[10] Davies, _York Records_, p. 216.

[11] Their mothers were sisters.

[12] Afterwards the 'Blue Boar.'

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

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

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

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

[16] Four cannon b.a.l.l.s were found on Ambien Hill in the last century.

They are now in possession of Mrs. Park Yates, of Sandiway, near Northwich, who allowed Mr. Gairdner to examine them. One is of lead, weighing 14- lbs., another 8- lbs., another 4 lbs., and the fourth is of stone and larger. Mr. Gairdner suggests that the guns may have been brought by the rebels from Tamworth Castle, which was on their line of march.

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

[18] Eldest son of Sir Thomas Ratcliffe of Derwent.w.a.ter. Sir Richard married Agnes, daughter of Lord Scrope of Bolton.

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

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

[21] Hutton's _Bosworth_. The only detailed account of the battle is in the history of the Italian Polydore Virgil, who came to England in about 1503. Hall, Grafton, and Holinshed copied from Polydore, or from each other. Hutton visited the ground in 1788, and again in 1807, and wrote a history of the battle. Mr. Gairdner also went over the ground and wrote an account of the battle in the _Archaeologia_, lv. pt. vii.

p. 159 (1896), read Jan. 24, 1895. The present writer has twice been over every part of the ground, and examined it carefully with Polydore Virgil and Hutton as his guides, the first time accompanied by an accomplished antiquary, the present Earl of Liverpool.

[22] Brooke, _Visits to Battle Fields in England_, p. 170.

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

[24] Davies, _York Records_, p. 218.

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

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

'But,' as the Editor remarks, 'it was the misfortune of Sir Robert Plumpton to have lived on into the days of Henry VII., who, under the pretence of a rigid enforcement of the law, sought only the means to gratify his avarice.' Every defect of t.i.tle, which might furnish the pretext for a suit or fine, was eagerly caught at in order to swell the revenue. In this manner the claim of the Plumpton heirs general was re-opened by the infamous Empson, the tool of Henry; and after years of persecution, Sir Robert was reduced to beggary and a debtors' prison.'

_Plumpton Correspondence_, pp. xc. to cxviii. (_Camden Society_, 1839).

[26] London, Gloucester, and Worcester.

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

[28] Rous, p. 216.

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

[30] Henry VIII. was never known to exercise the prerogative of mercy.

Even poor young Lord Dacre was among his victims, for a trivial offence.

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

[32] Lord Lovell and Sir Robert Percy.

{166}

PART II

CHAPTER I

THE AUTHORITIES

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

Instead of this being the case, the accusations of his enemies have received full credence. He was charged {167} with the committal of a series of atrocious crimes, his name has been execrated by posterity, and historians have vied with each other in heaping opprobrium on his memory.

[Sidenote: Rooted prejudice]

Yet there are obvious reasons for closely criticising the accusations against King Richard, and for examining them with more than ordinary care before accepting them as proved. For his successor had no valid t.i.tle to the crown. It was not only the new King's interest, but a necessity of his position, that he should cause grave charges to be brought against his predecessor, and that they should be accepted as true. Henry VII. had the power and the will to silence all comment, and to prevent any defence from being published. Evidence in favour of Richard was destroyed. Authors employed by Henry, and others who were anxious to please him and his successors, were alone permitted to write histories. Not a syllable was allowed to be uttered on the other side for one hundred and sixty years. The story thus put forward was dramatised by Shakespeare, and became so familiar to posterity that even writers of our own day approach the subject with unconscious prejudice which they cannot resist. If Richard performs kindly acts, and many such are recorded, he is trying 'to get unsteadfast friends.'

If he punishes treason he is 'a venomous hunchback.' If a rebellion is put down during his reign he is an inhuman tyrant. His ability is cunning, his justice is cruelty, his bravery is fury, his generosity is artfulness, his devotion is hypocrisy.

In giving some account of the original authorities upon whose testimony the charges against King Richard rest, I only propose to state general conclusions with regard to them in the present chapter; because proofs {168} and arguments will be embodied in the detailed discussions which follow.

