; in the centre, 31, 106; slain, 33 tudor, edmund, created earl of richmond, but forfeited by attainder, 38 tudor, henry, 109, 125; not earl of richmond, 38; came across the channel but afraid to land, 131; traitor, 133 _n._, claim to the crown, 140, 141 _n._; family and origin, 140; lands at milford haven, 142; interviews with the stanleys, 149, 153; encamped at white moors, 153; in the rear of the battle of bosworth, 154; contrast between richard iii. and henry vii., 160 _n._ _see_ henry vii. tudor, jasper, 70; levies in wales, 70, 71; traitor, 133 _n._, 140; came with his nephew, 148; at bosworth, 154; formerly earl of pembroke, but attainted, 133 _n._ tudors in wales, 10, 18; their paid writers, 168; their fables, 183, 187 tunbridge castle, duchess of york and her children prisoners at, 7 tunstall, sir richard, knight of the garter, 147 turner, sharon, doubted most of tudor stories, 181 tuxford, 39 tweed, river near bosworth, 152 tynemouth, 58 tyrrel, sir james, knighted after tewkesbury, 77; escorted the countess of warwick to middleham, 201, 202; stories after his execution, 258, 259, 260, 261; betrayal by bishop fox, 273; his previous career, 268; alleged confession, 263; taken into favour by henry, 269; his two pardons, 269, 270; murder of the princes, 269; rewards from henry, 272; pretext for getting rid of him, 272, 273, 279; tyrrel's son restored in blood, 277 urswick, dr., 231 utrecht, richard and george at, 18, 38 van borselle, lord of walcheren, 44 vaudemont, ferry de, 67 vaughan, sir thomas, 88; arrested, 90; beheaded, 100 vaux, lady, 74 vaux, sir thomas, slain at tewkesbury, 76 vavasour, john, king's serjeant, 146 vavasours, of hazlewood, near towton, 26 veere, expedition of edward iv. fitted out at, 44 venery, works on, by the second duke of york, 108; juliana berners, 108 vere, john, _see_ oxford, earl of vignolle, françois de, 79 virgil, _see_ polydore wake, roger, loyal to the last, 252 walcheren, 44 walleys pardoned after tewkesbury, 77 wallingford castle, 79, 197 walsingham pilgrimages, 119 warbeck, perkin, 258, 275 wardrobe, royal, 111; keeper of the, 145 wardrobe, the, in blackfriars, a royal residence in the city, 139 warkworth, dr., on tewkesbury, 189; on the date of henry's death, 175, 194, 199 warwick, 47; king richard at, 129 warwick, countess of, in france, 66, 67; at beaulieu, 69; joined her daughter at middleham, 82, 84, 201, 202; inheritance, 81, 82 warwick, earl of, _see_ edward warwick, richard nevill earl of, 7, 10, 22, 23, 28; gave richard his military training, 40; his treason, 66; conspiracy with margaret of anjou, 41, 67; outmanoeuvred by edward, 47, 48; at barnet, 49, 50; slain, 51; buried at bisham, 51; division of his estates, 80 watkin, walter, herald in richard's time, loyal to the last, 252 waynflete, bishop of winchester, 55; received richard at oxford, 129, 146 weavers, flemish, 112 welch, john, _alias_ hastings, loyal to the last, 252 welles, lord, slain at towton, 33; buried at methley, 34; son forgiven, 36; traitor, 132 _n._; married princess cicely, 86 _n._, 271 wenlock, sir john, at towton, 23, 30, 32; created lord wenlock, 35; joined margaret of anjou, 70; slain in the battle of tewkesbury, 74, 76 wensleydale, 82 wentford, sir philip, 120 wentworth, sir eustace, slain at wakefield, 15 westminster, john esteney, abbot of, 114; coronation of edward iv., 35; coronation of richard iii., 126, 127; sanctuary, 91, 136, 241; tower built by king richard at, 161 westminster school, its antiquity, 116 westmoreland, earl of, 109, 143; cousin to the king, 110; not at towton, a mistake of leland followed by hall, 29 _n._ weymouth, 69 'white hart' inn, in southwark, 112, 122 white moors at bosworth, 153 whittingham, sir r., slain at tewkesbury, 76 wigmore castle, 3 willoughby, sir christopher, created k.b., 147 willoughby, sir robert, 149; sent to sheriff hutton to seize edward and elizabeth, 248 wilson, john, 120 wiltshire, earl of, at wakefield, 14; at towton, 24, 31; beheaded, 34; brother restored, 36; at richard's coronation bearing the queen's crown, 127, 143 winchester, bishop of, _see_ waynflete _and_ fox winchester school, 116 windsor, st. george's chapel, stall plate of richard iii., 38; edward iv. at, 70; present from the wardrobe to the college, 111; edward iv. buried at, 86; henry vi. buried, 139; nearly finished by richard iii., 139, 161; portrait of richard iii. at, 40 _n._, 124 wodehouse, sir edward, knighted after tewkesbury, 77 wolesley, ralph, baron of the exchequer, 145 wolferstone, sir roger, at towton for