Richard III: His Life & Character Part 29

[20] 'The King's manner of showing things by pieces and side lights hath so m.u.f.fled it that it hath left it almost a mystery to this day.'--Lord Bacon.

[21] i. 501.

[22] He was made a Knight Banneret at the taking of Berwick, in 1482.

[23] They were Sir William Courtenay, one Welborne, and Tyrrel's son, who were pardoned; Sir Walter Tyrrel and Sir John Wyndham beheaded; a Ship-master hanged at Tyburn, a Poursuivant named Curson, and a Yeoman named Matthew Jones executed at Guisnes; all on suspicion of having aided the Earl of Suffolk to escape.

[24] In Rennet's _England_, i. p. 552. Mr. Gairdner, referring to this note by Strype, says: 'I own I cannot find his authority.'--_Richard III._ p. 164.

[25] _Harl. MS._ 433, fol. 55.

[26] _Harl. MS._ 433, fol. 78 and 187.

[27] _Ibid._ 433, fol. 118.

[28] v. 577.

[29] The Earl of Oxford was appointed Constable of the Tower for life, on September 22, 1485. We may hope that Oxford, who did not reside, had no guilty knowledge.

[30] _Memorials of Henry VII._ i. pp. 41, 95.

[31] _Memorials of Henry VII._ i. p. 384.

[32] Was this Morton? Buck had heard so.

[33] _Memorials of Henry VII._ ii. p. 251.

[34] _Ibid._ i. p. 460.

[35] Sandford, v. p. 404.

[36] 'The latter part of the tale, which declares their interment by the priest and their removal by Richard's order, was evidently fabricated by Henry, to prevent the hazard of a search.'--Hutton's _Bosworth_, p. 169.

[37] _Memorials of Henry VII._ i. p. 486.

[38] Lord Welles was a half brother, on the mother's side, of Henry's mother.

[39] Anne was eleven. In due time she was married to the son of the Earl of Surrey. Katherine was only seven. When she was twenty she became the wife of the Lancastrian Earl of Devonshire. Bridget, the youngest, was five. She was immured in a nunnery at Dartford, as soon as she was old enough.

[40] _Memorials of Henry VII._ i. p. 617.

[41] As late as 1488 there is a grant of five marks, at Easter, 'by way of reward,' to William Slater. If this was the jailer, he received hush money for two years after the perpetration of the murders. He is not heard of again. _Memorials of Henry VII._ ('Writs under the Privy Seal. Easter Term 3 Hen. VII.'), ii. p. 298.

[42] _Memorials of Henry VII._ ii. p. 148.

[43] This appears from general pardons having been granted to the former Constable, to the Chaplain, and to twenty-four soldiers of the garrison of Guisnes on the same date, July 16. No doubt these pardons were on the occasion of the appointment of a new Constable, and the return of part of the garrison to England.

[44] _Memorials of Henry VII._ ii. pp. 188, 251.

[45] This is an ugly story. Dr. Richard Fox was originally an agent of Morton and other conspirators abroad. This discreditable work brought him to Paris early in 1485, where he became known to Henry Tudor. A man so employed could not have been a good priest. He came with Henry to England as his Secretary, and was of course well rewarded. He became Bishop of Winchester and Lord Privy Seal; and appears to have been munificent and diligent as a prelate. By his 'pulchris verbis' he treacherously drew Tyrrel into the clutches of Sir Thomas Lovell. This appears from a letter of the Earl of Suffolk to the Emperor Maximilian dated at Aix-la-Chapelle on May 12, 1502. So hurried were the proceedings against Tyrrel that he was actually beheaded six days before the date of Suffolk's letter announcing his treacherous capture.

Bishop Fox has been much eulogised. But no one could be for years in the inner counsels of such a man as Henry VII. without being in sympathy with his ways, which certainly do not deserve eulogy.

[46] _Leland's Coll._ v. p. 373. From an anonymous ma.n.u.script.

_Letters of Richard III. and Henry VII._, B. P. i. Pref. p. 29.

[47] Lord Herbert of Cherbury, _Life of Henry VIII._ p. 36. 'Our King executing what his father at his departure out of the world commanded, as Bellay hath it.'

{281}

CHAPTER VI

MR. GAIRDNER'S RICHARD III

It will be interesting, in conclusion, to examine the critical treatment of these questions by the latest historian who has written on the subject.[1] Mr. Gairdner argues in favour of the Tudor portrait of the last Plantagenet King, but only to a limited extent.

