Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard the Third | Page 4

1767.

HISTORIC DOUBTS ON THE LIFE AND REIGN OF KING
RICHARD III.
There is a kind of literary superstition, which men are apt to contract
from habit, and which-makes them look On any attempt towards
shaking their belief in any established characters, no matter whether
good or bad, as a sort of prophanation. They are determined to adhere
to their first impressions, and are equally offended at any innovation,
whether the person, whose character is to be raised or depressed, were
patriot or tyrant, saint or sinner. No indulgence is granted to those who
would ascertain the truth. The more the testimonies on either side have
been multiplied, the stronger is the conviction; though it generally
happens that the original evidence is wonderous slender, and that the
number of writers have but copied one another; or, what is worse, have
only added to the original, without any new authority. Attachment so
groundless is not to be regarded; and in mere matters of curiosity, it
were ridiculous to pay any deference to it. If time brings new materials
to light, if facts and dates confute historians, what does it signify that
we have been for two or three hundred years under an error? Does
antiquity consecrate darkness? Does a lie become venerable from its
age?
Historic justice is due to all characters. Who would not vindicate Henry
the Eighth or Charles the Second, if found to be falsely traduced? Why
then not Richard the Third? Of what importance is it to any man living
whether or not he was as bad as he is represented? No one noble family
is sprung from him.
However, not to disturb too much the erudition of those who have read
the dismal story of his cruelties, and settled their ideas of his tyranny
and usurpation, I declare I am not going to write a vindication of him.

All I mean to show, is, that though he may have been as execrable as
we are told he was, we have little or no reason to believe so. If the
propensity of habit should still incline a single man to suppose that all
he has read of Richard is true, I beg no more, than that that person
would be so impartial as to own that he has little or no foundation for
supposing so.
I will state the list of the crimes charged on Richard; I will specify the
authorities on which he was accused; I will give a faithful account of
the historians by whom he was accused; and will then examine the
circumstances of each crime and each evidence; and lastly, show that
some of the crimes were contrary to Richard's interest, and almost all
inconsistent with probability or with dates, and some of them involved
in material contradictions.
Supposed crimes of Richard the Third.
1st. His murder of Edward prince of Wales, son of Henry the Sixth.
2d. His murder of Henry the Sixth.
3d. The murder of his brother George duke of Clarence.
4th. The execution of Rivers, Gray, and Vaughan.
5th, The execution of Lord Hastings.
6th. The murder of Edward the Fifth and his brother.
7th. The murder of his own queen.
To which may be added, as they are thrown into the list to blacken him,
his intended match with his own niece Elizabeth, the penance of Jane
Shore, and his own personal deformities.
I. Of the murder of Edward prince of Wales, son of Henry the Sixth.
Edward the Fourth had indubitably the hereditary right to the crown;
which he pursued with singular bravery and address, and with all the

arts of a politician and the cruelty of a conqueror. Indeed on neither
side do there seem to have been any scruples: Yorkists and
Lancastrians, Edward and Margaret of Anjou, entered into any
engagements, took any oaths, violated them, and indulged their revenge,
as often as they were depressed or victorious. After the battle of
Tewksbury, in which Margaret and her son were made prisoners, young
Edward was brought to the presence of Edward the Fourth; "but after
the king," says Fabian, the oldest historian of those times, "had
questioned with the said Sir Edwarde, and he had answered unto hym
contrary his pleasure, he then strake him with his gauntlet upon the face;
after which stroke, so by him received, he was by the kynges servants
incontinently slaine." The chronicle of Croyland of the same date says,
"the prince was slain 'ultricibus quorundam manibus';" but names
nobody.
Hall, who closes his word with the reign of Henry the Eighth, says, that
"the prince beyinge bold of stomache and of a good courag, answered
the king's question (of how he durst so presumptuously enter into his
realme with banner displayed) sayinge, to recover my fater's kingdome
and enheritage, &c.