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 nousl'ont transmisse. Il importe donc extremement, pour la scavoir, debien connoitre quels etoient ces Auteurs. Rien n'est a negliger ence point; le tems ou ils ont vecu, leur naissance, leur patrie, lepart qu'ils ont eue aux affaires, les moyens par lesquels ils ontete instruits, et l'interet qu'ils y pouvaient prendre, sont descirconstances essentielles qu'il n'est pas permis d'ignorer: deladepend le plus ou le moins d'autorite qu'ils doivent avoir: et sanscette connoissance, on courra risque tres souvent de prendre pourguide 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 theprovince they have undertaken, that it is almost a question, whether, if the dead of past ages could revive, they would be ableto reconnoitre the events of their own times, as transmitted to usby ignorance and misrepresentation. All very ancient history, exceptthat of the illuminated Jews, is a perfect fable. It was written bypriests, or collected from their reports; and calculated solely toraise lofty ideas of the origin of each nation. Gods and demi-godswere the principal actors; and truth is seldom to be expected wherethe personages are supernatural. The Greek historians have noadvantage over the Peruvian, but in the beauty of their language, orfrom that language being more familiar to us. Mango Capac, the son of the sun, is as authentic a founder of a royal race, asthe progenitor of the Heraclidae. What truth indeed could beexpected, when even the identity of person is uncertain? The actionsof one were ascribed to many, and of many to one. It is not knownwhether 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 ofits fall, had the consolation of seeing the crimes of its usurperspublished. The vanquished inflicted eternal wounds on theirconquerors--but who knows, if Pompey had succeeded, whether JuliusCaesar would not have been decorated as a martyr to publick liberty?At some periods the suffering criminal captivates all hearts; atothers, the triumphant tyrant. Augustus, drenched in the blood ofhis fellow-citizens, and Charles Stuart, falling in his own blood, are held up to admiration. Truth is left out of the discussion; andodes and anniversary sermons give the law to history and credulity. 

But if the crimes of Rome are authenticated, the case is not thesame with its virtues. An able critic has shown that nothing is moreproblematic than the history of the three or four first ages of thatcity. As the confusions of the state increased, so do the confusionsin its story. The empire had masters, whose names are only knownfrom medals. It is uncertain of what princes several empresses werethe wives. If the jealousy of two antiquaries intervenes, the pointbecomes inexplicable. Oriuna, on the medals of Carausius, used topass for the moon: of late years it is become a doubt whether shewas not his consort. It is of little importance whether she was moonor empress: but 'how little must we know of those times, when thoseland-marks to certainty, royal names, do not serve even thatpurpose! In the cabinet of the king of France are several coins ofsovereigns, 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 inancient history. Chronology and astronomy are forced to tinker upand reconcile, as well as they can, those uncertainties. Thissatisfies the learned--but what should we think of the reign ofGeorge the Second, to be calculated two thousand years hence byeclipses, lest the conquest of Canada should be ascribed to Jamesthe First. 

At the very moment that the Roman empire was resettled, nay, when anew metropolis was erected, in an age of science and arts, whileletters still held up their heads in Greece; consequently, when thegreat outlines of truth, I mean events, might be expected to beestablished; at that very period a new deluge of error burst uponthe world. Cristian monks and saints laid truth waste; and a mocksun rose at Rome, when the Roman sun sunk at Constantinople. Virtuesand vices were rated by the standard of bigotry; and the militia ofthe church became the only historians. The best princes wererepresented as monsters; the worst, at least the most useless, weredeified, according as they depressed or exalted turbulent andenthusiastic prelates and friars. Nay, these men were so destituteof temper and common sense, that they dared to suppose that commonsense would never revisit the earth: and accordingly wrote with solittle judgment, and committed such palpable forgeries, that if wecannot discover what really happened in those ages, we can at leasthe very sure what did not. How many general persecutions does thechurch record, of which there is not the smallest trace? Whatdonations and charters were forged, for which those holy personswould lose their ears, if they were in this age to present them inthe most common court of judicature? Yet how long were theseimpostors the only persons who attempted to write history!

But let us lay aside their interested lies, and consider how farthey were qualified in other respects to transmit faithful memoirsto posterity. In the ages I speak of, the barbarous monkish ages, the shadow of learning that existed was confined to the clergy: theygenerally wrote in Latin, or in verse, and their compositions inboth were truly barbarous. The difficulties of rhime, and the wantof correspondent terms in Latin, were no small impediments to thesevere nvarch of truth. But there were worse obstacles to encounter. Europe was in a continual state of warfare. Little princes and greatlords were constantly skirmishing and struggling for triflingadditions of territory, or wasting each others borders. Geographywas very imperfect; no police existed; roads, such as they were, were dangerous; and posts were not established. Events were onlyknown by rumour, from pilgrims, or by letters carried In couriers tothe parties interested: the public did not enjoy even those falliblevehicles of intelligence, newspapers. In this situation did monks, at twenty, fifty, an hundred, nay, a thousand miles distance (andunder the circumstances I have mentioned even twenty miles wereconsiderable) undertake to write history--and they wrote itaccordingly. 

If we take a survey of our own history, and examine it with anyattention, what an unsatisfactory picture does it present tous! How dry, how superficial, how void of information! Howlittle is recorded besides battles, plagues, and religiousfoundations! That this should be the case, before the Conquest, isnot surprizing. Our empire was but forming itself, or re-collectingits divided members into one mass, which, from the desertion of theRomans, had split into petty kingdoms. The invasions of nations asbarbarous as ourselves, interfered with every plan of policy andorder that might have been formed to settle the emerging state; andswarms of foreign monks were turned loose upon us with their newfaith and mysteries, to bewilder and confound the plain good senseof 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 miserablydisfigured by the subsequent invaders. The unconquered parts of theisland retained some purity and some precision. The Welsh and Ersetongues wanted not harmony: but never did exist a more barbarousjargon than the dialect, still venerated by antiquaries, and calledSaxon. It was so uncouth, so inflexible to all composition, that themonks, retaining the idiom, were reduced to write in what they tookor meant for Latin. 

The Norman tyranny succeeded, and gave this Babel of savage sounds awrench towards their own language. Such a mixture necessarilyrequired ages to bring it to some standard: and, consequently, whatever compositions were formed during its progress, were sure ofgrowing obsolete. However, the authors of those days were not likelyto make these obvious reflections; and indeed seem to have aimed atno one perfection. From the Conquest to the reign of Henry theEighth 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 relatedwhatever they heard. No councils of princes, no motives of conduct, no remoter springs of action, did they investigate or learn. We haveeven little light into the characters of the actors. A king or anarchbishop of Canterbury are the only persons with whom we are mademuch acquainted. The barons are all represented as brave patriots;but we have not the satisfaction of knowing which, of them werereally so; nor whether they were not all turbulent and ambitious. The probability is, that both kings and nobles wished to encroach oneach other, and if any sparks of liberty were struck out in alllikelihood it was contrary to the intention of either the flint orthe steel. 

Hence it has been thought necessary to give a new dress to Englishhistory. Recourse has been had to records, and they are far fromcorroborating the testimonies of our historians. Want of authenticmemorials has obliged our later writers to leave the mass prettymuch as they found it. Perhaps all the requisite attention thatmight have been bestowed, has not been bestowed. It demands greatindustry and patience to wade into such abstruse stores as recordsand charters: and they being jejune and narrow in themselves, veryacute criticism is necessary to strike light from their assistance. If they solemnly contradict historians in material facts, we maylose 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 isalmost always discoverable. But there is a wide difference betweenfavouring and lying and yet I doubt whether the whole stream of ourhistorians, misled by their originals, have not falsified one reignin our annals in the grossest manner. The moderns are only guilty oftaking-on trust what they ought to have examined more scrupulously, as the authors whom they copied were all ranked on one side in aflagrant season of party. But no excuse can be made for the originalauthors, who, I doubt, have violated all rules of truth. 

The confusions which attended the civil war between the houses ofYork and Lancaster, threw an obscurity over that part of our annals, which it is almost impossible to dispel. We have scarce anyauthentic monuments of the reign of Edward the Fourth; and ought toread his history with much distrust, from the boundless partialityof the succeeding writers to the opposite cause. That diffidenceshould increase as we proceed to the reign of his brother. 

It occurred to me some years ago, that the picture of Richard theThird, as drawn by historians, was a character formed by prejudiceand invention. I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuinerepresentation, but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedyof imagination. Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemedimprobable; and, what was stronger, contrary to his interest. A fewincidental circumstances corroborated my opinion; an original andimportant instrument was pointed out to me last winter, which gaverise to the following' sheets; and as it was easy to perceive, underall the glare of encomiums which historians have heaped on thewisdom of Henry the Seventh, that he was a mean and unfeelingtyrant, I suspected that they had blackened his rival, till Henry, by the contrast, should appear in a kind of amiable light. The moreI examined their story, the more I was confirmed in my opinion: andwith regard to Henry, one consequence I could not help drawing; thatwe have either no authentic memorials of Richard's crimes, or, atmost, no account of them but from Lancastrian historians; whereasthe vices and injustice of Henry are, though palliated, avowed bythe concurrent testimony of his panegyrists. Suspicions and calumnywere fastened on Richard as so many assassinations. The murderscommitted by Henry were indeed executions and executions pass forprudence with prudent historians; for when a successful king ischief justice, historians become a voluntary jury. 

If I do not flatter myself, I have unravelled a considerable part ofthat dark period. Whether satisfactory or not, my readers mustdecide. Nor is it of any importance whether I have or not. Theattempt was mere matter of curiosity and speculation. If any man, asidle as myself, should take the trouble to review and canvass myarguments I am ready to yield so indifferent a point to betterreasons. Should declamation alone be used to contradict me, I shallnot think I am less in the right. 

Nov. 28th, 1767. 

HISTORIC DOUBTS ON THE LIFE AND REIGNOF KING RICHARD III. 

There is a kind of literary superstition, which men are apt tocontract from habit, and which-makes them look On any attempttowards shaking their belief in any established characters, nomatter whether good or bad, as a sort of prophanation. They aredetermined to adhere to their first impressions, and are equallyoffended at any innovation, whether the person, whose character isto be raised or depressed, were patriot or tyrant, saint or sinner. No indulgence is granted to those who would ascertain the truth. Themore the testimonies on either side have been multiplied, thestronger is the conviction; though it generally happens that theoriginal evidence is wonderous slender, and that the number ofwriters have but copied one another; or, what is worse, have onlyadded to the original, without any new authority. Attachment sogroundless is not to be regarded; and in mere matters of curiosity, it were ridiculous to pay any deference to it. If time brings newmaterials to light, if facts and dates confute historians, what doesit signify that we have been for two or three hundred years under anerror? Does antiquity consecrate darkness? Does a lie becomevenerable from its age?

Historic justice is due to all characters. Who would not vindicateHenry the Eighth or Charles the Second, if found to be falselytraduced? Why then not Richard the Third? Of what importance is itto 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 haveread the dismal story of his cruelties, and settled their ideas ofhis tyranny and usurpation, I declare I am not going to write avindication of him. All I mean to show, is, that though he may havebeen as execrable as we are told he was, we have little or no reasonto believe so. If the propensity of habit should still incline asingle man to suppose that all he has read of Richard is true, I begno more, than that that person would be so impartial as to own thathe has little or no foundation for supposing so. 

I will state the list of the crimes charged on Richard; I willspecify the authorities on which he was accused; I will give afaithful account of the historians by whom he was accused; and willthen examine the circumstances of each crime and each evidence; andlastly, show that some of the crimes were contrary to Richard'sinterest, and almost all inconsistent with probability or withdates, 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 blackenhim, his intended match with his own niece Elizabeth, the penance ofJane 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 thearts of a politician and the cruelty of a conqueror. Indeed onneither side do there seem to have been any scruples: Yorkists andLancastrians, Edward and Margaret of Anjou, entered into anyengagements, took any oaths, violated them, and indulged theirrevenge, as often as they were depressed or victorious. After thebattle of Tewksbury, in which Margaret and her son were madeprisoners, young Edward was brought to the presence of Edward theFourth; "but after the king, " says Fabian, the oldest historian ofthose times, "had questioned with the said Sir Edwarde, and he hadanswered unto hym contrary his pleasure, he then strake him with hisgauntlet upon the face; after which stroke, so by him received, hewas by the kynges servants incontinently slaine. " The chronicle ofCroyland of the same date says, "the prince was slain 'ultricibusquorundam 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 presumptuouslyenter into his realme with banner displayed) sayinge, to recover myfater's kingdome and enheritage, &c. At which wordes kyng Edwardsaid nothing, but with his hand thrust him from him, or, as somesay, stroke him with his gauntlet, whome incontinent, they thatstode about, which were George duke of Clarence, Richard duke ofGloucester, Thomas marques Dorset (son of queen Elizabeth Widville)and William lord Hastinges, sodainly murthered and pitiouslymanquelled. " Thus much had the story gained from the time ofFabian 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 groundedon hear-say, and affirms no more, than that the king cruelly smotethe young prince on the face with his gauntlet, and after hisservants slew him. 

Of modern historians, Rapin and Carte, the only two who seem not tohave swallowed implicitly all the vulgar tales propagated by theLancastrians to blacken the house of York, warn us to read withallowance the exaggerated relations of those times. The lattersuspects, that at the dissolution of the monasteries all evidenceswere suppressed that tended to weaken the right of the prince on thethrone; but as Henry the Eighth concentred in himself both the claimof Edward the Fourth and that ridiculous one of Henry the Seventh, he seems to have had less occasion to be anxious lest the truthshould come out; and indeed his father had involved that truth in somuch darkness, that it was little likely to force its way. Nor wasit necessary then to load the memory of Richard the Third, who hadleft no offspring. Henry the Eighth had no competitor to fear butthe descendants of Clarence, of whom he seems to have had sufficientapprehension, as appeared by his murder of the old countess ofSalisbury, daughter of Clarence, and his endeavours to root out herposterity. This jealousy accounts for Hall charging the duke ofClarence, as well as the duke of Gloucester, with the murder ofprince Edward. But in accusations of so deep a dye, it is notsufficient ground for our belief, that an historian reports themwith such a frivolous palliative as that phrase, "as some say". Acotemporary names the king's servants as perpetrators of the murder:Is not that more probable, than that the king's own brothers shouldhave dipped their hands in so foul an assassination? Richard, inparticular, is allowed on all hands to have been a brave and martialprince: he had great share in the victory at Tewksbury: Some yearsafterwards, he commanded his brother's troops in Scotland, and madehimself master of Edinburgh. At the battle of Bosworth, where hefell, his courage was heroic: he sought Richmond, and endeavoured todecide their quarrel by a personal combat, slaying Sir WilliamBrandon, his rival's standard-bearer, with his own hand, andfelling to the ground Sir John Cheney, who endeavoured to opposehis fury. Such men may be carried by ambition to command theexecution of those who stand in their way; but are not likely tolend their hand, in cold blood, to a base, and, to themselves, useless assassination. How did it import Richard in what manner theyoung prince was put to death? If he had so early planned theambitious designs ascribed to him, he might have trusted to hisbrother Edward, so much more immediately concerned, that the youngprince would not be spared. If those views did not, as is probable, take root in his heart till long afterwards, what interest hadRichard to murder an unhappy young prince? This crime therefore wasso unnecessary, and is so far from being established by anyauthority, 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 moreimprobable. "Of the death of this prince, Henry the Sixth, " saysFabian, "divers tales wer told. But the most common fame went, thathe was sticken with a dagger by the handes of the duke of Gloceter. "The author of the Continuation of the Chronicle of Croyland saysonly, that the body of king Henry was found lifeless (exanime) inthe 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 titulummereatur. " The prayer for the murderer, that he may live to repent, proves that the passage was written immediately after the murder wascommitted. That the assassin deserved the appellation of tyrant, evinces that the historian's suspicions went high; but as he callshim Quicunque, and as we are uncertain whether he wrote before thedeath of Edward the Fourth or between his death and that of Richardthe Third, we cannot ascertain which of the brothers he meant. Instrict construction he should mean Edward, because as he is speakingof Henry's death, Richard, then only duke of Gloucester, could notproperly be called a tyrant. But as monks were not good grammaticalcritics, I shall lay no stress on this objection. I do think healluded to Richard; having treated him severely in the subsequentpart of his history, and having a true monkish partiality to Edward, whose cruelty and vices he slightly noticed, in favour to thatmonarch's severity to heretics and ecclesiastic expiations. "Isprinceps, licet diebus suis cupiditatibus & luxui nimis intemperanterindulsisse credatur, in fide tamen catholicus summ, hereticorumseverissimus hostis sapientium & doctorum hominum clericorumquepromotor amantissimus, sacramentorum ecclesiae devotissimusvenerator, peccatorumque fuorum omnium paenitentissimus fuit. " Thatmonster Philip the Second possessed just the same virtues. Still, Isay, 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, hehas not told us. 

Hall says, "Poore kyng Henry the Sixte, a little before deprived ofhys realme and imperial croune, was now in the Tower of Londonspoyled of his life and all wordly felicite by Richard duke ofGloucester (as the constant fame ranne) which, to the intent thatking Edward his brother should be clere out of al secret suspicyonof sudden invasion, murthered the said king with a dagger. " WhateverRichard was, it seems he was a most excellent and kind-heartedbrother, and scrupled not on any occasion to be the Jack Ketch of thetimes. We shall see him soon (if the evidence were to be believed)perform the same friendly office for Edward on their brotherClarence. And we must admire that he, whose dagger was so fleshed inmurder for the service of another, should be so put to it to findthe means of making away with his nephews, whose deaths wereconsiderably more essential to him. But can this accusation beallowed gravely? if Richard aspired to the crown, whose wholeconduct during Edward's reign was a scene, as we are told, ofplausibility and decorum, would he officiously and unnecessarilyhave taken on himself the odium of slaying a saint-like monarch, adored by the people? Was it his interest to save Edward's characterat the expence of his own? Did Henry stand in his way, deposed, imprisoned, and now childless? The blind and indiscriminate zealwith which every crime committed in that bloody age was placed toRichard's account, makes it greatly probable, that interest of partyhad more hand than truth in drawing his picture. Other cruelties, which I shall mention, and to which we know his motives, hecertainly commanded; nor am I desirous to purge him where I find himguilty: but mob-stories or Lancastrian forgeries ought to berejected from sober history; nor can they be repeated, withoutexposing the writer to the imputation of weakness and vulgarcredulity. 

