Lo! God hath wreath'd thé laurels round thy brow, His arm is with thy sword-that thou should'st bring [Eternal King. The wandering tribes of earth, to earth's Branch of a stately stem, now fair and tender! Young scion of a race, far dearer care Of Heaven than all the imperial pomp and splendour, [bear! That the broad bosom of the west doth See thine own warlike shield: for present there, [tory, Gleams the dread sign of ancient vic Symbol that once Heaven's monarch deign'd to wear The form of man, and died on earth [hell be free. Might from the bondage dire of sin and Lord of a thousand lands! whose empire wide [beam, First smiles beneath the morning's early Shines out, when in mid-heaven the sun doth ride, And glows beneath his latest evening Startle the eastern Turk from his dull This specimen we consider to be quite good enough to induce the author to proceed in his undertaking. It will be seen that a few of his expressions are weak, and some not so skilfully turned as they ought to be; but his measure we decidedly prefer to Mickle's; and thus differing from his predecessor, both in the structure of his verse and in the plan of execution, we shall willingly accept two versions of Camoens, executed on different principles, as we possess two versions of Homer. Tracts, Legal and Historical, with other Antiquarian Matter, chiefly relative to Scotland. By John Riddell, Esq. Advocate. Edinburgh. pp. 224, 8vo, 1835. THIS volume contains three antiquarian papers, the first being 'a reply to Mr. Tytler's remarks upon the death of Richard II.;' the second, 'Observations upon the representation of the Rusky and Lennox families;' and the third, Remarks upon the law of legitimation per subsequens matrimonium.' The first of these papers is the only one that possesses any great interest on this side the Tweed, and we shall take advantage of the opportunity it affords us of laying before our readers some brief remarks upon the questions respecting the death of Richard II. which have been recently agitated amongst antiquaries. We the present author, by clearly exhibitshall thus be enabled to do justice to ing the new information he has contributed. Before entering, however, upon the subject, we must express our displeasure at the scornful and contemptuous style which he too frequently adopts in his allusions to Mr. Tytler. Such a style ought to be carefully abstained from in all merely literary controversies, and certainly, in the present case, is most unjust. Mr. Tytler may be right or wrong in his opinions respecting Richard II., or any other disputed point of history, but his great merits as an historian are unquestionable. His works entitle him to the respect of all his fellowlabourers, and more especially of those whose attainments do not exceed the comparatively humble standard of the present author. On the 27th October, 1399, Richard II. was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment in some unfrequented place. He was to be guarded by sure and sufficient persons; no one who had formerly belonged to his household was to be permitted about his person, and these directions were to be carried into effect with the greatest possible secresy. At the time of passing this judgment,' Richard was con fined in the Tower of London. He was afterwards conveyed to Leeds Castle, in Kent, and thence to Pontefract. Early in the succeeding year a formidable conspiracy for his restoration defeated. The conspirators comprised was treacherously disclosed, and easily the Earls of Kent, Huntingdon, and Salisbury, the Lords Lumley and Despencer, and many of the most faithful of the relatives and adherents of Richard. The premature discovery of their plot rendered success impossible, and all the persons we have enumerated were arrested and put to death in various parts of England. The conspiracy was revealed on the 5th January, 1400, and before the middle of the same month all the principal conspirators had probably ceased to exist, and with them had ended the hope of a re-action in favour of Richard. One of the measures adopted by these conspirators, was to spread abroad reports that Richard had escaped from custody, and was stationed at Pontefract, at the head of a large army. The latter part of the rumour was certainly untrue, and, in all probability, it was equally so that he had effected his escape. True or false, however, the notion was extensively circulated, and exercised an influence over the public mind, which by no means ceased upon the total defeat of the conspiracy. In the course of the succeeding month of February, the metropolis appears to have been agitated by contradictory rumours respecting Richard; it being asserted on the one side that he was dead, with probably many contradictions as to the manner of his death, and, on the other, that he was living either at Pontefract, or elsewhere. With a view to quiet the public mind, the council determined to speak to the King upon the subject, and to recommend to him that, if their late Sovereign were alive, he should be strictly guarded, and, if dead, that his body should be openly shewn to the people. It will be observed that at that time the council were in utter ignorance of Richard's fate, and consequently, if it