[194] MINOR CORRESPONDENCE. Mr. Nichols, who is editing King James's Progresses, would be exceedingly obliged to any Gentleman who could favour him with the loan of a MASQUE performed at Court on St. John's Day, 1604, to celebrate the Marriage of Sir Philip Herbert. It shall be speedily and safely returned. The Collections for the HISTORY OF STAFFORDSHIRE, by Huntbach, Loxdale, Wilkes, Feilde, Blore, Pegge, and Shaw, with the copper-plates of the latter's published work, and nearly thirty which were prepared for the continuation, are in the possession of Wm. Hamper, esq. of Birmingham; whose literary amusements are, we believe, chiefly directed to the elucidation of Warwickshire Topography.-To that gentleman we beg to refer "the Druid in London," who enquires about the Staffordshire Collections, &c. E. F. in reference to X.'s inquiry relative to the tolling of the Curfew (Part i. p. 582), says, "I believe he will find that this custom is still preserved in many towns and villages in England. I can speak with certainty with regard to the town of Warwick, where the bell of St. Mary's magnificent tower regularly sounds at eight o'clock; and the inhabitants of that place are not likely to be deprived of the benefit which may arise from the practice, if it be true, as is reported, that a sum of money for a louder bell was given by a farmer who was guided to the town by the welcome sound on a winter night, when he had lost his way.' Y. S. in allusion to Lord Leigh (Part i. p. 326), states, that "Mr. Leigh of Addlestrop, co. Gloucester, descended from an uncle of the first Lord Leigh of Stoneleigh, enjoys that Peer's large estate, under the words of his will, as next of the name and blood of Leigh,' which was interpreted to be the nearest in blood, who was of the male line,' and which, by a mixed construction, gave it first to his uncle, the surviving younger brother of his father. It cannot be doubted that Lord Leigh meant his next HEIR male. How happens it that 37 years ago, or afterwards, any nearer male heir did not make an effort for this great prize, while it was contending so many years in Chancery?" In our Obituary (Part i. p. 570) it is stated that the late C. S. Lefevre, esq. "lost his election for Reading in 1820, since which he has not sat in Parliament." In reference to this observation, a CONSTANT READER informs us, that "nothing but indisposition, and a constitution debilitated by frequent attacks of gout (which rendered him totally unequal to the performance of his Parliamentary duties), would ever have induced him to resign his pretensions to the favour of his constituents, at the general election of 1820; but nothing but his own voluntary resignation would have broken that connection which had subsisted for so long a period, to the honour and advantage of both parties. An accurate memoir of Mr. Lefevre appeared in the Reading Mercury of May 5.' G. W. L. observes, "The erection of a new Museum, among other plans, has been proposed, on account of the present state of Montagu House, which, having stood nearly a century and a half, is become unfit to undergo a reparation; but I certainly regret the non-completion, for this purpose, of that ornament to our metropolis, Somerset Place, which, to the disgrace of a wealthy nation, has for so long a time remained unfinished! Mr. Baretti, in his Guide through the Royal Academy, informs us, that this structure was intended, by the late Mr. Burke, and various other men of taste in Parliament, to be an object of national splendour.' Surely, then, it ought to be made perfect; at least, the magnificent front facing the Thames, which, coming under daily coguizance from Waterloo Bridge, offends every eye of taste by its incomplete appearance.' J. M. says, "Your Correspondent N. R. S. has fallen into an error, in describing the "Three Hats Public House, and other houses (p. 113), as being situate in the parish of Islington;" they are in that of St. James, Clerkenwell, which will account to him for its not having been noticed in "Nelson's Islington." In the pedigree of Carter, in the last Visitation of Cornwall, John Newman is stated to have married ". daughter of Trafford of Lancashire." Honor Newman, the daughter of this match, married John Carter of St. Colombe in Cornwall, and had a grandson aged about 25 in 1620. CLIONAS will feel obliged if any of our readers will refer him to any pedigree of the said John Newman, and also by being informed of the Christian name of the father, and maiden name of the mother of his wife, the above mentioned "6 daughter of Trafford." In no pedigree of Trafford can he find such an alliance noticed; the dates agree with her being Eleanor, daughter of Sir Edmund Trafford, by Anne, daughter of Sir Alexander Ratcliffe, who is named in Harl. MSS. 2086, and in other copies of