III. The murder of his brother Clarence. 

In the examination of this article, I shall set aside ourhistorians (whose gossipping narratives, as we have seen, deservelittle regard) because we have better authority to direct ourinquiries: and this is, the attainder of the duke of Clarence, as itis set forth in the Parliamentary History (copied indeed fromHabington's Life of Edward the Fourth) and by the editors of thathistory justly supposed to be taken from Stowe, who had seen theoriginal bill of attainder. The crimes and conspiracy of Clarenceare there particularly enumerated, and even his dealing withconjurers and necromancers, a charge however absurd, yet often madeuse of in that age. Eleanor Cobham, wife of Humphrey duke ofGloucester, had been condemned on a parallel accusation. In Franceit was a common charge; and I think so late as in the reign of Henrythe Eighth Edward duke of Buckingham was said to have consultedastrologers and such like cattle, on the succession of the crown. Whether Clarence was guilty we cannot easily tell; for in thosetimes neither the public nor the prisoner were often favoured withknowing the evidence on which sentence was passed. Nor was muchinformation of that sort given to or asked by parliament itself, previous to bills of attainder. The duke of Clarence appears to havebeen at once a weak, volatile, injudicious, and ambitious man. Hehad abandoned his brother Edward, had espoused the daughter ofWarwick, the great enemy of their house, and had even been declaredsuccessor to Henry the Sixth and his son prince Edward. Conduct soabsurd must have left lasting impressions on Edward's mind, not tobe effaced by Clarence's subsequent treachery to Henry and Warwick. The Chronicle of Croyland mentions the ill-humour and discontents ofClarence; and all our authors agree, that he kept no terms with thequeen and her relations. (1) Habington adds, that these discontentswere secretly fomented by the duke of Gloucester. Perhaps they were:Gloucester certainly kept fair with the queen, and profited largelyby the forfeiture of his brother. But where jealousies are secretlyfomented in a court, they seldom come to the knowledge of anhistorian; and though he may have guessed right from collateralcircumstances, these insinuations are mere gratis dicta and can onlybe treated as surmises. (2) Hall, Hollingshed, and Stowe say not aword of Richard being the person who put the sentence in execution;but, on the contrary, they all say he openly resisted the murder ofClarence: all too record another circumstance, which is perfectlyridiculous 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 tillhe was suffocated. But the strong evidence on which Richard must beacquitted, and indeed even of having contributed to his death, wasthe testimony of Edward himself. Being some time afterward solicitedto pardon a notorious criminal, the king's conscience broke forth;"Unhappy brother!" cried he, "for whom no man would intercede--yetye all can be intercessors for a villain!" If Richard had beeninstigator or executioner, it is not likely that the king wouldhave assumed the whole merciless criminality to himself, withoutbestowing a due share on his brother Gloucester. Is it possible torenew the charge, and not recollect this acquittal?

(1) That chronicle, which now and then, though seldom, iscircumstantial, gives a curious account of the marriage of Richardduke of Gloucester and Anne Nevil, which I have found in no otherauthor; and which seems to tax the envy and rapaciousness ofClarence as the causes of the dissention between the brothers. Thisaccount, and from a cotemporary, is the more remarkable, as the LadyAnne is positively said to have been only betrothed to Edward princeof Wales, son of Henry the Sixth, and not his widow, as she iscarelessly called by all our historians, and represented inShakespeare's masterly scene. "Postquam filius regis Henrici, cuiDomina Anna, minor filia comitis Warwici, desponsata fuit, inprefato bello de Tewkysbury occubuit, " Richard, duke of Gloucesterdesired her for his wife. Clarence, who had married the eldersister, was unwilling to share so rich an inheritance with hisbrother, and concealed the young lady. Gloucester was too alert forhim, and discovered the Lady Anne in the dress of a cookmaid inLondon, and removed her to the sanctuary of St. Martin. The brotherspleaded each his cause in person before their elder brother incounsel; and every man, says the author, admired the strength oftheir respective arguments. The king composed their differences, bestowed the maiden on Gloucester, and parted the estate between himand Clarence; the countess of Warwick, mother of the heiresses, andwho had brought that vast wealth to the house of Nevil, remainingthe only sufferer, being reduced to a state of absolute necessity, as appears from Dugdale. In such times, under such despoticdispensations, the greatest crimes were only consequences of theeconomy of government. --Note, that Sir Richard Baker is so absurd asto make Richard espouse the Lady Anne after his accession, though hehad a son by her ten years old at that time. 

(2) The chronicle above quoted asserts, that the speaker of thehouse of commons demanded the execution of Clarence. Is it crediblethat, on a proceeding so public, and so solemn for that age, thebrother of the offended monarch and of the royal criminal shouldhave been deputed, or would have stooped to so vile an office? Onsuch occasions do arbitrary princes want tools? Was Edward's courtso virtuous or so humane, that it could furnish no assassin but thefirst prince of the blood? When the house of commons undertook tocolour the king's resentment, was every member of it too scrupulousto lend his hand to the deed?

The three preceding accusations are evidently uncertain andimprobable. What follows is more obscure; and it is on the ensuingtransactions that I venture to pronounce, that we have little or noauthority on which to form positive conclusions. I speak moreparticularly of the deaths of Edward the Fifth and his brother. Itwill, I think, appear very problematic whether they were murdered ornot: and even if they were murdered, it is impossible to believe theaccount as fabricated and divulged by Henry the Seventh, on whosetestimony the murder must rest at last; for they, who speak mostpositively, revert to the story which he was pleased to publisheleven years after their supposed deaths, and which is so absurd, soincoherent, and so repugnant to dates and other facts, that as it isno longer necessary to pay court to his majesty, it is no longernecessary not to treat his assertions as an impudent fiction. I comedirectly to this point, because the intervening articles of theexecutions of Rivers, Gray, Vaughan, and Hastings will naturallyfind their place in that disquisition. 

And here it will be important to examine those historians on whoserelation the story first depends. Previous to this, I must ascertainone or two dates, for they are stubborn evidence and cannot berejected: they exist every where, and cannot be proscribed even froma Court Calendar. 

Edward the Fourth died April 9th, 1483. Edward, his eldest son, wasthen thirteen years of age. Richard Duke of York, his second son, was about nine. 

We have but two cotemporary historians, the author of the Chronicleof Croyland, and John Fabian. The first, who wrote in his convent, and only mentioned incidentally affairs of state, is very barren andconcise: he appears indeed not to have been ill informed, andsometimes even in a situation of personally knowing the transactionsof the times; for in one place we are told in a marginal note, thatthe doctor of the canon law, and one of the king's councellors, whowas sent to Calais, was the author of the Continuation. Whenevertherefore his assertions are positive, and not merely flyingreports, he ought to be admitted as fair evidence, since we have nobetter. And yet a monk who busies himself in recording theinsignificant events of his own order or monastery, and who was atmost occasionally made use of, was not likely to know the mostimportant and most mysterious secrets of state; I mean, as he wasnot employed in those iniquitous transactions--if he had been, weshould learn or might expect still less truth from him. 

John Fabian was a merchant, and had been sheriff of London, and diedin 1512: he consequently lived on the spot at that very interestingperiod. Yet no sheriff was ever less qualified to write a history ofEngland. His narrative is dry, uncircumstantial, and unimportant: hementions the deaths of princes and revolutions of government, withthe same phlegm and brevity as he would speak of the appointment ofchurchwardens. I say not this from any partiality, or to decry thesimple man as crossing my opinion; for Fabian's testimony is farfrom bearing hard against Richard, even though he wrote under Henrythe Seventh, who would have suffered no apology for his rival, andwhose reign was employed not only in extirpating the house of York, but in forging the most atrocious calumnies to blacken theirmemories, and invalidate their just claim. 

But the great source from whence all later historians have takentheir materials for the reign of Richard the Third, is Sir ThomasMore. Grafton, the next in order, has copied him verbatim: so doesHollingshed--and we are told by the former in a marginal note, thatSir Thomas was under-sheriff of London when he composed his work. Itis in truth a composition, and a very beautiful one. He was then inthe vigour of his fancy, and fresh from the study of the Greek andRoman historians, whose manner he has imitated in divers imaginaryorations. They serve to lengthen an unknown history of little morethan two months into a pretty sizeable volume; but are no more to bereceived as genuine, than the facts they adduced to countenance. Anunder-sheriff of London, aged but twenty-eight, and recently markedwith the displeasure of the crown, was not likely to be furnishedwith materials from any high authority, and could not receive themfrom the best authority, I mean the adverse party, who wereproscribed, and all their chiefs banished or put to death. Let usagain recur to dates. (3) Sir Thomas More was born in 1480: he wasappointed under-sheriff in 1508, and three years before had offendedHenry the Seventh in the tender point of opposing a subsidy. Buck, the apologist of Richard the Third, ascribes the authorities of SirThomas to the information of archbishop Morton; and it is true thathe had been brought up under that prelate; but Morton died in 1500, when Sir Thomas was but twenty years old, and when he had scarcethought of writing history. What materials he had gathered from hismaster were probably nothing more than a general narrative of thepreceding times in discourse at dinner or in a winter's evening, ifso raw a youth can be supposed to have been admitted to familiaritywith a prelate of that rank and prime minister. But granting thatsuch pregnant parts as More's had leaped the barrier of dignity, andinsinuated himself into the archbishop's favour; could he have drawnfrom a more corrupted source? Morton had not only violated hisallegiance to Richard; but had been the chief engine to dethronehim, and to plant a bastard scyon in the throne. Of all men livingthere could not be more suspicious testimony than the prelate's, except the king's: and had the archbishop selected More for thehistorian of those dark scenes, who had so much, interest to blackenRichard, as the man who had risen to be prime minister to his rival?Take it therefore either way; that the archbishop did or did notpitch on a young man of twenty to write that history, his authoritywas as suspicious as could be. 

(3) Vide Biog. Britannica, p. 3159. 

It may be said, on the other hand, that Sir Thomas, who had smartedfor his boldness (for his father, a judge of the king's bench, hadbeen imprisoned and fined for his son's offence) had had littleinducement to flatter the Lancastrian cause. It is very true; nor amI inclined to impute adulation to one of the honestest statesmen andbrightest names in our annals. He who scorned to save his life bybending to the will of the son, was not likely to canvas the favourof the father, by prostituting his pen to the humour of the court. Itake the truth to be, that Sir Thomas wrote his reign of Edward theFifth as he wrote his Utopia; to amuse his leisure and exercise hisfancy. He took up a paltry canvas and embroidered it with a flowingdesign as his imagination suggested the colours. I should deal moreseverely with his respected memory on any other hypothesis. He hasbeen guilty of such palpable and material falshoods, as, while theydestroy his credit as an historian, would reproach his veracity as aman, if we could impute them to premeditated perversion of truth, and not to youthful levity and inaccuracy. Standing as they do, thesole groundwork of that reign's history, I am authorized topronounce 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 mayquote him now-and-then, and the Chronicle of Croyland; but neitherfurnish us with much light. 

There was another writer in that age of far greater authority, whosenegligent simplicity and' veracity are unquestionable; who had greatopportunities of knowing our story, and whose testimony iscorroborated by our records: I mean Philip de Comines. He and Buckagree with one another, and with the rolls of parliament; Sir ThomasMore with none of them. 

Buck, so long exploded as a lover of paradoxes, and as an advocatefor a monster, gains new credit the deeper this dark scene isfathomed. Undoubtedly Buck has gone too far; nor are his style ormethod to be admired. With every intention of vindicating Richard, he does but authenticate his crimes, by searching in other story forparallel instances of what he calls policy. 

No doubt politicians will acquit Richard, if confession of hiscrimes be pleaded in defence of them. Policy will justify his takingoff opponents. Policy will maintain him in removing those who wouldhave barred his obtaining the crown, whether he thought he had aright to it, or was determined to obtain it. Morality, especially inthe latter case, cannot take his part. I shall speak more to thisimmediately. Kapin conceived doubts; but instead of pursuing them, wandered after judgments; and they will lead a man where-ever he hasa mind to be led. Carte, with more manly shrewdness, has sifted manyparts of Richard's story, and guessed happily. My part has lesspenetration; but the parliamentary history, the comparison of dates, and the authentic monument lately come to light, and from which Ishall give extracts, have convinced me, that, if Buck is toofavourable, all our other historians are blind guides, and have notmade 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. Richardduke of Gloucester was in the north, returning from his successfulexpedition against the Scots. The queen wrote instantly to herbrother to bring up the young king to London, with a train of twothousand horse: a fact allowed by historians, and which, whether aprudent caution or not, was the first overt-act of the new reign;and likely to strike, as it did strike, the duke of Gloucester andthe antient nobility with a jealousy, that the queen intended toexclude them from the administration, and to govern in concert withher own family. It is not improper to observe that no precedentauthorized her to assume such power. Joan, princess dowager ofWales, and widow of the Black Prince, had no share in the governmentduring the minority of her son Richard the Second. Catherine ofValois, widow of Henry the Fifth Was alike excluded from theregency, though her son was but a year old. And if Isabella governedon the deposition of Edward the Second, it Was by an usurped power, by the same power that had contributed to dethrone her husband; apower sanctified by no title, and confirmed by no act ofparliament. (4) The first step to a female regency(5) enacted, though it never took place, was many years afterwards, in the reignof Henry the Eighth. 

(4) Twelve guardians were appointed by parliament, and the earl ofLancaster was entrusted with the care of the king's person. Thelatter, being excluded from exercising his charge by the queen andMortimer, gave that as a reason for not obeying a summons toparliament. 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 betweenhis wife's kindred and the great lords of the court; particularlybetween the Marquis Dorset, the Queen's son, and the lordchamberlain Hastings. Yet whether the disgusted lords had onlyseemed to yield, to satisfy the dying king, or whether the stepstaken by the queen gave them new cause of umbrage it appears thatthe duke of Buckingham, was the first to communicate his suspicionsto Gloucester, and to dedicate himself to his service. Lord Hastingswas scarce less forward to join in like measures, and all three, itis pretended, were so alert, that they contrived to have itinsinuated to the queen, that it would give much offence if theyoung king should be brought to London with so great a force as shehad ordered; on which suggestions she wrote to Lord Rivers tocountermand her first directions. 

It is difficult not to suspect, that our historians have imaginedmore plotting in this transaction than could easily be compassed inso short a period, and in an age when no communication could becarried on but by special messengers, in bad roads, and with norelays of post-horses. 

Edward the Fourth died April 9th, and his son made his entrance intoLondon May 4th. (6) It is not probable, that the queen communicated herdirections for bringing up her son with an armed force to the lordsof the council, and her newly reconciled enemies. But she might bebetrayed. Still it required some time for Buckingham to send hisservant Percival (though Sir Thomas More vaunts his expedition) toYork, where the Duke of Gloucester then lay;(7) for Percival'sreturn (it must be observed too that the Duke of Buckingham was inWales, consequently did not learn the queen's orders on the spot, but either received the account from London, or learnt it fromLudlow); for the two dukes to send instructions to theirconfederates in London; for the impression to be made on the queen, and for her dispatching her counter-orders; for Percival to postback and meet Gloucester at Nottingham, and for returning thence andbringing his master Buckingham to meet Richard at Northampton, atthe very time of the king's arrival there. All this might happen, undoubtedly; and yet who will believe, that such mysterious andrapid negociations came to the knowledge of Sir Thomas Moretwenty-five years afterwards, when, as it will appear, he knewnothing of very material and public facts that happened at the sameperiod?

(6) Fabian. 

(7) It should be remarked too, that the duke of Gloucester ispositively said to be celebrating his brother's obsequies there. Itnot only strikes off part of the term by allowing the necessary timefor the news of king Edward's death to reach York, and for thepreparation to be made there to solemnize a funeral for him; butthis very circumstance takes off from the probability of Richardhaving as yett laid any plan for dispossessing his nephew. Would hehave loitered at York at such a crisis, if he had intended to stepinto the throne?

But whether the circumstances are true, or whether artfullyimagined, it is certain that the king, with a small force, arrivedat Northampton, and thence proceeded to Stony Stratford. Earl Riversremained at Northampton, where he was cajoled by the two dukes tillthe time of rest, when the gates of the inn were suddenly locked, and the earl made prisoner. Early in the morning the two dukeshastened to Stony Stratford, where, in the king's presence, theypicked a quarrel with his other half-brother, the lord Richard Grey, accusing him, the marquis Dorset, and their uncle Rivers, ofambitious and hostile designs, to which ends the marquis had enteredthe Tower, taken treasure thence, and sent a force to sea. 

"These things, " says Sir Thomas, "the dukes knew, were done for goodand necessary purposes, and by appointment of the council; butsomewhat they must say, " &c. As Sir Thomas has not been pleased tospecify those purposes, and as in those times at least privycounsellors were exceedingly complaisant to the ruling powers, hemust allow us to doubt whether the purposes of the queen's relationswere quite so innocent as he would make us believe; and whether theprinces of the blood and the antient nobility had not some reasonsto be jealous that the queen was usurping more power than the lawshad given her. The catastrophe of her whole family so truly deservescommiseration, that we are apt to shut our eyes to all her weaknessand ill-judged policy; and yet at every step we find how much shecontributed to draw ruin on their heads and her own, by theconfession even of her apologists. The Duke of Gloucester was thefirst prince of the blood, the constitution pointed him out asregent; no will, no disposition of the late king was even alleged tobar his pretensions; he had served the state with bravery, success, and fidelity; and the queen herself, who had been insulted byClarence, had had no cause to complain of Gloucester. Yet all herconduct intimated designs of governing by force in the name of herson. (8) If these facts are impartially stated, and grounded on theconfession of those who inveigh most bitterly against Richard'smemory, let us allow that at least thus far he acted as most princeswould have done in his situation, in a lawless and barbarous age, and rather instigated by others, than from any before-conceivedambition and system. If the journeys of Percival are true, Buckingham was the devil that tempted Richard; and if Richard stillwanted instigation, then it must follow, that he had not murderedHenry the Sixth, his son, and Clarence, to pave his own way to thecrown. If this fine story of Buckingham and Percival is not true, what becomes of Sir Thomas More's credit, on which the whole fabricleans?

Lord Richard, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and Sir Richard Hawte, werearrested, and with Lord Rivers sent prisoners to Pomfret, while thedukes 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 herdaughters. Rotheram, archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor, repaired to her with the great seal, and endeavoured to comfort herdismay with the friendly message he had received from Hastings, whowas with the confederate lords on the road. "A woe worth him!" quoththe queen, "for it is he that goeth about to destroy me and myblood!" Not a word is said of her suspecting the duke of Gloucester. The archbishop seems to have been the first who entertained anysuspicion; and yet, if all that our historian says of him is true, Rotheram was far from being a shrewd man: witness the indiscreetanswer which he is said to have made on this occasion. "Madam, "quoth he, "be of good comfort, and assure you, if they crown anyother king than your son whom they now have we shall on the morrowcrown his brother, whom you have here with you. " Did the sillyprelate think that it would be much consolation to a mother, whoseeldest son might be murthered, that her younger son would be crownedin prison, or was she to be satisfied with seeing one son entitledto the crown, and the other enjoying it nominally?

He then delivered the seal to the queen, and as lightly sent for itback immediately after. 

