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.