the Visitations of Lancashire, but to whom no husband is assigned. A Correspondent solicits " any specifications attainable, or probably recoverable, relative to John Gaspar Ferdinand de Marchin, Count de Graville, stated in all printed authorities to have enjoyed the proud distinction of the English Garter, conferred on him by Charles II,” THE GENTLEMAN'S TH MAGAZINE. SEPTEMBER, 1823. ORIGINAL COMMUNICATIONS. CAUSE OF THE Death of RICHARD II. EXAMINED. Mr. URBAN, Sept 1. THE translation of a French Metrical History of the deposition of Richard the Second, lately published in the 20th Volume of the "Archælogia," by the Rev. John Webb, and which that gentleman has rendered still more interesting by the copious notes with which it is illustrated, has doubtlessly excited the gratitude of those who are capable of appreciating the value of such an acquisition to the History of this Country, or of estimating the talents and zeal which Mr. Webb has bestowed on it. Few points of English History are so unsettled as the manner in which Richard the Second actually died, and I have consequently been happy to see it so ably canvassed both by Mr.Webb and Mr. Amyot*, but notwithstanding their exertions, it is, from the contradictory statements of the different writers on that period, still open to conjecture. The object of this letter is, how ever, to consider the question in a different way from that adopted by these intelligent antiquaries; by inquiring to what extent the causes to which Richard's demise have been assigned, are supported, or rendered improbable, on comparing the precise time when it took place, with the dates of some of the principal political events which immediately preceded it. So entirely has this been omitted by the gentlemen to whom the public is so much indebted, that even the day on which that unhappy Prince closed his existence is scarcely mentioned, and hence I imagine that neither of them thought it of the least importance to their arguments; I, on the contrary, am induced to consider that it affords, if not the surest criterion we possess by which to * Archæologia, p. 429, et seq. judge of Henry IV.'s motives, feelings, and conduct, relative to the life of his rival, at least as good a one as remains to us. can In examining this subject in the manner to which I shall chiefly confine myself, I must, I fear, trespass on your pages at some length, as it is necessary I should occasionally follow the footsteps of Mr. Webb and Mr. Amyot; but whilst I confess my presumption in supposing that I throw any light on a point which has been discussed by two such distinguished Members of the Society of Antiquaries, I am, nevertheless, persuaded that as they are aware temperate disquisition is the only means of eliciting truth, they will not be displeased at seeing the subject agitated on somewhat dif ferent grounds, by one, who assures them he does so with the feelings of a coadjutor, and who, like themselves, is actuated by no other motive than a wish to form a just conclusion on a question so important to every person who interests himself in the History of his Country. death have been attributed are the following: The three causes to which Richard's 1st. Assassination by Sir Piers Exton t. 2ndly. Grief, and voluntary abstinence t. 3rd. Starvation by his keepers §. several authorities, which, though by Each of these statements rest on + Fabian, Hall, Hayward, MS. Ambassades, and most of the other MSS. in Bibl. du Roy at Paris, Le Laboureur, Hist. Charles VI. Walsingham, Otterburne, the Monk of Evesham, Creton Bibl. du Roy 10. 212, &c. to which Mr. Amyot inclines. § Hardyng, Fortescue, Petrus de Ickham, &c. in which Mr. Webb appears disposed to coincide. no 196 Cause of the Death of Richard II, examined. no means of equal value, are nevertheless of sufficient weight to prevent our yielding implicit credit to either, and to make us wish for additional testimony: as it is rather to be desired than expected that some evidence should be discovered of such undeniable authenticity, that all doubt might be removed, we must endeavour to form a true opinion of the point from whatever presumptive proof we possess, and the best in my estimation which is available for the purpose, is that which I am about to investigate. The MS. Ambassades states the following events to have occurred on the days assigned; and as the dates, as well as such facts as I shall extract from it, are uncontradicted in any material degree by other writers, as they are strictly consonant to probability, and as they are supported by the testimony of many authorities, 1 trust no objections can be made to my considering them correct. The plot to restore Richard to the throne was, it informs us, planned on the 18th of December, 1399, and we are told that a petition was presented