Morton opens his case with the a.s.sumption that the Duke of Gloucester had always intended to supplant his nephew. He a.s.serts that the Duke concerted plans with Buckingham and Hastings against the Queen and her relations; that he then, secretly, and by divers means, caused the Queen to be persuaded to advise her son not to come with a large force to London; and that he and other lords wrote to the Queen's friends so lovingly that they, nothing mistrusting, brought the young prince up in good speed with sober company. Gloucester and Buckingham then went to Northampton and met Rivers there. For all that appears in this part of the narrative, Gloucester was in London, and came thence with Buckingham to Northampton. Gloucester was really in the marches of Scotland, and he could not possibly have carried on {209} all these intrigues at that distance, between April 9 when King Edward died and the 23rd when Rivers left Ludlow. He could not even have heard of the King's death for several days. It is true that, towards the end of his lampoon, when telling his story about an alleged quarrel between Gloucester and Buckingham, Morton does mention the Duke being at York, and Buckingham having sent a messenger to him who met him at Nottingham.[7] But this messenger could not have been the channel of all the intrigues he describes. There was no time.

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

Morton's story about Gloucester's intrigues at this time is therefore a fabrication. The truth is exactly the reverse of Morton's version.

Richard's conduct was straightforward and loyal. After attending solemn obsequies of his brother in York Minster, he called on the n.o.bility and gentry of Yorkshire to swear allegiance to his young nephew. When he arrived in London, he ordered preparations to be made for his nephew's coronation, and he sent summonses to forty esquires to receive knighthood of the Bath on the occasion.[8] He also caused the dresses to be worn by his nephew at his coronation to be got ready.[9]

These acts were well known to Morton, who pa.s.sed them over in silence, {210} because they would tend to give a true impression, where he wanted to leave a false one.

Having thus raised a prejudice against the Protector, Morton's next object was to instil a belief that Hastings worked against the Woodvilles throughout in concert with Richard. In order to create this impression he gives two false dates. He makes young Richard leave sanctuary on June 9. The true date was the 16th.[10] He a.s.serts that Lord Rivers was beheaded on June 13, the very day of the arrest of Hastings, and he makes a great point of it, observing as a striking coincidence that Hastings suffered death on the self-same day and about the self-same hour as Rivers whose execution he had approved.[11] He knew this to be false. Rivers made his will on the 23rd, and was not beheaded until the 25th.[12] Morton had a motive for falsifying the dates, and it is obvious. He wanted it to appear that Hastings was an enemy of the Woodville {211} faction to the end, that he was a party to the removal of young Richard from sanctuary and to the execution of Rivers. But why? Clearly because Hastings was not an enemy of the Woodvilles to the end, because he had, with Morton and others, formed a coalition with them, and entered into a conspiracy with them against the Protector. It was important to conceal this, because it justified the Protector's action against Hastings; and Morton did so by resorting to a falsification of dates. He then proceeds to enter into minute details, in describing the scene when Hastings was arrested on Friday, June 13.

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

These details enable us to obtain some glimmering of the truth. We have the reminiscences of an eyewitness, who was also a schemer so dealing with the facts as to leave false impressions clothed in the similitude of veracious recollections. The tale of the strawberries is doubtless true, and is a masterly touch designed to give an air of reality to the scene. The withered arm is a fabrication intended to conceal the real charge made by the Protector. That charge was contained in the proclamation which Morton mentions {212} as having been well indited and written on parchment. He professes to give the substance of it. The seeker after truth would very much prefer the original text. But it was destroyed. Its destruction is a strong presumption in favour of the Protector, and justifies the conclusion that the real charge was a serious one. It is incredible that Catesby merely revealed the nonsense about Jane Sh.o.r.e's sorcery. Morton has inserted this rubbish in order to conceal the real charge made by the Protector. Morton further tells us that 'Sh.o.r.e's wife was of all women the one the Queen most hated,' and that she was the mistress of Hastings. She was really the mistress of Dorset,[13] the Queen's son, and the motive for bringing in the Queen's alleged hatred, in this place, is to conceal the real position of Jane Sh.o.r.e, which was that of a secret agent between the party of the Woodvilles and Hastings.

