CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF RICHARD II. EXAMINED. 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. Jolin 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 * Archeologia, p. 429, et seq. 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 can 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 ↑. 2ndly. Grief, and voluntary abstinence t. 3rd. Starvation by his keepers §. Each of these statements rest on several authorities, which, though by + 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 Oause 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, I 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 forfeited. The omission of any notice of such a conditional promise in the Rolls, when contrasted with the great probability of a menace of that sort being held out to intimidate his friends, must not induce us too hastily to conclude that the engagement between Henry and the Parliament relative to Richard, was confined to what is recorded. It is, however, sufficient for my purpose to notice the likelihood that Henry's reply, contained the real terms on which he had promised to preserve his prisoner's life, without entering into a longer discussion of the subject. The conspiracy appears to have been unnoticed by the Government until the first Sunday in January, 1399— 1400, which I consider to have been the 4th of that month $, when the Duke of York accidentally became informed of it, from a letter addressed to his son, the Duke of Aumarle, who was somewhat concerned. He immediately hastened to Windsor to acquaint the King of the proceedings of Richard's party, and Henry instantly set off for town, and reached London at nine o'clock the same night. "The next morning," evidently Monday January 5th, the King set out to meet his enemies with only 50 lances, and 6000 archers, and drawing up his men without the city, waited three hours for his reinforcements; here he was reproached by the Earl of Warwick for his lenity, which had brought him into this danger; but he vindicated himself for his past conduct, adding, that if he should meet Richard now, one of them should die. Then he sent back the Mayor of London, with orders that none should be permitted to cross the sea to carry intelligence of these disturbances to foreign parts, and he dispatched Sir Piers Exton to rid him 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. It is right that I should notice that Mr. Webb (p. 211, note d) 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 despatched 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 bis 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 one historian, fully convinces me that the MS. Ambassades is correct, not only as to the fact of Henry's having on the 5th of January ordered Richard to be assassinated, but that it is also accurate in saying that he issued his commands before the reinforcements of Fitz-Walter arrived. Hence the conclusion which I have formed on the first cause to which Richard's death has been assigned, is, that Henry actually gave directions, or in other words, despatched Sir Piers Exton on the fifth of January to Pomfret Castle, with instructions to put an immediate end to that Prince's existence; but for the following reasons, I consider that the order was countermanded in sufficient time to prevent its exe 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 con finement 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 the 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 Ciren. cester or Oxford (in which neighbourhood Henry evidently was when Surrey and Salisbury were killed t), and Pomfret, than between Pomfret and 1929.] Intended Church for the Welch Poor at Liverpoot. and London, and for the extraordinary expedition which a messenger charged with so important an order would of course have used. I am aware that Sandford, as well as Baker, allude to another statement of Richard's assassination by Exton, which affirms that some time after the rebellion had been quelled, Henry feelingly lamented that he had no friend who would rid him of a man who was such a continual source of uneasiness to him; and that Exton immediately took eight men with him to Pomfret, and murdered the Prince after a powerful resistance, in the manner often related. Mr. Webb and Mr. Amyot very properly refrain from alluding to this version of the story, I suppose from deeming it too absurd even for a single comment; nor do the writers I have cited attach much credit to it. Besides the reasons which I am about to urge for disbelieving that Henry ordered his prisoner to be destroyed after 199 the death of Surrey and his other friends, this story bears such marks of being manufactured from Henry the Second's observation, which produced the death of the celebrated Archbishop Becket, that if it even rested on better authority, this striking similarity would expose it to great suspicion. Here then I shall conclude my argument on the first cause to which Richard's death has been assigned, and I trust I have succeeded in shewing that few things rest more firmly on presumptive evidence than that Henry commanded his rival's immediate destruction, when it was so clearly his interest to remove him; and that the conjecture I have hazarded that he recalled his fatal mandate, is perfectly reconcileable both in point of time and probability with every other circumstance connected with this interesting question. Yours, &c. CLIONAS. (To be continued.) yet been received, I hope that his animated appeal to the feelings of Christians, especially to those of the Established Church, will induce every one who really desires to see the Gospel diffused, and religious and moral principles instilled into the minds of the poorer classes, to contribute most liberally in the first place towards the establishment of a Church for the Welch in Liverpool, and afterwards to the establishment of similar Churches in every part of the Kingdom where numbers of Welch people reside. I therefore venture to suggest to the Liverpool Society |