Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

RICHARD, OTHERWISE PERKIN WARBECK.

CONCLUSIVE evidence that this young man was Richard of York has not come down to us, but this is not surprising, as, except his proclamation in 1496, which could hardly be expected to give a more detailed statement than it does, all our accounts are derived from his professed enemies. These accounts, however, are replete with contradictions and absurdities, and must be rejected, even if we had nothing to supply their place.

some reason not given, he is made to re-
side "for a certain season" with an uncle
in the same town; then he is taken by his
mother to Antwerp, to learn Flemish; re-
turns to Tournay; goes as a servant to
Antwerp, and resides near the house of the
English; then goes to "Barowe marte
[Bergen op Zoom], next to Middleburgh,
where he lives from Christmas to Easter
with an English merchant, "for to learn
the language;" then goes to Portugal,
where he serves a knight called "Peter
Vacz de Cogna, which said knight had
but one eye;" then, "because he desired
to see other countries," took service with
a Breton, called Pregent Meno, who brought
him to Ireland. When he landed at Cork,
"because he was arrayed in some clothes
of silk of his master," the men of the town
insisted that he was the son of the duke of
Clarence, which he denied; they next de
clared him to be a natural son of King,
Richard, which also he denied; but they,
"to be revenged upon the King of Eng-
land," promised to aid and assist him, if
he would style himself Richard, duke of
York, and then, "against his will, they
made him learn English, and taught him.
what he should say and do."

Henry first published a statement that the youth's real name was Perkin (Piers or Peter) Warbeck; that he was the son of John Osbeck or Olbeck, a converted Jew of Tournay, but dwelling in London, where his son was born, and in such favour (for some unknown reason) with Edward IV. that the king became godfather to the child; that he was early carried over to Tournay, and then resided at Antwerp, and that he wandered thence into countries which were unknown, but where he ever associated himself with the English, though it would seem that the one fact could not easily be ascertained without the other. This meagre account, not very credible in itself, is in many points contradicted by a confession said to have been read by the young man when in Henry's power. He is there stated to have been present day be accepted as authentic hisborn at Tournay; nothing is said of history; and perhaps it is not unreasonable royal godfather, or of his Jewish parentage; his father is instead represented as controller of the town, and other relatives are mentioned as holding office there. His various wanderings are now fully detailed. His parents are stated to be alive at the date of the confession, but, for

⚫ Some papers relating to him have been pubfished in the Archeologia (vol. xxvii.), from the originals in the British Museum, and are considered by Sir Frederick Madden, who communicated them, to prove him an impostor; but they do not appear to the present writer sufficiently decisive to justify such a conclusion.

In this document, issued when he invaded
England in company with James IV. of Scotland,
be says,
We, in our tender age, escaped, by

Such statements as these cannot at the

to expect that the researches daily being made among the Public Records may eventually bring to light documents that may remove the uncertainty which has so long prevailed regarding this remarkable · person.

But should this expectation prove futile,

God's great might, out of the Tower of London and were secretly conveyed over the sea to other divers countries, there remaining certain years as. unknown."

That it was ever read by him is uncertain: neither Fabian nor Polydore Vergil mention the circumstance in their accounts of him.

"My father's name is John Olbeck,-and my mother's name is Catherine de Faro."

the Scottish Treasurer's accounts shew that Richard was received as a welcome, royal guest by James IV.d He is uniformly spoken of as "Prince Richard," or "the duke of York," and he evidently had a numerous retinue. The king supplied him and them with a handsome equipment, beside a monthly allowance of £1200 Scots; and frequent gratuities for Richard's offerings at church, of nearly as large an amount as those of the king, appear in the accounts, as well as sums "to put in his purse.' "Many of his followers also were supported by the king, and his horses were redeemed from pledge. In return for all this liberality, Richard bound himself by treaty, in case the expedition of 1496 should be successful, to deliver up Berwick, and to pay to James the sum of 50,000 crowns in two years. And when in the following summer Richard withdrew from Scotland, these accounts shew that James's friendship remained unabated; he liberally equipped his small fleet, and would seem to have placed one of the Bartons, known as his best naval officers, in command. He also, after Richard's death, speaks of him as 66 duke of York," in a letter to the Queen of France; but, when James's chivalrous character is considered, perhaps the strongest evidence of his firm belief in Richard is furnished by the fact of his giving him Lady Katherine Gordon, as a wife; for it is hard to believe that he would willingly sacrifice his own kinswoman to an impostor.