The dukes continued their march, declaring they were bringing theking to his coronation, Hastings, who seems to have preceded them, endeavoured to pacify the apprehensions which had been raised in thepeople, acquainting them that the arrested lords had been imprisonedfor plotting against the dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham. As boththose princes were of the blood royal, (9) this accusation was notill founded, it having evidently been the intention, as I haveshewn, to bar them from any share in the administration, to which, by the custom of the realm, they were intitled. So much depends onthis foundation, that I shall be excused from enforcing it. Thequeen's party were the aggressors; and though that alone would notjustify all the following excesses, yet we must not judge of thosetimes by the present. Neither the crown nor the great men wererestrained by sober established forms and proceedings as they are atpresent; and from the death of Edward the Third, force alone haddictated. Henry the Fourth had stepped into the throne contrary toall justice. A title so defective had opened a door to attempts asviolent; and the various innovations introduced in the latter yearsof Henry the Sixth had annihilated all ideas of order. Richard dukeof York had been declared successor to the crown during the life ofHenry and of his son prince Edward, and, as appears by theParliamentary History, though not noticed by our careless historianswas even appointed prince of Wales. The duke of Clarence hadreceived much such another declaration in his favour during theshort restoration of Henry. What temptations were these precedentsto an affronted prince! We shall see soon what encouragement theygave him to examine closely into his nephew's pretensions; and howimprudent it was in the queen to provoke Gloucester, when her veryexistence as queen was liable to strong objections. Nor ought thesubsequent executions of Lord Rivers, Lord Richard Grey, and of LordHastings himself, to be considered in so very strong a light, asthey would appear in, if acted in modern times. During the wars ofYork and Lancaster, no forms of trial had been observed. Not onlypeers taken in battle had been put to death without process; butwhoever, though not in arms, was made prisoner by the victoriousparty, underwent the same fate; as was the case of Tiptoft earl ofWorcester, who had fled and was taken in disguise. Trials had neverbeen used with any degree of strictness, as at present; and thoughRichard was pursued and killed as an usurper, the Solomon thatsucceeded him, was not a jot-less a tyrant. Henry the Eighth wasstill less of a temper to give greater latitude to the laws. Infact, little ceremony or judicial proceeding was observed on trials, till the reign of Elizabeth, who, though decried of late for herdespotism, in order to give some shadow of countenance to thetyranny of the Stuarts, was the first of our princes, under whom anygravity or equity was allowed in cases of treason. To judgeimpartially therefore, we ought to recall the temper and manners ofthe times we read of. It is shocking to eat our enemies: but it isnot so shocking in an Iroquois, as it would be in the king ofPrussia. And this is all I contend for, that the crimes of Richard, which he really committed, at least which we have reason to believehe committed, were more the crimes of the age than of the man; andexcept these executions of Rivers, Grey, and Hastings, I defy anybody to prove one other of those charged to his account, from anygood authority. 

(8) Grafton says, "and in effect every one as he was neerest ofkinne unto the queene, so was he planted nere about the prince, "p. 761; and again, p. 762, "the duke of Gloucester understandingthat the lordes, which were about the king, entended to bring him upto 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 openwar, " &c. In the same place it appears, that the argument used todissuade the queen from employing force, was, that it would be abreach of the accommodation made by the late king between herrelations and the great lords; and so undoubtedly it was; and thoughthey are accused of violating the peace, it is plain that thequeen's insincerity had been at least equal to theirs, and that theinfringement of the reconciliation commenced on her side. 

(9) Henry duke of Buckingham was the immediate descendant and heirof Thomas of Woodstock duke of Gloucester, the youngest son ofEdward the Third, as will appear by this table:

Thomas duke of GloucesterAnne 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 thecrown, for it made him overlook his own alliance with the queen, whose sister he had married. Henry the Eighth did not overlook theproximity of blood, when he afterwards put to death the son of this duke. 

It is alleged that the partizans of Gloucester strictly guarded thesanctuary, to prevent farther resort thither; but Sir Thomasconfesses too, that divers lords, knights, and gentlemen, either forfavour of the queen, or for fear of themselves, Assembled companiesand went flocking together in harness. Let us strip this paragraphof its historic buskins, and it is plain that the queen's party tookup arms. (10) This is no indifferent circumstance. She had plotted tokeep possession of the king, and to govern in his name by force, buthad been outwitted, and her family had been imprisoned for theattempt. Conscious that she was discovered, perhaps reasonablyalarmed at Gloucester's designs, she had secured herself and heryoung children in sanctuary. Necessity rather than law justified herproceedings, but what excuse can be made for her faction havingrecourse to arms? who was authorized, by the tenour of formerreigns, to guard the king's person, till parliament should declare aregency, but his uncle and the princes of the blood? endeavouring toestablish the queen's authority by force was rebellion against thelaws. I state this minutely, because the fact has never beenattended to; and later historians pass it over, as if Richard hadhurried on the deposition of his nephews without any colour ofdecency, and without the least provocation to any of hisproceedings. Hastings is even said to have warned the citizens thatmatters were likely to come to a field (to a battle) from theopposition of the adverse party, though as yet no symptom hadappeared of designs against the king, whom the two dukes werebringing to his coronation. Nay, it is not probable that Gloucesterhad as yet meditated more than securing the regency; for had he haddesigns on the crown, would he have weakened his own claim byassuming the protectorate, which he could not accept but byacknowledging the title of his nephew? This in truth seems to me tohave been the case. The ambition of the queen and her family alarmedthe princes and the nobility: Gloucester, Buckingham, Hastings, andmany more had checked those attempts. The next step was to securethe regency: but none of these acts could be done without grievousprovocation to the queen. As soon as her son should come of age, shemight regain her power and the means of revenge. Self-securityprompted the princes and lords to guard against this reverse, andwhat was equally dangerous to the queen, the depression of herfortune called forth and revived all the hatred of her enemies. Hermarriage had given universal offence to the nobility, and been thesource of all the late disturbances and bloodshed. The great earl ofWarwick, provoked at the contempt shewn to him by King Edward whilenegotiating a match for him in France, had abandoned him for Henrythe Sixth, whom he had again set on the throne. These calamitieswere still fresh in every mind, and no doubt contributed to raiseGloucester to the throne, which he could not have attained withoutalmost general concurrence yet if we are to believe historians, he, Buckingham, the mayor of London, and one Dr. Shaw, operated thisrevolution by a sermon and a speech to the people, though the peoplewould not even give a huzza to the proposal. The change ofgovernment in the rehearsal is not effected more easily by thephysician and gentleman usher, "Do you take this, and I'll seizet'other chair. "

(10) This is confirmed by the chronicle of Croyland, p. 566. 

In what manner Richard assumed or was invested with the protectoratedoes not appear. Sir Thomas More, speaking of him by that title, says "the protector which always you must take for the Duke ofGloucester. " Fabian after mentioning the solemn (11) arrival of theking in London, adds, "Than provisyon was made for the kinge'scoronation; in which pastime (interval) the duke being admitted forlord protectour. " As the parliament was not sitting, this dignitywas no doubt conferred on him by the assent of the lords and privycouncil; and as we hear of no opposition, none was probably made. Hewas the only person to whom that rank was due; his right could notand does not seem to have been questioned. The Chronicle of Croylandcorroborates my opinion, saying, "Accepitque dictus Ricardus duxGlocestriae ilium solennem magistratum, qui duci HumfridoGlocestriae, stante minore aetate regis Henrici, ut regni protectorappellaretur, olim contingebat. Ea igitur auctoritate usus est, deconsensu & beneplacito omnium dominorum. " p. 556. 

(11) He was probably eye-witness of that ceremony; for he says, "theking was of the maior and his citizens met at Harnesey parke, themaior and his brethren being clothed in scarlet, and the citizens inviolet, to the number of V. C. Horses, and than from thence conveyedunto the citie, the king beynge in blewe velvet, and all his lordsand servauntes in blacke cloth. " p. 513. 

Thus far therefore it must be allowed that Richard acted no illegalpart, nor discovered more ambition than became him. He had defeatedthe queen's innovations, and secured her accomplices. To draw offour attention from such regular steps, Sir Thomas More has exhaustedall his eloquence and imagination to work up a piteous scene, inwhich the queen is made to excite our compassion in the highestdegree, and is furnished by that able pen with strains of patheticoratory, which no part of her conduct affords us reason to believeshe possessed. This scene is occasioned by the demand of deliveringup her second son. Cardinal Bourchier archbishop of Canterbury isthe instrument employed by the protector to effect this purpose. Thefact is confirmed by Fabian in his rude and brief manner, and by theChronicle of Croyland, and therefore cannot be disputed. But thoughthe latter author affirms, that force was used to oblige thecardinal to take that step, he by no means agrees with Sir ThomasMore in the repugnance of the queen to comply, nor in that idlediscussion on the privileges of sanctuaries, on which Sir Thomas haswasted so many words. On the contrary, the chronicle declares, thatthe queen "Verbis gratanter annues, dimisit puerum. " The king, whohad been lodged in the palace of the bishop of London, was nowremoved with his brother to the Tower. 

This last circumstance has not a little contributed to raise horrorin vulgar minds, who of late years have been accustomed to see nopersons of rank lodged in the Tower but state criminals. But in thatage the case was widely different. It not only appears by a mapengraven so late as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, that the Tower wasa royal palace, in which were ranges of buildings called the king'sand queen's apartments, now demolished; but it is a known fact, thatthey did often lodge there, especially previous to theircoronations. The queen of Henry the Seventh lay in there: queenElizabeth went thither after her triumphant entry into the city; andmany other instances might be produced, but for brevity I omit them, to come to one of the principal transactions of this dark period: Imean Richard's assumption of the crown. Sir Thomas More's account ofthis extraordinary event is totally improbable, and positively falsein the groundwork of that revolution. He tells us, that Richardmeditating usurpation, divided the lords into two separate councils, assembling the king's or queen's party at Baynard's castle, butholding his own private junto at Crosby Place. From the latter hebegan with spreading murmurs, whispers, and reports against thelegality of the late king's marriage. Thus far we may credit him--but what man of common sense can believe, that Richard went so faras 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 ofSuffolk and Burgundy, Richard's own sisters: one of them, theduchess of Suffolk walked at his ensuing coronation, and her son theearl of Lincoln was by Richard himself, after the death of his ownson, declared heir apparent to the crown. Is it, can it be credible, that Richard actuated a venal preacher(12) to declare to the peoplefrom the pulpit at Paul's cross, that his mother had been anadultress, and that her two eldest sons, (13) Edward the Fourth andthe duke of Clarence(14) were spurious; and that the good lady hadnot given a legitimate child to her husband, but the protector, andI suppose the duchess of Suffolk, though no mention is said to bemade of her in the sermon? For as the duchess of Suffolk was olderthan Richard, and consequently would have been involved in thecharge of bastardy, could he have declared her son his heir, he whoset aside his brother Edward's children for their illegitimacy?Ladies of the least disputable gallantry generally suffer theirhusbands to beget his heir; and if doubts arise on the legitimacy oftheir issue, the younger branches seem most liable to suspicion--buta tale so gross could not have passed even on the mob--no proof, nopresumption of the fact was pretended. Were the duchess(15) andher daughters silent on so scandalous an insinuation? Agrippinawould scarce have heard it with patience. Moriar modo imperet! saidthat empress, in her wild wish of crowning her son: but had he, unprovoked, aspersed her honour in the open forum, would the motherhave submitted to so unnatural an insult? In Richard's case theimputation was beyond measure atrocious and absurd. What! taint thefame of his mother to pave his way to the crown! Who had heard ofher guilt? And if guilty, how came she to stop the career of herintrigues? But Richard had better pretensions, and had no occasionto start doubts even on his own legitimacy, which was too muchconnected with that of his brothers to be tossed and bandied aboutbefore the multitude. Clarence had been solemnly attainted by act ofparliament, and his children were out of the question. The doubts onthe validity of Edward's marriage were better grounds for Richard'sproceedings than aspersion of his mother's honour. On thatinvalidity he claimed the crown, and obtained it; and with suchuniversal 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 artand industry to misrepresent the fact. If the marriage of Edward theFourth with the widow Grey was bigamy, and consequently null, whatbecame of the title of Elizabeth of York, wife of Henry the Seventh?What became of it? Why a bastard branch of Lancaster, matched with abastard of York, were obtruded on the nation as the right heirs ofthe 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 allmention of the convention parliament, and only tell us that one Dr. Burnet got up into the pulpit, and assured the people that HenriettaMaria (a little more suspected of gallantry than duchess Cecily)produced Charles the Second, and James the Second in adultry, andgave no legitimate issue to Charles the First, but Mary princess ofOrange, mother of king William; that the people laughed at him, andso the prince of Orange became king?

(13) The Earl of Rutland, another son, elder than Richard, had beenmurdered at the battle of Wakefield and so was Omitted in thatimaginary accusation. 

(14) Clarence is the first who is said to have propogated thisslandour, and it was much more consonant to his levity and indigestedpolitics, than to the good sense of Richard. We can believe thatRichard renewed this story, especially as he must have altered thedates of his mother's amours, and made them continue to herconception of him, as Clarence had made them stop in his own favor?

(15) It appears from Rymer's Foedera, that the very first act ofRichard's reign is dated from quadam altera camera juxta capellam inhospitio dominae Ceciliae ducissae Eborum. It does not look much asif he had publicly accused his mother of adultry, when he held hisfirst council at her house. Among the Harleian MSS. In the Museum, No. 2236. Art. 6. Is the following letter from Richard to this veryprincess his mother, which is an additional proof of the good termson which they lived: "Madam, I recomaunde me to you as hertely as isto me possible, beseeching you in my most humble and affectuousewise of your daly blessing to my synguler comfort and defence in mynede; and, madam, I hertoly beseche you, that I may often here fromyou to my comfort; and suche newes as be here, my servaunt ThomasBryan this berer shall showe you, to whom please it you to yevecredence unto. And, madam, I beseche you to be good and graciouselady to my lord my chamberlayn to be your officer in Wiltshire insuche as Colinbourne had. I trust he shall therein do you goodservyce; and that it plese you, that by this barer I may understandeyour pleasur in this behalve. And I praye God send you th'accomplishement of your noble desires. Written at Pomfret, thethirde 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 tothe lady Eleanor Butler, and married to her by the bishop of Bath. Sir Thomas More, on the contrary (and here it is that I amunwillingly obliged to charge that great man with wilful falsehood)pretends that the duchess of York, his mother, endeavouring todissuade him from so disproportionate an alliance, urged him with apre-contract to one Elizabeth Lucy, who however, being pressed, confessed herself his concubine; but denied any marriage. Dr. Shawtoo, the preacher, we are told by the same authority, pleaded fromthe pulpit the king's former marriage with Elizabeth Lucy, and theduke of Buckingham is said to have harangued the people to the sameeffect. But now let us see how the case really stood: Elizabeth Lucywas the daughter of one Wyat of Southampton, a mean gentleman, saysBuck, and the wife of one Lucy, as mean a man as Wyat. The mistressof Edward she notoriously was; but what if, in Richard's pursuit ofthe crown, no question at all was made of this Elizabeth Lucy? Wehave the best and most undoubted authorities to assure us, thatEdward's pre-contract or marriage, urged to invalidate his matchwith the lady Grey, was with the lady Eleanor Talbot, widow of thelord Butler of Sudeley, and sister of the earl Shrewsbury, one ofthe greatest peers in the kingdom; her mother was the lady KatherineStafford, daughter of Humphrey duke of Buckingham, prince of theblood: an alliance in that age never reckoned unsuitable. Hear theevidence. Honest Philip de Comines says(16) "that the bishop of Bathinformed Richard, that he had married king Edward to an Englishlady; and dit cet evesque qu'il les avoit espouses, & que n'y avoitque luy & ceux deux. " This is not positive, and yet the descriptionmarks out the lady Butler, and not Elizabeth Lucy. But theChronicle of Croyland is more express. "Color autem introitus &captae possessionis hujusmodi is erat. Ostendebatur per modumsupplicationis in quodam rotulo pergameni quod filii Regis Edwardierant bastardi, supponendo ilium precontraxisse cum quadam dominaAlienora Boteler, antequam reginam Elizabeth duxisset uxorem;atque insuper, quod sanguis alterius fratris sui, Georgii ducisClarentiae, fuisset attinctus; ita quod hodie nullus certus &incorruptus sanguis linealis ex parte Richardi ducis Eboraci poteratinveniri, nisi in persona dicti Richardi ducis Glocestriae. Quocirca supplicabatur ei in fine ejusdem rotuli, ex parte dominorum &communitatis regni, ut jus suum in se assumeret. " Is this full? Isthis evidence?

(16) Liv. 5, p. 151. In the 6th book, Comines insinuates that thebishop acted out of revenge for having been imprisoned by Edward: itmight be so; but as Comines had before alledged that the bishop hadactually said he had married them, it might be the truth that theprelate told out of revenge, and not a lie; nor is it probable thathis tale would have had any weight, if false, and unsupported byother circumstances. 

Here we see the origin of the tale relating to the duchess of York;nullus certus & incorruptus sangnis: from these mistaken orperverted words flowed the report of Richard's aspersing hismother's honour. But as if truth was doomed to emerge, thoughstifled for near three hundred years, the roll of parliament is atlength come to light (with other wonderful discoveries) and setsforth, "that though the three estates which petitioned Richard toassume the crown were not assembled in form of parliament;" yet itrehearses the supplication (recorded by the chronicle above) anddeclares, "that king Eduard was and stood married and troth plightto one dame Eleanor Butler, daughter to the earl of Shrewsbury, withwhom the said king Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony, longbefore he made his pretended marriage with Elizabeth Grey. " CouldSir Thomas More be ignorant of this fact? or, if ignorant, where ishis competence as an historian? And how egregiously absurd is hisromance of Richard's assuming the crown inconsequence of Dr. Shaw'ssermon and Buckingham's harangue, to neither of which he pretendsthe people assented! Dr. Shaw no doubt tapped the matter to thepeople; for Fabian asserts that he durst never shew his faceafterwards; and as Henry the Seventh succeeded so soon, and as theslanders against Richard increased, that might happen; but it isevident that the nobility were disposed to call the validity of thequeen's marriage in question, and that Richard was solemnly invitedby the three estates to accept the regal dignity; and that isfarther confirmed by the Chronicle of Croyland, which says, thatRichard having brought together a great force from the north, fromWales, and other parts, did on the twenty-sixth of June claim thecrown, "seque eodem die apud magnam aulam Westmonasterii incathedram marmoream ibi intrusit;" but the supplicationafore-mentioned had first been presented to him. This will no doubtbe called violence and a force laid on the three estates; and yetthat 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 allenemies, he sent for five thousand men out of the north against hiscoronation, which came up evil apparelled and worse harnessed, inrusty harnesse, neither defensable nor scoured to the sale, whichmustured in Finsbury field, to the great disdain of all lookers on. "These rusty companions, despised by the citizens, were not likely tointimidate a warlike nobility; and had force been used to extorttheir assent, Sir Thomas would have been the first to have told usso. But he suppressed an election that appears to have beenvoluntary, and invented a scene, in which, by his own account, Richard met with nothing but backwardness and silence, that amountedto a refusal. The probability therefore remains, that the nobilitymet Richard's claim at least half-way, from their hatred andjealousy of the queen's family, and many of them from the convictionof Edward's pre-contract. Many might concur from provocation at theattempts that had been made to disturb the due course of law, andsome from apprehension of a minority. This last will appear highlyprobable from three striking circumstances that I shall mentionhereafter. The great regularity with which the coronation wasprepared and conducted, and the extraordinary concourse of thenobility at it, have not all the air of an unwelcome revolution, accomplished merely by violence. On the contrary, it bore greatresemblance to a much later event, which, being the last of thekind, we term The Revolution. The three estates of nobility, clergy, and people, which called Richard to the crown, and whose act wasconfirmed by the subsequent parliament, trod the same steps as theconvention did which elected the prince of Orange; both settingaside an illegal pretender, the legitimacy of whose birth was calledin question. And though the partizans of the Stuarts may exult at mycomparing king William to Richard the Third, it wil be no matter oftriumph, since it appears that Richard's cause was as good as KingWilliam's, and that in both instances it was a free election. Theart used by Sir Thomas More (when he could not deny a pre-contract)in endeavouring to shift that objection on Elizabeth Lucy, a marriedwoman, contrary to the specific words of the act of parliament, betrays the badness of the Lancastrian cause, which would make usdoubt or wonder at the consent of the nobility in giving way to theact for bastardizing the children of Edward the Fourth. Butreinstate the claim of the lady Butler, which probably was wellknown, and conceive the interest that her great relations must havemade to set aside the queen's marriage, nothing appears more naturalthan Richard's succession. His usurpation vanishes, and in a fewpages more, I shall shew that his consequential cruelty vanishestoo, or at most is very, problematic: but first I must revert tosome intervening circumstances. 

