Gairdner J. History of the Life and Reign of Richard the Third: To which is Added the Story of Perkin Warbeck from Original Documents

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

90 LIFE OF RICHARD III. CH. III.

and, according to the bishop, Lady Eleanor yielded to his

desire on a secret promise of marriage made before

himself,

which he was obliged to conceal so long as King Edward

lived, for fear of his displeasure

. Sir George Buck, an anti-

quary of the days of James I., who was the first who attempted

to vindicate the character of Richard III., informs us that the

Lady Eleanor, after having a child from this unacknowledged

connection, retired into a monastery, where she died not long

afterwards ; and though he gives no authority for the statement,

the fact seems highly probable. He adds that Stillington was

urged by Lady Eleanor's relations to press the king for redress;

and, unable to resist their solicitations, he mentioned the

matter to the Duke of Gloucester, the man whom he conceived

to have most influence over Edward, leaving to him the

delicate task of appealing to the royal conscience. The

king was highly incensed, thrust the bishop from the council

table, and placed him in strict confinement, 'from which at

length he redeemed

himself,'

says Buck, ' by means of a heavy

fine, paid shortly before the king's death.'

It is unfortunate in this, and other instances, that we

cannot tell the precise evidence from which Sir George Buck

derived his information. The imprisonment of Bishop Still-

ington is mentioned by Commines, and is, moreover, confirmed

by the Stonor Family Letters, from which we know that it took

place in the year 1478. But the words of Commines scarcely

indicate that his imprisonment had anything to do with the

secret of the pre-contract; indeed, they might rather be taken

to imply that, in the opinion of that author, the pre-contract

story was a falsehood maliciously invented by the bishop to

revenge his imprisonment as soon as he could do it with

safety. On this view of the case, we may assume that Bishop

Stillington was, like many other people, an enemy of the

Woodvilles, and attributed his misfortune to them. Yet it

Commines, bk. v. c. 20, and bk. vi. c. 8.

A.D.

1483. THE ALLEGED PRE-CONTRACT. 91

must be remarked that, by the same authority, his antipathy to

them dated from a much earlier period than that of his

imprisonment, for Commines says that he smothered his

revenge for nearly twenty years, which would imply that he

first took offence at the very time when the Woodvilles

originally rose into influence by Edward's marriage. If so,

there is nothing improbable in the supposition that he was

from the first disliked by the queen and her relations as

the depositary of a dangerous secret.

The story of the pre-contract has been generally discredited

by historians ; but, without pretending that it rests

on very satisfactory evidence, we may still affirm

that there are no sufficient grounds for regarding "J,^,^™"

it as a mere political invention. Lady Eleanor

Butler was a daughter of an Earl of Shrewsbury, spoken of

as 'the old earl,'—I presume of the great Talbot, the first

earl, who was killed at the battle of Chatillon. Our peerage

historians, indeed, know nothing about this lady; but it is not

to be supposed that she was a mere invention. Part of her

history, at least, must have been known, and the statement of

Bishop Stillington must have been in perfect harmony with

what was known of her. But the fact of the pre-contract, if

fact it was, was kept secret for fear of the king's displeasure, so

that the objection of Lingard, that Warwick, Clarence, and the

other enemies of the Woodvilles would have made use of it to

humble them, has very little force. No one knew of the affair

but Stillington, King Edward, and the Lady Eleanor

herself,

until it was revealed to the Duke of Gloucester; and by that

time,

apparently, the King-Maker had long been dead. If,

indeed, Bishop Stillington's imprisonment was at all connected

with this disclosure, it is by no means improbable that Clarence

did endeavour to make use of it to the queen's prejudice, for

the time corresponds very closely with the date of his attainder

Dame Elizabeth Stonor writes to her husband, in a letter dated

March 6, 1477 (which is 1478 according to the modern computation,

92 LIFE OF RICHARD III. CH. III.

and nothing could better explain the necessity felt by Edward of

putting his brother to death, in spite of apparent reluctance, than

the fact that Clarence had got possession of such a secret.