It is also worth notice that Henry's Privy Purse Accounts contain numerous entries which prove that Richard, whilst he remained at or near the court, was treated as a prisoner of rank. Instead of being

Extracts from these accounts are printed in Gairdner's "Letters and Papers illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III. and Henry VII.," vol. ii. pp. 326-335. The first entry notices the receipt of "letters forth of Ireland from King Edward's son and the earl of Desmond," with the reward given to the bearer, Edward Ormond. Then we have some of the expenses of a public reception of "the Prince of England" at Stirling; followed by a considerable outlay for his clothing, in which to appear at a tournay; there is also mention of the provision of a velvet" great coat of the new fashion" for him. Mention is afterwards made of his monthly pension; of the hire of 30 horses for his attendants; of a cloak and a "sea gown" for the duchess of York; and of considerable sums paid for the expenses of partisans coming to him from Ireland. Lastly, the provision made for his voyage to Ireland is on a liberal scale, and strongly opposed to the assertion of the Tudor writers, that James sent him from his country, because he had found out that he was an impostor. These accounts, and the documents relating to the De la Poles, are among the most important papers of Mr. Gairdner's very interesting volumes.

• Printed in Gairdner's 2nd vol., p. 185. Unfortunately the date does not appear, but the expres

sent to the kitchen like Simnel, he was allowed a horse, and a riding-gown was bought for him in May, 1498, but a very short time before he escaped. Several other sums of money appear to have been paid for him, and even after his committal to the Tower, which he left only for the scaffold, the bill of "Jasper, Perkin's tailor," was paid by Henry in February, 1499.

From the correspondence of De Puebla, the Spanish ambassador, it seems probable that the determination to put Richard to death was taken at the recommendation of Ferdinand VI., who declined to ally his daughter Katherine with the son of Henry, whilst "one doubtful drop of royal blood" remained. Accordingly he and the unfortunate earl of Warwick, who had lived so long a prisoners, were arraigned on a charge of treason, and executed.

No record of the trial of Richard (who was hanged and quartered at Tyburn, Nov. 23, 1499,) is known to exist, but we learn the charges against both from the indictment preferred against the earl of Warwick, in the court of the Lord High Steward (John, earl of Oxford,) and Peers, Nov. 21, and to which he is recorded to have pleaded guilty.

This document states that Thomas Astwode and Robert Cleymound had, early in the month of August, conspired with the earl, to make him king. Cleymound is the chief actor; he gives the earl a hanger to defend himself, and receives in return a cloak and a jacket of velvet, and also an image of wood, (which in one place the earl is said to have made, in another to have received from one Walter Bluet) which was to induce one Thomas Ward,

sion, "quondam Eboracensem ducem," shews it to have been written after Richard's death.

fShe was a daughter of the earl of Huntley, and after Richard's defeat was kept awhile at Henry's court. She afterwards married a Welsh knight, Sir Matthew Cradock, who raised a stately tomb, still existing, for her and himself, in the church of St. Mary, at Swansea. Katherine, however, survived the knight, married a third, and a fourth husband, and by this last, Christopher Ashton, of Fyfield, Berkshire, was buried in the church of that parish, in October or November, 1537; her handsome tomb still remains there.

Warwick had lived under restraint from his childhood, but it does not appear that he was treated as a close prisoner before the acccession of Henry.

John Water, the ex-mayor of Cork, long one of his partisans, was executed with him.

i Astwode and Bluet were two of the carl's keepers; they were shortly after hanged at Ty burn. Who Cleymound was, or what became of him, does not appear; he seems to have been in the confidence of the governor, as he is represented as going freely from one prisoner to another; and as the indictment states that these matters were made known while in progress to the king, it is

a priest, "to be more well affected to them," although Cleymound had already consulted Ward as to their schemes, and taken his advice as to what sanctuary he should choose in case of their failure. Various modes of carrying their purpose into effect are attributed to the conspirators. It is first said that they proposed to seize the Tower, and defend themselves there; then, that they intended to seize the royal treasure, blow up the magazine in the Tower, and in the confusion make their escape beyond sea and abide there; next, that they were to make public proclamation in the Tower for adherents to repair to them, to whom they would promise 12d. per diem from the said treasure.

