[31] On the authority of Sir George Buck. His words are as follows:--'When February was past, the Lady Elizabeth, being more impatient and jealous of the success than every one knew or conceived, writes a letter to the Duke of Norfolk intimating first that he was the man in whom she most affied, in respect of that love her Father had ever borne him. Then she congratulates his many courtesies, in continuance of which she desires him to be a mediator for her to the King in the behalf of the marriage propounded between them, who, as she wrote, was her only joy and maker in the world, and that she was his in heart and thought, withal insinuating that the better part of February was past, and that she feared the Queen would never die. All these be her own words written with her own hand, and this is the sum of her letter, which remaineth in the autograph or original draft under her own hand, in the magnificent cabinet of Thomas Earl of Arundel and Surrey.' (Buck, p. 128.)

Sir Harris Nicolas (_Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York_, p. 1), as an admirer of Elizabeth of York, was much troubled by this letter.

He attacked Sir George Buck as 'one whose violent prejudices do not sufficiently account for the mendacity for which his work is remarkable.' But this is unjust. Buck no doubt was prejudiced, but not more so than the Tudor chroniclers. He blunders and is uncritical, yet there is no reason to impugn his good faith. Nor did Sir Harris Nicolas himself think that the case was sufficiently disposed of by abusing Sir George Buck. He made various attempts to explain away the letter, but none satisfactory or even plausible. Dr. Lingard did not doubt the authenticity of the letter (v. pp. 355-359, ed. 1823, iv. p.

252, ed. 1849). It is not now known to exist, but that proves nothing if Buck wrote in good faith.

Mr. Gairdner approaches the subject more calmly. 'Positive testimony like this,' he says, 'is not to be lightly set aside as incredible.

Yet Buck, if not altogether dishonest (and I see no reason to think him so), was certainly by no means an impartial historian. At the same time Buck's abstract of the letter is very minute, and such as would seem to follow pretty closely the turns of expression in a genuine original, and he expressly declares the ma.n.u.script to be an autograph or original draft. If it be not a forgery palmed off upon Buck himself, I am inclined to think it was written, not by Elizabeth, but by her mother who bore the same Christian name. Every word might just as well have come from her, except the mention of the father, which may be a mistake; and there is nothing inconceivable in her anxiety that Richard should marry her daughter.' He adds 'that Elizabeth could have been eager to obtain the hand of her brother's murderer is really too monstrous to be believed.' Why then is it not 'too monstrous to be believed' that the mother should have been eager to obtain the hand of her son's murderer for her daughter? It is clear that the grounds for accepting the letter are too strong for Mr. Gairdner to be able to reject them. Yet that Elizabeth should wish to marry her brother's murderer appears incredible to him. The conclusion is inevitable.

Richard was not her brother's murderer, if the letter was authentic (see Gairdner's _Life of Richard III._ pp. 256-257, and note p. 257).

{233}

CHAPTER IV

THE MAIN CHARGE AGAINST RICHARD III

15. Murder of the Princes in the Tower. Acquittal.

In attempting an impartial consideration of the question of the fate of King Edward's sons, it must always be remembered that the main argument against their uncle is made to rest upon the truth of his previous alleged crimes. This argument is destroyed if Richard was not a venomous hunchback born with teeth, if he was not a cold scheming and calculating villain who had already committed two atrocious murders, drowned his brother in a b.u.t.t of malmsey, poisoned his wife, and waded through the blood of innocent men to an usurped throne. A careful study of the evidence establishes the fact that these accusations are false, and that they were put forward by the writers under a new dynasty in order to blacken the character of the last Plantagenet King, and to make the accusation that he murdered his nephews more plausible.

For it was a matter of the most vital importance to Henry VII., not only that the boys should have been murdered, but that it should be believed that the crime was perpetrated before his accession.

We have to deal with a different man altogether. The real Richard, who is accused of the murder of his {234} nephews, was not previously steeped in crime. The accusation must now be considered as being brought against an ordinary prince of the fifteenth century, if not better certainly not worse than his contemporaries. This at once destroys the chief points of the evidence against him. His accusers rightly felt that it was necessary to blacken Richard's character, and this they did coa.r.s.ely enough, but very successfully. They knew that, without this poisoning of the wells, the case against him lost all its force. 'Nemo repente turp.i.s.simus.'

We must now approach the question relating to the fate of the two young sons of Edward IV., without having constantly before our minds the grotesque caricature portrayed by the Tudor writers. Although it is not possible, especially at this distance of time, to account for the workings of any man's mind, or for the motives which may control his actions, it is yet necessary to consider this phase of the question, with as much light as we can bring to bear upon it.