In this whole story nothing is less known to us than the grounds onwhich lord Hastings was put to death. He had lived in open enmitywith the queen and her family, and had been but newly reconciled toher son the marquis Dorset; yet Sir Thomas owns that lord Hastingswas one of the first to abet Richard's proceedings against her, andconcurred in all the protector's measures. We are amazed thereforeto find this lord the first sacrifice under the new government. SirThomas More supposes (and he could only suppose; for whateverarchbishop Morton might tell him of the plots of Henry of Richmond, Morton was certainly not entrusted with the secrets of Richard) SirThomas, I say, supposes, that Hastings either withstood thedeposition of Edward the Fifth, or was accused of such a design byCatesby, who was deeply in his confidence; and he owns that theprotector undoubtedly loved him well, and loth he was to have himlost. What then is the presumption? Is it not, that Hastings reallywas plotting to defeat the new settlement contrary to the intentionof the three estates? And who can tell whether the suddenness of theexecution was not the effect of necessity? The gates of the Towerwere shut during that rapid scene; the protector and his adherentsappeared in the first rusty armour that was at hand: but thiscircumstance is alledged against them, as an incident contrived togain belief, as if they had been in danger of their lives. Theargument is gratis dictum: and as Richard loved Hastings and hadused his ministry, the probability lies on the other side: and it ismore reasonable to believe that Richard acted in self-defence, thanthat he exercised a wanton, unnecessary, and disgusting cruelty. Thecollateral circumstances introduced by More do but weaken(17) hisaccount, and take from its probability. I do not mean the sillyrecapitulation of silly omens which forewarned Hastings of his fate, and as omens generally do, to no manner of purpose; but I speak ofthe idle accusations put into the mouth of Richard, such as hisbaring his withered arm, and imputing it to sorcery, and to hisblending the queen and Jane Shore in the same plot. Cruel or not, Richard was no fool; and therefore it is highly improbable that heshould lay the withering of his arm on recent witchcraft, if it wastrue, as Sir Thomas More pretends, that it never had been otherwise--but of the blemishes and deformity of his person, I shall haveoccasion to speak hereafter. For the other accusation of a leaguebetween Elizabeth and Jane Shore, Sir Thomas More ridicules ithimself, and treats it as highly unlikely. But being unlikely, wasit not more natural for him to think, that it never was urged byRichard? And though Sir Thomas again draws aside our attention bythe penance of Jane, which she certainly underwent, it is no kind ofproof that the protector accused the queen of having plotted(18) with mistress Shore. What relates to that unhappy fair one I shallexamine at the end of this work. 

Except the proclamation which, Sir Thomas says, appeared tohave been prepared before hand. The death of Hastings, I allow, isthe fact of which we are most sure, without knowing the immediatemotives: we must conclude it was determined on his opposingRichard's claim: farther we do not know, nor whether that oppositionwas made in a legal or hostile manner. It is impossible to believethat, an hour before his death, he should have exulted in the deathsof their common enemies, and vaunted, as Sir Thomas More asserts, his connection with Richard, if he was then actually at variancewith him; nor that Richard should, without provocation, havemassacred so excellent an accomplice. This story, therefore, must beleft in the dark, as we find it. 

(18) So far from it, that as Mr. Hume remarks, there is in Rymer'sFoedera a proclamation of Richard, in which he accuses, not the lordHastings, but the marquis Dorset, of connexion with Jane Shore. Mr. Hume thinks so authentic a paper not sufficient to overbalance thecredit due to Sir Thomas More. What little credit was due to himappears from the course of this work in various and indubitableinstances. The proclamation against the lord Dorset and Jane Shoreis not dated till the 23rd. Of October following. Is it crediblethat Richard would have made use of this woman's name again, if hehad employed it heretofore to blacken Hastings? It is not probablethat, immediately on the death of the king, she had been taken intokeeping by lord Hastings; but near seven months had elapsed betweenthat death and her connection with the marquis. 

The very day on which Hastings was executed, were beheaded earlRivers, Lord Richard Grey, Vaughan, and Haute. These executions areindubitable; were consonant to the manners and violence of the age;and perhaps justifiable by that wicked code, state necessity. I havenever pretended to deny them, because I find them fullyauthenticated. I have in another(19) place done justice to thevirtues and excellent qualities of earl Rivers: let therefore myimpartiality be believed, when I reject other facts, for which I candiscover no good authority. I can have no interest in Richard'sguilt or innocence; but as Henry the Seventh was so much interestedto represent him as guilty, I cannot help imputing to the greaterusurper, and to the worse tyrant of the two, all that appears to meto 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 inthe throne by the concurrent voice of the three estates, "Heopenly, " says Sir Thomas More, "took upon him to be king theninth(20) day of June, and' the morrow after was proclaimed, ridingto Westminster with great state; and calling the judges before him, straightly commanded them to execute the laws without favor ordelay, with many good exhortations, of the which he followed notone. " This is an invidious and false accusation. Richard, in hisregal capacity, was an excellent king, and for the short time of hisreign enacted many wise and wholesome laws. I doubt even whether oneof the best proofs of his usurpation was not the goodness of hisgovernment, according to a common remark, that princes of doubtfultitles make the best masters, as it is more necessary for them toconciliate the favour of the people: the natural corollary fromwhich observation need not be drawn. Certain it is that in manyparts of the kingdom not poisoned by faction, he was much beloved;and even after his death the northern counties gave open testimonyof their affection to his memory. 

(20) Though I have copied our historian, as the rest have copiedhim, in this date I must desire the reader to take notice, that thisvery date is another of Sir T. More's errors; for in the public actsis a deed of Edward the Fifth, dated June 17th. 

On the 6th of July Richard was crowned, and soon after set out on aprogress to York, on his way visiting Gloucester, the seat of hisformer duchy. And now it is that I must call up the attention of thereader, the capital and bloody scene of Richard's life being datedfrom this progress. The narrative teems with improbabilities andnotorious falshoods, and is flatly contradicted by so manyunquestionable facts, that if we have no other reason to believe themurder of Edward the Fifth and his brother, than the accounttransmitted to us, we shall very much doubt whether they ever weremurdered at all. I will state the account, examine it, and produceevidence to confute it, and then the reader will form his ownjudgment on the matter of fact. 

Richard before he left London, had taken no measures to accomplishthe assassination; but on the road "his mind misgave him, (21) thatwhile his nephews lived, he should not possess the crown withsecurity. Upon this reflection he dispatched one Richard Greene toSir Robert Brakenbury, lieutenant of the Tower, with a letter andcredence also, that the same Sir Robert in any wise should put thetwo children to death. This John Greene did his errand toBrakenbury, kneeling before our Lady in the Tower, who plainlyanswered '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 nighthe said unto a secret page of his, 'Ah! whom shall a man trust? Theythat I have brought up myself, they that I thought would have mostsurely served me, even those faile me, and at my commandment will donothing for me. ' 'Sir, ' quoth the page 'there lieth one in the paletchamber without, that I dare say will doe your grace pleasure; thething were right hard that he would refuse;' meaning this by JamesTirrel, whom, " says Sir Thomas a few pages afterwards, "as men say, he there made a knight. The man" continues More, "had an highheart, and sore longed upwards, not rising yet so fast as he hadhoped, being hindered and kept under by Sir Richard Ratcliffe andSir William Catesby, who by secret drifts kept him out of all secrettrust. " To be short, Tirrel voluntarily accepted the commission, received warrant to authorise Brakenbury to deliver to him the keysof the Tower for one night; and having selected two other villainscalled Miles Forest and John Dighton, the two latter smothered theinnocent princes in their beds, and then called Tirrel to be witnessof the execution. 

(21) Sir T. More. 

It is difficult to croud more improbabilities and lies together thanare comprehended in this short narrative. Who can believe if Richardmeditated the murder, that he took no care to sift Brakenbury beforehe left London? Who can believe that he would trust so atrocious acommission to a letter? And who can imagine, that on Brakenbury's(22)non-compliance Richard would have ordered him to cede the governmentof the Tower to Tirrel for one night only, the purpose of which hadbeen so plainly pointed out by the preceding message? And had suchweak step been taken, could the murder itself have remained aproblem? And yet Sir Thomas More himself is forced to confess at theoutset of this very narration, "that the deaths and final fortunesof the two young princes have nevertheless so far come in question, that some remained long in doubt, whether they were in his daysdestroyed(23) or no. " Very memorable words, and sufficient tobalance More's own testimony with the most sanguine believers. Headds, "these doubts not only arose from the uncertainty men were in, whether Perkin Warbeck was the true duke of York, but for that alsoall things were so covertly demeaned, that there was nothing soplain and openly proved, but that yet men had it ever inwardlysuspect. " Sir Thomas goes on to affirm, "that he does not relatethe story after every way that he had heard, but after that way thathe had heard it by such men and such meanes as he thought it hardbut it should be true. " This affirmation rests on the credibility ofcertain reporters, we do not know whom, but who we shall find wereno credible reporters at all: for to proceed to the confutation. James Tirrel, a man in no secret trust with the king, and kept downby Catesby and Ratcliffe, is recommended as a proper person by anameless page. In the first place Richard was crowned at York (afterthis transaction) September 8th. Edward the Fourth had not beendead four months, and Richard in possession of any power not abovetwo months, and those very bustling and active: Tirrel must havebeen impatient indeed, if the page had had time to observe hisdiscontent at the superior confidence of Ratcliffe and Catesby. Ithappens unluckily too, that great part of the time Ratcliffe wasabsent, Sir Thomas More himself telling us that Sir RichardRatcliffe had the custody of the prisoners at Pontefract, andpresided at their execution there. But a much more unluckycircumstance is, that James Tirrel, said to be knighted for thishorrid service, was not only a knight before, but a great or veryconsiderable officer of the crown; and in that situation had walkedat Richard's preceding coronation. Should I be told that Sir ThomasMoore did not mean to confine the ill offices done to Tirrel byRatcliffe and Catesby solely to the time of Richard's protectorateand regal power, but being all three attached to him when duke ofGloucester, the other two might have lessened Tirrel's credit withthe duke even in the preceding reign; then I answer, that Richard'sappointing him master of the horse on his accession had removedthose disgusts, and left the page no room to represent him as readythrough ambition and despondency to lend his ministry toassassination. Nor indeed was the master, of the horse likely to besent 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 appointedConstable of the Tower July 7th; that he surrendered his patentMarch 9th of the following year, and had one more ample granted tohim. If it is supposed that Richard renewed this patent to SirRobert Brakenbury, to prevent his disclosing what he knew of amurder, in which he had refused to be concerned, I then ask if it isprobable that a man too virtuous or too cautious to embark in anassassination, and of whom the supposed tyrant stood in awe, wouldhave 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 hisadherents betrayed him?

(23) This is confirmed by Lord Bacon: "Neither wanted there even atthat time secret rumours and whisperings (which afterwardsgathered strength, and turned to great trouble) that the two youngsons of king Edward the Fourth, or one of them (which were said tobe destroyed in the Tower) were not indeed murthered, but conveyedsecretly away, and were yet living. " Reign of Henry the Seventh, p. 4. Again, p. 19. "And all this time it was still whispered every wherethat 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 atRichard's coronation cannot be contested. A most curious, invaluable, and authentic monument has lately been discovered, thecoronation-roll of Richard the Third. Two several deliveries ofparcels of stuff are there expressly entered, as made to "Sir JamesTirrel, knyght, maister of the hors of our sayd soverayn lorde thekynge. " What now becomes of Sir Thomas More's informers, and oftheir 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 ithad been true; at least to hope the people would think so. On theappearance of Perkin Warbeck, who gave himself out for the second ofthe brothers, who was believed so by most people, and at leastfeared by the king to be so, he bestirred himself to prove that boththe princes had been murdered by his predecessor. There had been butthree actors, besides Richard who had commanded the execution, andwas dead. These were Sir James Tirrel, Dighton, and Forrest; andthese were all the persons whose depositions Henry pretended toproduce; at least of two of them, for Forrest it seems had rottedpiece-meal away; a kind of death unknown at present to the college. But there were some others, of whom no notice was taken; as thenameless page, Greene, one Black Will or Will Slaughter who guardedthe princes, the friar who buried them, and Sir Robert Brakenbury, who could not be quite ignorant of what had happened: the latter waskilled at Bosworth, and the friar was dead too. But why was noenquiry made after Greene and the page? Still this silence was notso impudent as the pretended confession of Dighton and Sir JamesTyrrel. The former certainly did avow the fact, and was suffered togo unpunished wherever he pleased--undoubtedly that he might spreadthe tale. And observe these remarkable words of lord Bacon, "JohnDighton, who it seemeth spake best the king, was forewith set atliberty. " In truth, every step of this pretended discovery, as itstands in lord Bacon, warns us to give no heed to it. Dighton andTirrel agreed both in a tale, as the king gave out. Their confessiontherefore was not publickly made, and as Sir James Tirrel wassuffered to live;(24) but was shut up in the Tower, and put to deathafterwards for we know not what reason. What can we believe, butthat Dighton was some low mercenary wretch hired to assume the guiltof a crime he had not committed, and that Sir James Tirrel neverdid, never would confess what he had not done; and was therefore putout of the way on a fictitious imputation? It must be observed too, that no inquiry was made into the murder on the accession of Henrythe Seventh, the natural time for it, when the passions of men wereheated, and when the duke of Norfolk, lord Lovel, Catesby, Ratcliffe, and the real abettors or accomplices of Richard, wereattainted and executed. No mention of such a murder (25)was made inthe very act of parliament that attainted Richard himself, and whichwould have been the most heinous aggravation of his crimes. And noprosecution of the supposed assassins was even thought of tilleleven years afterwards, on the appearance of Perkin Warbeck. Tirrelis not named in the act of attainder to which I have had recourse;and such omissions cannot but induce us to surmise that Henry hadnever been certain of the deaths of the princes, nor ever interestedhimself to prove that both were dead, till he had great reason tobelieve that one of them was alive. Let me add, that if theconfessions of Dighton and Tirrel were true, Sir Thomas More had nooccasion to recur to the information of his unknown credibleinformers. If those confessions were not true, his informers werenot credible. 

(24) It appears by Hall, that Sir James Tirrel had even enjoyed thefavor of Henry; for Tirrel is named as captain of Guards in a listof valiant officers that were sent by Henry, in his fifth year, onan expedition into Flanders. Does this look as if Tirrel was so muchas suspected of the murder. And who can believe his pretendedconfession afterwards? Sir James was not executed till Henry'sseventeenth year, on suspicion of treason, which suspicion arose onthe flight of the earl of Suffolk. Vide Hall's Chronicle, fol. 18 &55. 

(25) There is a heap of general accusations alledged to have beencommitted by Richard against Henry, in particular of his having shedinfant's blood. Was this sufficient specification of the murder of aking? Is it not rather a base way of insinuating a slander, of whichno proof could be given? Was not it consonant to all Henry's policyof involving every thing in obscure and general terms?

Having thus disproved the account of the murder, let us now examinewhether we can be sure that the murder was committed. 

Of all men it was most incumbent on cardinal Bourchier, archbishopof Canterbury, to ascertain the fact. To him had the queen entrustedher younger son, and the prelate had pledged himself for hissecurity--unless every step of this history is involved infalshood. Yet what was the behaviour of the archbishop? He appearsnot to have made the least inquiry into the reports of the murder ofboth children; nay, not even after Richard's death: on the contrary, Bourchier was the very man who placed the crown on the head of thelatter;(26) and yet not one historian censures this conduct. Threatsand fear could not have dictated this shameless negligence. Everybody knows what was the authority of priests in that age; anarchbishop was sacred, a cardinal inviolable. As Bourchier survivedRichard, was it not incumbant on him to show, that the duke of Yorkhad been assassinated in spite of all his endeavours to save him?What can be argued from this inactivity of Bourchier, (27) but thathe did not believe the children were murdered. 

(26) As cardinal Bourchier set the crown on Richard's head atWestminster, so did archbishop Rotheram at York. These prelateseither did not believe Richard had murdered his nephews, or wereshamefully complaisant themselves. Yet their characters standunimpeached in history. Could Richard be guilty, and the archbishopsbe blameless? Could both be ignorant what was become of the youngprinces, when both had negotiated with the queen dowager? As neitheris accused of being the creature of Richard, it is probable thatneither of them believed he had taken off his nephews. In theFoedera there is a pardon passed to the archbishop, which at firstmade me suspect that he had taken some part in behalf of the royalchildren, as he is pardoned for all murders, treasons, concealments, misprisons, riots, routs, &c. But this pardon is not only datedDec. 13, some months after he had crowned Richard; but, on lookingfarther, I find such pardons frequently granted to the most eminentof the clergy. In the next reign Walter, archbishop of Dublin, ispardoned all murders, rapes, treasons, felonies, misprisons, riots, routs, extortions, &c. 

(27) Lord Bacon tells us, that "on Simon's and Jude's even, theking (Henry the Seventh) dined with Thomas Bourchier, archbishop ofCanterburie, and cardinal: and from Lambeth went by land over thebridge to the Tower. " Has not this the appearance of some curiosityin the king on the subject of the princes, of whose fate he wasuncertain?