Another point, which is perhaps rather an evidence of the

truth of the story, is the care afterwards taken to suppress and

to pervert it. When Henry VII. became king, and married

the daughter of Edward IV. and Elizabeth Woodville, any

allusion to the pre-contract was treated as disloyal. The

petition to Richard to assume the crown was declared to be

so scandalous that every copy of it was ordered by Parliament

to be destroyed. The allegations contained in it were mis-

represented; the pre-contract was said to have been with

Elizabeth Lucy, one of Edward's mistresses, instead of with

Lady Eleanor Butler, and the name of the latter lady was

omitted from the story. Thus, in Sir Thomas More's history,

a courtesan of obscure birth is made to take the place of an

earl's daughter as the person to whom Edward was first

betrothed; and such is the version of the story that has

been current nearly ever since. It was only after the lapse

of a century and a quarter that Sir George Buck discovered

the true tenor of the parliamentary petition in the MS. history

of Croyland; and again, after another like period had passed

away, the truth received ample confirmation by the discovery

of the very Roll of Parliament on which the petition was

engrossed. Fortunately, notwithstanding the subsequent

statute, all the copies had not been destroyed

beginning the year in January): ' Ye shall understand that the Bishop of

Bath is brought into the Tower since you departed' (Excerfta Historica,

354).

The expression, 'since you departed,' may perhaps refer to two or

three weeks before the date of the letter. Clarence was attainted on

February 7, and put to death on the 18th. Stillington received a pardon

on June 20 following, in which his offence is stated to have been that he

uttered some words prejudicial to the king and his state ('nobis et statui

nostro prsejudicialia'), of which he afterwards cleared himself before the

council. (Rymer, xii. 66.)

When Henry VIII. became unpopular on account of his marriage

A.D.

1483. THE USURPATION. 93

A deputation of several of the lords and principal knights

of the Parliament, joined by the mayor, aldermen,

The eti

and chief citizens of London, forthwith waited on

tion

P™-

sented to

Richard and presented the petition to him at the the pro-

Duchess of York's mansion of Baynard's Castle.

The protector, according to Sir Thomas More, acted as if

quite unprepared for their coming, declined at first to come

out to them, and at last only appeared in a gallery above them

as if uncertain of their intent. The Duke of Buckingham was

spokesman for the assembly, as he had been at the Guildhall,

and besought Richard, for the benefit of the whole realm, to

take upon himself the crown and government, according to his

right and title. The protector thanked them for the favour

they bore him, but declined to accept the honour, until the

duke, on the part of those present, assured him that they were

quite determined King Edward's line should no longer rule

over them, and that if he positively refused to assume the

crown they would find some other nobleman willing to under-

take the burden. The protector, on this, permitted himself to

be entreated, and said that since he perceived the whole realm

was determined on it, he consented to take upon himself the

royal estate. Shouts of ' King Richard !' greeted his accept-

ance,

the lords went up to the new-made king, and the

multitude dispersed.

with Anne Boleyn, Chapuys, the Imperial Ambassador, reports that the

people would willingly have helped the Emperor to dethrone him. " They

refer," says the Ambassador, "to the case of Warwick who chased away

King Edward, and of his father Richard; and they say you " (the Emperor

Charles V.) " have a better title than the present King, who only claims by

his mother, who was declared by sentence of the bishop of Bath a bastard,

because Edward had espoused another wife before he married the mother

of Elizabeth of York." Thus it appears that the story of the pre-contract

was not altogether disbelieved in fifty years after Richard's usurpation.

See Letters and Papers, Henry

VIII.,

Vol. vi. No. 1528; also Vol. vii.

No.

1368, much to the same effect.

94 LIFE OF RICHARD III. CH. III.

By this affected reluctance, Richard had sagaciously thrown

the responsibility of his usurpation upon others

enthroned rather than

himself.

Next day he formally as-

june'^l' sumed the royal dignity. Accompanied by a

large number of the nobility, he proceeded in

great state to Westminster, where he entered the great hall

and sat down in the marble chair

. There stood at his right

John, Lord Howard, an old adherent of the House of York,

who was two days later created Duke of Norfolk; on his left,

his own brother-in-law, the Duke of Suffolk. He took the

royal oath, and called the judges before him, 'giving unto

them a long exhortation and strait commandment for the

ministering of his laws, and to execute justice, and that

without delay

'; then declared to the people at large that

he had that day begun to rule over them. Leaving West-

minster Hall, he proceeded to the shrine of St Edward, in

Westminster Abbey, and thence rode into the city to St Paul's

In returning to his palace he was liberal of salutations, and

showed an evident desire to ingratiate himself with all men.