were the result of foul play, it is to Henry, and not to his advisers, that the crime must be attributed. Shortly after this recommendation, it was rumoured that Richard had died upon St. Valentine's day, and a corpse which was stated to be his, was brought from Pontefract to Lon don, and was exhibited to the people at the principal intervening places. In London it was exposed to view at St. Paul's on two successive days, and is said to have been seen by twenty thousand persons, the face being uncovered from the lower part of the forehead to the throat. Henry attended the funeral ceremony at St. Paul's, and the body was immediately afterwards conveyed to Langley, in Hertfordshire, where it was interred. His son and successor removed the coffin to Westminster Abbey, to a tomb prepared by Richard himself. It is contended by one of the two parties which have arisen in the antiquarian world upon this subject, that this exhibition of a body was a mere farce intended to deceive the people; that the body exhibited was not that of Richard, and that, in point of fact, Richard was not then dead, but had escaped into Scotland. The other party insists, of course, upon the bona fides of the exhibition, and endeavours to establish the fact that Richard was at that time really dead. The Upon referring to the early authorities, there may be found three different accounts of the manner of his death. One is, that he was assassinated by Sir Piers Exton; but that account, although rendered popular by having been adopted by Shakspeare, cannot be traced to any satisfactory authority, and has therefore been generally abandoned. The second and third accounts attribute his death to starvation, but differ as to its occasion; the one declaring it to have been voluntary, springing out of grief for the loss of his relatives and friends who were put to death on account of the defeated conspiracy, and the other enforced, by order of Henry IV. authority of all these accounts is shaken by their being based by the Chronicles themselves upon no better foundation than mere rumour. They are all qualified by, as is reported,' as is commonly said,' or similar doubtful phrases; but it will be remarked that this doubtfulness affects merely the manner of Richard's death, and, in answer to the advocates for his escape, it is sufficient if good reason can be shewn for a belief in the fact of his death, even although nothing had ever been rumoured as to the manner in which that event occurred. As to the fact of his death, all the English authorities, and they are many and of various kinds, agree, with merely this difference, that those who wrote with a favourable feeling towards Henry, attributed the event to grief and voluntary famine, those who were on the other side accused the reigning sovereign of having had a share in 'The deep damnation of his taking off.' The case set up in answer to this by the advocates for the Scottish Richard, rests principally upon two Scottish authorities. They represent that Richard found means to escape from Pontefract, and succeeded in reaching the Scottish Isles. That he was accidentally recognized when sitting in the kitchen of Donald, Lord of the Isles, by a jester who had been educated in Richard's court. That Donald sent him, under the charge of Lord Montgomery, to Robert III. King of Scotland, by whom he was honourably treated. That after that king's death he was delivered to the Duke of Albany, the Regent of Scotland, and finally died in the Castle of Stirling, A. D. 1419, and was buried in the church of the Preaching Friars in that town. There are discrepancies between the authorities as to the manner of his discovery, the inscription upon his tomb, and other minor matters, but they do not affect the main fact of his existence. Indeed, as to that there is no dispute. It is admitted on all hands that such a person did exist, but the question is, was he the true prince,' or an impostor. In support of the affirmative, Mr. Tytler first brought into the field certain extracts from the accounts of the Great Chamberlain of Scotland during the government of the Duke of Albany, from which it appears that that nobleman claimed to be a creditor upon the public purse for £733. 63. 8d. being the amount of expenses incurred by him in the custody of Richard King of England,' for a period of eleven years. Mr. Tytler considers it extremely improbable that such an expense should have been incurred about the maintenance of an impostor, and therefore regards these entries as almost conclusive evidence that the Scottish government, who must have known the fact, were well aware that their prisoner was really the deposed Sovereign of England. He further considers that this conclusion becomes almost irresistible, when coupled with the fact that the Scottish Richard is stated to have denied that he was the king. That an impostor' says Mr. Tytler, should deny that he was the king, or that in the face of his denial, a poor maniac should be supported at a great expense, and detained for more than eleven years at the Scottish court, seems to me so extravagant a supposition, that I do not envy the task of any one who undertakes to support it.' (Hist. Scotland, vol. iii. p. 340). Unenviable