It is not disputed that Edward IV. always evinced unshaken love and affection for his young brother, and showed the most absolute confidence in him at the time of his death. Richard returned this affection with devoted loyalty. He had no love for the Woodville faction, but he must have felt some regard for his brother's children, being such a man as we believe he has been proved to have been. This feeling of regard would decrease the strength of any motive producing a desire to destroy them for his own ends. But there was no such motive.

The boys had been declared to be illegitimate, after an examination of evidence, by the unanimous voice of Parliament. When the Cardinal Archbishop, surrounded by his suffragans, {235} placed the crown of St.

Edward on Richard's head, he proclaimed the belief of the Church, and released from their oaths all who under a misapprehension had sworn allegiance to Edward V. The boy, as a claimant to the throne, had ceased to be dangerous.

[Sidenote: Unanimity at Richard's coronation]

It should be borne in mind that Parliament was unanimous in recognising the t.i.tle of Richard III. Excepting half a dozen Lancastrian exiles who were equally opposed to any member of the house of York,[1] the whole peerage was at Richard's coronation except those whose absence is accounted for by extreme age or youth, or by the calls of duty.[2]

Even the Woodville faction had submitted, and was represented at the coronation by Viscount Lisle and the Bishop of Salisbury. Henry Tudor's mother bore the train of Richard's Queen, and his uncle Lord Welles was also at the coronation. There was absolutely no party for the illegitimate sons of Edward IV. at the time of their alleged murders, and consequently no danger to be apprehended from them. If the story had put the murders after Buckingham's rising it would have been a little more plausible. But it placed them two months before the rising, when the King had not the shadow of a suspicion that any opposition was contemplated. Setting aside all natural or religious feeling, and even a.s.suming Richard to have been the impossible monster depicted by Tudor writers, he certainly had no motive for the crime.

{236}

But it may be argued that the workings of men's minds are inexplicable, and that Richard may have committed the crime from a motive which would seem insufficient to any reasonable man. To decide upon this proposition we can only turn to a consideration of his conduct as regards other persons in the same relationship and position as the two boys, and who were likely to cause Richard as much or as little trouble. There were seven such persons, namely, the five daughters of Edward IV. and the two children of the Duke of Clarence. The King treated his nieces with kindness and consideration as near relations, when they came under his protection. The young Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's elder brother Clarence, was a far more formidable rival than the sons of Edward. The former was incontestably legitimate; while the latter had been declared to be illegitimate by both Houses of Parliament. Richard knighted the son of Clarence, placed him at the head of the n.o.bility, and made him a member of council and of his own household. We, therefore, know that Richard did not look upon the children of his elder brothers as enemies to be destroyed, but as relations to be cherished.

[Sidenote: The princes alive in Richard's time]

We find, then, that the two young sons of Edward IV. went to reside in the royal lodgings of the Tower in June 1483. The statement put forth by Henry VII. is that they were murdered there in the following August.

But there are two pieces of evidence, one of them positive evidence, that they were alive throughout the reign of Richard III.

In the orders for King Richard's household dated after the death of his own son, children are mentioned of such high rank that they were to be served before all other Lords. The only children who could occupy {237} such a position were the sons of Edward IV. and the son of Clarence. The conclusion must be that all his nephews were members of his household, and that they were only sent to Sheriff Hutton and to the Tower when danger threatened the realm from the invasion of Henry Tudor.

The other piece of evidence is found in a warrant in Rymer's 'Foedera,'

dated March 9, 1485, to the following effect: it directs Henry Davy 'to deliver unto John G.o.ddestande, footman unto the Lord b.a.s.t.a.r.d, two doblets of silk, one jacket of silk, one gown of cloth, two shirts, and two bonets.'[3] There are other warrants to pay for provisions. Dr.

Lingard[4] tried to destroy the significance of these warrants by suggesting that they referred to John of Gloucester, an illegitimate son of the King. But this boy is mentioned in Rymer's 'Foedera,' and is designated as a b.a.s.t.a.r.d son of the King[5] simply and not as a lord, for no such t.i.tle belonged to him. Edward, on the other hand, although he was officially called a b.a.s.t.a.r.d, was also a lord. In his case the designation of Lord was correct. In the 'Wardrobe Account' he was called the Lord Edward; after the accession of his uncle.[6] The royal t.i.tles of Wales and Cornwall were no longer consistent or proper, and had indeed been transferred, in due course, to the King's son. But the earldoms of March {238} and Pembroke, conferred on him by his father, still belonged to Edward. He would properly be styled the Lord b.a.s.t.a.r.d, while John of Gloucester could not be and was not. There was only one 'Lord' b.a.s.t.a.r.d.[7] The warrants, therefore, show that Edward was alive and well treated in March 1485, four months before the death of Richard III.