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

[Sidenote: Falsification of dates]

Morton would have us believe that Hastings was beheaded on the spot without trial. This version of the story is also told by Fabyan, and adopted by Polydore Virgil. It was told to the second Croyland {213} monk, who wrote that Hastings was beheaded on June 13.[14] It was a version industriously spread by Morton, as a charge of lawless cruelty and indecent haste against the Protector. It can be proved to be false.

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

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

{214}

There is other testimony on this point which is quite above suspicion.

Simon Stallworthe, a prebendary of Lincoln, wrote a letter from London to Sir William Stonor, a gentleman of Oxfordshire, on Sat.u.r.day June 21, 1483,[16] in which he said that 'on Friday last was the Lord Chambleyn [Hastings] hedded sone after noon.' As Sat.u.r.day was the 21st, Friday last was the 20th. We here have evidence that Lord Hastings was not beheaded until a week after his arrest and, as there was no indecent haste, we may a.s.sume that there was a trial and sentence by a proper tribunal. The story of Morton about the hurried execution on the 13th, and the log of wood, is therefore false. It has been suggested that when Stallworthe wrote 'Friday last,' he did not mean Friday last, but the Friday before Friday last. This theory is exploded by the very next line in Stallworthe's letter. He there says that 'on Monday last'

young Richard came out of sanctuary. This is certainly the correct date. But it contradicts both Morton and Fabyan, though it is corroborated by the Croyland Chronicle. If 'Monday last' meant 'Monday last,' 'Friday last' must be taken to mean 'Friday last' in Stallworthe's letter, and not any other date that the exigencies of calumniators may require.

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

{215}

This is a point which should be clearly understood. It must be borne in mind that we have certain fixed dates. Hastings was certainly arrested on June 13. It is also certain that Thursday, June 26, was the date of Richard's accession: it is fixed by the year book. Dr.

Shaw's sermon was preached on the previous Sunday, that is June 22.

Fabyan, as well as Stallworthe, tells us that the execution of Hastings took place on the previous Friday. These are fixed beacons, and will lead us to the truth. They will also enable us to detect the false lights thrown out by Morton and Fabyan. They both knew the truth well, but they had to manipulate the dates so as to make it appear that Hastings was executed on the 13th. It must be borne in mind that, on Fabyan's own showing, the execution took place on the Friday before Shaw's sermon was preached.

In order to give a plausible appearance to the a.s.sertion that Hastings was beheaded on the 13th, Fabyan tried to get rid of the week between the 13th and the 20th. He thought he was bound to recognise the fact that the execution was on the Friday before Shaw's sermon, so he brought the sermon back a week too. But Shaw's sermon was well known to have been preached on the Sunday before the accession. So he had to move back the accession also, and he placed it on June 20. Here Fabyan's dishonesty is detected, for the 20th was not a Thursday, and that the 26th was the date of the accession is beyond dispute.

Morton was, of course, in the same difficulty as regards his dates.

But he was far better practised in the manipulation of evidence. Such an old hand would commit himself to dates as little as possible. {216} He would fear them as a thief fears a detective. He gives only one, and he selects the right day of the week, which Fabyan did not. But this is quite enough to convict him. He chose the 19th for the day of Richard's accession with the very same object as Fabyan, to get rid of the gap between the 13th and the 20th; well knowing that the right date for the accession was the 26th.

We can now perceive the truth, both through the direct testimony of Stallworthe and through the detection of the dishonesty of Morton and Fabyan. Lord Hastings was arrested on June 13 on a charge of treason, tried and sentenced. He was executed, after a decent interval, on Friday, June 20. The admission of Morton that a proclamation was issued, announcing the details of the Hastings-Woodville conspiracy, is important. This doc.u.ment, and all others relating to the business, were destroyed in the same way as the Act of Parliament recording Richard's t.i.tle was destroyed. The object of making away with the Act was to conceal the truth. The disappearance of all doc.u.ments relating to the execution of Hastings can only be explained in the same way.