as the task was considered, Mr. Amyot, who had already distinguished himself in this dispute, by a dissertation upon the manner of the death of Richard, took it upon himself, and is generally thought to have demolished the pretensions of 'the mammet of Scotland.' His treatise, which is to be found in the 23d volume of the Archæologia, is written very pleasantly. It possesses great interest and ingenuity, and might have taught Mr. Riddell in what manner, and with what temper, literary disputation ought to be carried on. Mr. Amyot relies principally upon the four following points. I. The public exposure of the corpse, which he shews could not have been that of Maudelein, the only person suggested by the only authority who has expressed a doubt whether the body was really that of Richard. II. The subsequent removal of the body to Westminster Abbey by Henry V. which if we are to believe the Scottish story, was an impolitic and gratuitous fraud. IIl. The conduct of the Percies and of Archbishop Scrope, who in the manifestoes issued during their rebellions against Henry IV. charged him with the murder of Richard. 'Had they,' concludes Mr. Amyot, 'believed the true Richard to be really alive in Scotland, they would not have failed to use the king's name as a tower of strength." IV. The marriage of Isabella, Richard's queen. This lady was sought in marriage by Henry IV. for his son, and was afterwards united to Charles Duke of Orleans. This marriage," says Sir James Mackintosh, affords a tolerable presumption that her family had sufficient assurance of Richard's death;' and V. The slight feeling excited in this country during the greater portion of the supposed Richard's long residence in Scotland, a period of no less than nineteen years. With respect to the Chamberlain's accounts, Mr. Amyot remarks that the extracts furnished by Mr. Tytler supply no additional evidence as to his identity. The proofs that some person was detained in custody required no such confirmation, and it is equally clear that considerable charges must have been incurred in maintaining him. No claim could decently have been advanced for the maintenance of an acknowledged impostor. It may admit of a question, whether the fact that the Regent neither asked nor received from the public treasury, any reimbursement of these expenses, may not afford an inference that he had retained his captive for objects of private and personal policy? Be that as it may, the position that he was not an impostor appears to Mr. Amyot to be no more established by the charges for his maintenance, than the opposite fact of the interment of the real king at Langley would be allowed to be proved by a production of the exchequer accounts of the funeral expenses. The Richard in England was buried,the Richard in Scotland was clothed and fed, and no historical documents can be required to prove that expenses were incurred in both these services, To these acute observations Mr. Amyot adds various considerations, arising out of the politics and situation of the Courts of England and Scotland, from which he argues the improbability of Albany's detention of the real king. Such were Mr. Amyot's arguments, as far as we have space to exhibit them, and here the dispute has rested up to the present time. Mr. Riddell endeavours to add one more link to the chain. It will be observed that the question' who was the Scottish Richard?' was not treated by Mr. Amyot -indeed, it scarcely lay in his way. All that he did upon that head was to prompt an inquiry as to whether the pretender could have been Thomas Warde of Trumpington, whom he was alleged to be by Henry IV., but whose pretensions had been summarily noticed and rejected by Mr. Tytler, upon grounds which Mr. Amyot proved to be insufficient. Mr. Riddell has reproduced the facts relating to this person, adding some little new matter, and endeavours to establish the identity of Thomas Warde and the Scottish Richard. We shall show how the argument stands. During the early years of Henry IV. many rumours were circulated respecting the existence of Richard in Scot land, and several conspiracies on his behalf were discovered and put down. In these conspiracies a person named Serle, who had been in the household of the late king, was especially conspicuous. In the year 1402, we find the earliest intimation of a connexion between Serle and a Scottish Richard, in the rumour that Richard was alive and well in Scotland, and that Serle who was with him had arranged every thing for his array and entrance into England. Two years afterwards Serle made his appearance in England, having, as he asserted, come out of Scotland, where he had been with Richard, from whom he brought letters under what he stated to be his privy seal, addressed to his friends in England. In this manner he won over many persons, but Henry's promptitude quashed the conspiracy, and Serle escaped again into Scotland. About the same time a general pardon was granted, out of the operation of which were excepted Serle, Amye Donet, and Thomas Warde de Trumpington, qui se pretende et feigne d'estre Roy Richard.' Of Donet nothing appears to be known. Serle was shortly afterwards entrapped by Lord Clifford, and after a confession, was