edward, 23 woodville, elizabeth, _see_ elizabeth woodville faction, their enrichment, 41; bribed by louis xi., 82; their designs, 88; caused the death of clarence, 88, 95; their conspiracy defeated, 88-91, 131; marriages into noble families, 88. _see_ rivers woodville, lionel, bishop of salisbury, at richard's coronation, 126, 235 wool and cloth fair, 112 woolley edge, 13 worcester, 77, 128 worcester, bishop of, _see_ alcock worcester, tiptoft earl of, author and statesman, 115; caxton's lament at his death, 115, 116 wykeham, william of, founder of winchester school, 116 york, flight of henry vi. from, after towton, 34, 58; king edward at, 34; prince richard's beneficial connection with, 84; king richard at, 130; loyalty of the citizens, 130; sent 80 men to reinforce the king at bosworth, 151; mourned the death of richard, 159 york, archbishop of, _see_ nevill, rotherham. york, duchess of (_see_ rose of raby _and_ nevill, lady cecil), 3; twelve children, 3, 6; taken prisoner at ludlow, 7; refuge in paston's chambers, 7; joined the duke, 7; last parting with the duke, 10, 11; sent her little sons to holland, 18, 21; richard residing with her, 91, 92; richard's letter to his mother, 92 _n._; long widowhood and death, 93 _n._; buried at fotheringhay, 93 _n._; slanders of morton and polydore virgil, 220, 221; in the secret of her son's contract with lady eleanor butler, 94; slandered by morton and polydore virgil, 220, 297 york, edmund duke of, rebuilt fotheringhay, 1, 2, 11 york, edward duke of, author of a work on sport, 108 york, richard duke of, his great possessions, 3; wife and children, 3, 6; letter from his sons, 4; cause of his resort to arms, 6, 104; defeat of ludlow, 7; at baynard's castle with his family, 9, 10; march north, 11; at sandal, 13; betrayed, 11; slain in the battle of wakefield, 15; his head stuck on micklegate bar, 17; outrages imputed to margaret and clifford untrue, 17 _n._; magnificent obsequies at fotheringhay, 39 'york records,' edited by mr. davies. evidence of loyalty to king richard and against alleged deformity, 186; disproves second coronation at york, 177, 227, 228; earl of warwick a councillor until may 1485, 138; children in the king's household, 126; the _supersedeas_ and letter to york, 100 yorkist captains at wakefield, 10, 15; at towton, 23 yorkist kings, nearly of pure english blood, 166 yorkist princes, the leading sportsmen of england, 108 yorkists, introduction of printing their chief glory, 113 zouch, lord, at richard's coronation, 109, 143; hurried to the help of the king, 151; slain at bosworth, 155, 157; loyal to the last, 252 zouch, sir w., created k.b., 147 endx printed by spottiswoode and co. ltd., new-street square london ====================================================================== new and forthcoming works. the 'knutsford' edition of mrs. gaskell's works. in 8 vols. crown 8vo. cut edges, cloth, gilt top, price 4s. 6d. each net. with an introduction to each volume, in addition to a biographical introduction in the first volume, by dr. a. w. ward, master of peterhouse, cambridge. the volumes are being published at fortnightly intervals, and each will contain a photogravure frontispiece. there are also other illustrations. contents of the volumes: 1. mary barton, and other tales. 2. cranford, and other tales. 3. ruth, and other tales, &c. 4. north and south. 5. my lady ludlow, & other tales. 6. sylvia's lovers, &c. 7. cousin phyllis, a dark night's work, &c. 8. wives and daughters. _truth_.--'will win the approval of all admirers of her inimitable stories, and, it may be hoped, widely extend the circle of her readers.' _westminster gazette_.--'the edition strikes us as excellent, and will appeal not only to the very large circle who are admirers of mrs. gaskell, but, it is to be hoped, to many who will read her books for the first time.' messrs. smith, elder, & co. will be happy to forward a prospectus of the edition post free on application. social silhouettes. by george w. e. russell author of 'collections and recollections,' &c. large post 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. the gate of death: a diary. large post 8vo. 6s. net. the friends of voltaire. by s. g. tallentyre, author of 'the women of the salons,' 'the life of voltaire,' &c. with portraits. small demy 8vo. 6s. net. richard iii.: his life and character reviewed in the light of recent research. by sir clements r. markham, k.c.b., f.r.s., author of 'the life of the great lord fairfax,' 'the fighting veres,' &c. with a portrait of richard