On the same day, however, (Aug. 2,) that these schemes in favour of Warwick are said to have been devised, the very same parties are stated to have intended to set at liberty "Peter Warbeck, of Tournay," and to make him king. Cleymound, with the assent of the earl, knocks on the floor and calls out to Peter (who was confined beneath), "Perkin, be of good cheer and comfort," and promises to bring him a letter which he had received for him from Flanders.

On the following night, "when the earl and Cleymound were both in bed in the

probable that he was a spy, a vile class largely employed by Henry, as is evident from his Privy Purse Accounts. From them it is seen that Sir Robert Clifford, Sir Robert Curzon, Lord Both

Tower," Cleymound told the earl that he had spoken with Perkin, who had told him "certain matters which made him very sad," that is, that they ought, "if they could perform the same by any subtlety or craft," to get possession of the Tower.

The next day Cleymound is reported to have said to the earl, "My lord, all our purpose which we intended to fulfil is made known to the king and his council by Peter Warbeck, and the said Peter hath accused you and me and Thomas Astwode." Yet in spite of this alleged betrayal, the earl makes a hole in the floor of his chamber, "to the intent that he might converse with him concerning their said treason".... "and many subsequent times spoke to the said Peter, adhering to and comforting him, saying, '1 'How goes it with you? be of good cheer."" On these charges the earl was beheaded within the Tower, November 28, after an imprisonment of upwards of 14 years.

mere

The ridiculously contradictory and incredible nature of these accusations all but demonstrate that they were pretexts to get rid, not of an impostor, but of a prince who had already shaken Henry's power, and who it was feared might at a future day overturn it, if suffered to live.

well, and even the duke of Ross, the brother of James of Scotland, beside many meaner agents, were in his pay.

[graphic][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

He was made lord lieutenant of Ireland Sept. 11, 1494, Sir Edward Poynings being named his deputy two days after. He also received a learned education, though probably not with the view of his entering the Church, as has been asserted. The tale seems only a sarcasm on the avarice of Henry VII., as if he coveted the large revenue of the see of Canterbury.

b He was born at Ipswich in 1471, his father (Robert) being perhaps, as is commonly asserted, a butcher, but evidently wealthy. He was educated at Magdalen College, Oxford, and found patrons in Thomas, marquis of Dorset, and Dean, archbishop of Canterbury, whose chaplain he became. He also served as chaplain to Sir John Nanfan, the treasurer of Calais, and shewed so much aptitude for secular business, that he was by

|

demning Empson and Dudley, the agents of his father's extortions, while he retained much the greater part of the fruits of their iniquity; his second, the marriage with Katherine of Aragon, his brother's widow, from which such important consequences afterwards arose. He was soon engaged in war, was successful against both France and Scotland, and mainly from his vast, though ill-gotten treasure, aided by the talents of Wolsey, re

him recommended to Henry VII., who employed him in embassies to Germany and Scotland, and made him dean of Lincoln.

On the accession of Henry VIII. Wolsey became a favourite with him. He accompanied the king to France, received high promotion in the Church, (he held at different times the sees of Bath and Wells, Durham, Lincoln, Winchester, and York, and the dignity of cardinal and papal legate, and he was the administrator of the see of Tournay for some years), and for several years appeared to dispose of the affairs of Europe almost at his pleasure, although he once fell into disgrace through the failure of an attempt to raise money independently of the parliament, and had to surrender his newly-built palace of Hampton Court to the king to make his peace. He induced the king alter

vived the influence of England on the continent which has never since been lost, though it has suffered occasional diminution from various temporary causes. He several times crossed the sea, sometimes for pomp and negotiations only, but at others for actual warfare, and he retained until his death his conquest of Boulogne.

Henry's government at home does not present so favourable a picture. His scruples, whether real or affected, about his marriage, brought him into collision with the pope, and his imperious temper led him to endeavour to destroy the power which thwarted his views. Hence many of the violent and cruel measures which disgraced his reign. His quarrel really was, not with the doctrines, but with the supremacy of the pope; and the riches, rather than the vices of the monastic

nately to league with and to make war on the emperor and the king of France. His schemes, however, were foiled, and his temporizing conduct with regard to the king's divorce (which he is accused of originally suggesting) at last produced his own ruin.