These two pieces of evidence are in keeping with Morton's statement that King Richard had declared his intention of maintaining his nephews in honourable estate. But there is strong collateral evidence pointing to the same conclusion. If there had been foul play, it is scarcely credible that the mother could have been induced by any promises to throw her remaining children on the protection of one who had already violated the most sacred ties as regards her two sons. It is, however, just possible that a very unfeeling and selfish woman (though Elizabeth was neither), weary of confinement in sanctuary, might have been induced to make terms with the murderer of her sons, in order to obtain a comfortable provision for herself. But she did more than this. She sent for her other son, who was safe in France, advising him to return home and submit himself to the King. It is incredible that she could have done this unless she knew that the two boys were alive and well treated. She remained on friendly terms with Richard until his death, and her daughters attended the festivities at his {239} Court. Still stronger evidence in the same direction is afforded by the letter to the Duke of Norfolk, whether it was written by the King's niece Elizabeth or by her mother, as Mr. Gairdner suggests. The writer could not have spoken of Richard as her 'joy and maker in the world,' or have said that she was 'his in heart and thought,' if he had just murdered the brothers of one and the sons of the other. The thing is quite impossible.

The conduct of their mother and sister is a strong corroboration of the positive evidence that the young princes were alive and well throughout King Richard's reign.

[Sidenote: The alleged rumours]

On the other hand, there is no evidence whatever that they were dead; beyond rumours of which we only hear long afterwards. We are told that there were rumours that they had been murdered, and rumours that they were alive, and had been taken abroad. Rumours but no evidence.

If they had been smothered the bodies would have been exposed to allay suspicion, and would have received Christian burial. To hide them would have been an act of incredible folly.

There remain then, for consideration, these rumours which are alleged to have prevailed during the reign of King Richard to the effect that his nephews had been murdered. It is maintained that if these rumours were generally believed, Richard must have been guilty, because if he had been innocent he would have taken some steps to disprove the rumours, and he took no such steps, or rather--no such steps are recorded by his enemies.

The points for investigation are whether such rumours actually existed, and if so, whether they were {240} so general as to reach the King's ears and make it advisable that anything should be done to refute them.

It is alleged that these rumours took shape during the King's progress to York in the summer and autumn of 1483. There is no evidence that they prevailed at this or any other time during Richard's reign.[8]

The authority for a rumour about the fate of the two boys in the summer of 1483 is the Croyland Chronicle; and there can be no doubt that the statement was made in good faith; although the writer may have been deceived.

The pa.s.sage in the Croyland Chronicle is to the effect that the princes remaining in custody in the Tower, the people in the south and west of England became anxious for their liberation, that meetings were held on the subject, and that proposals were made to arrange the escape of the daughters of Edward IV. so that, if anything happened to his sons, there might still be heirs of his body. It was also reported that the sons of Edward were dead, though it was unknown by what violent means they met their end.[9] So far the Croyland monk.

No doubt there were partizans of the defeated factions of Hastings and the Woodvilles who were ready to spread any rumours injurious to the King. The question is whether the rumours which reached the ears of the Croyland monk were ever generally {241} credited by the people, so as to call for action from the Government. Is it true that they led to loud murmurings from meetings and a.s.semblages of the people in the south and west of England, such as would attract general notice? The only proof offered is that an officer named Nesfield was ordered to watch the approaches of the Sanctuary at Westminster, and see that no one left it secretly. But this was a precaution which would have been taken under any circ.u.mstances. Polydore Virgil alleges that Richard himself spread a report that his nephews were dead; and this is magnified and embellished by Grafton and Hall, according to their wont.

The statement is grossly improbable in itself, is wholly unsupported, and is entirely unworthy of credit.

There is, then, no evidence that these rumours existed, beyond the pa.s.sage in the Croyland Chronicle. But there is strong reason for rejecting the monk's story. If the rumours had really existed, and if in consequence there were mutinous a.s.semblages of the people preliminary to an insurrectionary movement, the vigilant and energetic young King would have made all necessary preparations to meet the danger. Nothing is more certain in his history than that he was taken absolutely by surprise when he received tidings of an outbreak in Kent on October 11, 1483. It was a concerted rising, secretly arranged by Buckingham. This Duke had taken leave of the King at Gloucester on August 2 before the alleged action of Richard at Warwick with a view to the murders, which was on August 8. According to the story, Buckingham can have known nothing of the murders when he arranged his plot.

Consequently it is not possible that the rising in Kent, arranged by Buckingham, can {242} have had anything to do with the alleged murder of the young princes.

Yet the Croyland monk had certainly been told that there was a rumour that the boys were dead. If it had not reached him as general talk, it must have come direct to him from some malignant enemy of the King.