Richard's conduct in a parallel case is a strong presumption thatthis barbarity was falsely laid to his charge. Edward earl ofWarwick, his nephew, and son of the duke of Clarence, was in hispower too, and no indifferent rival, if king Edward's children werebastards. Clarence had been attainted; but so had almost everyprince who had aspired to the crown after Richard the Second. Richard duke of York, the father of Edward the Fourth and Richardthe Third, was son of Richard earl of Cambridge, beheaded fortreason; yet that duke of York held his father's attainder no bar tohis succession. Yet how did Richard the Third treat his nephew andcompetitor, the young Warwick? John Rous, a zealous Lancastrian andcontemporary shall inform us: and will at the same time tell us animportant anecdote, maliciously suppressed or ignorantly omitted byall our historians. Richard actually proclaimed him heir to thecrown after the death of his own son, and ordered him to be servednext to himself and the queen, though he afterwards set him aside, and confined him to the castle of Sheriff-Hutton. (28) The very dayafter the battle of Bosworth, the usurper Richmond was so far frombeing led aside from attention to his interest by the glare of hisnew-acquired crown, that he sent for the earl of Warwick fromSheriff-Hutton and committed him to the Tower, from whence he neverstirred more, falling a sacrifice to the inhuman jealousy of Henry, as his sister, the venerable countess of Salisbury, did afterwardsto that of Henri the Eight. Richard, on the contrary, was veryaffectionate to his family: instances appear in his treatment of theearls of Warwick and Lincoln. The lady Ann Poole, sister of thelatter, Richard had agreed to marry to the prince of Scotland. 

(28) P. 218. Rous is the more to be credited for this fact, as hesaw the earl of Warwick in company with Richard at Warwick the yearbefore on the progress to York, which shows that the king treatedhis nephew with kindness, and did not confine him till the plots ofhis enemies thickening, Richard found it necessary to secure such ashad any pretensions to the crown. This will account for hispreferring the earl of Lincoln, who, being his sister's son, couldhave 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 noproof exists of the murder. But what suspicious words are those ofSir 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 notdestroyed in his days, in whose days were they murdered? Who willtell 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'snature or character to prevent our surmizes going farther. 

And here let me lament that two of the greatest men in our annalshave prostituted their admirable pens, the one to blacken a greatprince, the other to varnish a pitiful tyrant. I mean the two (29)chancellors, Sir Thomas More and lord Bacon. The most senselessstories of the mob are converted to history by the former; thelatter is still more culpable; he has held up to the admiration ofposterity, and what is worse, to the imitation of succeedingprinces, a man whose nearest approach to wisdom was mean cunning;and has raised into a legislator, a sanguinary, sordid, andtrembling usurper. Henry was a tyrannic husband, and ungratefulmaster; he cheated as well as oppressed his subjects, (30) barteredthe honour of the nation for foreign gold, and cut off every branchof the royal family, to ensure possession to his no title. Had hehad any title, he could claim it but from his mother, and her he setaside. But of all titles he preferred that of conquest, which, ifallowable in a foreign prince, can never be valid in a native, butought to make him the execration of his countrymen. 

(29) It is unfortunate, that another great chancellor should havewritten a history with the same propensity to misrepresentation, Imean lord Clarendon. It is hoped no more chancellors will write ourstory, till they can divest themselves of that habit of theirprofession, 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 makehis returne in money. " Lord Bacon's reign of Henry the Seventh, p. 99. 

There is nothing strained in the supposition of Richard's sparinghis nephew. At least it is certain now, that though he dispossessed, he undoubtedly treated him at first with indulgence, attention, andrespect; and though the proof I am going to give must have mortifiedthe friends of the dethroned young prince, yet it shewed greataversion to cruelty, and was an indication that Richard ratherassumed the crown for a season, than as meaning to detain it alwaysfrom his brother's posterity. It is well known that in the Saxontimes nothingwas more common in cases of minority than, for theuncle to be preferred to the nephew; and though bastardizing hisbrother's children was, on this supposition, double dealing; yet Ihave no doubt but Richard went so far as to insinuate an intentionof restoring the crown when young Edward should be of full age. Ihave three strong proofs of this hypothesis. In the first place SirThomas More reports that the duke of Buckingham in his conversationswith Morton, after his defection from Richard, told the bishop thatthe protector's first proposal had been to take the crown, tillEdward his nephew should attain the age of twenty four years. Mortonwas certainly competent evidences of these discourses, and thereforea credible one; and the idea is confirmed by the two other proofs Ialluded to; the second of which was, that Richard's son did not walkat his father's coronation. Sir Thomas More indeed says that Richardcreated him prince of Wales on assuming the crown; but this is oneof Sir Thomas's misrepresentations, and is contradicted by fact, forRichard did not create his son prince of Wales till he arrived atYork; a circumstance that might lead the people to believe that inthe interval of the two coronations, the latter of which wascelebrated 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. Iconceive all the astonishment of my readers at this assertion, andyet it is founded on strongly presumptive evidence. In thecoronation roll itself(31) is this amazing entry; "To Lord Edward, son of late king Edward the Fourth, for his apparel and array, thatis to say, a short gowne made of two yards and three-quarters ofcrymsy clothe of gold, lyned with two yards of blac velvet, a longgowne made of vi yards of crymsyn cloth of gold lynned with sixyards of green damask, a shorte gowne made of two yards of purpellvelvett lyned with two yards of green damask, a doublet and astomacher made of two yards of black satin, &c. Besides two footcloths, a bonnet of purple velvet, nine horse harness, and ninesaddle houses (housings) of blue velvet, gilt spurs, with many otherrich articles, and magnificent apparel for his henchmen or pages. "

(31) This singular curiosity was first mentioned to me by the lordbishop of Carlisle. Mr. Astle lent me an extract of it, with otherusual assistances; and Mr. Chamberlain of the great wardrobe obligedme with the perusal of the original; favours which I take thisopportunity of gratefully acknowledging. 

Let no body tell me that these robes, this magnificence, thesetrappings for a cavalcade, were for the use of a prisoner. Marvellous as the fact is, there can no longer be any doubt but thedeposed young king walked, or it was intended should walk, at hisuncle's coronation. This precious monument, a terrible reproach toSir Thomas More and his copyists, who have been silent on so publican event, exists in the great wardrobe; and is in the highestpreservation; it is written on vellum, and is bound with thecoronation rolls of Henry the Seventh and Eighth. These are writtenon paper, and are in worse condition; but that of king Richard isuncommonly fair, accurate, and ample. It is the account of PeterCourteys keeper of the great wardrobe, and dates from the day ofking Edward the Fourth his death, to the feast of the purificationin the February of the following year. Peter Courteys specifies whatstuff he found in the wardrobe, what contracts he made for theensuing coronation, and the deliveries in consequence. The whole iscouched in the most minute and regular manner, and is preferable toa thousand vague and interested histories. The concourse of nobilityat that ceremony was extraordinarily great: there were present nofewer than three duchesses of Norfolk. Has this the air of a forcedand precipitate election? Or does it not indicate a voluntaryconcurrence of the nobility? No mention being made in the roll ofthe young duke of York, no robes being ordered for him, it looksextremely as if he was not in Richard's custody; and strengthens theprobability that will appear hereafter, of his having been conveyedaway. 

There is another article, rather curious than decisive of anypoint of history. One entry is thus; "To the lady Brygitt, oon ofthe daughters of K. Edward ivth, being seeke (sick) in the saidwardrobe for to have for her use two long pillows of fustian stuffedwith downe, and two pillow beres of Holland cloth. " The onlyconjecture that can be formed from this passage is, that the ladyBridget, being lodged in the great wardrobe, was not then insanctuary. 

Can it be doubted now but that Richard meant to have it thought thathis assumption of the crown was only temporary? But when heproceeded to bastardize his nephew by act of parliament, then itbecame necessary to set him entirely aside: stronger proofs of thehastardy might have come out; and it is reasonable to infer this, for on the death of his own son, when Richard had no longer anyreason of family to bar his brother Edward's children, instead ofagain calling them to the succession, as he at first projected orgave 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 theSeventh, and his younger brother the earl of Suffolk, who had fledto Flanders, was extorted from the archduke Philip, who by contrarywinds had been driven into England. Henry took a solemn oath not toput him to death; but copying David rather than Solomon he, on hisdeath bed, recommended it to his son Henry the Eighth to executeSuffolk; and Henry the Eighth was too pions not to obey soscriptural an injunction. 

Strange as the fact was of Edward the Fifth walking at hissuccessor's coronation, I have found an event exactly parallel whichhappened some years before. It is well known that the famous Joan ofNaples was dethroned and murdered by the man she had chosen for herheir, Charles Durazzo. Ingratitude and cruelty were thecharacteristics of that wretch. He had been brought up and formed byhis uncle Louis king of Hungary, who left only two daughters. Marythe eldest succeeded and was declared king; for that warlike nation, who regarded the sex of a word, more than of a person, would notsuffer themselves to be governed by the term queen. Durazzo quittedNaples in pursuit of new ingratitude; dethroned king Mary, andobliged her to walk at his coronation; an insult she and her mothersoon revenged by having him assassinated. 

I do not doubt but the wickedness of Durazzo will be thought aproper parallel to Richard's. But parallels prove nothing: and a manmust be a very poor reasoner who thinks he has an advantage over me, because I dare produce a circumstance that resembles my subject inthe case to which it is applied, and leaves my argument just asstrong as it was before in every other point. 

They who the most firmly believe the murder of the two princes, andfrom what I have said it is plain that they believe it more stronglythan the age did in which it was pretended to be committed; urge thedisappearance(32) of the princes as a proof of the murder, but thatargument vanishes entirely, at least with regard to one of them, ifPerkin Warbeck was the true duke of York, as I shall show that it isgreatly probable he was. 

(32) Polidore Virgil says, "In vulgas fama valuit filios EdwardiRegis aliquo terrarum partem migrasse, atque ita superstates esse. "And the prior of Croyland, not his continuator, whom I shall quotein the next note but one, and who was still better informed, "Vulgatum est Regis Edwardi pueros concessisse in fata, sed quogenere intentus ignoratur. "

With regard to the elder, his disappearance is no kind of proof thathe was murdered: he might die in the Tower. The queen pleaded to thearchbishop of York that both princes were weak and unhealthy. I haveinsinuated that it is not impossible but Henry the Seventh mightfind him alive in the Tower. (33) I mention that as a barepossibility--but we may be very sure that if he did find Edwardalive there, he would not have notified his existence, to acquitRichard and hazard his own crown. The circumstances of the murderwere evidently false, and invented by Henry to discredit Perkin; andthe time of the murder is absolutely a fiction, for it appears bythe roll of parliament which bastardized Edward the Fifth, that hewas then alive, which was seven months after the time assigned byMore for his murder, if Richard spared him seven months, what couldsuggest a reason for his murder afterwards? To take him off then wasstrengthening the plan of the earl of Richmond, who aimed at thecrown by marrying Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Edward the Fourth. As the house of York never rose again, as the reverse of Richard'sfortune deprived him of any friend, and as no contemporaries butFabian and the author of the Chronicle have written a word on thatperiod, and they, too slightly to inform us, it is impossible toknow whether Richard ever took any steps to refute the calumny. Butwe do know that Fabian only mentions the deaths of the princes asreports, which is proof that Richard never declared their deaths, orthe death of either, as he would probably have done if he hadremoved them for his own security. The confessions of Sir ThomasMore and lord Bacon that many doubted of the murder, amount to aviolent presumption that they were not murdered: and to a proof thattheir deaths were never declared. No man has ever doubted thatEdward the Second, Richard the Second, and Henry the Sixth perishedat the times that were given out. Nor Henry the Fourth, nor Edwardthe Fourth thought it would much help their titles to leave itdoubtful whether their competitors existed or not. Observe too, thatthe chronicle of Croyland, after relating Richard's secondcoronation at York, says, it was advised by some in the sanctuary atWestminster to convey abroad some of king Edward's daughters, "ut siquid dictis masculis humanitus in Turri contingerat, nihilominus persalvandas personas filiarum, regnum aliquando ad veros redirethaeredes. " He says not a word of the princes being murdered, onlyurges the fears of their friends that it might happen. This was aliving witness, very bitter against Richard, who still never accuseshim of destroying his nephews, and who speaks of them as living, after the time in which Sir Thomas More, who was not then five yearsold, declared they were dead. Thus the parliament roll and thechronicle agree, and both contradict More. "Interim & dum haecagerentur (the coronation at York) remanserunt duo predicti Edwardiregis 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 inKennett's collection says, "this author would have done much towardsthe credit he drives at in his history, to have specified the placeof the roll and the words thereof, whence such arguments might begathered: for, " adds he, "all histories relate the murders to becommitted before this time. " I have shown that all histories arereduced to one history, Sir Thomas Moore's; for the rest copy himverbatim; 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 beingalive when the act was passed. "Also it appeareth that all the issueof the said king Edward be bastards and unable to inherit or claimany thing by inheritance, by the law and custom of England. " HadEdward the Fifth been dead, would not the act indubitably have runthus, were and be bastards. No, says the act, all the issue arebastards. Who were rendered uncapable to inherit but Edward theFifth, his brother and sisters? Would not the act have specified thedaughters of Edward the Fourth if the sons had been dead? It was tobastardise the brothers, that the act was calculated and passed; andas the words all the issue comprehend male and females, it is clearthat both were intended to be bastardized. I must however, impartially observe that Philip de Comines says, Richard havingmurdered his nephews, degraded their two sisters in full parliament. I will not dwell on his mistake of mentioning two sisters instead offive; but it must be remarked, that neither brothers or sistersbeing specified in the act, but under the general term of kingEdward's issue, it would naturally strike those who were uncertainwhat was become of the sons, that this act was levelled against thedaughters. And as Comines did not write till some years after theevent, he could not help falling into that mistake. For my own partI know not how to believe that Richard would have passed that act, if he had murdered the two princes. It was recalling a shockingcrime, and to little purpose; for as no< woman had at that time eversat on the English throne in her own right, Richard had littlereason to apprehend the claim of his nieces. 

As Richard gained the crown by the illegitimacy of his nephews, hiscausing them to be murdered, would not only have shown that he didnot trust to that plea, but would have transferred their claim totheir sisters. And I must not be told that his intended marriagewith his neice is an answer to my argument; for were that imputationtrue, which is very problematic, it had nothing to do with themurder of her brothers. And here the comparison and irrefragabilityof dates puts this matter out of all doubt. It was not till the veryclose of his reign that Richard is even supposed to have thought ofmarrying his neice. The deaths of his nephews are dated in July orAugust 1483. His own son did not die till April 1484, nor his queentill March 1485. He certainly therefore did not mean to strengthenhis 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 ofLincoln his successor, it is plain that he still trusted to theillegitimacy of his brother's children: and in no case possibly tobe put, can it be thought that he wished to give strength to theclaim of the princess Elizabeth. 

Let us now examine the accusation of his intending to marry thatneice: one of the consequences of which intention is a vaguesuspicion of poisoning his wife. Buck says that the queen was in alanguishing condition, and that the physicians declared she couldnot hold out till April; and he affirms having seen in the earl ofArundel's library a letter written in passionate strains of love forher uncle by Elizabeth to the duke of Norfolk, in which sheexpressed doubts that the month of April would never arrive. What isthere in this account that looks like poison; Does it not prove thatRichard would not hasten the death of his queen? The tales ofpoisoning for a time certain are now exploded; nor is it in natureto believe that the princess could be impatient to marry him, if sheknew or thought he had murdered her brothers. Historians tell usthat the queen took much to heart the death of her son, and nevergot over it. Had Richard been eager to ned his niece, and had hischaracter been as impetuously wicked as it is represented, he wouldnot have let the forward princess wait for the slow decay of herrival: nor did he think of it till nine months after the death ofhis son; which shows it was only to prevent Richmond's marrying her. His declaring his nephew his successor, implies at the same time nothought of getting rid of the queen, though he did not expect moreissue from her: and little as Buck's authority is regarded, acontemporary writer confirms the probability of this story. TheChronicle of Croyland says, that at the Christmas festival, (34) menwere scandalized at seeing the queen and the lady Elizabeth dressedin robes similar and equally royal. I should suppose that Richardlearning the projected marriage of Elizabeth and the earl ofRichmond, amused the young princess with the hopes of making her hisqueen; and that Richard feared that alliance, is plain from hissending her to the castle of Sheriff-Hutton on the landing ofRichmond. 

(34) "Per haec festa natalia choreis aut tripudiis, variisquemutatoriis vestium Annae reginae atque dominae Elizabeth, primogenitae defuncti regis, eisdem colore & forma distributisnimis intentum est: dictumque a multis est, ipsum regem autexpectata morte reginae aut per divortium, matrimonio cum dictaElizabeth contrahendo mentem omnibus modis applicare, " p. 572. IfRichard projected this match at Christmas, he was not likely to letthese intentions be perceived so early, nor to wait till March, ifhe did not know that the queen was incurably ill. The Chroniclesays, she died of a languishing distemper. Did that look likepoison? It is scarce necessary to say that a dispensation from thepope was in that age held so clear a solution of all obstacles tothe marriage of near relations, and was so easily to be obtained orpurchased by a great prince, that Richard would not have beenthought by his contemporaries to have incurred any guilt, even if hehad proposed to wed his neice, which however is far from being clearto have been his intention. 

The behaviour of the queen dowager must also be noticed. She wasstripped by her son-in-law Henry of all her possessions, andconfined to a monastery, for delivering up her daughters to Richard. Historians too are lavish in their censures on her for consenting tobestow her daughter on the murderer of her sons and brother. But ifthe murder of her sons, is, as we have seen, most uncertain, thissolemn charge falls to the ground: and for the deaths of herbrothers and lord Richard Grey, one of her elder sons, it hasalready appeared that she imputed them to Hastings. It is much morelikely that Richard convinced her he had not murdered her sons, thanthat she delivered up her daughters to him believing it. The rigourexercised on her by Henry the Seventh on her countenancing LambertSimnel, evidently set up to try the temper of the nation in favourof some prince of the house of York, is a violent presumptionthat the queen dowager believed her second son living: andnotwithstanding all the endeavours of Henry to discredit PerkinWarbeck, it will remain highly probable that many more who ought toknow the truth, believed so likewise; and that fact I shall examinenext. 