by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Duke of York, and others, on the 1st of January following to put Richard to death. With respect to this petition, I am inclined to agree in Mr. Webb's view of it †, namely, that the assertion is either erroneous, or, what is more probable, that it was a petition from the same persons who solicited Henry to that effect a short time before. One consideration must not, however, be lost sight of, which is, that if such a petition was actually presented, and the absence of corroborating testimony by no means puts the fact beyond belief, Henry's reply must be admitted as establishing two points,-that he had then no intention of putting the deposed Prince to death, and that it was only in case of an insurrection in [Sept. his favour that his life was to be for- Ibid. p. 218, note *Archæologia, p. 217, note o. Ibid. p. 217, note o—5. The Lords of Richard's party met at Windsor on the 2nd of January, and Henry we learn was apprised of their attempt on the first Sunday following, which, as he issued his order for the arrest of part of the conspirators (Arch. p. 214, note i) on the fifth, must have been either the third or fourth; but from the usual vigour of that Prince's actions, and the probability that he adopted immediate measures for suppressing the conspiracy, I am inclined to consider that he was informed of it only the day before, i. e. on the fourth. I It is right that I should notice that Mr. Webb (p. 211, note ") thinks this description of Aumarle's disclosure of the conspiracy not so probable as that in the MS. of Creton, which makes him carry the letter "straight to the old Duke his father.” Mr. Webb also considers it unlikely, from the age and habits of the Duke of York, that he should post immediately to Windsor. The importance of the object might have given him sufficient stimulus to extraordinary exertion to prevent our discrediting it. It makes, however, no sort of difference to my argument how Henry was first informed of the attempt to dethrone him. of 1823.] Cause of the Death of Richard II. examined. of his rival, which he executed in the manner commonly related*." Thus it appears that Henry's order to Exton was issued when, if ever a command of that nature can be expected or palliated, it is under such circumstances, and at so important a crisis. A rebellion to place Richard on the throne, led by the deposed Monarch's half brother, and supported by several of the chief nobility, had been organized for several weeks. Above eight thou sand men, well armed, were at that instant in the field, whilst Henry's forces did not, until reinforced by Lord Fitz-Walter, exceed six thousand. That he was not disposed to think lightly of the attempt to dethrone him, is evident from his instantly putting himself at the head of his army, and from his taking measures to prevent intelligence of the attempt reaching the French Court; for his fears were apparently excited, lest the King of France should send succours to the cause of his son-in-law. Not only was Henry, at the time when he is considered to have des patched Exton, inferior in physical strength, but he must have been visited by compunctious reflections from that "which makes cowards of us all," and have felt by no means satisfied of the security of the throne which he had so recently, and by such violent means, ascended. It would perhaps be difficult to find any event which more imperiously demanded vigorous and prompt conduct than Henry's situation required: every consideration of political necessity and self-interest must have pointed out to him one course which would effectually remove the dangers with which he was threatened; and Henry's decided character, the urgent necessity of such an act, the immense effect which it would produce, together with the temper of the times, combine to persuade us of the great probability of his following that course, by resolving instantly to destroy a rival who was the cause of so formidable an effort to wrench the sceptre from his hand, and thus at once to strike Richard's followers with confusion and dismay. The probable result of such inducements, acting on a mind which had often evinced but little scruple about the means of attaining its wishes, together with such conduct * Archæologia, p. 219, note. 197 being imputed to him by more than cution. We are informed that it was on the 5th of January that Exton was sent on his murderous errand, and it would be in the teeth of every rational conjecture, were we not to consider, that he was commanded to be expeditious in his journey, and to execute his commission as speedily as possible. The distance of Pomfret Castle from London is not more than 180 miles; hence, only allowing Exton to have travelled 25 miles a day, he would have reached it within a week. This