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

[Sidenote: Trial of Rivers]

The trial of Lord Rivers, with Grey, Vaughan and Haute, followed on that of Hastings. They had been charged with treasonable designs, immediately after the death of King Edward, on the very clearest evidence. But the long delay in bringing them to trial justifies the belief that their capital punishment was not intended, if fresh charges had not been brought {217} against them, arising out of the Hastings conspiracy. Morton brings forward the same accusation in their case, and he gives a false date for their execution. He would have us believe that Rivers and his companions were also put to death 'without so much as the formality of a trial.' So he appears to have told the second Croyland monk. But his untruthfulness is exposed by the evidence of another Tudor witness. Rous inadvertently let out the truth, not knowing there was any reason for concealing it. He certainly did not do so out of any good will for King Richard. There was a trial and the Earl of Northumberland presided at it. He was not the sole judge, but the President acting with other judges.[17] He probably sat as a Commissioner to execute the office of Lord Steward, with a jury of northern Peers, to try Rivers. Morton falsified the date of the executions, making them earlier by twelve days. One object of this falsification has already been pointed out. It also served to indicate such haste in the executions as would make the absence of any trial appear probable.

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

Morton next proceeds to falsify the t.i.tle of King Richard III. to the crown. This point is of great importance and merits close attention.

The statement of Richard's t.i.tle to the crown was drawn up, and adopted by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, after considering all the evidence {218} between June 8 and 25. The doc.u.ment was afterwards embodied in an Act of Parliament ent.i.tled the 't.i.tulus Regius,' with which the writers employed by Henry VII. must have been well acquainted. When Henry came to the throne, he ordered this Act to be repealed without quoting the preamble, with a view to its purport being concealed. He caused it to be destroyed, and threatened any one who kept a copy with fine and imprisonment during his pleasure. The reason he gave for this was that 'all things in the said Act may be forgot.'

In spite of this threat the truth was told by the Croyland monk, but his chronicle remained in ma.n.u.script, and he was not found out.

Henry's conduct affords a strong presumption that the t.i.tle was valid.

But he did more. He granted an illusory pardon to Bishop Stillington, who was the princ.i.p.al witness to the truth of the main statement in the 't.i.tulus Regius.' This was done with the object of keeping silence on the subject of his real offence, which was telling the truth. Henry then arrested him on another trumped up charge, and kept him in close and solitary imprisonment in Windsor Castle until his death in June 1491.

These proceedings show the immense importance attached by Henry VII. to a suppression of the truth relating to Richard's t.i.tle to the crown.

It is certain that if the alleged previous contract with Lady Eleanor Butler was false, the falsehood would have been eagerly exposed, and there would have been no occasion to invent any other story. On the other hand, if the alleged previous contract was true, the evidence would have been suppressed and another story would have been invented and promulgated. The evidence was suppressed, and a different tale was {219} put forward. The conclusion is inevitable that the previous contract of Edward IV. with Lady Eleanor Butler was a fact.

[Sidenote: The true claim to the Crown]

By a mere accident the original draft of the 't.i.tulus Regius' was not destroyed. It was discovered long afterwards among the Tower records.

Its tenor was given in the continuation of the Croyland Chronicle.[18]

Richard's t.i.tle rested on the statement that Edward IV. was already married to Lady Eleanor Butler, a daughter of the first Earl of Shrewsbury,[19] when he went through the ceremony with Lady Grey. It is certain, therefore, that this and this only was the statement made in inspired sermons and speeches at the time; for it was the official case of those who advocated Richard's accession. It is impossible that one ground for the claim should have been put forward officially, and another which was not only different but contradictory, in the sermons and speeches directed to be made at the same time.

