Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard the Third | Page 9

evening, if so raw a youth can be supposed to have been
admitted to familiarity with a prelate of that rank and prime minister.
But granting that such pregnant parts as More's had leaped the barrier
of dignity, and insinuated himself into the archbishop's favour; could he
have drawn from a more corrupted source? Morton had not only
violated his allegiance to Richard; but had been the chief engine to
dethrone him, and to plant a bastard scyon in the throne. Of all men
living there could not be more suspicious testimony than the prelate's,
except the king's: and had the archbishop selected More for the
historian of those dark scenes, who had so much, interest to blacken
Richard, as the man who had risen to be prime minister to his rival?
Take it therefore either way; that the archbishop did or did not pitch on
a young man of twenty to write that history, his authority was as
suspicious as could be.
(3) Vide Biog. Britannica, p. 3159.
It may be said, on the other hand, that Sir Thomas, who had smarted for
his boldness (for his father, a judge of the king's bench, had been

imprisoned and fined for his son's offence) had had little inducement to
flatter the Lancastrian cause. It is very true; nor am I inclined to impute
adulation to one of the honestest statesmen and brightest names in our
annals. He who scorned to save his life by bending to the will of the
son, was not likely to canvas the favour of the father, by prostituting his
pen to the humour of the court. I take the truth to be, that Sir Thomas
wrote his reign of Edward the Fifth as he wrote his Utopia; to amuse
his leisure and exercise his fancy. He took up a paltry canvas and
embroidered it with a flowing design as his imagination suggested the
colours. I should deal more severely with his respected memory on any
other hypothesis. He has been guilty of such palpable and material
falshoods, as, while they destroy his credit as an historian, would
reproach his veracity as a man, if we could impute them to
premeditated perversion of truth, and not to youthful levity and
inaccuracy. Standing as they do, the sole groundwork of that reign's
history, I am authorized to pronounce the work, invention and romance.
Polidore Virgil, a foreigner, and author of a light Latin history, was
here during the reigns of Henry the Seventh and Eighth. I may quote
him now-and-then, and the Chronicle of Croyland; but neither furnish
us with much light.
There was another writer in that age of far greater authority, whose
negligent simplicity and' veracity are unquestionable; who had great
opportunities of knowing our story, and whose testimony is
corroborated by our records: I mean Philip de Comines. He and Buck
agree with one another, and with the rolls of parliament; Sir Thomas
More with none of them.
Buck, so long exploded as a lover of paradoxes, and as an advocate for
a monster, gains new credit the deeper this dark scene is fathomed.
Undoubtedly Buck has gone too far; nor are his style or method to be
admired. With every intention of vindicating Richard, he does but
authenticate his crimes, by searching in other story for parallel
instances of what he calls policy.
No doubt politicians will acquit Richard, if confession of his crimes be
pleaded in defence of them. Policy will justify his taking off opponents.

Policy will maintain him in removing those who would have barred his
obtaining the crown, whether he thought he had a right to it, or was
determined to obtain it. Morality, especially in the latter case, cannot
take his part. I shall speak more to this immediately. Kapin conceived
doubts; but instead of pursuing them, wandered after judgments; and
they will lead a man where-ever he has a mind to be led. Carte, with
more manly shrewdness, has sifted many parts of Richard's story, and
guessed happily. My part has less penetration; but the parliamentary
history, the comparison of dates, and the authentic monument lately
come to light, and from which I shall give extracts, have convinced me,
that, if Buck is too favourable, all our other historians are blind guides,
and have not made out a twentieth part of their assertions.
The story of Edward the Fifth is thus related by Sir Thomas More, and
copied from him by all our historians.
When the king his father died, the prince kept his court at Ludlow,
under the tuition of his maternal uncle Anthony earl Rivers. Richard
duke of Gloucester was in the north, returning from his successful
expedition against the Scots. The queen wrote instantly to her brother
to bring up the young king to London, with