Star.
London, England, 1829-08-03 00:00:00

RICHARD THE SECOND

• -..A..--
PROM THE CALEDONIAN MERCURY.

The following communication in reference to the sup-
posed discovery of Mr. Tytler, merits the attention of the
public in general and of that gentleman in particular. It
is from the pen of one of the most learned, profound,
and, wlr ought to add, unpretending of modern antiqua-
rians, whose views on any subject connected with the an-
cient history of Scotland are entitled to peculiar conside-
ration, and whose opinions in regard to the question which
Mr. Tytler has raised are not only ingenious in them-
selves, but in perfect unison with the conviction expressed
by all preceding historians. At the same time, we are
free to confess, thet when Mr. Tytler did us the honour
to explain to us the grounds upon which he had been led
to call in question the commonly received opinion respect-
ing the time, place, and manner of Richard's death, the
chain of evidence, or at least of probabilities, seemed so
remarkably entire, and the theory or hypothesis of his
escape into and residence in Scotland appeared to account
so satisfactorily for many circumstances which historians
had left unexplained, that we were powerfully struck
with the exposition of our learned friend, and strongly
inclined to believe that he had made out his case, or at
least adduced such a number of coincident and corrobora-
tive particulars as amounted to a very high degree of pro-
bability. This casual and, it may be, hasty impression,
however, is not to be weighed against the deliberate opi-
nion of a man like our correspondent, who is so eminently
qualified to discuss the quaeitioises veratae of historical
antiquity ; and therefore we submit his communication to
our readers, in the hope that it may contribute towards
the settling, one way or other, of a point of no inconsi-
derable interest in itself, and of very great importance
with reference both to the Scottish and English history
of the period immediately succeeding the supposed mur-
der of Richard in Pomfret Castle.
" Permit me to observe, in reference to the subject of Richard
11. lately started is your Paper, It is an error to suppose, as cos.
tended. that the story of Richard's escape and demise in Scotland
was accounted fabulous sby an future historians.' Independently
of other authorities, both are expressly mentioned and emitted by
Bandon, who, we know, wrote early in the sixtandllientury.
Nor whatever doubt may be entertained, can it, I humbly think,
be asserted that the statement transmitted by Ballenden and his
successors is to be received as incontestible. Many circumstances
seem to militate against its veracity—the peremptory denial of
English historians that Rickard died. in Scotland—the public es.
posure ol his face in his calk for three days at London after the
event In the bloody tower' (a name it retained) of Pomfret. the
rest of his parson being wisely enough concealed—Richard's burial
at Langley, excavation, and *arum interment by Henry V. at
Westminsteoin 1413—mot to add the marriage of his Queen to
Charles of Orleans, a French Prince of the blood. shortly after the
catastrophe ; and if we believe Ballenden, &c. long before his as-
serted decease in Scotland,} a country in alliance with France, and
between whom there was direct intercourse.—Here it may be re-
marked in what strange predicament the issue of Charles and the
Queen bad been placed, admitting the latter events ; Der were the
' French inclined hastily to credit Richard's death, which indeed
they highly resented. as might be expected from the Princess being
daughter of their Sovereign. Whin it was the interest and prac•
lice of Scotland actively to back every English pretender, she never
lent such assistance to the Rickard, or for oae moment
adventured his person beyo d the border to cheer his English
friends, or in batik guise, to vindicate his claim. The reason
seems obvious : by so acting die would at once have exposed the
deception, which required for its success to be cautiously and de-
licately managed; and accordingly we dad from Winton that this
apparition was kept in constant captivity—passing through the
custody of the Lord of Montgomery,' the Lord of Cumber-
nald,' and, finally, of Albany—Scotland merely availing herself of
the' weskit umbra,' which was even something in these days.
This very phantom, who was perhaps some wretched maniac, when
asked if he were King Richard, according to Winton, denied It,
and the same Winton, a respectable authority. a Scotchman, and
what is more, a extemporary, thus doubts of his identity.—
" Qubeyer he Ind base King, or pone,
" There wen Mins pee wan arcane.
" Or Devodoune nano in wee,
" And seildyn will had to here Ides:
" As be bare hym, lyk wen he.
" Oft half wed on wyld to be."—
" On these grounds, and an know bow often on such occasions
=srs figure in history, I conceive I am fully justiSed In with.
ti; my belief from the proposition made in your paper, of
there ineontestible proof that the Scottish Richard was the
English . But while Igo this length, I am not disposed
to Arm that the point is wholly unattended with dubiety. It is
certain that the former was alinsented by the Scottish Govern-
ment, and in some degree, like Perkin Warbeek, recognised as
King of England ; that he died in Scotland, and was buried near
the altar of the Church of the Illackfrian, In Stirling, under a aso.
Dement Inscribed with Latin verses. as we learn from an ancient
Chronicle. Nor can it be disputed, that the story of Richard the
Second's escape and existence in Scotland. though possibly ems.
piring from the latter country, was partially retailed in England."
J. R.
Richard's widow died the wife of Charles In 1405.—/'de
Talons Gioniviegirat de la Mason &yet. de Prance par P. Lebbi
1654—and in the Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, the " expenses"
of Rickard King et" Rowland" are charged against the Govern.
meat down to the year 1417 inclusive.
Two boys, the sonabourer at Eager, near Shiff-
nal, one about sixteen and the other eight years of age,
were shooting rooks with a double-barrelled gun last
week, and on their road home the elder boy sportingly
pointed the piece towards the head of his brother, and
saying he would shoot him, discharged in mistaka the
loaded barrel (the other having no charge in it), and by
this thoughtless and imprudent act, instantly deprived his
brother of his life.

On Friday evening the body of a gentleman was dis-
covered floating in the Regent's Canal, near to Messrs.
Wood's coal-wharf, Camden-town. Assistance being
procured, the body was removed on shore. The pockets
of the deceased gentleman being searched, there was not
any thing found in them to lead to a discovery of who he
was. The unfortunate gentleman appeared to be about
30 years of age, his clothes quite new ; the body appears
to have been some days in the water. A shell being
procured, the body was removed to St. Pancras work-
house, where it lies to be owned, and also for an inquest.
CHARGE OF SELLING A CHILD.—On Saturday
evening a man came to Bow-street, and stated to Mr.
Minshull, that he was the father of an illegitimate child,
seven months old, and he was informed the mother, from
whom he was separated, had sold the child to a lady ; and
she had told him so many contradictory stories about it
that he believed she really had sold it. Mr. Minshull,
after some inquiries, sent an officer for the mother. The
officer soon returned with the mother, a good-looking
young woman, end her brother, a man of respectable
appearance. The female, on being questioned by the
Magistrate, said the child was safe, with a married lady,
*hose child had died, and who had taken a liking to hers'
and promised to bring it up as her own. She was
afraid to tell the father where it we+, as he would go to
the lady's house and make a disturbance. Mr. Minshull
said that the father had a legal right to see his child. The
brother of the young woman said the applicant was a
Worthless fellow, who had seduced his sister under a pro-
mise of marriage, and then treated her with the greatest
cruelty. He did not care what became of the child or its
mother, but having heard that the child was adopted by
a lady, thought he might get something for his consent.
Mr. Minshull said, whatever was the father's motive, he
had a legal right to see his child, and asked whether the
child was in London ? The mother, with some reluctance,
admitted that the child was in London. The brother of
the young woman suggested that the father might see
the child in the presence of an officer, who would prevent
committing' any violence. concurred.
to this suggestion, and sent an officer with
,the parties,
with directions that if the applicant used any violence to
bring him back in custody.