The thick and thin believers in the Tudor caricature, such as Hume and Lingard, aroused doubts in many minds. Mr. Gairdner is the most formidable enemy to the memory of the gallant young King that has yet appeared, because he is, beyond comparison, the best informed author that has ever treated of this part of history, has conscientiously striven to be fair and impartial, and has stated both sides of the question, while retaining a belief in Richard's worst crimes. His predecessors, who have taken his view, simply adopted all the statements of Tudor writers as facts, and have depicted a cool, calculating, scheming, cruel, and most revolting villain without a redeeming feature. They thus portrayed at least a possible monster.

But Mr. Gairdner, while striving to be fair and just, still clings to what he calls 'tradition,' {282} that is to the Tudor stories of crimes, told many years after the time. The two things are incompatible, so that he produces a monster which would be impossible anywhere. His Richard III. is a prince, headlong and reckless as to consequences, but of rare gifts and with many redeeming qualities. He was wise and able, brave, generous, religious, fascinating, and yet had committed two very cowardly a.s.sa.s.sinations before he was nineteen, murdered his defenceless nephews, and gratuitously slandered his mother. Such a monster is an impossibility in real life. Even Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are nothing to it.

Let us see how Mr. Gairdner arrived at his two-sided monster. He explains his method in his preface. He demurs to the view of the late Mr. Buckle that commonly received opinions should be doubted until they are found to stand the test of argument.[2] He lays it down that no attempt to set aside traditional views can be successful until the history of the particular epoch has been re-written, and the new version exhibits a moral harmony with the facts of subsequent times and of times preceding.[3]

'Tradition,' Mr. Gairdner tells us, is an interpreter and nothing more, and seldom supplies anything material in the way of facts.[4] Yet he adds that the attempt to discard it is like an attempt to learn a language without a master, and he thinks that a sceptical spirit is a most fatal one in history. It is difficult to follow him when he announces that, in spite of this view of tradition, his plan is to place the chief reliance on contemporary information, and that this treatment of history should be adhered to.[5]

{283}

'Tradition,' in Richard's case, means the embellishments of later chroniclers writing long after the events, in the interests of another dynasty. Unfortunately Mr. Gairdner does not always adhere to contemporary evidence, but prefers 'tradition.'

In the case of Richard III. Mr. Gairdner thinks that it is not clearly shown that the story would be more intelligible without 'tradition,'

and that the said 'tradition' is not well accounted for.

Let us endeavour to test these two propositions by the light of Mr.

Gairdner's own admissions.

His Richard stood high in general estimation when Duke of Gloucester.[6] As King the people showed him marks of loyalty.[7] In the north undoubtedly, and perhaps with the common people generally, he was highly popular, and there was every evidence of devoted loyalty and personal popularity at the time of Buckingham's rising.[8] He was an able ruler,[9] he had the confidence even of his enemies in his justice and integrity,[10] he was generous not only to the widows and children of fallen enemies, but even to the wives of rebels in open revolt,[11]

his generous acts were done graciously and in no grudging spirit,[12]

there was nothing mean or paltry in his character,[13] his manners were ingratiating, and he had great influence over others.

A person so described is very unintelligible if the a.s.sa.s.sinations and infamies of 'tradition' have to be added. Richard's character is far more intelligible without them; and 'tradition' is perfectly accounted for by the necessities of the new dynasty, whose well-paid writers created it.

{284}

Mr. Gairdner acknowledges that 'tradition' seldom supplies anything material in the way of facts. Yet he maintains that traditional views cannot be set aside unless the history of the particular epoch is re-written, and the new version exhibits a moral harmony with the facts of subsequent times and times preceding.

Of course certain pa.s.sages in history would have to be re-written when they were found to be erroneous. But the truth or falsehood of a particular accusation cannot be affected by facts of subsequent times or times preceding. Its truth or falsehood is not established by moral harmony with something else, but by contemporary evidence.

My detailed remarks on Mr. Gairdner's views respecting Richard's alleged crimes are intended to show that his conclusions are mistaken when they deviate from his own plan of placing the chief reliance on contemporary evidence; and that a sceptical spirit, in the special case of Richard, is absolutely necessary if the truth is to be reached.