raised a controversy upon the subject. At the end of In confirmation of these authorities, Mr. Tytler the third volume of his history, he has published an cites a French contemporary metrical history of the elaborate and ingenious essay on the death of Richard deposition of Richard II., published in the ArchæII., which has since been answered by Mr. Amyot, inologia, Vol. XX.; also the various rumours as to a paper contained in the twenty-third volume of the Archæologia. In Mr. Tytler's "Historical Remarks on the death "of Richard II.," the result of which has been since adopted by Sir Walter Scott, in his History of Scotland, and rejected by Sir James Mackintosh, in his History of England, the relation is as follows:-That Richard contrived to effect his escape from Pomfret Castle, though the mode in which he did this is no where stated. That he travelled in disguise to the Scottish isles; and that he was there discovered, in the kitchen of Donald, Lord of the Isles, by a jester, who had been bred up at his court. That Donald, Lord of the Isles, sent him, under the charge of the Lord Montgomery, to Robert III., King of Scotland, by whom he was supported as became his rank, so long as that monarch lived. That he was, after the death of the king, delivered to the Duke of Albany, the governor of the kingdom, by whom he was honourably treated. And that he finally died in the castle of Stirling, in the year 1419; and was buried on the north side of the altar, in the church of the Preaching Friars, in the town of that name. This account is given by Bower, or Bowmakar, the continuator of Fordun's Chronicle, and a contemporary historian. It is supported, in some of its particulars, by an anonymous manuscript, without a date, in the Advocates' Library, at Edinburgh, who has been consulted by Mr. Tytler; and also by the hearsay evidence of Andrew Winton, Prior of Lochleven, the metrical chronicler, who, however, concludes his account of the fugitive by saying, that "whether he had been the king or not, there were few who knew for certain." But the strongest evidence in favour of the version of the History of Richard, which has been adopted by Mr. Tytler, is that of certain entries in the accounts of the Chamberlain of Scotland, during the period in question. These occur in the accounts for the years 1408, 1414--15, and 1417; and are all to the effect, that the Lord Governor (the Duke of Albany)" has neither demanded nor received any allowance for the sums expended by him, for the support of Richard, King of England." In the last of these memoranda, the sums he has expended, for the maintenance of the king for eleven years, are computed to have amounted to £733. 6s, 8d.* Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. iii. * the existence of the king, propagated by the different conspirators against the rule of Henry IV.; and, finally, the testimony of Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, the great supporter of the Wickliffites, or Lollards, who declared when he was seized in 1417, and brought before the Parliament on a charge of heresy, for which, as it is well known, he was burnt alive," that he could acknowledge no judge amongst them, so long as his liege lord, King Richard, was alive in Scotland.” This last corroborative circumstance, in which a man, who knew he was about to be put to a cruel death, and who therefore would naturally be inclined to catch at any thing, which might give him a chance of averting his doom, endeavoured to intimidate and puzzle his judges, by asserting that Richard was alive, cannot, upon the face of it, carry much weight with it. Still less can the rumours to the same effect, put forward by the disaffected to the Lancastrian King, whose interest it so clearly was to have such a tale believed, be received with any confidence. With regard to the French metrical history, which expresses doubts whether, instead of having died by starvation, the king "be not still alive and well, and shut up in their prison," it evidently merely records the reports of the day; while at the same time it gives us some insight into the origin of those reports. For it states, not as a rumour, but as a fact, that the conspirators against Henry, whose disturbances broke out in the winter of 1399 and 1400, and who were headed by the Earls of Kent, Salisbury, and Huntingdon, placed one of Richard's chaplains at their head, by name Maudelain, whose resemblance to the king was very striking; and whom "they armed as king, and set a very rich crown upon his helm, that it might be believed of a truth, that the king was out of prison."+ With regard to the memoranda in the Chamberlain's accounts, on which Mr. Tytler lays so much stress, Mr. Amyot remarks, and as it appears to me very justly, that "the proofs that some person, whoever he may have been, was so detained in custody, required no such confirmation; and it is equally clear, considerable charges must have been incurred in maintaining him suitably to his supposed rank. No that * Mr. Webb's Notes to French Metrical Romance, Archæologia, vol. xx. Mr. Webb's translation of French Metrical Romance, Archæologia, vol. xx. anonymous manuscript without a date, in the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh, must be considered of doubtful authority, from the probability there is that its assertions were copied from one of the chronicles already cited. Besides, though it mentions the existence of the supposed Richard in Scotland, and his arrival there, it advances no arguments or facts in favour of his being the person he was pretended to be.