It was in the second year of Henry the Seventh that Lambert Simnelappeared. This youth first personated Richard duke of York, thenEdward earl of Warwick; and was undoubtedly an impostor. Lord Baconowns that it was whispered every-where, that at least one of thechildren of Edward the Fourth was living. Such whispers prove twothings; one, that the murder was very uncertain: the second, that itwould have been very dangerous to disprove the murder; Henry beingat least as much interested as Richard had been to have the childrendead. Richard had set them aside as bastards, and thence had a titleto the crown; but Henry was himself the issue of a bastard line, andhad no title at all. Faction had set him on the throne, and hismatch with the supposed heiress of York induced the nation to winkat the defect in his own blood. The children of Clarence and of theduchess 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, LambertSimnel appeared before Henry had had time to disgust the nation, ashe did afterwards, by his tyranny, cruelty, and exactions. But whatwas most remarkable, the queen dowager tampered in this plot. Is itto be believed, that mere turbulence and a restless spirit could ina year's time influence that woman to throw the nation again into acivil war, and attempt to dethrone her own daughter? And in favourof whom? Of the issue of Clarence, whom she had contributed to haveput to death, or in favour of an impostor? There is not common sensein the supposition. No; she certainly knew or believed that Richard, her second son, had escaped and was living, and was glad to overturnthe usurper without risking her child. The plot failed, and thequeen dowager was shut up, where she remained till her death, "inprison, poverty, and solitude. "(35) The king trumped up a sillyaccusation of her having delivered her daughters out of sanctuary toKing Richard, "which proceeding, " says the noble historian, "beingeven at the time taxed for rigorous and undue, makes it very probablethere was some greater matter against her, which the king, uponreason of policie, and to avoid envy, would not publish. " How truthsometimes escapes fiom the most courtly pens! What interpretationcan be put on these words, but that the king found the queen dowagerwas privy to the escape at least or existence of her second son, andsecured her, lest she should bear testimony to the truth, and fomentinsurrections in his favour? Lord Bacon adds, "It is likewise nosmall argument that there was some secret in it; for that the priestSimon himself (who set Lambert to work) after he was taken, wasnever brought to execution; no, not so much as to publicke triall, but was only shut up close in a dungeon. Adde to this, that afterthe earl of Lincoln (a principal person of the house of York) wasslaine in Stokefield, the king opened himself to some of hiscouncell, 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 motiveto him, that the earl of Lincoln hoped to open a way to the crownfor himself. It might be so; still that will not account for Henry'swish, that the earl had been saved. On the contrary, one dangerouscompetitor was removed by his death; and therefore when Henry wantedto have learned the bottom of his danger, it is plain he referred toRichard duke of York, of whose fate he was still in doubt. (36) Hecertainly was; why else was it thought dangerous to visit or see thequeen 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 somewhatsweetened to him In a great confiscation. " Excellent prince! This isthe man in whose favour Richard the Third is represented as amonster. "For Lambert, the king would not take his life, " continuesHenry's biographer, "both out of magnanimitie" (a most properpicture of so mean a prince) "and likewise out of wisdom, thinkingthat if he suffered death he would be forgotten too soon; but beingkept alive, he would be a continual spectacle, and a kind of remedyagainst the like inchantments of people in time to come. " What! dolawful 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 upthe memory of Simnel's imposture, to discredit the true duke ofYork, as another puppet, when ever he should really appear. 

(36) The earl of Lincoln assuredly did not mean to blacken his uncleRichard by whom he had been declared heir to the crown. One shouldtherefore be glad to know what account he gave of the escape of theyoung duke of York. Is it probable that the Earl of Lincoln gaveout, that the elder had been murdered? It is more reasonable tosuppose, that the earl asserted that the child had been conveyedaway by means of the queen dowager or some other friend; and beforeI conclude this examination, that I think will appear most probablyto have been the case. 

(37) Henry had so great a distrust of his right to the crown in thatin his second year he obtained a bull from pope Innocent to qualifythe privilege of sanctuaries, in which was this remarkable clause, "That if any took sancturie for case of treason, the king mightappoint him keepers to look to him in sanctuarie. " Lord Bacon, p. 39. 

That appearance did not happen till some years afterwards, and inHenry's eleventh year. Lord Bacon has taken infinite pains to provea second imposture; and yet owns, "that the king's manner of shewingthings by pieces and by darke lights, hath so muffled it, that ithath left it almost a mysterie to this day. " What has he left amystery? and what did he try to muffle? Not the imposture, but thetruth. Had so politic a man any interest to leave the matterdoubtful? Did he try to leave it so? On the contrary, his diligenceto detect the imposture was prodigious. Did he publish his narrativeto obscure or elucidate the transaction? Was it his matter to muffleany point that he could clear up, especially when it behoved him tohave it cleared? When Lambert Simnel first personated the earl ofWarwick, did not Henry exhibit that poor prince one Sundaythroughout all the principal streets of London? Was he not conductedto Paul's cross, and openly examined by the nobility? "which did ineffect marre the pageant in Ireland. " Was not Lambert himself takeninto Henry's service, and kept in his court for the same purpose? Inshort, what did Henry ever muffle and disguise but the truth? andwhy was his whole conduct so different in the cases of Lambert andPerkin, if their cases were not totally different? No doubt remainsin the former; the gross falshoods and contradictions in whichHenry's account of the latter is involved, make it evident that hehimself could never detect the imposture of the latter, if it wasone. Dates, which every historian has neglected, again come to ouraid, and cannot be controverted. 

Richard duke of York was born in 1474. Perkin Warbeck was not heardof before 1495, when duke Richard would have been Twenty-one. Margaret of York, duchess dowager of Burgundy, and sister of Edwardthe Fourth, is said by lord Bacon to have been the Juno whopersecuted the pious Aeneas, Henry, and set up this phantom againsthim. She it was, say the historians, and says Lord Bacon, p, 115, "who informed Perkin of all the circumstances and particulars thatconcerned the person of Richard duke of York, which he was to act, describing unto him the personages, lineaments, and features of theking and queen, his pretended parents, and of his brother andsisters, and divers others that were nearest him in his childhood;together with all passages, some secret, some common that were fitfor a child's memory, until the death of king Edward. Then she addedthe particulars of the time, from the king's death; until he and hisbrother were committed to the Tower, as well during the time he wasabroad, as while he was in sanctuary. As for the times while he wasin the Tower, and the manner of his brother's death, and his ownescape, she knew they were things that were few could controle: andtherefore she taught him only to tell a smooth and likely tale ofthose matters, warning him not to vary from it. " Indeed! Margaretmust in truth have been a Juno, a divine power, if she could giveall these instructions to purpose. This passage is, so veryimportant, the whole story depends so much upon it, that if I canshow the utter impossibility of its being true, Perkin will remainthe true duke of York for any thing we can prove to the contrary;and for Henry, Sir Thomas More, lord Bacon, and their copyists, itwill be impossible to give any longer credit to their narratives. 

I have said that duke Richard was born in 1474. Unfortunately hisaunt Margaret was married out of England in 1467, seven years beforehe was born, and never returned thither. Was not she singularlycapable of describing to Perkin, her nephew, whom she had neverseen? How well informed was she of the times of his childhood, andof all passages relating to his brother and sisters! Oh! but she hadEnglish refugees about her. She must have had many, and those ofmost intimate connection with the court, if she and they togethercould compose a tolerable story for Perkin, that was to take in themost minute passages of so many years. (38) Who informed Margaret, that she might inform Perkin, of what passed in sanctuary? Ay; andwho told her what passed in the Tower? Let the warmest asserter ofthe imposture answer that question, and I will give up all I havesaid in this work; yes, all. Forest was dead, and the supposedpriest; Sir James Tirrel, and Dighton, were in Henry's hands. Hadthey trumpeted about the story of their own guilt and infamy, tillHenry, after Perkin's appearance, found it necessary to publish it?Sir James Tirrel and Dighton had certainly never gone to the courtof Burgundy to make a merit with Margaret of having murdered hernephews. How came she to know accurately and authentically a talewhich no mortal else knew? Did Perkin or did he not correspond inhis narrative with Tirrel and Dighton? If he did how was it possiblefor him to know it? If he did not, is it morally credible thatHenry would not have made those variations public? If Edward theFifth was murdered, and the duke of York saved, Perkin could know itbut by being the latter. If he did not know it, what was so obviousas 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 hadPerkin, Tirrel, and Dighton, in his power, he had nothing to do butto confront them, and the imposture was detected. It would not havebeen sufficient that Margaret had enjoined him to tell a smooth andlikely tale of those matters, A man does not tell a likely tale, norwas a likely tale enough, of matters of which he is totallyignorant. 

(38) It would have required half the court of Edward the Fourth toframe a consistent legend Let us state this in a manner that muststrike our apprehension. The late princess royal was married out ofEngland, before any of the children of the late prince of Wales wereborn. She lived no farther than the Hague; and yet who thinks thatshe could have instructed a Dutch lad in so many passages of thecourts of her father and brother, that he would not have beendetected in an hour's time. Twenty-seven years at least had elapsedsince Margaret had been in the court of England. The marquis ofDorset, the earl of Richmond himself, and most of the fugitives hadtaken refuge in Bretagne, not with Margaret; and yet was she soinformed of every trifling story, even those of the nursery, thatshe was able to pose Henry himself, and reduce him to invent a talethat had not a shadow of probability in it. Why did he not convictPerkin out of his own mouth? Was it ever pretended that Perkinfailed in his part? That was the surest and best proof of his beingan impostor. Could not the whole court, the whole kingdom ofEngland, so cross-examine this Flemish youth, as to catch him in onelie? So; lord Bacon's Juno had inspired him with full knowledge ofall that had passed in the last twenty years. If Margaret was Juno, he who shall answer these questions satisfactorily, "erit mihimagnus Apollo. "

Still farther: why was Perkin never confronted with the queendowager, with Henry's own queen, and with the princesses, hersisters? Why were they never asked, is this your son? Is this yourbrother? Was Henry afraid to trust to their natural emotions?--Yet"he himself, " says lord Bacon, p. 186, "saw him sometimes out of awindow, or in passage. " This implies that the queens and princessesnever did see him; and yet they surely were the persons who couldbest detect the counterfeit, if he had been one. Had the young manmade a voluntary, coherent, and credible confession, no otherevidence of his imposture would be wanted; but failing that, wecannot help asking, Why the obvious means of detection were notemployed? Those means having been omitted, our suspicions remain infull force. 

Henry, who thus neglected every means of confounding the impostor, took every step he would have done, if convinced that Perkin was thetrue duke of York. His utmost industry was exerted in sifting to thebottom of the plot, in learning who was engaged in the conspiracy, and in detaching the chief supporters. It is said, though notaffirmatively that to procure confidence to his spies, he causedthem to be solemnly cursed at Paul's cross. Certain it is, that, bytheir information, he came to the knowledge, not of the imposture, but of what rather tended to prove that Perkin was a genuinePlantagenet: I mean, such a list of great men actually in his courtand in trust about his person, that no wonder he was seriouslyalarmed. Sir Robert Clifford, (39) who had fled to Margaret, wrote toEngland, that he was positive that the claimant was the veryidentical duke of York, son of Edward the Fourth, whom he had sooften seen, and was perfectly acquainted with. This man, Clifford, was bribed back to Henry's service; and what was the consequence? Heaccused Sir William Stanley, lord Chamberlain, the very man who hadset the crown on Henry's head in Bosworth field, and own brother toearl of Derby, the then actual husband of Henry's mother, of beingin the conspiracy? This was indeed essential to Henry to know; butwhat did it proclaim to the nation? What could stagger theallegiance of such trust and such connexions, but the firmpersuation that Perkin was the true duke of York? A spirit offaction and disgust has even in later times hurried men intotreasonable combinations; but however Sir William Stanley might bedissatisfied, as not thinking himself adequately rewarded, yet is itcredible that he should risk such favour, such riches, as lord Baconallows he possessed, on the wild bottom of a Flemish counterfeit?The lord Fitzwalter and the other great men suffered in the samecause; and which is remarkable, the first was executed at Calais--another presumption that Henry would not venture to have hisevidence made public. And the strongest presumption of all is, thatnot one of the sufferers is pretended to have recanted; they alldied then in the persuasion that they had engaged in a righteouscause. When peers, knights of the garter, privy councellors, sufferdeath, from conviction of a matter of which they were proper judges, (for which of them but must know their late master's son?) it wouldbe rash indeed in us to affirm that they laid down their lives foran 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 ladyof his own blood in marriage on Perkin? At war with Henry, Jameswould naturally support his rival, whether genuine or suppositious. He and Charles the Eighth both gave him aid and both gave him up, asthe wind of their interest shifted about. Recent instances of suchconduct have been seen; but what prince has gone so far as to stakehis belief in a doubtful cause, by sacrificing a princess of his ownblood in confirmation of it?

But it is needless to multiply presumptions. Henry's conduct and thenarrative (40) he published, are sufficient to stagger everyimpartial reader. Lord Bacon confesses the king did himself no goodby the publication of that narrative, and that mankind wasastonished to find no mention in it of the duchess Margaret'smachinations. But how could lord Bacon stop there? Why did he notconjecture that there was no proof of that tale? What interest hadHenry to manage a widow of Burgundy? He had applied to the archdukePhilip to banish Perkin: Philip replied, he had no power over thelands of the duchess's dowry. It is therefore most credible that theduchess has supported Perkin, on the persuasion he was her nephew;and Henry not being able to prove the reports he had spread of herhaving trained up an impostor, chose to drop all mention ofMargaret, because nothing was so natural as her supporting the heirof her house. On the contrary, in Perkin's confession, as it wascalled, And which though preserved by Grafton, was suppressed bylord Bacon, not only as repugnant to his lordship's account, but tocommon sense, Perkin affirms, that "having sailed to Lisbon in aship with the lady Brampton, who, lord Bacon says, was sent byMargaret to conduct him thither, and from thence have resorted toIreland, it was at Cork that they of the town first threaped uponhim that he was son of the duke of Clarence; and others afterwards, that he was the duke of York. " But the contradictions both in lordBacon's account, and in Henry's narrative, are irreconcileable andunsurmountable: the former solves the likeness, (41) which isallowing the likeness of Perkin to Edward the Fourth, by supposingthat the king had an intrigue with his mother, of which he givesthis silly relation: that Perkin Warbeck, whose surname it seems wasPeter Osbeck, was son of a Flemish converted Jew (of which Hebrewextraction, (42) Perkin says not a word in his confession) who withhis wife Katherine de Faro come to London on business; and sheproducing a son, king Edward, in consideration of the conversion, orintrigue, stood godfather to the child and gave him the name ofPeter, Can one help laughing at being told that a king called Edwardgave the name of Peter to his godson? But of this transfretation andchristening Perkin, in his supposed confession, says not a word, norpretends to have ever set foot in England, till he landed there inpursuit of the crown; and yet an English birth and some stay, thoughin his very childhood, was a better way of accounting for the purityof his accent, than either of the preposterous tales produced bylord Bacon or by Henry. The former says, that Perkin, roving up anddown between Antwerp and Tournay and other towns, and living much inEnglish company, had the English tongue perfect. Henry was so afraidof not ascertaining a good foundation of Perkin's English accent, that he makes him learn the language twice over. (43) "Being sentwith a merchant of Turney, called Berlo, to the mart of Antwerp, thesaid Berlo set me, " says Perkin, "to borde in a skinner's house, that dwelled beside the house of the English nation. And after thisthe said Berlo set me with a merchant of Middleborough to servicefor to learne the language, (44) with whom I dwelled from Christmasto Easter, and then, I went into Portugale. " One does not learn anylanguage very perfectly and with a good, nay, undistinguishableaccent, between Christmas and Easter; but here let us pause. If thisaccount was true, the other relating to the duchess Margaret wasfalse; and then how came Perkin by so accurate a knowledge of theEnglish court, that he did not faulter, nor could be detected in histale? If the confession was not true, it remains that it was trumpedup by Henry, and then Perkin must be allowed the true duke of York. 

(40) To what degree arbitrary power dares to trifle with the commonsense of mankind has been seen in Portuguese and Russian manifestos. 

(41) As this solution of the likeness is not authorized by theyouth'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 noJewish appellation. Perkin too mentions several of his relations andtheir employments at Tournay, without any hint of a Hebrewconnection. 

(43) Grafton's Chronicle, p 930. 

(44) I take this to mean the English language, for these reasons; hehad just before named the English nation, and the name of his masterwas John Strewe, which seems to be an English appellation: but thereis 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 pretendedconfession, Perkin, affirming that his mother, after he had dwelledsome time in Tournay, sent him to Antwerp to learn Flemish. If I amtold by a very improbable supposition, that French was his nativelanguage at Tournay, that he learned Flemish at Antwerp, and Dutchat Middleburg, I will desire the objector to cast his eye on themap, and consider the small distance between Tournay, Middleburg, and Antwerp, and to reflect that the present United Provinces werenot then divided from the rest of Flanders; and then to decidewhether the dialects spoken at Tournay, Antwerp, and Middleburg wereso different in that age, that it was necessary to be set to learnthem all separately. If this cannot be answered satisfactorily, itwill remain, that Perkin learned Flemish or English twice over. I amindifferent which, for still there will remain a contradiction inthe confession. And if English is not meant in the passage above, itwill only produce a greater difficulty, which is, that Perkin, atthe age of twenty learned to speak English in Ireland with so goodan accent, that all England could not discover the cheat. I must beanswered too, why lord Bacon rejects the youth's own confession andsubstitutes another in its place, which makes Perkin born inEngland, though in his pretended confession Perkin affirms thecontrary. Lord Bacon too confirms my interpretation of the passagein question, by saying that Perkin roved up and down between Antwerpand other towns in Flanders, living much in English company, andhaving 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 mywill they made me to learne English, and taught me what I should doand say. " Amazing! what forced him to learn English, after, as hesays himself in the very same page, he had learnt it at Antwerp!What an impudence was there in royal power to dare to obtrude suchstuff on the world! Yet this confession, as it is called, was thepoor young man forced to read at his execution--no doubt in dread ofworse torture. Mr. Hume, though he questions it, owns that it wasbelieved by torture to have been drawn from him. What matters how itwas obtained, or whether ever obtained; it could not be true: and asHenry could put together no more plausible account, coommiserationwill shed a tear over a hapless youth, sacrificed to the fury andjealousy of an usurper, and in all probability the victim of atyrant, who has made the world believe that the duke of York, executed by his own orders, had been previously murdered by hispredecessor. (45)

(45) Mr. Hume, to whose doubts all respect is due, tells me hethinks no mention being made of Perkin's title in the Cornishrebellion under the lord Audeley, is a strong presumption that thenation was not persuaded of his being the true duke of York. Thisargument, which at most is negative, seems to me to lose its weight, when it is remembered, that this was an insurrection occasioned by apoll-tax: that the rage of the people was directed againstarchbishop Morton and Sir Reginald Bray, the supposed authors of thegrievance. An insurrection against a tax in a southern county, inwhich no mention is made of a pretender to the crown, is surely notso forcible a presumption against him, as the persuasion of thenorthern counties that he was the true heir, is an argument in hisfavour. Much less can it avail against such powerful evidence as Ihave shown exists to overturn all that Henry can produce againstPerkin. 

I have thus, I flatter myself, from the discovery of newauthorities, from the comparison of dates, from fair consequencesand arguments, and without straining or wresting probability, provedall I pretended to prove; not an hypothesis of Richard's universalinnocence, but this assertion with which I set out, that we have noreasons, no authority for believing by far the greater part of thecrimes charged on him. I have convicted historians of partiality, absurdities, contradictions, and falshoods; and though I havedestroyed their credit, I have ventured to establish no peremptoryconclusion of my own. What did really happen in so dark a period, itwould be rash to affirm. The coronation and parliament rolls haveascertained a few facts, either totally unknown, or misrepresentedby historians. Time may bring other monuments to light(46) but onething is sure, that should any man hereafter presume to repeat thesame improbable tale on no better grounds that it has been hithertourged, he must shut his eyes against conviction, and preferridiculous tradition to the scepticism due to most points ofhistory, and to none more than to that in question. 

(46) If diligent search was to be made in the public offices andconvents of the Flemish towns in which the duchess Margaretresided, I should not despair of new lights being gained to thatpart of our history. 

I have little more to say, and only on what regards the person ofRichard, and the story of Jane Shore; but having run counter to avery valuable modern historian and friend of my own, I must bothmake some apology for him, and for myself for disagreeing with him. 