iii. and a map. small demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. the great days of versailles: studies from court life in the later years of louis xiv. by g. f. bradby, author of 'the marquis's eye,' 'dick: a story without a plot,' &c. with illustrations. small demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. our heritage the sea. by frank t. bullen, f.r.g.s., author of 'the cruise of the "cachalot,"' 'the log of a sea-waif,' &c. with a frontispiece by arthur twidle. crown 8vo. 6s. letters to young and old. by mrs. c. w. earle, author of 'pot pourri from a surrey garden,' &c. large crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. smith, elder, & co.'s recent publications. the voyage of the 'discovery.' by capt. robert f. scott, c.v.o., r.n. second impression. with illustrations and photographs by dr. e. a. wilson and other members of the expedition. 2 vols. royal 8vo. 42s. net. _capt. scott's work has received from the press an unanimous tribute of praise and appreciation_. memoir of sir henry keppel, admiral of the fleet. by the right hon. sir algernon west, g.c.b., author of 'recollections, 1832-1886,' &c. with portraits. second impression. large post 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. on two continents: memories of half-a-century. by marie hansen taylor. with the co-operation of lilian bayard taylor kiliani, with 8 illustrations. demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. modern germany: her political and economic problems, her policy and ambitions, and the causes of her success. by o. eltzbacher. small demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. the life of voltaire. by s. g. tallentyre, author of 'the women of the salons.' new and cheaper edition in 1 vol. of 600 pages. with a photogravure frontispiece and other illustrations. small demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. leaves from the diary of henry greville. fourth series. by alice, countess of strafford. with an index to the four series. 8vo. 14s. note.--the three previous series are in print and can be supplied, price 14s. each. fifty years of failure: confessions of an optimist. with a frontispiece. second impression. small demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. the upton letters. by arthur christopher benson. with a new preface. eighth impression (2nd edition). large post 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. the sparrow with one white feather. by lady ridley, author of 'the story of aline,' 'anne mainwaring,' 'a daughter of jael,' &c. with 16 illustrations by mrs. adrian hope. second impression. pott 4to. 6s. net. the poetical works of robert bridges. vol. vi. small post 8vo. 6s. contents.--the feast of bacchus--second part of the history of nero--notes. the foundations of religion. by john boyd kinnear. crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. the source of the blue nile. a record of a journey through the soudan to lake tsana, in western abyssinia, and of the return to egypt by the valley of the atbara. with a note on the religions, customs, &c., of abyssinia. by arthur j. hayes, l.s.a. lond., medical officer, quarantine office, suez. with an entomological appendix by k. b. poulton, ll.d., f.r.s., hope professor of zoology in the university of oxford. with 2 maps and 32 pages of illustrations. 10s. 6d. net. back to sunny seas. by frank t. bullen, f.r.g.s., author of 'the cruise of the "cachalot,"' 'the log of a sea-waif, &c.' with 8 full-page illustrations in colour by a. s. forrest, r.i. crown 8vo. 6s. a vision of india, as seen during the tour of the prince and princess of wales. by sidney low. with 32 full-page illustrations. small demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. wesley and his century: a study in spiritual forces. by w. h. fitchett, b.a., ll.d., author of 'deeds that won the empire,' &c. with a photogravure frontispiece from the portrait of john wesley by george romney and four facsimiles. small demy 8vo. 6s. net. from a college window. by arthur christopher benson, fellow of magdalene college, cambridge. sixth impression (fourth edition). large post 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. the victorian chancellors. vol. i. by j. b. atlay, barrister-at-law, author of 'sir henry wentworth acland, bart., k.c.b.: a memoir,' &c. with portraits and illustrations. demy 8vo. 14s. net. seventy years' fishing. by charles george barrington, c.b., formerly assistant secretary to the treasury. with a portrait. small demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. elizabeth barrett browning in her letters. by percy lubbock. with a photogravure portrait of mrs. browning from a chalk drawing by mrs. bridell fox. crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. robert browning and alfred domett. edited by frederic g. kenyon, d.litt., f.b.a. with three portraits. crown 8vo. 5s. net. augustus austen leigh, provost of king's college, cambridge: a record of college reform. by william austen leigh, fellow of king's college, cambridge. with portraits. small demy 8vo. 8s. 6d. net. a woman of wit and wisdom: a memoir of mrs. elizabeth carter, one of the 'bas bleu' society, 1717-1806. by alice c. c. gaussen, author of 'a later pepys.' with a photogravure frontispiece, a facsimile, and 9 half-tone illustrations. large post 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. with mounted infantry in tibet. by major w. j. ottley. with 48 pages of illustrations, including portraits of general macdonald and colonel younghusband. small demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. a summer ride through western tibet. by miss jane e. duncan. with numerous illustrations and a map. demy 8vo. 12s. 6d. net. the small garden beautiful, and how to make it so. by a. c. curtis, author of 'a new trafalgar' &c. with a coloured frontispiece, 16 half-tone illustrations, and several plans. small demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. heroes of exile, being certain rescued fragments of submerged romance. by hugh clifford, c.m.g., author of 'studies in brown humanity,' 'bush-whacking,' 'a free-lance of to-day,' &c. crown 8vo. 6s. the balkan trail. by frederick moore. with a map and 48 pages of illustrations. small demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. new and forthcoming works. sketches in mafeking and south africa. by major-general r. s. s. baden-powell, c.b., f.r.g.s., author of 'the matabele campaign,' 'sport in war,' &c. with several coloured plates and a large number of half-tone and line illustrations. oblong 410. 21s. net. the romance of an eastern capital. by f. b. bradley-birt, b.a., f.r.g.s., i.c.s., author of 'chota nagpore: a little-known province of the empire,' 'the story of an indian upland,' &c. with 16 full-page illustrations and a map. demy 8vo. 12s. 6d. net. the future of russia. translated from the german of regierungsrat rudolf martin by miss hulda friederichs. large post 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. the new physics and chemistry: a series of popular essays on physical and chemical subjects. by w. a. shenstone, f.r.s., senior science master in clifton college, author of 'the life and work of justus von liebig,' &c. large post 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. the letters of a betrothed, 1803-1814. by the baroness edith von cramm. translated by leonard huxley. with portraits. large post 8vo. 6s. net. the rise and decline of the netherlands: a political and economic history and a study in practical statesmanship. by j. ellis barker, author of 'modern germany: her political and economic problems, her ambitions, and the causes of her success.' small demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. net. provincial letters, and other papers. by the author of 'pages from a private diary.' crown 8vo. 5s. net. the teaching of the lord contained in the gospels. brought together under its principal heads. by john boyd kinnear, author of 'the foundations of religion,' &c. crown 8vo. the house of the luck. by mary j. h. skrine. with 8 full-page illustrations by her daughter, margaret s. skrine. pott 4to. 6s. net. the book of gilly: four months out of a life. by the hon. emily lawless, litt.d., author of 'hurrish,' 'with essex in ireland,' &c. with illustrations by l. leslie brooke. pott 4to. 7s. 6d. net. new impression of the browning love letters. the letters of robert browning and elizabeth barrett browning. fifth impression. with 2 portraits and 2 facsimile letters. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 21s. london: smith, elder, & co., 15 waterloo place, s.w. ====================================================================== transcriber's notes: some chapters had varying page headers. these have been converted into sidenotes and placed where seemed most logical. the book has several full page tables. they have been moved so as to not split paragraphs. page numbers are indicated with curly braces, e.g "{99}". 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. 