Sir Richard Ratcliffe now came up from the North with

the troops that had been levied in Yorkshire in

from the consequence of Richard's letter of the ioth of

June.

On his way he had brought Lord Richard

Grey from Middleham, and Rivers from Sheriff Hutton, to be

executed at Pomfret. This was done, as already shown, on

the 25th of June. When the forces under Ratcliffe reached

London they were joined by others, summoned by the Duke

of Buckingham from Wales; and if we may believe the

Croyland chronicler, the total number of armed men was

Cont.

Croyl.

566. This marble chair in Westminster Hall seems to

have been "the King's Bench" from which the Court derived its name.

See a note on this subject in my Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles

(published by the Camden Society) at the end of the preface.

Fabyan, 669.

Letters,

&c.

Richard

III. and

Henry

VII., i. 12.

A.D.

1483. THE USURPATION. 95

formidable and unprecedented. Before they actually came, as

we have seen, they were expected to number about 20,000.

But according to Fabyan, a writer on the spot, they did not

in fact amount to more than 4,000 or 5,000. Neither their

strength nor their accoutrements, indeed, appear to have made

any great impression upon the Londoners as they mustered

in Finsbury Fields, for they are described as having been ' evil

apparelled and worse harnessed, in rusty harness, neither defen-

sible nor scoured.' The city, it is clear, had been overawed

by rumours of a far more formidable display, and, recovering

from its terror, perhaps undervalued the force as much as they

had overvalued it before. Yet it seems that, after all, the men

were but a few companies of raw recruits, who had not been

able to procure fitting armour, or even to make it look pass-

able by scouring the rust off. They were, however, kept in

London till the coronation was over, and then sent home

Such were the mode and circumstances of Richard III.'9

usurpation. A usurpation it certainly was in fact, and so it

has always been regarded. So, too, it was considered at the

time,

even by writers as moderate and as well affected to the

House of York as the continuator of Croyland

. Yet, in point

of form, one might almost look upon it as a constitutional

election, if election could be considered a constitutional prin-

ciple in those days. Indeed, it was rather a declaration of

inherent right to the crown, first by the council of the realm,

then by the city, and afterwards by Parliament,—proceedings

much more regular and punctilious than had been observed

Cont.

Croyl.

566, 7; Stallworth's

Second

Letter;

Fabyan, 669; Hall,

375-

We are told by this writer that Richard

intruded

himself into the

marble chair at Westminster—('seque eodem die apud magnam aulam

Westmonasterii in cathedram marmoream intrusit'). Again, after men-

tioning Richard's coronation, he

remarks:

'From that

same

day

long as

he lived, this fellow

(homo iste)

was called King Richard, the Third from

the Conquest.'

g6 LIFE OF RICHARD III. CH. III.

in the case of Edward IV. And even admitting, as is no

doubt true, however the facts may have been over-coloured in

the telling, that all these proceedings were a palpable pretence,

representing the real wishes of no one but Richard and his

confederate Buckingham, we must at least acknowledge that

the usurpation was one in which the nation, at first, tacitly

concurred. The unpopularity of the WoodviUes, and the evils

already experienced since the death of Edward IV. may have

made the termination of the minority seem a real blessing.

Yet already it might well have been perceived that the means

by which Richard had attained the crown would not serve

him to defend it after it was won. He had allied

himself,

first with Buckingham and Hastings against the WoodviUes,

afterwards with Buckingham against Hastings. And having

triumphed against each adversary in succession, he was soon

to find even his last ally, Buckingham, in arms against him;

after which, in default of other friends, he would fain have

recovered the friendship even of the WoodviUes.

CHAPTER IV.

MURDER OF THE PRINCES AND REBELLION OF

THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

the day after his accession, Richard gave the Great

Seal again into the custody of the Bishop of

Lincoln in one of the chambers of his mother, the

h?G«at

Duchess of York's mansion, at Baynard's Castle,

June 37

in the presence of the Duke of Buckingham, Lord

Stanley, and a number of other noblemen and gentlemen

In this same mansion the crown had been formally tendered

to him by the representatives of the nation; and now in this

mansion he performed one of the most solemn acts at the

commencement of his reign. If it be difficult under any

circumstances to credit the story of Richard's defaming his

mother, it seems particularly difficult when we consider that

he was at this very time living in his mother's house. Yet the

evidences of the fact leave scarcely any doubt that he really

authorised the scandal. Next day he despatched

June 28.

instructions to Lord Mountjoy, the Governor of

Calais, setting forth the grounds of his title, and requiring

him to make the people swear allegiance to him and depart

from their former oaths, made in ignorance to Edward V.