When Mr. Hume published his reigns of Edward the Fifth, Richard theThird, and Henry the Seventh, the coronation roll had not come tolight. The stream of historians concurred to make him take thisportion of our story for granted. Buck had been given up as anadvancer of paradoxes, and nobody but Carte had dared to controvertthe popular belief. Mr. Hume treats Carte's doubts as whimsical: Iwonder, he did; he, who having so closely examined our history, haddiscovered how very fallible many of its authorities are. Mr. Humehimself had ventured to contest both the flattering picture drawn ofEdward the First, and those ignominious portraits of Edward theSecond, and Richard the Second. He had discovered from Foedera, thatEdward the Fourth, while said universally to be prisoner toarchbishop Nevil, was at full liberty and doing acts of royal power. Why was it whimsical in Carte to exercise the same spirit ofcriticism? Mr. Hume could not but know how much the characters ofprinces are liable to be flattered or misrepresented. It is oflittle importance to the world, to Mr. Hume, or to me, whetherRichard's story is fairly told or not: and in this amicablediscussion I have no fear of offending him by disagreeing with him. His abilities and sagacity do not rest on the shortest reign in ourannals. I shall therefore attempt to give answers to the questionson which he pins the credibility due to the history of Richard. 

The questions are these, 1. Had not the queen-mother and the otherheads of the York party been fully assured of the death of both theyoung princes, would they have agreed to call over the earl ofRichmond, the head of the Lancastrian party, and marry him to theprincess Elizabeth?--I answer, that when the queen-mother couldrecall that consent, and send to her son the marquis Dorset to quitRichmond, assuring him of king Richard's favour to him and herhouse, it is impossible to' say what so weak and ambitious a womanwould not do. She wanted to have some one of her children on thethrone, in order to recover her own power. She first engaged herdaughter to Richmond and then to Richard. She might not know whatwas 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 wasimpatient to rule. If she was fully assured of their deaths, couldHenry, after he came to the crown and had married her daughter, beuncertain of it? I have shown that both Sir Thomas More and lordBacon own it remained uncertain, and that Henry's account could notbe true. As to the heads of the Yorkists;(47) how does it appearthey concurred in the projected match? Indeed who were the heads ofthat party? Margaret, duchess of Burgundy, Elizabeth duchess ofSuffolk, and her children; did they ever concur in that match? Didnot they to the end endeavour to defeat and overturn it? I hope Mr. Hume will not call bishop Morton, the duke of Buckingham, andMargaret countess of Richmond, chiefs of the Yorkists. 2 The storytold constantly by Perkin of his escape is utterly incredible, thatthose who were sent to murder his brother, took pity on him andgranted him his liberty. --Answer. We do not know but from Henry'snarrative and the Lancastrian historians that Perkin gave thisaccount. (48) I am not authorized to believe he did, because I findno authority for the murder of the elder brother; and if there was, why is it utterly incredible that the younger should have beenspared? 3. What became of him during the course of seven years fromhis supposed death till his appearance in 1491?--Answer. Doesuncertainty of where a man has been, prove his non-identity when heappears again? When Mr. Hume will answer half the questions in thiswork, I will tell him where Perkin was during those seven years. 4. Why was not the queen-mother, the duchess of Burgundy, and the otherfriends of the family applied to, during that time, for his supportand education?--Answer. Who knows that they were not applied to? Theprobability is, that they were. The queen's dabbling in the affairof Simnel indicates that she knew her son was alive. And when theduchess of Burgundy is accused of setting Perkin to work, it isamazing that she should be quoted as knowing nothing about him. 5. Though the duchess of Burgundy at last acknowledged him for hernephew, she had lost all pretence to authority by her formeracknowledgment and support of Lambert Simnel, an avowed impostor. --Answer. Mr. Hume here makes an unwary confession by distinguishingbetween Lambert Simnel, an avowed impostor, and Perkin, whoseimpostnre was problematic. But if he was a true prince, the duchesscould only forfeit credit for herself, not for him: nor would herpreparing the way for her nephew, by first playing off and feelingthe ground by a counterfeit, be an imputation on her, but rather aproof of her wisdom and tenderness. Impostors are easily detected;as Simnel was. All Henry's art and power could never verify thecheat of Perkin; and if the latter was astonishingly adroit, theking was ridiculously clumsy. 6. Perkin himself confessed hisimposture more than once, and read his confession to the people, andrenewed his confession at the foot of the gibbet on which he wasexecuted. --Answer. I have shown that this confession was such anaukward forgery that lord Bacon did not dare to quote or adhere toit, but invented a new story, more specious, but equallyinconsistent with, probability. 7. After Henry the Eighth'saccession, the titles of the houses of York and Lancaster were fullyconfounded, and there was no longer any necessity for defendingHenry the Seventh and his title; yet all the historians of thattime, when the events were recent, some of these historians, such asSir Thomas More, of the highest authority, agree in treating Perkinas an impostor. --Answer. When Sir Thomas More wrote, Henry theSeventh was still alive: that argument therefore falls entirely tothe ground: but there was great necessity, I will not say to defend, but even to palliate the titles of both Henry the Seventh andEighth. The former, all the world agrees now, had no title(49) thelatter had none from his father, and a very defective one from hismother, 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 theEighth would suffer it to be said that his father and mother enjoyedthe throne to the prejudice of that mother's surviving brother, inwhose blood the father had imbrued his hands. The murder thereforewas to be fixed on Richard the Third, who was to be supposed to haveusurped the throne, by murdering, and not, as was really the case, by bastardizing his nephews. If they were illegitimate, so was theirsister; and if she was, what title had she conveyed to her son Henrythe Eighth? No wonder that both Henrys were jealous of the earl ofSuffolk, whom one bequeathed to slaughter, and the other executed;for if the children of Edward the Fourth were spurious, and those ofClarence attainted, the right of the house of York was vested in theduchess of Suffolk and her descendants. The massacre of the childrenof Clarence and the duchess of Suffolk show what Henry the Eighththought of the titles both of his father and mother. (50) But, saysMr. Hume, all the historians of that time agree in treating Perkinas an impostor. I have shown from their own mouths that they haveall doubted of it. The reader must judge between us. But Mr. Humeselects Sir Thomas More as the highest authority; I have proved thathe was the lowest--but not in the case of Perkin, for Sir ThomasMore's history does not go so low; yet happening to mention him, hesays, the man, commonly called Perkin Warbeck, was, as well with theprinces as the people, held to be the younger son of Edward theFourth; and that the deaths of the young' king Edward and of Richardhis 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. SirThomas adhered to the affirmative, relying as I have shown on verybad authorities. But what is a stronger argument ad hominem, I canprove that Mr. Hume did not think Sir Thomas More good authority;no, Mr. Hume was a fairer and more impartial judge: at the very timethat he quotes Sir Thomas More, he tacitly rejects his authority;for Mr. Hume, agreeably to truth, specifies the lady Eleanor Butleras the person to whom king Edward was contracted, and not ElizabethLucy, as it stands in Sir Thomas More. An attempt to vindicateRichard will perhaps no longer be thought whimsical, when so veryacute a reasoner as Mr. Hume could find no better foundation thanthese seven queries on which to rest his condemnation. 

(47) The excessive affection shown by the Northern counties wherethe principal strength of the Yorkists lay, to Richard the Thirdwhile living, and to his memory when dead, implies two things;first, that the party did not give him up to Henry; secondly, thatthey did not believe he had murdered his nephews, Tyrants of thatmagnitude are not apt to be popular. Examine the list of the chiefsin Henry's army as stated by the Chronicle of Croyland, p. 574. Andthey will be found Lancastrians, or very private gentlemen, and butone peer, the earl of Oxford, a noted Lancastrian. 

(48) Grafton has preserved a ridiculous oration said to be made byPerkin to the king of Scotland, in which this silly tale is told. Nothing can be depended upon less than such orations, almost alwaysforged by the writer, and unpardonable, if they pass the bounds oftruth. Perkin, in the passage in question, uses these words: "Andfarther to the entent that my life might be in a suretie he (themurderer of my elder brother) appointed one to convey me into somestraunge countrie, where, when I was furthest off, and had mostneede of comfort, he forsooke me sodainly (I think he was soappointed to do) and left me desolate alone without friend orknowledge of any relief for refuge, " &c. Would not one think one wasreading the tale of Valentine and Orson, or a legend of a barbarousage, rather than the History of England, when we are told of strangecountries and such indefinite ramblings, as would pass only in anursery! It remains not only a secret but a doubt, whether the elderbrother was murdered. If Perkin was the younger, and knew certainlythat his brother was put to death, our doubt would vanish: but canit vanish on no better authority than this foolish oration! DidGrafton hear it pronounced? Did king James bestow his kinswoman onPerkin, on the strength of such a fable?

(49) Henry was so reduced to make out any title to the crown, thathe catched even at a quibble. In the act of attainder passed afterhis 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. Catharineof Valois, after bearing Henry the Sixth, married Owen Tudor, andhad two sons, Edmund and Jasper, the former of which marriedMargaret mother of Henry the Seventh, and so was he half nephew ofHenry the Sixth. On one side he had no blood royal, on the otheronly bastard blood. 

(50) Observe, that when Lord Bacon wrote, there was greatnecessity to vindicate the title even of Henry the Seventh, forJames the First claimed from the eldest daughter of Henry andElizabeth. 

With regard to the person of Richard, it appears to have been asmuch misrepresented as his actions. Philip de Comines, who was veryfree spoken even on his own masters, and therefore not likely tospare a foreigner, mentions the beauty of Edward the Fourth; butsays nothing of the deformity of Richard, though he saw themtogether. This is merely negative. The old countess of Desmond, whohad danced with Richard, declared he was the handsomest man in theroom except his brother Edward, and was very well made. But whatshall 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 powercould have kept the muscles of the mob in awe and prevented theirlaughing at so ridiculous an apostrophe, had Richard been a little, crooked, withered, hump-back'd monster, as later historians wouldhave us believe--and very idly? Cannot a foul soul inhabit a fairbody. 

The truth I take to have been this. Richard, who was slender and nottall, had one shoulder a little higher than the other: a defect, bythe magnifying glasses, of party, by distance of time, and by theamplification of tradition, easily swelled to shocking deformity;for falsehood itself generally pays so much respect to truth as tomake it the basis of its superstructures. 

I have two reasons for believing Richard was not well made about theshoulders. Among the drawings which I purchased at Vertue's sale wasone of Richard and his queen, of which nothing is expressed but theout-lines. There is no intimation from whence the drawing was taken;but by a collateral direction for the colour of the robe, if notcopied from a picture, it certainly was from some painted 'window;where existing I do not pretend to say:--in this whole work I havenot gone beyond my vouchers. Richard's face is very comely, andcorresponds singularly with the portrait of him in the preface tothe Royal and Noble Authors. He has a sort of tippet of erminedoubled about his neck, which seems calculated to disguise somewant of symmetry thereabouts. I have given two prints(51) of thisdrawing, which is on large folio paper, that it may lead to adiscovery of the original, if not destroyed. 

(51) In the prints, the single head is most exactly copied from thedrawing, which is unfinished. In the double plate, the reducedlikeness of the king could not be so perfectly preserved. 

My other authority is John Rous, the antiquary of Warwickshire, whosaw Richard at Warwick in the interval of his two coronations, andwho describes him thus: "Parvae staturae erat, curtam habens faciem, inaequales humeros, dexter superior, sinisterque inferior. " Whatfeature in this portrait gives any idea of a monster? Or who canbelieve that an eyewitness, and so minute a painter, would havementioned nothing but the inequality of shoulders, if Richard's formhad been a compound of ugliness? Could a Yorkist have drawn a lessdisgusting representation? And yet Rous was a vehement Lancastrian;and the moment he ceased to have truth before his eyes, gave in toall the virulence and forgeries of his party, telling us in anotherplace, "that Richard remained two years in his mother's womb, andcame forth at last with teeth, and hair on his shoulders. " I leaveit to the learned in the profession to decide whether women can gotwo years with their burden, and produce a living infant; but thatthis long pregnancy did not prevent the duchess, his mother, frombearing afterwards, I can prove; and could we recover the registerof 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 yearbetween the birth of Richard and his preceding brother Thomas. (52)However, an ancient bard, (53) who wrote after Richard was born andduring 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 whichthe duchess Cecily's children were horn thus; Ann duchess of Exeter, Henry, Edward the Fourth Edmund earl of Rutland, Elizabeth duchessof Suffolk, Margaret duchess of Burgundy, William, John, George dukeof Clarence, Thomas, Richard the Third, and Ursula. Cox, Im hisHistory of Ireland, says, that Clarence was born in 1451. Buckcomputed Richard the Third to have fallen at the age of thirty fouror five; but, by Cox's account, he could not be more than thirtytwo. Still this makes it provable, that their mother bore them andtheir intervening brother Thomas as soon as she well could one afteranother. 

(53) See Vincent's Errors in Brooks's Heraldry, p. 623. 

Be it as it will, this foolish tale, with the circumstances of hisbeing born with hair and teeth, was coined to intimate how carefulProvidence was, when it formed a tyrant, to give due warning of whatwas to be expected. And yet these portents were far fromprognosticating a tyrant; for this plain reason, that all othertyrants have been born without these prognostics. Does it requiremore time to ripen a foetus, that is, to prove a destroyer, than ittakes to form an Aristides? Are there outward and visible signs of abloody nature? Who was handsomer than Alexander, Augustus, or Louisthe Fourteenth? and yet who ever commanded the spilling of morehuman blood. 

Having mentioned John Rous, it is necessary I should say somethingmore of him, as he lived in Richard's time, and even wrote hisreign; and yet I have omitted him in the list of contemporarywriters. The truth is, he was pointed out to me after the precedingsheets were finished; and upon inspection I found him too despicableand lying an author, even among monkish authors, to venture to quotehim, but for two facts; for the one of which as he was aneye-witness, and for the other, as it was of publick notoriety, heis 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, hadretired to the hermitage of Guy's Cliff, where he was a chantrypriest, and where he spent the remaining part of his life in whathe called studying and writing antiquities. Amongst other works, most of which are not unfortunately lost, he composed a history ofthe kings of England. It Begins with the creation, and is compiledindiscriminately from the Bible and from monastic writers. Moses, hetells us, does not mention all the cities founded before thedeluge, but Barnard de Breydenback, dean of Mayence, does. Withthe same taste he acquaints us, that, though the book of Genesissays nothing of the matter, Giraldus Cambrensis writes, that Capheraor Cesara, Noah's niece, being apprehensive of the deluge, set outfor Ireland, where, with three men and fifty women, she arrived safewith 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 theirreigns, seemed to the author to deserve little place in a history ofEngland. The lives of Henry the Sixth and Edward the Fourth, thoughthe author lived under both, take up but two pages in octavo, andthat of Richard the Third, three. We may judge how qualified such anauthor was to clear up a period so obscure, or what secrets couldcome to his knowledge at Guy's Cliff: accordingly he retails all thevulgar reports of the times; as that Richard poisoned his wife, andput his nephews to death, though he owns few knew in what manner;but as he lays the scene of their deaths before Richard's assumptionof the crown, it is plain he was the worst informed of all. ToRichard he ascribes the death of Henry the Sixth; and adds, thatmany persons believed he executed the murder with his own hands: buthe records another circumstance that alone must weaken all suspicionof Richard's guilt in that transaction. Richard not only caused thebody to be removed from Chertsey, and solemnly interred at Windsor, but it was publickly exposed, and, if we will believe the monk, wasfound almost entire, and emitted a gracious perfume, though no carehad been taken to embalm it. Is it credible that Richard, if themurderer, would have exhibited this unnecessary mummery, only torevive the memory of his own guilt? Was it not rather intended torecall the cruelty of his brother Edward, whose children he had setaside, and whom by the comparison of this act of piety, he hoped todepreciate(53) in the eyes of the people? The very example had beenpointed out to him by Henry the Fifth, who bestowed a pompousfuneral on Richard the Second, murdered by order of his father. 

(54) This is not a mere random conjecture, but combated by anotherinstance of like address. He deforested a large circuit, whichEdward had annexed to the forest of Whichwoode, to the greatannoyance of the subject. This we are told by Rous himself, p. 316, Indeed the devotion of Rous to that Lancastrian saint, Henry theSixth, seems chiefly to engross his attention, and yet it draws himinto a contradiction; for having said that the murder of Henry theSixth had made Richard detested by all nations who heard of it, headds, two pages afterwards, that an embassy arrived at Warwick(while Richard kept his court there) from the king of Spain, (55) topropose a marriage between their children. Of this embassy Rous is aproper witness: Guy's Cliff, I think, is but four miles fromWarwick; and he is too circumstancial on what passed there not tohave been on the spot. In other respects he seems inclined to beimpartial, recording several good and generous acts of Richard. 

(55) Drake says, that an ambassador from the queen of Spain waspresent 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. Richardtherefore appears not to hav been abhorred by either the courts ofSpain or Scotland. 

But there is one circumstance, which, besides the weakness andcredulity of the man, renders his testimony exceedingly suspicious. After having said, that, if he may speak truth in Richard'sfavour, (56) he must own that, though small in stature and strength, Richard was a noble knight, and defended himself to the last 'breathwith eminent valour, the monk suddenly turns, and apostrophizesHenry the Seventh, to whom be had dedicated his work, and whom heflatters to the best of his poor abilities; but, above allthings, for having bestowed the name of Arthur on his eldest son, who, this injudicious and over-hasty prophet forsees, will restorethe glory of his great ancestor of the same name. Had Henrychristened his second 'son Merlin, I do not doubt but poor Rouswould 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 ofmind, so removed from the scene of action, and so devoted to theWelsh intruder on the throne. Superadded to this incapacity anddefects, he had prejudices or attachments of a private nature: hehad singular affection for the Beauchamps, earls of Warwick, zealousLancastrians, and had written their lives. One capital crime that heimputes to Richard is the imprisonment of his mother-in-law, AnnBeauchamp countess of Warwick, mother of his queen. It does seemthat this great lady was very hardly treated; but I have shown fromthe Chronicle of Croyland, that it was Edward the Fourth, notRichard, that stripped her of her possessions. She was widow too ofthat turbulent Warwick the King-maker; and Henry the Seventh borewitness that she was faithfully loyal to Henry the Sixth. Still itseems extraordinary that the queen did not or could not obtain theenlargement of her mother. When Henry the Seventh 'attained thecrown, she recovered her liberty 'and vast estates: yet young as hismajesty was both in years and avarice, for this munificence tookplace in his third year, still he gave evidence of the falshood andrapacity of his nature; for though by act of parliament he cancelledthe former act that had deprived her, as against all reason, conscience, and course of nature, and contrary to the laws of Godand man, (57) and restored her possessions to her, this was but afarce, and like his wonted hypocrisy; for the very same year heobliged her to convey the whole estate to him, leaving her nothingbut the manor of Sutton for her maintenance. Richard had married herdaughter; but what claim had Henry to her inheritance? Thisattachment of Rous to the house of Beauchamp, and the dedication ofhis work to Henry, Would make his testimony most suspicious, even ifhe had guarded his work within the rules of probability, and notrendered it a contemptible legend. 

(57) Vide Dugdale's Warckshire in Beauchamp. 