* claim could decently have been advanced, or even | metrical romance, and Andrew Winton, the chronicler, adverted to, for the maintenance of an acknowledged only throw out doubts upon the subject; while the impostor. It may, indeed, admit of a question, whether the fact established by these records, that the Regent neither demanded 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, and that the doubts, which we collect from Winton, to have existed in Scotland, as to the real rank of the captive, might have induced him to refrain from enforcing a demand, which otherwise could not, on public grounds, have been refused.”* The authority of Bower, or Bowmakar, standing as it does thus singly, can hardly be allowed to outweigh the testimonies of Walsingham, Otterbourne, the Monk of Evesham, the Continuator of the Chronicle of Croyland, and Gower the poet, all contemporaries, and who all assert the king's death by voluntary starvation in Pomfret Castle. It remains to remark briefly, upon the strong cor Mr. Amyot, in favour of this latter version of the story of the death of Richard, as contra-distinguished from that adopted by Mr. Tytler. Mr. Amyot then proceeds to argue, that, under the circumstances in which Albany was placed, during the time the supposed king was in his custody, his retaining possession of him, had he been the real Richard, was to the last degree improbable; though it may have been convenient to him to give the public a notion that the impostor at his court was that un-roborative arguments and evidence brought forward by fortunate sovereign. For it must be remembered that, at this time, not only was James, the rightful King of Scotland, a prisoner in England, but also Duke Murdoch, the son of Albany, whom his father would, probably, gladly have received in exchange for his captive, if Henry would have consented to it. On the other hand, it would appear but natural that Henry, if he had believed the real Richard to be still alive, would have consented willingly to any exchange, in order to get him into his own power. So far, however, was this from being the case, that though Archbishop Arundel seems, by a letter, which is preserved in the Cottonian manuscripts, in the British Museum,† to have advised Henry IV. to insist upon the impostor being given up, it does not appear that the king thought it worth while to do so; as, in his answer to the Archbishop, he does not even allude to the subject. So little indeed was the possession of the supposed Richard deemed of importance by the English government, that when, early in the reign of Henry V., Duke Murdoch was sent back to his father, it was not the pretented royal captive, but Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, who was selected by the English monarch as the prisoner to be exchanged, and who was accordingly delivered up to him. Of the other authorities of Mr. Tytler, the continuation of Fordun is the only contemporary one, who asserts the story of Richard's existence in Scotland with any degree of positiveness. The French Archæologia, vol. xxiii. p. 283. Mr. Amyot first touches upon the public exposure of the body of Richard in London, previous to his burial at Langley, which is attested by the four following contemporary historians,-Otterbourne, Walsingham, Hardyng, and Froissart; of these, the latter says, that twenty thousand persons came to see the body, which lay for two hours on a litter in Cheapside, with the face uncovered from the forehead down to the throat. In answer to this fact, supported by such various authorities, of whom one (Hardyng) actually saw the body, and which, if allowed, at once oversets the whole story of the king's exile in Scotland, Mr. Tytler has only to produce the doubtful testimony of Creton, the author of the French metrical romance already quoted. Creton expresses a doubt, whether the body was that of the king; and says, that he inclines to believe, that it was that of Maudelain the priest, who resembled Richard; unfortunately, however, for this supposition, Maudelain, as Mr. Amyot observes, had already been beheaded some time previously, for the part he had taken in personating the king during the conspiracy of the Earls of Kent, Salisbury, and Huntingdon. The second point urged by Mr. Amyot, is the solemn removal of the body of Richard from Langley to Westminster Abbey by Henry V., who, upon this * Boethius affirms the same story, namely, of Richard's death + For letter of Archbishop Arundel, and the King's answer, and burial, in Scotland; but he evidently only takes it from the see Archæologia, vol. xxiii, p. 297. authorities mentioned in