Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard the Third | Page 7

Chronicle of
Croyland mentions the ill-humour and discontents of Clarence; and all
our authors agree, that he kept no terms with the queen and her
relations.(1) Habington adds, that these discontents were secretly
fomented by the duke of Gloucester. Perhaps they were: Gloucester
certainly kept fair with the queen, and profited largely by the forfeiture
of his brother. But where jealousies are secretly fomented in a court,
they seldom come to the knowledge of an historian; and though he may
have guessed right from collateral circumstances, these insinuations are
mere gratis dicta and can only be treated as surmises.(2) Hall,
Hollingshed, and Stowe say not a word of Richard being the person
who put the sentence in execution; but, on the contrary, they all say he
openly resisted the murder of Clarence: all too record another
circumstance, which is perfectly ridiculous that Clarence was drowned
in a barrel or butt of malmsey. Whoever can believe that a butt of wine
was the engine of his death, may believe that Richard helped him into it,
and kept him down till he was suffocated. But the strong evidence on
which Richard must be acquitted, and indeed even of having
contributed to his death, was the testimony of Edward himself. Being

some time afterward solicited to pardon a notorious criminal, the king's
conscience broke forth; "Unhappy brother!" cried he, "for whom no
man would intercede--yet ye all can be intercessors for a villain!" If
Richard had been instigator or executioner, it is not likely that the king
would have assumed the whole merciless criminality to himself,
without bestowing a due share on his brother Gloucester. Is it possible
to renew the charge, and not recollect this acquittal?
(1) That chronicle, which now and then, though seldom, is
circumstantial, gives a curious account of the marriage of Richard duke
of Gloucester and Anne Nevil, which I have found in no other author;
and which seems to tax the envy and rapaciousness of Clarence as the
causes of the dissention between the brothers. This account, and from a
cotemporary, is the more remarkable, as the Lady Anne is positively
said to have been only betrothed to Edward prince of Wales, son of
Henry the Sixth, and not his widow, as she is carelessly called by all
our historians, and represented in Shakespeare's masterly scene.
"Postquam filius regis Henrici, cui Domina Anna, minor filia comitis
Warwici, desponsata fuit, in prefato bello de Tewkysbury occubuit,"
Richard, duke of Gloucester desired her for his wife. Clarence, who had
married the elder sister, was unwilling to share so rich an inheritance
with his brother, and concealed the young lady. Gloucester was too
alert for him, and discovered the Lady Anne in the dress of a cookmaid
in London, and removed her to the sanctuary of St. Martin. The
brothers pleaded each his cause in person before their elder brother in
counsel; and every man, says the author, admired the strength of their
respective arguments. The king composed their differences, bestowed
the maiden on Gloucester, and parted the estate between him and
Clarence; the countess of Warwick, mother of the heiresses, and who
had brought that vast wealth to the house of Nevil, remaining the only
sufferer, being reduced to a state of absolute necessity, as appears from
Dugdale. In such times, under such despotic dispensations, the greatest
crimes were only consequences of the economy of government.--Note,
that Sir Richard Baker is so absurd as to make Richard espouse the
Lady Anne after his accession, though he had a son by her ten years old
at that time.

(2) The chronicle above quoted asserts, that the speaker of the house of
commons demanded the execution of Clarence. Is it credible that, on a
proceeding so public, and so solemn for that age, the brother of the
offended monarch and of the royal criminal should have been deputed,
or would have stooped to so vile an office? On such occasions do
arbitrary princes want tools? Was Edward's court so virtuous or so
humane, that it could furnish no assassin but the first prince of the
blood? When the house of commons undertook to colour the king's
resentment, was every member of it too scrupulous to lend his hand to
the deed?
The three preceding accusations are evidently uncertain and improbable.
What follows is more obscure; and it is on the ensuing transactions that
I venture to pronounce, that we have little or no authority on which to
form positive conclusions. I speak more particularly of the deaths of
Edward the Fifth and his brother. It will, I think, appear very
problematic whether they were murdered or not: and even if they were
murdered, it is impossible to believe the account as fabricated and
divulged by Henry the Seventh, on whose testimony the murder