NOTE XXII. p. 49.

T. Walsingham denies the murder altogether; but he stands almost alone in this denial. His story of Richard starving himself to death for grief at the conspiracy of his adherents being discovered, and at the death of his uncle, is altogether improbable; for it is at variance with the whole character of the man (T. Wals. 404). The only other contemporary authority which can be cited for this statement is that of the Relation d'un Français, Témoin oculaire.' The author says that after the deposition he received Richard's permission to return to France, which indicates that he had been attached to his person. The narrative ends by saying that, on the defeat of Exeter's conspiracy, Richard "from grief refused to take any nourishment, and died of hunger."

The Relation de la Mort de Rich. II.' gives the common account of Exton and seven others falling upon and despatching him after he had killed four of them, and adds that the occasion taken for the violence was a squabble between the King and his carver. The Polychronicon, which joins in the account universally given that he was murdered, mentions the common opinion in England to be that he had died voluntarily, starving himself through grief, which was no doubt the tale circulated by Henry and his partisans, and the prevalence of the notion accounts for T. Walsingham's statement. (Polych. ccxxv.) Hardyng, a contemporary writer (for he was born in 1378, and entered Percy's service in 1390), says that Richard died in Pontefract Castle, and was buried privately at Langley, "for that men sholde have no remembrance of him;" but, he adds, "men sayde for hungered he was and lapped in lede" (ch. 66, p. 357). Fabyan, who lived a century later, for he was sheriff of London in 1493, gives it as clear that Sir Piers Exton slew him by Henry's command (568). It is remarkable that Froissart gives no intimation of Richard having come by his death through foul play. After frequently reciting the advice given to Henry that he should despatch him, and adding that he put these counsels aside, he merely says that

he "could not learn how Richard's death happened," and gives a pretty full account of his funeral. He adds, however, that his death had been expected for some time, "for it was well known he never would come out of the Tower alive" (Froiss. xii. c. 30, 31). The narrative of Froissart is full of inaccuracies; among others he makes Richard remain in the Tower from the time he was seized. Some of the old writers mention an act, ordinance, or resolution of Henry's first parliament, declaring any attempt in Richard's favour treason, and ordering that if any such were made Richard himself should be killed first. But nothing of the kind is to be found either in the Statute Book or Parliament Rolls. A judgment is given, Rot. Par. iii. 452, by Chief Justice Thyrning, in the Lords, declaring certain appellants who are forfeited, but not hanged, to be guilty of treason if they shall adhere to Richard.

Several ingenious men have exerted their skill in support of the notion that the man sometimes called "that foole in Scotland " (as we have seen) was Richard, who had escaped from Pomfret Castle, and taken refuge there. That some such impostor obtained credence for his story seems certain. But, not to mention many other proofs against the possibility of its being true, we may only refer to the undoubted fact that Henry had possession of James I.'s person during the greater part of his reign, and could, from the influence which that gave him over the Regent Albany, have easily obtained possession of Richard's person had he really been in Scotland. No one surely can suspect Henry of such kindness towards his dethroned kinsman, or such a tender conscience as to be glad the guilt of his death did not lie upon his soul, and yet upon no other supposition is it possible to account for his not making the Scotch give him up had he been among them. Lord Dover, in an ingenious paper read before the Society of Antiquaries, and Mr. Tytler, in his excellent History of Scotland, are the principal advocates for this historical paradox. Sir J. Mackintosh has partly refuted it in his English History, but Mr. Amyot fully and unanswerably, Archæol. xxiii. 277, and xxv. 394.