Now all this was well known to Morton, and to {220} Polydore Virgil, when they concocted their stories. They had free access to all official sources of information. But they clearly believed that the evidence had been so effectually placed out of reach, that it was safe for them to adopt what tale they chose. They, therefore, stated that Dr. Shaw preached a sermon at Paul's Cross on June 22, in which he calumniated the d.u.c.h.ess of York by maintaining that Edward IV. and Clarence were her children by some other man, and that Gloucester was the only legitimate son of the Duke her husband. The object was to throw the reader off the scent respecting Edward's own connubial proceedings, by bringing an infamous and very absurd charge against his mother. This is clearly the line that Polydore Virgil was instructed to take, for he alludes to the common report that Edward's children were called b.a.s.t.a.r.ds, and declares it to be 'void of all truth,' that there was such a report. He goes further, alleging that the d.u.c.h.ess of York complained of the injury done her, and that Dr. Shaw died of sorrow for having uttered the slander.[20] With the 't.i.tulus Regius'

before us, it will be allowed that this witness did not stick at trifles.

[Sidenote: Morton's fabrications]

But Morton was not to be outdone by the Italian. He puts the slander about the d.u.c.h.ess of York into Dr. Shaw's mouth, and he also makes the preacher tell another tale which would make b.a.s.t.a.r.ds of Edward's children. According to Polydore Virgil the report that the preacher made b.a.s.t.a.r.ds of Edward's children was 'voyd of all truthe.' According to Morton the preacher said that Edward was previously married to a woman named Lucy. It will be seen that {221} these authorities contradict each other. Morton proceeds to knock down his own ninepin, by telling us that Lucy confessed she was never married to the King.

No one but Morton ever said she was.

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

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

These misrepresentations discredit the authority of Polydore Virgil and Morton. Of course there can be no doubt that Dr. Shaw in his sermon, if indeed he {222} ever preached it, and the Duke of Buckingham if he ever made a speech at the Guildhall, simply explained to the people the contents of the pet.i.tion stating Richard's t.i.tle, which was about to be presented to him: namely that Edward IV. was previously contracted to the Lady Eleanor Butler, and that the children by Lady Grey were consequently illegitimate. The invention of the infamous slander against the d.u.c.h.ess of York by Morton and Polydore Virgil, the careful exclusion of Lady Eleanor's name and of any allusion to her, and the elaborate efforts of Henry VII. to destroy all traces of the evidence are very significant. They amount to a proof that the Butler contract was a reality, and that (if the children of Clarence were incapacitated by their father's attainder) King Richard's t.i.tle was sound and just.

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

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

{223}

This is another falsification of dates made as usual with a purpose.

Nothing really happened on Wednesday. On Thursday the 26th, Morton says that Richard III. went to Westminster Hall in royal state. What Morton has done is to transfer the events of Thursday to Wednesday, and to make as little as possible of them, in order to draw off attention from a very momentous event. No one would gather from Morton's narrative that on Thursday, June 26, the Convention Parliament, as it would have been called in later days, consisting of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, which had been summoned for the 25th and actually met, proceeded to Crosby Place with the pet.i.tion embodying Richard's t.i.tle, and urged him to accept the crown.[22] Morton ignores all this, in order that his readers may be kept in ignorance of the solemn and deliberate proceedings which accompanied Richard's acceptance of the crown. Polydore Virgil does the same.

[Sidenote: Buckingham's treason]

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

It is a.s.serted by Morton and Polydore Virgil that the cause of Buckingham's discontent was the refusal {224} of Richard III. to grant him the moiety of the Bohun lands. It is added that Buckingham's suit was rejected by the King, with many spiteful words, and that there was ever afterwards hatred and distrust between them. This can be proved to be false. Richard granted Buckingham's pet.i.tion, and made him a grant[23] of the lands under the royal sign manual, giving him the profits from the date of signature, until the formality was completed by authority of Parliament.

[Sidenote: Buckingham and Morton]

This story must have been fabricated to conceal the true motive of Buckingham's treason. He probably aspired to the throne as the next heir of the Plantagenets after Richard and his son, in accordance with the 't.i.tulus Regius.' He had himself concurred in declaring the children of Edward IV. to be illegitimate, and those of Clarence to be incapacitated. Next came Richard III. and his delicate son, of whom he would dispose if the rebellion was successful. He ignored the sisters of the King and their children.[24] This completed the descendants of the second son of Edward III. The legitimate descendants of the third son came to an end with Henry VI. Buckingham himself represented the fifth son of Edward III.