the text. occasion, according to Otterbourne and Walsingham, "mourned for him as for a father." "It is not," continues Mr. Amyot, "to be credited," (had he not been convinced that it was the real body of Richard) "that he would have sanctioned a mockery, the certain effect of which would have been to revive the compassion of the people for their captive sovereign." Mr. Amyot then adduces the conduct of the Percys and Archbishop Scroop in spreading and strengthening, by their manifestoes, the reports of Richard's death; whereas, had he been really alive, they would undoubtedly have made use of his name, as a great and powerful support to their cause. He also alludes to what must be considered a strong circumstance in favour of the received account of the death of Richard, and of the period when it happened (1400), namely, that his Queen,—Isabella of France, re-married with Charles, Duke of Orleans, in 1406; twelve years before the time assigned for Richard's death, by those who wish to support the idea of his residence in Scotland. It is certainly neither to be supposed, that the Queen would have consented to this second marriage, nor that the French prince would have sought her hand, unless they had both had sufficient proofs of the death of her former husband. Finally, Mr. Amyot urges, as his concluding argument, the little feeling that appears to have been excited upon the subject, during the nineteen years of the supposed detention of Richard in Scotland; the small importance apparently attached to the mysterious prisoner by Henry IV.; and the entire disregard and disbelief of the tale by all the English historians, "from Hall, Stowe, and Holinshed, down to Rapin, Carte, and Lingard."* Mr. Amyot concludes his able dissertation, by professing, with all respect for the talents and research of the Scottish historian, his entire disbelief in the notion of Richard's escape from Pomfret, and subsequent detention in Scotland. In this opinion I feel bound to concur; though at the same time I must allow, that the ingenuity of Mr. Tyler at first, and before I had thoroughly examined the subject, disposed me to lean with some favour to his view of the story. In a matter of such remote history, and occurring in so dark a period, it is impossible on either side to arrive at positive certainty. The best that can be hoped for in such a research is, by comparing different statements, and weighing various authorities, to decide at length upon adopting that account, which appears to possess the greatest degree of probability, and to be liable to the fewest objections. ↑ Archæologia, vol, xxiii, That some interesting evidence on this historica question might be obtained, by fully opening the tomb of King Richard, in Westminster Abbey, is extremely probable; for though both Gough and King speak of examining the skull of that ill-fated Sovereign, there appears cause to believe them in error. Henry the Fourth, as we learn from various authorities, was exceedingly anxious that a knowledge of Richard's decease should be generally promulgated, and for that purpose, according to the "Chronicle of Dunstable," (Vide MS. in Bibl. Harl. fol. 164.) "he lette sere him in a lynnen clothe, save his vis age," which was left opyn that men myght see and knowe his personne;”—and had him brought to London, where he was exposed to public view, during three days, in St. Paul's Cathedral. There also, his exequies were solemnized in the King's own presence; after which his body was conveyed to Langley, in Hertfordshire, and buried in the Church of the Friars Preachers. Fabian says, ("Chronicle," p. 577) "Anone as Kynge Henry [the Fifth] was crowned, and ye solemnitye of the feest of Easter was passyd, he sent vnto the Fryers of Langley, and caused the corps of Kynge Richarde to be taken out of ye earth, and so with reaverence and solempnnytie to be conveyed vnto Westmynster, and vpon the south syde of Seynt Edwardes Shryne there honourably to be buryed by Queen Anne his wyfe, which there before tyme was entered." There can be no doubt but that the tomb was constructed during Richard's sovereignty, the original indentures for its erection being still extant.* The Sub-basement, which faces to the south aisle, is ornamented with six large radiated quatrefoils, on which were formerly shields of arms, affixed at the centres. These shields were stolen many years ago, and "through the holes left by that removal some coffin boards and bones were to be seen." The latter were supposed to be those of Richard and his Queen; and Mr. Gough states, in his Sepulchral Monuments, that "he examined both the skulls pretty closely, but could find on the King's no mark of St. Piers's pole-axe.