^{page 310 note a} Those who desire to examine the existing evidence and opinions upon this obscure question will do well to consult the following works:—Chronicque de la Traïson et Mort de Richart Deux Roy dengleterre, by B. Williams. English Historical Society, 1846. P. Fraser Tytler's History of Scotland. English Chronicle, Camden Society. Froissart's Chronicles, chap. 118–119, 121. Fox's History of Pontefract, p. 135–140. Devon's Pell Records, pp. 275–6.—“Paid for carriage of the king's body from Pontefract to London, 66l. 13s. 4d.” Archæologia, vol. vi. p. 314; vol. xx. pp. 220 and 428; vol.xxv.pp. 394–397; vol. xxviii. pp. 75, 85, and 95.

^{page 312 note a} See also Scott's Gleanings from Westminster Abbey, p. 174.

^{page 312 note a} Archæologia, vol. xx. p. 428, quoting Mr. King's account in Archæologia, vol. vi. p. 135.

^{page 314 note a} “From the side next the area,” writes Dart (vol. ii. p. 45), “the arms are stolen, in the holes of which putting my hands, I could turn the boards of the coffin.”

^{page 314 note b} The following is an extract from a letter recently received by the Dean.

“Wouldham Rectory, Rochester,

“30 June, 1873.

“It may be interesting to you to know that my grandfather Gerrard Andrewes, afterwards Dean of Canterbury, saw a Westminster scholar poke his hand into the tomb of Richard II. in the year 1766, and fish out the lower jaw-bone of the King. My grandfather received the jaw-bone from the boy, and it is now in my possession. I have often shown it to medical men, who say it is the jaw-bone of a man in the prime of life. There are two teeth remaining in the jaw. On a card attached to the bone is written (the handwriting is my grandfather's, Gerrard Andrewes), ‘the jaw-bone of King Richard the Second taken out of his coffin by a Westminster scholar 1766.’ My grandfather was himself a Westminster scholar at that time, sixteen years of age, having been born in 1750.

* * * * * *

“(Signed) Charles Gerrard Andrewes.”

A report by Mr. Sangster upon the human remains, together with letters upon the subject from Dr. Ogle and Professor Busk, will be found in Appendix (A).

^{page 315 note a} Mr. Doyne Bell has suggested that the leaden envelope might have been removed in order to enable the remains of the King either to be placed in the same wooden coffin or in immediate contiguity to the Queen ; in accordance with the same sentiment which prompted George II. to order the sides of his coffin and that of Queen Caroline to be removed. The boards which were thus removed were, in July, 1871 seen placed against the east wall in the Georgian vault in Henry the Seventh's Chapel.

^{page 317 note a} These paintings are described by Malcolm (Lond. Redivivum, 1802, vol. i. p. 96). He says, “One hundred years past it is probable that these pictures were tolerably perfect. If they had then been taken down and cleaned and preserved, and had last winter been put for Guido's, I am persuaded the deception would not have been discovered; now indeed the ravages of time have seized fast on them, and they will shortly owe their remembrance to works like mine.”

^{page 322 note a} The only question which could arise was as to whether the King was buried in the sarcophagus of Edward the Confessor. It was evident that the wooden coffin in which he lies was made for him: the polish, the perfect state of the work, the ample folds of the pall, all proved this : and the Confessor's coffin was probably of stone.

^{page 322 note b} This figure is about 10 inches high.

^{page 326 note a} The bark upon these was perfect when they were first found, but they almost all crumbled to dust when touched. These had doubtless been placed there as a precaution against witchcraft. Similar twigs were found on opening Henry IV.'s tomb at Canterbury Cathedral. See “A brief account of the examination of the tomb of Henry IV. 21 Aug. 1832,” by J. H. S. [Dr. Spry, then canon of Canterbury.]