But it may be worth while to note the additional evidence

which the advocates of this opinion are supposed to have obtained from the late researches among our records. This evidence is given correctly, though with a great bias towards the opinion of Mr. Tytler and the others, in the preface to a late publication of the Historical Society, Le Chronique de la Traison et Mort de Rich. II., from a MS. in the King of France's library (see Appendix, 273). The main reliance is placed on a confession of one Pritewell, the gentleman in whose power the Earl of Huntingdon was found and arrested by Henry IV., and the confession of Thomas Abbot of Bylegh. These two confessions, however, are really only one statement; for Pritewell tells a conversation he had with one Blyth, a knight, on Richard being still alive, and the abbot only tells that Pritewell and Blyth spoke together first apart, and then in the abbot's presence; so that all turns on Blyth's story; and it is to be observed that the abbot's account and Pritewell's materially differ. But Pritewell himself deposes that he gave no credit to Blyth, because he found him out in two falsehoods, and he relates what these were. One was that Blyth said he was brought up in Richard's household from a child, which Pritewell says he himself knew to be untrue; the other was his saying he had been knighted by Percy on the field of battle, and alone so knighted, and also that he and Percy had the same coat armour, all which Pritewell knew to be false by a creditable man (Treval) who had seen "Percy both quick and dead." The abbot adds that Blyth tried to borrow armour and money of him, and he lent him some shillings. He further says that the abbot of Colchester had stated in council his having sent a man with a ring to Richard in Scotland, with directions to return if he found him alive, and that the man came back and was thrown into prison. All this plainly amounts to nothing. The existence of a Pretender or impostor is not denied, and that will account for all the stories in question. The concurrence of historians probably would be of no importance on this subject if they all copied one another, or all took the facts from one authority; but the concurrence of contemporary writers which we have seen is very material.

NOTE XXIII. p. 50.

At Windsor a banquet and council was holden 1st of January, others on their knees besought He said No, but promised on

1399, when the archbishop and Henry to put Richard to death. the first insurrection that broke out that Richard should be the first to die. This having happened at a council is probably the origin of the story given by historians of a statute having been made to this effect. No doubt the parliament were obsequious enough to pass any such law had the usurper deemed it necessary for his security; but his having the power of assassination rendered any precaution of the kind superfluous. But it appears clear from what has just been stated that the time-serving dignitaries who surrounded him regarded complacently whatever he chose to do against his victim.

NOTE XXIV.—p. 55.

How little reliance is to be placed on Shakspeare's account of Henry V. is plain from his gross perversion of Sir J. Oldcastle in Falstaff. The accounts in the Chronicles are extremely meagre respecting Henry's youth; though all agree in describing it as dissipated, if not dissolute. "Aforetime," says Holinshed, "he had made himself a companion unto misruled mates of dissolute order and life.” (iii. 61.) "This man," says Fabyan, "before the death of his fader, applyd him unto all vyce and insolency, and drewe unto him all ryotous and wylde disposed persons" (577). T. Walsingham says he was suddenly changed into a new man, " honestati, modestiæ, ac gravitati studentem" (Hist. Ang. 426; Ypod. Neust. 178). "He had passed," says Hall, "his yonge age in wanton pastyme and riotous disorder;" and he gives the incident of his striking (as he asserts) the Chief Justice for an instance (46). "Changed from all vyces unto vertuous lyfe," says Hardyng, 371. Stow speaks of his "insolency in youth," and of "his youthfulnesse," and gives

his frolic of setting on his own receivers as an example (344-5). All these charges, however, clearly refer to dissipation, and riot, and keeping wild company.

NOTE XXV. p. 59.

It is strange that the authorities so vary as to the date of James's capture, and, consequently, the period of his detention: most of them are agreed that he returned to Scotland early in 1424. T. Wals. (417) gives 1406 as the year he was taken, Hardynge 1408, Holinshed 1406, but admitting that the Scotch writers make it 1404 (iii. 41). Hall and Stow give 1407. Fordun, however, may in this instance most safely be relied on, and he gives 1404 as the date, which may probably mean 1405, as the event happened very early in the year (Scoti-Cron. xv. 18). One authority says he was only fifteen years confined, which would make his capture have happened in 1409. The homage said by both Holinshed and Hall to have been done by him to Henry VI. before his return appears to be a mere imagination.

The detention of James may be regarded as one of the darkest passages in the English history, and it is rendered still more discreditable to the nation by the abuse which some of our older writers lavish on that amiable and accomplished prince, charging him with black ingratitude, because on his return to Scotland he inclined occasionally to the policy of his country, and prosecuted the French alliance. The education which he received while detained, nay, the expense of his maintenance, is made the ground of this charge, equally ridiculous and unjust; and even Mr. Hume valued so highly the benefits of his forced training, that he actually thinks "it made ample amends for his imprisonment," which he only says proved Henry IV. somewhat deficient in generosity. (History of England, chap. xviii.) Surely the historian is highly censurable who utters sentiments so subversive of all just moral feelings. As for the zealots of national prejudice, who tax him with ingratitude, it would be difficult