† Now this examination does not by any means decide the historical point to which it was intended to apply; for the sub-basement of the tomb descends nearly four feet below the level of the pavement of St. Edward's Chapel, on which the tomb itself stands. * Vide Rymer's "Fœdera," vol. vii., p. 795; and Brayley and Neale's “ History and Antiquities" of Westminster Abbey, vol. ii., p. 111-113. + Vide " Sepulchral Monuments," vol. i. part ii. p. 163, Beneath that pavement many interments have taken | tomb itself, therefore, for all that appears may yet place, yet it may be reasonably assumed that the remains both of Richard himself and Anne his Queen were deposited within the tomb which commemorates them, and consequently, upon a higher level than could be examined by Mr. Gough through the holes above mentioned, and which apertures were afterwards stopped up by order of Dean Thomas, who presided at Westminster from July 1768, until August 1793. This presumption is strengthened by what we know to be fact, viz. that the remains both of Edward the Confessor and Edward the First are within their respective tombs; and, consequently, above the floor of the chapel. It may be argued in contradiction, that Mr. King's statement is sufficiently particular to induce a belief that the tomb was actually opened, his words being as follows:-" And I must add, that when, by accident, I had an opportunity some years ago (with my late friend Sir Joseph Ayloffe, and some other gentlemen), of examining the skull itself in the sepulchre at Westminster Abbey, there did not appear any such marks of a blow, or wound, upon it, as could at all warrant the commonly-received history of this wretched King's unhappy end. A small cleft that was visible on one side, appeared, on close inspection, to be merely the opening of a suture, from length of time and decay,-it being at the top of what anatomists call the "os temporis." To this he annexes, in a note," A copper gilded crown, that had been placed on the head, remained still in the sepulchre; so also did another skull, that of his Queen, but there were no marks on the latter to authorize any such story as that of Sir Piers Exton, even supposing a mistake with regard to these two poor remains, as to the ascertaining which was which."* Mr. Amyot considers this statement as a "complete proof" of the falsehood of the reputed assassination;† yet, as Mr. Gough affirms (in a subsequent passage to that quoted above), that he was present with Mr. King at the examination of the skulls in the tomb," and recollects the circumstance of the small cleft on the left side of one of them mistaken for a fracture, but pointed out to be a suture of the "os temporis," (though "the copper gilded crown escaped his notice"), the examination alluded to, must, from his account, have been made through the holes left by the removal of the shields in the sub-basement. The have been uninspected :--though the writer has reason to believe that different sepulchres within the Abbey Church have been wantonly opened by the workmen when employed on the eve of a coronation. ED. REMARKS ON THE HIGHLAND DRESS. BY THE LATE MR. PINKERTON. THE Highland Dress is, comparatively, quite modern; and any improvement may be made in it without violating antiquity: nay, the trowsers are far more ancient than the philibeg.' The philibeg cannot be traced among any of the Celtic nations, Ireland, Wales, or Bretagne, either as an article of dress, or as a word in their languages. Giraldus Cambrensis, A. D. 1180, informs us that the Irish wore bracce, or brecchi, (that is, the long, ancient breeches, now called pantaloons, or trowsers). On old monuments the Irish kings are dressed in a close tunic, or vest, long trowsers down to the ankle, and a long loose robe, fastened at the waist by a large brooch. In the book of dress, printed at Paris, 1562, (from which I have published fac-similes), the Highland chief is in the Irish dress; and I can discover no philibeg. No part of the dress is tartan: nor is there a plaid, but a mantle. The woman is dressed in sheepskins; and, as that sex is always more ornamented than the other, there is reason to believe that the common Highland dress was then composed of sheep or deer skins. Certain it is that Froissart, though astonished at the "sauvages d'Escosse," as foreigners termed the Highlanders even down to Mary's reign, and though a minute observer, remarks no fixed appropriated dress among them, though the plaid and philibeg, if then worn, must have struck him as most particular. The philibeg is a short petticoat, the proper name of which is kilt. In the "Encyclopædia Britannica," it is described as a "modern substitute" for the lower part of the plaid. Sir John Sinclair, in a letter to Mr. Pinkerton, dated in May, 1796, says,—" It is well known that the philibeg was invented by an Englishman in Lochabar, about sixty years ago, who naturally thought his workmen would be more active in that light petticoat than in the belted plaid; and that it was more decent to wear it than to have no clothing at all, which was the case with some of those employed by him in cutting down the + King's "Sequel to his Observations on Ancient Castles," woods in Lochabar." Vide Pinkerton's " Correspondence," Archæologia, vol. vi. Archæologia," vol. xx. p. 428. Vol. i. p. 404. Fordun, lib. ii. cap. 9, only mentions the Highland people as "amictu deformis," a term which rather applies to a vague savage dress of skins, &c. than to any regular habit. Hector Boece, 