Every part of Richard's story is involved in obscurity: we neitherknown what natural children he had, nor what became of them. Stanford says, he had a daughter called Katherine, whom WilliamHerbert earl of Huntingdon covenanted to marry, and to make her afair and sufficient estate of certain of his manors to the yearlyvalue of 200 pounds over and above all charges. As this lordreceived a confirmation of his title from Henry the Seventh, nodoubt the poor young lady would have been sacrificed to thatinterest. But Dugdale seems to think she died before the nuptualswere consummated "whether this marriage took effect or not I cannotsay; for sure it is that she died in her tender years. "(58)Drake(59) affirms, that Richard knighted at York a natural son calledRichard of Gloucester, and supposes it to be the same person of whomPeck has preserved so extraordinary an account. (60) But never was asupposition worse grounded. The relation given by the latter ofhimself, was, that he never saw the king till the night before thebattle of Bosworth: and that the king had not then acknowledged, butintended to acknowledge him, if victorious. The deep privacy inwhich this person had lived, demonstrates how severely thepersecution had raged against all that were connected with Richard, and how little truth was to be expected from the writers on theother side. Nor could Peck's Richard Plantagenet be the same personwith Richard of Gloucester, for the former was never known till hediscovered himself to Sir Thomas More; and Hall says king Richard'snatural son was in the hands of Henry the Seventh. Buck says, thatRichard made his son Richard of Gloucester, captain of Calais; butit appears from Rymer's Foedera, that Richard's natural son, who wascaptain of Calais, was called John. None of these accounts accordwith Peck's; nor, for want of knowing his mother, can we guess whyking Richard was more secret on the birth of this son (if Peck'sRichard Plantagenet was truly so) than on those of his other naturalchildren. Perhaps the truest remark that can be made on this wholestory is, that the avidity with which our historians swallowed onegross ill-concocted legend, prevented them from desiring or daringto 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 andimprobability. 

(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 ofTudor retained all their Lancastrian prejudices, even in the reignof queen Elizabeth. In his play of Richard the Third, he seems todeduce the woes of the house of York from the curses which queenMargaret had vented against them; and he could not give that weightto 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 argumentsas mine are forgotten. Richard at least will be tried and executedon the stage, when his defence remains on some obscure shelf of alibrary. But while these pages may excite the curiosity of a day, itmay not be unentertaining to observe, that there is another ofShakespeare's plays, that may be ranked among the historic, thoughnot one of his numerous critics and commentators have discovered thedrift of it; I mean The Winter Evening's Tale, which was certainlyintended (in compliment to queen Elizabeth) as an indirect apologyfor her mother Anne Boleyn. The address of the poet appears no whereto more advantage. The subject was too delicate to be exhibited onthe stage without a veil; and it was too recent, and touched thequeen too nearly, for the bard to have ventured so home an allusionon any other ground than compliment. The unreasonable jealousy ofLeontes, and his violent conduct in consequence, form a trueportrait of Henry the Eighth, who generally made the law the engineof his boisterous passions. Not only the general plan of the storyis most applicable but several passages are so marked, that theytouch the real history nearer than the fable. Hermione on her trialsays, . . . . . 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 theking before her execution, where she pleads for the infant princesshis 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 strikingpassage, ' and which had nothing to do in the Tragedy, but as itpictured Elizabeth, is, where Paulina, describing the new-bornprincess, and her likeness to her father, says, she has the verytrick of his frown. There is one sentence indeed so applicable, bothto Elizabeth and her father, that I should suspect the poet insertedit 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 ofHenry the Eighth. 

With regard to Jane Shore, I have already shown that it was herconnection with the marquis Dorset, not with lord Hastings, whichdrew on her the resentment of Richard. When an event is thus wrestedto serve the purpose of a party, we ought to be very cautious how wetrust an historian, who is capable of employing truth only as cementin a fabric of fiction. Sir Thomas More tells us, that Richardpretended Jane "was of councell with the lord Hastings to destroyhim; and in conclusion, when no colour could fasten upon thesematters, then he layd seriously to her charge what she could notdeny, namely her adultry; and for this cause, as a godly continentprince, cleane and faultlesse of himself, sent out of heaven intothis vicious world for the amendment of mens manners, he caused thebishop of London to put her to open penance. "

This sarcasm on Richards morals would have had more weight, if theauthor had before confined himself to deliver nothing but theprecise truth. He does not seem to be more exact in what relates tothe penance itself. Richard, by his proclamation, taxed mistressShore with plotting treason in confederacy with the marquis Dorset. Consequently, it was not from defect of proof of her beingaccomplice with lord Hastings that she was put to open penance. IfRichard had any hand in that sentence, it was, because he had proofof her plotting with the marquis. But I doubt, and with some reason, whether her penance was inflicted by Richard. We have seen that heacknowledged at least two natural children; and Sir Thomas Morehints that Richard was far from being remarkable for his chastity. Is it therefore probable, that he acted so silly a farce as to makehis brother's mistress do penance? Most of the charges on Richardare so idle, that instead of being an able and artful usurper, ashis antagonists allow, he must have been a weaker hypocrite thanever attempted to wrest a sceptre out of the hands of a legalpossessor. 

It is more likely that the churchmen were the authors of Jane'spenance; and that Richard, interested to manage that body, andprovoked by her connection with so capital an enemy as Dorset, mightgive her up, and permit the clergy (who probably had burned incenseto her in her prosperity) to revenge his quarrel. My reason for thisopinion is grounded on a letter of Richard extant in the Museum, bywhich it appears that the fair, unfortunate, and aimable Jane (forher virtues far outweighed her frailty) being a prisoner, byRichard'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 isshewed unto us, that our servaunt and solicitor, Thomas Lynom, merveillously blinded and abused with the late wife of WilliamShore, now being in Ludgate by oure commandment, hath made contractof matrymony with hir (as it is said) and entendith, to our fullgrete merveile, to precede to th' effect of the same. We for manycauses wold be sory that hee soo shulde be disposed. Pray youtherefore to send for him, and in that ye goodly may, exhorte andsture hym to the contrarye. And if ye finde him utterly set for tomarye hur, and noen otherwise will be advertised, then (if it maystand with the lawe of the churche. ) We be content (the tyme ofmarriage deferred to our comyng next to London, ) that uponsufficient suerite founde of hure good abering, ye doo send for hurekeeper, and discharge him of our said commandment by warrant ofthese, committing hur to the rule and guiding of hure fadre, or anyothre by your discretion in the mene season. Yeven, &c. To the right reverend fadre in God, &c. The bishop of Lincoln, ourchauncellour. "

It appears from this letter, that Richard thought it indecent forhis sollicitor to mary a woman who had suffered public punishmentfor adultery, and who was confined by his command--but where is thetyrant to be found in this paper? Or, what prince ever spoke of sucha scandal, and what is stronger, of such contempt of his authority, with so much lenity and temper? He enjoins his chancellor todissuade the sollicitor from the match--but should he persist--atyrant 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 ownfather's. I cannot help thinking that some holy person had been herpersecutor, and not so patient and gentle a king. And I believe so, because of the salvo for the church: "Let them be married, " saysRichard, "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 theletter the late wife of William Shore, not of the late William Shore, Ishould suppose that her husband was living, and that the penance itselfwas the consequence of a suit preferred by him to the ecclesiastic courtfor divorce. If the injured husband ventured, on the death of Edwardthe Fourth, to petition to be separated from his wife, it was naturalenough for the church to proceed farther, and enjoin her to performpenance, especially when they fell in with the king's resentment to her. Richard's proclamation and the letter above-recited seem to point outthis account of Jane's misfortunes; the letter implying, that Richarddoubted whether her divorce was so complete as to leave her at libertyto take another husband. As we hear no more of the marriage, and asJane to her death retained the name of Shore, my solution iscorroborated; the chancellor-bishop, no doubt, going more roundly towork than the king had done. Nor, however Sir Thomas More revilesRichard for his cruel usage of mistress Shore, did either of thesucceeding kings redress her wrongs, though she lived to theeighteenth year of Henry the Eighth, She had sown her good deeds, hergood offices, her alms her charities, in a court. Not one took root; nordid the ungrateful soil repay her a grain of relief in her penury andcomfortless old age. 

I have thus gone through the several accusations against Richard;and have shown that they rest on the slightest and most suspiciousground, if they rest on any at all. I have proved that they ought tobe reduced to the sole authorities of Sir Thomas More and Henry theSeventh; the latter interested to blacken and misrepresent everyaction of Richard; and perhaps driven to father on him even his owncrimes. I have proved that More's account cannot be true. I haveshown that the writers, contemporary with Richard, either do notaccuse him, or give their accusations as mere vague and uncertainreports: and what is as strong, the writers next in date, and whowrote the earliest after the events are said to have happened, assert little or nothing from their own information, but adopt thevery words of Sir Thomas More, who was absolutely mistaken ormisinformed. 

For the sake of those who have a mind to canvass this subject, Iwill recapitulate the most material arguments that tend to disprovewhat has been asserted; but as I attempt not to affirm what didhappen in a period that will still remain very obscure, I flattermyself that I shall not be thought either fantastic or paradoxical, for not blindly adopting an improbable tale, which our historianshave never given themselves the trouble to examine. 

What mistakes I may have made myself, I shall be willing toacknowledge; what weak reasoning, to give up: but I shall not thinkthat a long chain of arguments, of proofs and probabilities, isconfuted at once, because some single fact may be found erroneous. Much less shall I be disposed to take notice of detached or triflingcavils. The work itself is but an inquiry into a short portion ofour annals. I shall be content, if I have informed or amused myreaders, or thrown any light on so clouded a scene; but I cannot beof opinion that a period thus distant deserves to take up more timethan I have already bestowed upon it. 

It seems then to me to appear, That Fabian and the authors of the Chronicle of Croyland, who werecontemporaries with Richard, charge him directly with none of thecrimes, since imputed to him, and disculpate him of others. 

That John Rous, the third contemporary, could know the facts healledges but by hearsay, confounds the dates of them, dedicated hiswork to Henry the Seventh, and is an author to whom no credit isdue, from the lies and fables with which his work is stuffed. 

That we have no authors who lived near the time, but Lancastrianauthors, who wrote to flatter Henry the Seventh, or who spread thetales which he invented. 

That the murder of prince Edward, son of Henry the Sixth, wascommitted by king Edward's servants, and is imputed to Richard by nocontemporary. 

That Henry the Sixth was found dead in the Tower; that it was notknown how he came by his death; and that it was against Richard'sinterest to murder him. 

That the duke of Clarence was defended by Richard; that theparliament petitioned for his execution; that no author of the timeis so absurd as to charge Richard with being the executioner; andthat king Edward took the deed wholly on himself. 

That Richard's stay at York on his brother's death had no appearanceof a design to make himself king. 

That the ambition of the queen, who attempted to usurp thegovernment, contrary to the then established custom of the realm, gave the first provocation to Richard and the princes of the bloodto assert their rights; and that Richard was solicited by the dukeof Buckingham to vindicate those rights. 

That the preparation of an armed force under earl Rivers, theseizure of the Tower and treasure, and the equipment of a fleet, bythe marquis Dorset, gave occasion to the princes to imprison therelations of the queen; and that, though they were put to deathwithout trial (the only cruelty which is proved on Richard) it wasconsonant to the manners of that barbarous and turbulent age, andnot till after the queen's party had taken up arms. 

That the execution of lord Hastings, who had first engaged withRichard against the queen, and whom Sir Thomas More confessesRichard was lothe to lose, can be accounted for by nothing butabsolute necessity, and the law of self-defence. 

That Richard's assumption of the protectorate was in every respectagreeable to the laws and usage; was probably bestowed on him by theuniversal consent of the council and peers, and was a strongindication that he had then no thought of questioning the right ofhis nephew. 

That the tale of Richard aspersing the chastity of his own mother isincredible; 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 asermon of Dr. Shaw, and a speech of the duke of Buckingham, if thepeople only laughed at those orators. 

That there had been a precontract or marriage between Edward theFourth and lady Eleanor Talbot; and that Richard's claim to thecrown was founded on the illegitimacy of Edward's children. 

That a convention of the nobility, clergy, and people invited him toaccept the crown on that title. 

That the ensuing parliament ratified the act of the convention, andconfirmed the bastardy of Edward's children. 

That nothing can be more improbable than Richard's having taken nomeasures before he left London, to have his nephews murdered, if hehad 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 masterof the horse, in which capacity he had walked at Richard'scoronation. 

That Tirrel's jealousy of Sir Richard Ratcliffe is another palpablefalshood; 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 ormurderer, 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; andit certainly never was proved that they were murdered by Richard'sorder. 

That Sir Thomas More relied on nameless and uncertain authority;that it appears by dates and facts that his authorities were bad andfalse; that if Sir James Tirrel and Dighton had really committed themurder and confessed it, and if Perkin Warbeck had made a voluntary, clear, and probable confession of his imposture, there could haveremained no doubt of the murder. 

That Green, the nameless page, and Will Slaughter, having never beenquestioned about the murder, there is no reason to believe what isrelated 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 byHenry the Seventh, it is not probable that he was one of themurderers. That lord Bacon owning that Tirrel's confession did notplease the king so well as Dighton's; that Tirrel's imprisonment andexecution some years afterwards for a new treason, of which we haveno evidence, and which appears to have been mere suspicion, destroyall probability of his guilt in the supposed murder of the children. 

That the impunity of Dighton, if really guilty, was scandalous; andcan only be accounted for on the supposition of His being a falsewitness to serve Henry's cause against Perkin Warbeck. 

That the silence of the two archbishops, and Henry's not daring tospecify the murder of the princes in the act of attainder againstRichard, 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 nosymptom of that cruel nature, which would not stick at assassinatingany competitor. 

That it is indubitable that Richard's first idea was to keep thecrown but till Edward the Fifth should attain the age oftwenty-four. 

That with this view he did not create his own son prince of Walestill 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 Fifthwalk at his coronation. 

That there is strong presumption from the parliament-roll and fromthe Chronicle of Croyland, that both princes were living some timeafter Sir Thomas More fixes the date of their deaths. 

That when his own son was dead, Richard was so far from intending toget rid of his wife that he proclaimed his nephews, first the earlof Warwick, and then the earl of Lincoln, his heirs apparent. 

That there is not the least probability of his having poisoned hiswife, who died of a languishing distemper: that no proof was everpretended to be given of it; that a bare supposition of such acrime, without proofs or very strong presumptions, is scarce ever tobe credited. 

That he seems to have had no intention of marrying his niece, but tohave amused her with the hopes of that match, to prevent hermarrying Richmond. 

That Buck would not have dared to quote her letter as extant in theearl of Arundel's library, if it had not been there: that others ofBuck's assertions having been corroborated by subsequentdiscoveries, leave no doubt of his veracity on this; and that thatletter disculpates Richard from poisoning his wife; and only shewsthe impatience of his niece to be queen. 

That it is probable the queen-dowager knew her second son wasliving, and connived at the appearance of Lambert Simnel, to feelthe temper of the nation. 

That Henry the Seventh certainly thought that she and the earl ofLincoln were privy to the existence of Richard duke of York, andthat Henry lived in terror of his appearance. 

That the different conduct of Henry with regard to Lambert Simneland Perkin Warbeck, implies how different an opinion he had of them;that in the first case, he used natural and most rational methodsprove him an impostor; whereas his whole behaviour in Perkin's casewas mysterious, and betrayed his belief or doubt that Warbeck wasthe true duke of York. 

That it was morally impossible for the duchess of Burgundy at thedistance of twenty-seven years to instruct a Flemish lad soperfectly in all that had passed in the court of England, that hewould not have been detected in a few hours. 

That she could not inform him, nor could he know, what had passed inthe Tower, unless he was the true duke of York. 

That if he was not the true duke of York, Henry had nothing to dobut to confront him with Tirrel and Dighton, and the imposture musthave been discovered. 

That Perkin, never being confronted with the queen dowager, and theprincesses her daughters, proves that Henry did not dare to trust totheir acknowledging him. 

That if he was not the true duke of York, he might have beendetected by not knowing the queens and princesses, if shown to himwithout 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 Fourthis allowed. 

That there are gross and manifest blunders in his pretendedconfession. 

That Henry was so afraid of not ascertaining a good account of thepurity of his English accent, that he makes him learn English twiceover. 

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, whoplaced the crown on his head, knights of the garter, and men of thefairest characters, being persuaded that Perkin was the true duke ofYork, and dying for that belief, without recanting, makes it veryrash to deny that he was so. 

That the proclamation in Rymer's Foedera against Jane Shore, forplotting with the marquis Dorset, not with lord Hastings, destroysall the credit of Sir Thomas More, as to what relates to the latterpeer. 

In short, that Henry's character, as we have received it from hisown apologists, is so much worse and more hateful than Richard's, that we may well believe Henry invited and propogated by far thegreater part of the slanders against Richard: that Henry, notRichard, probably put to death the true duke of York, as he did theearl of Warwick: and that we are not certain whether Edward theFifth was murdered; nor, if he was, by whose order he wasmurdered. 

After all that has been said, it is scarcely necessary to add a wordon the supposed discovery that was made of the skeletons of the twoyoung princes, in the reign of Charles the Second. Two skeletonsfound in that dark abyss of so many secret transactions, with nomarks to ascertain the time, the age of their interment, cancertainly verify nothing. We must believe both princes died there, before we can believe that their bones were found there; and uponwhat that belief can be founded, or how we shall cease to doubtwhether Perkin Warbeck was not one of those children, I am at a lossto guess. 

As little is it requisite to argue on the grants made by Richard theThird to his supposed accomplices in that murder, because theargument will serve either way. It was very natural that they, whohad tasted most of Richard's bounty, should be suspected as theinstruments of his crimes. But till it can be proved that thosecrimes were committed, it is in vain to bring evidence to show whoassisted him in perpetrating them. For my own part, I know not whatto think of the death of Edward the Fifth: I can neither entirelyacquit Richard of it, nor condemn him; because there are no proofson either side; and though a court of justice would, from thatdefect of evidence, absolve him; opinion may fluctuate backward andforwards, and at last remain in suspense. 

For the younger brother, the balance seems to incline greatly on theside of Perkin Warbeck, as the true duke of York; and if one wassaved, one knows not how nor why to believe that Richard destroyedonly the elder. 

We must leave this whole story dark, though not near so dark as wefound it: and it is perhaps as wise to be uncertain on one portionof our history, as to believe so much as is believed, in allhistories, though very probably as falsely delivered to us, as theperiod 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 oughtnot to be omitted. 

After the death of Perkin Warbeck, his widow, the lady CatherineGordon, daughter of the earl of Huntly, from her exquisite beauty, and upon account of her husband called The Rose of Scotland, wasmarried to Sir Matthew Cradock, and is buried with him in Herbert'sisle in Swansea church in Wales, where their tomb is still to beseen, with this inscription in ancient characters:

"Here lies Sir Mathie Cradock knight, sume time deputie unto theright 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, sonof the first earl of Pembroke, and from that match are descended theearls of Pembroke and countess of Powis, Hans Stanley, Esq, GeorgeRice, Esq. &c.