including Gloucester's sending to the garden of Ely Palace for a dish of strawberries, is taken from Sir Thomas More. That slight incident confirms the probability, that More's history was derived from Bishop Morton, if not written (as Sir Henry Ellis conjectures) by that prelate himself. Except that Sir Thomas More is fuller, and nothing is said in the Continuation of Croyland* of the Queen's reluctance to part with her son Richard, that contemporary register agrees as to facts with More's narrative. No author, nor any record that is extant, gives reason to doubt of the summary nature of the process by which the execution of Hastings, and of the prisoners of Pomfret, was effected. But More, and Shakspeare after him, place the withdrawal of the young prince from the sanctuary, before the execution of Hastings. According to the more credible history, it occurred a few days afterwards.‡ Hastings was not the only person whom Gloucester, or his friends, attacked at this council in the Tower. More says that "Another let fly at the Lord Stanley, which shrunk at the stroke, and fell under the table, or else his head had been cleft to the teeth, for as shortly as he shrunk, yet ran the blood about his ears." * P. 556. + Hol., 374. June 16th. Hastings was beheaded on the 13th. And we are told that the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of Ely, were only saved from capital punishment out of respect to their order, and that they were sent as prisoners into Wales.* Walpole attempts a sort of justification of Richard; alleging not only, which is true, that the punishment of state offences was in those times conducted with little of judicial trial, but that the Queen and her friends were the aggressors; having endeavoured to surround the young king with a large force, and also assembled armed men in the neighbourhood of the sanctuary in which Elizabeth had taken refuge;-all which hostile demonstrations were in order to maintain the custody of the king's person, and to exclude from all share in the government, during the minority, the Dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham, one of them the first prince of the blood, and the other nearly allied to the throne. Richard wrote on the 10th of June a letter, commanding the men of the north "to rise and come to London, under the Earl of Northumberland and the Lord Nevil, to assist in subduing, correcting, and punishing the Queen, her blood, and other her adherents, who intended to murder and destroy the Protector and his cousin, the Duke of Buckingham, and the old royal blood of the realm.”‡ * Croyl. Cont., 566. + Works, ii. 128. Turner, iii. 405; from Drake's Eboracum, p. 115; and see Lingard, 244. But this only shows the pretext, not the fact. Yet Sharon Turner gives Richard credit for the sincerity and reasonableness of his apprehensions. * A contest for power between the queen's relations and those of the late king was a matter of course. Whether the measures adopted or contemplated by the former so far exceeded the bounds of political contention as to justify the brothers and friends of Edward in treating them as traitors, is a question upon which no sufficient evidence exists. Shakspeare's version, which refers the executions to the tyranny and ambition of Richard, has certainly a sufficient foundation for a dramatist; but it must not be received as authentic history. It is upon the same authority of Sir Thomas More, that Gloucester and Buckingham, by way of making it appear that a sudden alarm obliged them to arm in great haste, are introduced "in rusty armour, marvellous ill-favoured." In this guise they send for the Lord Mayor of London, and easily satisfy him that Hastings had plotted against their lives, and that his sudden execution was an act of urgent necessity. What follows has more of poetical licence :— "Glou. Come, cousin, canst thou quake and change thy colour? * iii. 392. + Hol., 382. Act iii. Sc. 5. Murder thy breath in middle of a word, As if thou wert distraught, and mad with terror? It is now agreed that Buckingham shall openly harangue the citizens in favour of Richard's claim to the crown, setting forth the illegitimacy of the two princes, by reason of their father's marriage with "Lady Lucy," previous to his union with Elizabeth Grey. And he was even instructed, at the expense of the honour of Gloucester's mother, the Duchess of York, to hint that Edward himself had been illegitimate;* and this he was to enforce by the want of resemblance between the late King and Richard, Duke of York, while Gloucester himself was described as "Being the right idea of your father, Both in your form, and nobleness of mind." * Clarence had been accused, in the Act of Attainder, of making a similar insinuation. All the topics of Buckingham's harangue are said to have been set forth in a sermon at Paul's Cross, by Dr. Shaw (More in Hol., 386; Fabyan, 669). Shakspeare makes Richard send for him, but we hear no more..-See Lingard, 547. And Buckingham thus continues the report of his harangue, and its issue: he "Laid open all your victories in Scotland; Indeed, left nothing fitting for your purpose I bade them that did love their country's good Buck. No! So God help me : they spake not a word; But, like dumb statues, or breathless stones, Star'd on each other, and look'd deadly pale; Which, when I saw, I reprehended them; And ask'd the mayor, What meant this wilful silence? His answer was, The people were not used To be spoke to but by the recorder. Then he was urg'd to tell my tale again: Thus saith the duke--thus hath the duke inferred; And some ten voices cried, God save King Richard! |