1526, though very minute, is equally silent; but he mentions canvas hose, or trowsers, as a part of the old Scotish dress. Lesley and Buchanan, 1570-1580, are therefore the first who mention the modern Highland dress. The former represents tartan as then confined to the use of people of rank. The latter says the plaids of his time were brown. Advocates for the antiquity of the philibeg say it is borrowed from the Roman military dress; but it is quite different; for the Roman skirts were mostly those of the tunic, which was worn under their armour; whereas the philibeg is a detached article of dress. It once appeared to me that the tunic with skirts to the knees, used by the common people of England in the Saxon and Norman times (see Strutt's Plates), had passed to the Lowlands, and thence to the Highlands, where it remained, as mountaineers are slow in changing fashions. But it now seems to me far more probable, that the philibeg arose from an article of dress used in France, England, and Scotland, from about the year 1500 to 1590, namely, the ancient haut-de-chausses proper. In Mountfauçon's plates may be seen some of these, which are absolute philibegs. The ancient loose bracca were followed by tight hose, covering thigh and leg; but, as manners advanced, these began to seem indecent, (being linen, fitting close, and showing every joint and form); and the haut-de-chausses (or top of the hose) began to be used. At first it was very short, and loose as a philibeg; was lengthened by degrees; and Henry IV. of France wears it down to within three or four inches of the knee, and gathered like a petticoat tucked. Louis XIII. first appears with what are now called breeches. Hose were still worn under the haut-de-chausses; but, as the latter was lengthened, the former was shortened, till the present fashion prevailed. The Germans call breeches hosen, a term which we confine to stockings. But the haut-de-chausses or philibeg, at first invented for the sake of modesty, and to cover that indecent article of dress the bragetto, has become among the Highlanders most indecent in itself; because they do not wear, as they ought, long hose covering thigh and legs under the philibeg. It is not only grossly indecent, but is filthy, as it admits dust to the skin, and emits the fœtor of perspiration: is absurd, because, while the breast, &c. are twice covered by vest and plaid, the parts concealed by all other nations are but loosely covered: is effeminate, being mostly a short petticoat, an article of female dress: is beggarly, because its shortness and the shortness of the stockings, joined with the naked knees, impress an unconquerable idea of poverty and nakedness. As to the plaid, there is no reason to believe it more ancient that the philibeg. The chief in 1562 appears in a mantle; and, if the common people were then clothed in sheep-skins, the plaid was superfluous. But I suppose the plaid and philibeg passed from the Lowlands to the Highlands about the same time. Our old historians, in speaking of the Highlanders, always judge and describe, as was natural, from those next the Lowlands. In 1715 the remote Highlanders were only clothed in a long coat buttoned down to the mid-leg.* It is to be regretted, on many accounts, that our old historians wrote in Latin; whence their terms are often so vague as hardly to admit accurate interpretation. John Major, who wrote in 1521, says, p. 34, that the caliga (hose) of the Highlanders did not extend below the mid-leg; and he describes their whole dress to be a linen shirt, tinctured with saffron, and a chlamys (plaid, mantle, or loose coat,) above. He is speaking of the chiefs: the commoners he describes as proceeding to battle in a quilted and waxed linen tunic, covered with deer-skin. Not a particle, you will observe, of the modern dress. The tartan, I dare say, passed from Flanders (whence all our articles came) to the Lowlands about the fifteenth century, and thence to the Highlands. It is never mentioned before the latter part of that century. It first occurs in the accompts of James III., 1474, and seems to have passed from England; for the rouge tartarin, in the statutes of the Order of the Bath, in the time of Edward IV. (apud Upton de Re Milit.), is surely red tartan, or cloth, with red stripes of various shades. Tartan plaids were common among old women in the Lowland in the last, and even in the present century. Lord Hailes (Annals, i. 37.) ludicrously supposes At that time, according to information derived from the minister of Mulmearn (father of the professor Ferguson) which lies in the direct line of the rebels' march, those Highlanders who joined the Pretender from the most remote parts of the Highlands were not dressed in party-coloured tartans, and had neither plaid nor philibeg; their whole dress consisting of what we call a Polonian, or closish coat, descending below secured, for modesty's sake, with a lace till towards the bottom. mid-leg, buttoned from the throat to the belly, and below that It was of one colour, and home-made; and they had no shirt, shoes, stockings, nor breeches. |