calculation renders it certain that he must have arrived at the place of Richard's confinement on the 12th or 13th of January. It is asserted by every authority we possess, and I believe historians have admitted it as an incontrovertible fact, that Richard did not close his mortal career until the 13th or 14th of February +. In what way then are we to account for the delay of thirtyone or thirty-two days, which evidently elapsed between that on which Exton must have reached Pomfret, and the day on which Richard died? If, as I strenuously contend, the peculiar cumstances in which Henry was placed on the 5th of January, caused him to order his prisoner to be murdered, we may be assured that Henry's object was his immediate destruction, because his interest would not have been in any shape benefited by permitting him to live a day longer than he was obliged by the distance of Pomfret from tlie Metropolis. Is it then likely, + Valentine's day is generally named, but one or two writers state Richard to have died on the 13th. that 198 Cause of the Death of Richard II. explained. that Exton received orders to proceed Although in the conclusion which I have formed relative to Exton's assassination of Richard, I have principally relied on the argument which have adopted, still I shall take advantage of the positive testimony which Mr. Gough's and Mr. King's examination of that Prince's skull affords me to substantiate my opinion*. It is manifest, from the perfect state in which it was found, that at least one part of the story in which Exton is concerned is false, and I may, I think, as is generally done when any part of a narrative is found erroneous, doubt the other parts; and if they be rendered at all unlikely by comparing them with positive facts, allow the circumstance of one part being clearly disproved to affect the credibility of whatever may rest on the same authority-and I confidently appeal to your readers, Mr. Urban, whether the inferences which I have drawn from the 5th of January and 14th of February, do not render the idea of Richard being murdered in consequence of an order issued by Henry on the former of those days extremely improbable, and whether, when it is coupled with the anecdote of Richard's skull, I am not justified in altogether rejecting it? How far it is likely that Henry commanded Exton to put Richard to death on a day so long subsequent to the 15th of January, as to agree with that event taking place on the 13th or 14th of February, I in*Referred to by Mr. Webb and Mr. Amyott. Archæol. pp. 284 and 428. [Sept. tend considering when I offer my comments on the third cause to which it has been assigned; but before I conclude my observations on Richard's murder by Exton, I shall endeavour to explain my opinion that an order to that effect was given by Henry, but countermanded sufficiently soon to prevent its execution. I hope I have not been understood to assert that Richard's not dying immediately after a sufficient time is allowed for Exton's reaching Pomfret, is conclusive evidence against his being assassinated by him; but it is my argument that so great a difference as forty days between the issuing of the order and the time when it is supposed to have been executed, justifies our considering that it was contradicted. Had Richard died within a fortnight after Henry is said to have dispatched Exton, and which is surely the utmost time to be allowed a messenger to travel about 174 miles, and to murder a helpless prisoner, I should have been much inclined to attribute Richard's demise to the hand of Sir Piers Exton : we may imagine that a delay of three or four days might, from some accident, have occurred to prevent Henry's command being carried into effect after his instrument reached the place where Richard was imprisoned, but we cannot reasonably suppose that any obstacle presented itself to produce a further postponement. If Henry, and, which is not impossible, when he was reinforced by Lord Fitz-Walter and the Earl of Arundel, from finding his great superiority to the conspirators, and the facility with which they might be crushed, repented his fatal resolution towards Richard, and countermanded the order for his death, a messenger might easily have overtaken Exton, because, even had he set off on his journey, he could not have been many miles distant. But, and which is a more rational conjecture, if Henry did not change his cruel purpose until his enemies were dispersed, we may without the least difficulty believe, that a messenger charged with an order to preserve Richard, might have reached Pomfret before Exton, especially when we allow for the somewhat nearer distance between Cirencester or Oxford (in which neighbourhood Henry evidently was when Surrey and Salisbury were killed +), and Ponifret, than between Pomfret and |