He also sent messengers to Sir Ralph Hastings at Guisnes

Castle

To show all men the importance he attached to the

Rymer, vol. xii. p. 189.

Letters

Richard

III. and

Henry

VII., i. n-16.

98 LIFE OF RICHARD III. CH. IV.

administration of the laws, he entered the Court of King's

Bench and there sat down in the seat of justice. He desired

it to be understood that he would govern with mercy, and in

token of this he proclaimed a general amnesty for all offences

against

himself.

He also gave practical effect to this pardon

before all the people by sending for a noted enemy of his out

of a neighbouring sanctuary and taking him by the hand

This man was Sir John Fogge, a relation of the Woodvilles,

who had possessed great influence in the reign of Edward IV.

He had been a privy councillor, and had held the office of

under-treasurer, in which he became an instrument of the

king's extortions. One notorious case in which he was con-

cerned must have drawn upon him the hatred of many others

than Richard. For two or three years before the time that

Edward was driven out of his kingdom to Burgundy, numerous

arrests were made of persons suspected of giving secret

assistance to the Lancastrians. Many of the accused were

executed; others were acquitted of the charge of treason, but

had to compound for the minor offence of misprision by very

large fines. Among these last was one Sir Thomas Cooke,

who had been Mayor of London. He had been accused by

a servant of Lord Wenlock, named Hawkins, but at the

intercession of the Lady Margaret, the king's sister (afterwards

Duchess of Burgundy), was liberated upon recognisance. The

Lady Margaret, however, went away to Flanders to be married,

and Cooke, having enemies at court, and no one to protect

him, was again thrown into prison. His goods were seized

by Lord Rivers, the queen's father, then treasurer of England

(father also of the Lord Rivers put to death by Richard at

Pomfret), and his wife was turned out of his house and given

to the custody of the lord mayor. Hawkins had accused him

only under the influence of the torture, being himself a prisoner

in the Tower, in the severe embrace of ' the Duke of Exeter's

daughter'—an apparatus which confined all the limbs at once;

More.

A.D.

1483. CASE OF SIR THOMAS COOKE. 99

but

all

that appeared against him from Hawkins's confession,

was that

he had

been urged

lend money

in aid of the

cause

of Queen Margaret,

and had not

informed

the

authorities.

Hawkins himself

had

been

the

tempter,

and

Hawkins himself

acknowledged that

all his

solicitations were unavailing.

Sir

John Fogge nevertheless procured

his

indictment

treason;

but

the

evidence failed

convict

him of any

capital offence,

and

was adjudged

have incurred

fine,

the

amount

which was referred

to the

king's pleasure.

was, therefore,

sent

to the

Compter

Bread Street,

and

afterwards

to the

King's Bench prison.

last,

by the

activity

of his

friends,

he was released

payment

8,000/.

But he had no

sooner

obtained

his

discharge than

he was

subjected

additional

vexation

by a

demand

of the

queen,

who was

entitled

by an

old custom

to one

hundred marks

for

every thousand pounds

he paid

the

king

. This also

was at

last arranged

great

expense;

but

even this was

not all

the injury that was inflicted

on him.

He had a

country seat

Essex, besides

his

town

house

London;

but

when

he was set at

liberty,

found

both

his

town house

and his

country seat completely pillaged

the

servants

Rivers and Sir John Fogge

This story may serve

as an

instance

explain

one

cause

the

general dislike

of the

queen's relations.

As one of

these,

and a

most active partisan,

Sir

John Fogge

had

every

reason

fear Richard's enmity.

The new

king, however,

endeavoured

to win his

favour

by a

public declaration

pardon

and

goodwill. This was followed

more substantial

favours,

in the

shape

grants

and

commissions under

the

Great Seal;

short, everything was done that Richard could

to win him a

friend

But he was

greatly mistaken

Called Aurum Regin/z.

Fabyan, Stow.

His

name appears

in the

Commission

of the

Peace

for the

county

Kent

three Patents, June

26 and

July

28 and 30, 1

Richard

III. p. 1,

m. (6)

and (7) in

dorso.

See

also Patent, February 24,

Richard

III. p. 2,

No.

135; and

Harl. MS. 433,

f. 98.