drawn from Pontefract to London, and there executed. His confession, as given by Walsingham, is very contradictory to the account of the appearance of Richard given by the Scottish authorities, and, if allowed to have any weight, cannot go beyond a corroboration of the previous rumours of a connexion between Serle and a Scottish pretender. Warde is several times named in public documents during the reigns of Henry IV. and V., and, in one dated in 1409, to which Mr. Riddell is the first person who has attracted attention, it is stated, that as the son and heir of Joan Warde, he became entitled to a messuage and eight acres of land and meadow in Trumpington. This property was taken into the king's hands, on account of Thomas Warde's forfeiture, and was granted by the king to one John Edmond. He is moreover described in a letter of Archbishop Arundel to Henry IV. which Mr. Riddell has brought forward, as if for the first time, although it has been already printed by Mr. Amyot, as stultus,' and 'fatuus,' and, in a public document in the 3d Henry V. as ideota;' descriptions which agree with that of the Scottish chronicler. 'As he bare hym like wes he Oft half wod, or wyld to be' It is also alleged in several English records that Thomas Warde bore a resemblance to the late king." Stringing all these facts together, Mr. Riddell concludes it to be unquestionable that the Scottish Richard and Thomas Warde of Trumpington were the same person. Probably the proper inference is, not that Thomas Warde is proved to be the Scottish Richard, but that Henry IV. alleged that he was so, a fact previously well known, and that Mr. Riddell has added a proof that Thomas Warde was at any event not entirely a fictitious person, as Mr. Tytler seems to have thought, but that such a person did really exist, and that, for some cause or other, his property was forfeited to the crown. This latter circumstance certainly renders it not improbable that he was the Scottish captive. Here then the inquiry rests for the present. Probably some future publication of records will throw further light upon it. If Mr. Riddell had confined himself to the point as to Warde, his paper would have been shorter, but far more interesting. As it is, he takes up and presses many arguments which Mr. Amyot had exhausted before him,in fact, Mr. Amyot's reasonings constitute the substance of his paper. He is desirous, however, that his readers should not think he derived his arguments from any other source than his own mind, and therefore informs them that Mr. Tytler's publication upon the subject is the only one published since 1829 that had met his eye, although he had been told that there had been a subsequent discussion. If this assertion substantiates Mr. Riddell's originality, it also proves him to have been wanting in the first duty of an author, which is, to ascertain what has been previously written upon the subject of which he treats, in order that he may not burthen the public with an unnecessary book,-no slight evil; or interfere with the merits of preceding writers,- -no trifling injustice. Riddell adds, with some simplicity, that he had not read Mr. Tytler's paper, nor any other part of his history, GENT. MAG. VOL. III. Mr. until a few weeks ago. If he had been resident in London, we are sure he would not have remained so long ignorant of the works of his meritorious countryman; and even in Edinburgh, we should imagine that not to know such things argues something respecting Mr. Riddell, which we trust will not long continue, for with all his redundances he may become a useful auxiliary in the field of historical inquiry. Landscape Illustrations of Moore's Irish Melodies; with Comments for the Curious. Part I. 8vo. SO much has been done of late in the way of landscape illustrations of our most popular writers, that we had begun to think the point of perfection had been attained. We are, therefore, delighted in taking up the work before us, a new series of landscapes, and those illustrative of that beautiful and comparatively neglected country, Ireland, as its more prominent beauties are alluded to in the Melodies of Moore. The plates of this work are at least equal to anything that we have seen; the illustrative matter is infinitely superior to everything which has gone before it, and we need only say, to insure it favour in the eye of our readers, that it is from the accomplished and amusing pen of Crofton Croker. The present number presents a most delightful mixture of learning and wit, of antiquarianism and amusement, embracing four interesting subjects, the rich and beautiful Vale of Avoca, the sacred isle of Inniscattery, the bed of St. Kevin, and the Wicklow Gold Mines. In illustration of the first of these subjects, we have a curious and interesting disquisition on the true position of the meeting of the waters in that " valley so sweet," and on the spot which gave rise to the song by Moore which celebrates it. The meeting and mixing of waters, leads very naturally to the consideration of other mixtures, and we cannot forbear quoting a song with which the chapter water" so dear to the sister Isle, which concludes, in praise of that " strong is more commonly known by the name of whisky. |