Bernard Andre, Archbishop Morton, and Polydore Virgil were actually in the pay or under the direct influence of the first Tudor King. In this trio only one was an Englishman. John Rous and Robert Fabyan wrote during Henry's reign, accepted his version of events, and sought his favour. The continuator of the Chronicle of Croyland Abbey is the sole independent source of information.

[Sidenote: Morton's pamphlet]

By far the most important of the original authorities, and the one on which all subsequent history has been based, is Archbishop Morton. His narrative is contained in the 'History of Richard III.,' erroneously attributed to Sir Thomas More, who was in Morton's household when a boy. This work first appeared in Hardyng's Chronicle, printed by Grafton in 1543. It was embodied in Hall's Chronicle, and copied by Holinshed. Fourteen years after its publication, another and somewhat different version was brought out by Rastell in 1557. Rastell was related to Sir Thomas More, and he alleged that his version was taken from a ma.n.u.script in More's handwriting written about 1513. A Latin version, written long before its publication, was printed at Louvain in 1566, with various additions to the imaginary speeches, and an address to Henry VIII. and the Earl of Surrey. Sir George Buck[3] and Sir John Harington[4] had heard that the work was written {169} by Morton.

The Latin version could not have been, for it is addressed to Henry VIII., and Morton died in 1500.

The history, as we have it, contains long speeches and dialogues which must have been fabricated by the writer. The narrative from the death of Edward IV. to the accession of Richard was certainly written or dictated by Morton, for no one else could have been cognizant of some of the facts. The t.i.tle given by the publisher is misleading. It is not a 'history of Richard III.,' but a very detailed narrative of the events from his brother's death to his own accession, covering a period of less than three months. It ends abruptly at a point just before the date of Morton's flight from England. His personal knowledge ceased with his departure, and here the story suddenly comes to an end. He was evidently acquainted personally with every detail, and he possessed an exceptionally accurate memory.[5] The errors and alterations of dates in the narrative must consequently have been made intentionally and with an object. Morton's character and the value of his testimony will be discussed more fully in a future chapter. The story of the murder of the young princes at the end of the book cannot have been written by Morton, for it alludes to events which happened after October 12, 1500, the date of that prelate's death. The outline of the story of the murder was no doubt inspired, as Lord Bacon shrewdly suspected, by Henry VII. himself.

Rastell a.s.sumed that the English version of this {170} 'History of Richard III.' was composed by Sir Thomas More because a copy in his handwriting was found among his papers. The previous publication by Grafton proves that there were other copies abroad, differing slightly from each other, and there is no reason for a.s.suming that the copy in More's handwriting was the original. Indeed there is evidence that it was not. Grafton's version contains a good deal at the end which is not in the narrative attributed to More by Rastell. The latter ends abruptly, as if the whole had not been copied. More merely made an unfinished copy. The respect with which this production has been treated is due to Sir Thomas More's reputed authorship, and to this is to be attributed its comparative freedom from criticism. It is in reality an unscrupulous party pamphlet, and its authorship ought not to affect its character. Yet the reply to any objection to statements contained in it has. .h.i.therto been that it was written by the good and virtuous Sir Thomas More, and therefore must be true.[6]

Internal evidence makes it certain that More did not write it. The author speaks of the death-bed of Edward IV. as an eye-witness.[7]

More was then only five years of age. He was born in February 1478.

{171} This seems conclusive. Sir Thomas made an incomplete copy, when a young man, of a work which was attracting a good deal of attention, and of which there were other copies in circulation. The date of the copy is said by Rastell to be 1513, when More's age was about thirty-five. The actual compiler of the book, as we have it, is unknown. But the information and the inspiration of the whole work, with the exception of the story of the murder of the young princes at the end, is undoubtedly from Archbishop Morton. I have, therefore, referred to the work as by Morton, and to the story of the murders, which is clearly not by Morton, as by Rastell's anonymous historian.

[Sidenote: Bernard Andre]

Henry VII. began the business of vilifying his predecessor very early in his reign. It was indeed a matter of the utmost moment to him, for he appears to have considered that a belief in the alleged crimes of Richard was essential to the security of his own position. He brought over a blind Gascon from France, named Bernard Andre, whom he appointed his poet laureate and historiographer. Andre began to write a life of Henry VII. in 1500. It is very brief, with several gaps, and he left it incomplete when he died in about 1522.