Was there such a man lurking in the fen country round Croyland? We know that Morton had taken refuge in the fen country (Isle of Ely) at this very time. If that schemer was at the chronicler's elbow, the rumour is fully accounted for. It probably originated with Morton while he was lurking in the fens, and ceased to exist when he sailed for Flanders. His own narrative, as we have received it, comes to an abrupt termination while he is conversing with the Duke of Buckingham at Brecknock. If it had been continued, we should doubtless have had a highly coloured version of the rumour mentioned in the Croyland Chronicle. Morton and his slanders went abroad together. The rumour that the young princes had been put to death appeared no more in England during Richard's life. But as soon as Morton went to France, it appeared there. In the autumn of 1483 Morton left England. In January 1484, the murder of the princes was alleged as a fact by the Chancellor of France in a speech to the States-General at Tours.

'Regardez, je vous prie, les evenements qui apres la mort du Roi edouard sont arrives dans ce pays. Contemplez ses enfants, deja grands et braves, ma.s.sacree impunement, et la couronne transportee a l'a.s.sa.s.sin par la faveur des peuples.'[10] The Chancellor may have received this statement from another Lancastrian exile, but it is {243} most likely that it came from Morton. Louis XI. had hated Richard because he opposed the peace which the French King bought from Edward IV., and because he refused the French bribes with contempt.[11] This hatred was inherited by the Lady of Beaujeu who became Regent on the death of Louis XI. in August 1483. Any calumny was seized upon as an opportunity for reviling the King of England; and with Morton in France there would be no dearth of such wares.

The insult to the King of England uttered by the French Chancellor may not have reached Richard's government. If it did, it must have been apologised for or explained away, for some months afterwards, in September 1484, King Richard granted a safe-conduct for an emba.s.sy from the French Regency to treat of peace.[12] The calumny was clearly received by the French Chancellor from Morton, or some other unscrupulous outlaw, and not from any general rumour. For it is stated as a fact; the truth being that it was never known what became of the two boys, or pretended to be known until after the alleged confession of Tyrrel in 1502.

Fabyan, writing in the time of Henry VII., talks of a rumour, and of its having been the common fame that King Richard put his nephews to secret death. This was merely what Henry VII. wanted to be the 'common fame'; and no one dared to gainsay it. In the year after his accession the usurping Tudor ordered it to be given out that the boys were murdered by their uncle, and his paid agents had to repeat the statement. Andre said they were killed with a sword.[13] {244} Rous stated that they were put to death by some means unknown.[14] Polydore followed Rous. Comines, naturally enough, told the story officially promulgated in England. But Henry never dared to make the accusation publicly in his first so-called Parliament, and there can have been only one reason for this silence. The boys were then alive.

Henry's chroniclers, however, testify that nothing was known, and thus prove the falsehood of the French Chancellor's statement, while furnishing additional proof that no general rumour existed during Richard's reign that the boys were dead.

It is not to be supposed that Sir William Stanley would have entertained for a moment the belief that Perkin Warbeck was a son of Edward IV. unless he knew that the princes were alive throughout Richard's reign. No one had better means of knowing. The story put forward by Henry VII. tells us that it remained in doubt whether the boys were destroyed or not in Richard's day. Polydore Virgil mentions a rumour that they had escaped abroad. Perkin Warbeck's story was believed by a great number of people, which could not have been the case if the rumour of the death of the princes had been generally credited.

[Sidenote: Baseless rumours]

No question arose before King Richard's death. Many persons must have known that his nephews were alive and well treated. Their mother and brother knew, and they were silenced by imprisonment. Sir William Stanley and his fellow-sufferers knew, and they were beheaded. After Henry's accession, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of people who knew the truth. They had a choice between silence and ruin or {245} death. The truth might have been, and probably was, mentioned in private correspondence; but even that would be very perilous, and scarcely any correspondence of that date has been preserved. In one letter in the 'Plumpton Correspondence,' the dislike of Henry's illegal attainders is referred to, but with bated breath. Among the ma.s.s of the people there was no certain knowledge of what had happened to the boys. Of course many baseless rumours then became current. The statements accusing Richard, and the a.s.sertions that these rumours received popular credit during his reign, merely indicate what his successor wanted to be believed on the subject.

[1] Earls of Oxford, Devonshire, and Pembroke, Lords Rivers, Dynham, and Beaumont. Lord Clifford was a minor, and in hiding in Yorkshire.

[2] Lord Dudley in extreme old age, Earls of Shrewsbury and Ess.e.x, and Lord Hungerford minors, Lords Greystoke and Ogle in the Marches, Lord Mountjoy at Calais, Lord de la Warre abroad. The Earl of Westmoreland was dangerously ill.