Though he had received the royal permission to act as papal legate, Wolsey was, in 1529, accused of an offence against the statutes of Præmunire for so doing, was stripped of most of his vast possessions, and sent to reside on his diocese of York. He now began to devote himself to the duties of a Christian bishop, which he had before neglected, but he was soon apprehended on a charge of treason, and died at Leicester on his way as a prisoner to London, Nov. 29, 1530. Wolsey had always patronized learning, and had bestowed large estates, obtained by the suppression of small monasteries, on a college at Oxford, which he called Cardinal's College; the estates, through the neglect of certain legal formalities, fell into the hands of the Crown, but they were re-granted a few years sfter, when the college of Christ Church, Oxford, was founded by Henry VIII.; not, however, on the magnificent scale which the cardinal had intended, as his foundation was for a dean and a subdean, 100 canons, 13 chaplains, 10 professors and tutors, beside singing men and choristers, and other officers, making in the whole 186 persons. Cardinal Wolsey had been an honest man if he had had an honest master,' " was a part of the treasonable discourses" for which Lord Montacute (the brother of Reginald Pole,) was convicted and executed; it is, perhaps, a just estimate of Wolsey's character. His correspondence, which preserved in the State Paper Office, shews that Henry only took the cardinal's advice when it pleased him; he does not appear to have changed ny of his own purposes.

Pensions, it is true, were granted to some, but they seem to have been altogether inadequate, and thousands of monastics became beggars, against whom acts perhaps the most atrocious in any Statute-book were passed in the next reign, [1 Edw. VI. c. 3). See A.D. 1547.

The cruel fate of these two eminent men affixes a blot on the personal character of Henry which ophistical pleadings can remove. He had acknow edged them as his intimate friends, but as in their consciences they could not approve of his proceedings in the matter of the divorce, he suffered

[ocr errors]

orders, were the cause of their fall. Impartial in his tyranny, he burnt as heretics those who disbelieved transubstantiation, and he hanged as traitors those who refused to allow his chosen title of Head of the Church. Among these the monastics were conspicuous, and partly from anger, but probably much more from covetousness, he threw down the establishments which his predecessors from time immemorial had endowed, and turned their inmates out on the world. A reform of the monasteries was doubtless necessary to the purification of the Church, and if such purification had been Henry's real object, his proceedings in the matter might be justified as a whole; but no such defence can be offered for the jealous tyranny of which Buckingham, Fisher, More, the kindred of Cardinal Pole and so

them to be brought to the block by the inquisitorial diligence of Rich, the attorney-general.

John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, and a Roman cardinal, was born in 1459, at Beverley, and was educated at Michael-house, Cambridge. He became confessor to Margaret, countess of Richmond, and was greatly instrumental in carrying out her pious intentions in the Universities. In 1504 he became bishop of Rochester, but continued his care of the University of Cambridge, of which he was the first chancellor chosen for life. He greatly pleased Henry by taking up his pen against Luther, but entirely lost his favour by maintaining with firmness the cause of Katherine of Aragon. His affection for that unfortunate queen induced him to listen to the declarations of the Maid of Kent, and he was in consequence attainted, sentenced to be imprisoned for life in the Tower, and was treated with extreme hardship. After a time his death was determined on, and being entrapped into a declaration that the king, as a layman, could not with a good conscience style himself Head of the Church, he was tried, condemned, and beheaded, at the age of 76, June 22, 1535

Thomas More was the son of Sir John More, a judge, and was born in London, probably about 1476. He was brought up in the household of Cardinal Morton, studied at Oxford, and obtained an important legal post in the city of London. He cultivated literature, and being introduced at court about 1521, he soon became a favourite with the king, and, as is usually, said, assisted him in the composition of his work against Luther. More was made speaker of the House of Commons, and chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, sent on an embassy to France, and at length succeeded Wolsey as chancellor. This last high office he resigned in 1532, as he disapproved of the king's marriage with Anne Boleyn. More was looked on with suspicion by Wriothesley and others, and harassed with false charges of treasonable correspondence; these were abandoned, but the oath of supremacy being offered to him, he declined to take it, and for this he was condemned and executed July 6, 1535, preserving in his last moments the serenity and cheerfulness which had ever distinguished him. More was a most amiable character in every domestic relation; he conscientiously opposed the opinions of the Reformers, and laboured to suppress their translation of the Bible, but he solemnly denied a charge of cruel persecution which

« PreviousContinue »